House of Commons

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 15 December 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps his Department is taking to ensure the future of local welfare assistance schemes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

The Government have consulted on how to fund local welfare provision in 2015-16. The Department for Communities and Local Government, with the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, is analysing responses, alongside the DWP review into current provision. The Government will make a decision by the provisional local government finance settlement.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

The Minister will be aware of the excellent work of discretionary schemes. In my constituency alone, 446 people in desperate situations were helped in the past year. Will he please ensure that councils facing a particularly tough financial situation will receive funds and that he will bring forward something positive for them in the local government finance settlement? Otherwise, that vital work will be lost.

[Kris Hopkins]

I recognise the work of local councils in helping individuals who are in very vulnerable situations. There will be an announcement on the local government finance settlement. We will take into account what the hon. Gentleman says, but I point out that there is a £94 billion welfare safety net. We have given local authorities the opportunity to use their resources in whichever way they think is appropriate.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

When the Minister makes the announcement, will he recognise that many of the most severely disabled people, who depend on the independent living fund, flourish with the independence it gives them? The fund is being wound up in March and they are very frightened that they will lose that independence. Will he review the protection available, even at this eleventh hour, and ensure that councils can continue ILF provision in full?

[Kris Hopkins]

As I have said, we will make an announcement in due course. It is important to reiterate that local authorities, which know the challenges facing their communities, have the opportunity to make choices and set the priorities they think are appropriate.

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

The loss of the welfare assistance fund has left many families fleeing domestic abuse in the south-west—in particular, women and children—facing considerable hardship, as local authorities find it difficult to find the funds to support such relationship breakdown. Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done nationally to understand the needs at local level? Will he explain why the south-west seems to have had the greatest losses?

[Kris Hopkins]

If there is a particular issue with domestic violence, the hon. Lady is more than welcome to write to me. The Government recognise that dealing with domestic violence is extremely important. Additional money has been put in place to support that provision.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

2. If he will estimate the potential energy and financial savings which could be made through local authorities installing LED street lighting.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

We do not collect this information centrally. However, we know that two-thirds of councils have already switched to low-energy street lighting. That will save council tax payers’ money and have the double benefit of reducing carbon emissions.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I thank the Minister for that very thoughtful reply, which I am sure will be listened to with great interest at County Hall in Chelmsford, where the county council has had a blackout policy from midnight. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a company near Colchester that is in the market of producing LED lights that would be of financial benefit to the taxpayer?

[Stephen Williams]

I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. If he wants to bring someone along to meet me I would be happy to accommodate him. However, I am advised that Essex county council is about to embark on a £1 million pilot scheme to introduce energy-saving LED streetlights in six areas of the council. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, as a result, I am sure, of his campaigning, that includes Colchester.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The point about LED lights is that not only do they use a very small amount of electricity while generating a lot of light, they last so long and require little maintenance so that they require very few people to tend to them during the life of the light bulb. Has the Minister factored those cost-savings into his calculations?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. In April, the Campaign to Protect Rural England estimated that councils spend more than £600 million on street lighting, accounting for 30% of their carbon emissions. Tackling the remaining street lights not using LED will reduce carbon emissions and cut the maintenance costs he mentions.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

3. What assessment he has made of the recommendations of the report by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report published by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report published by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783; and if he will make a statement.

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

17. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the report published by the National Audit Office entitled, “Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities 2014”, published in November 2014, HC 783; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to pay off the deficit left by the last Labour Government, including local government, which accounts for a quarter of all public spending. The National Audit Office report recognises that local authorities as a whole have coped well with spending reductions, with many increasing their financial reserves. The Government will continue to support local councils to transform local services, cut waste, tackle fraud and achieve better outcomes for local people.

[John Pugh]

I admire the Minister’s calm, but the report says that half the local authority auditors, never mind the politicians, have grave concerns. Given that, and given that Labour itself wants to take £500 million out of local authority finance, is it not time for a wholesale review of local authority finance?

[Kris Hopkins]

The record shows that the vast majority of people believe that local authorities offer a good service, and local authorities have achieved significant outcomes despite the reductions. Furthermore, the Government have prioritised the ability of local authorities to grow their budgets by developing local businesses, which has brought in significant money to those establishments—£11 billion has been retained in business rates alone.

[Luciana Berger]

The NAO found that the Minister’s Department did not understand the impact of its cuts on local authority services. By 2017, Liverpool council will have had its budget cut by 58%, which is 20% more than the national average, and it has reserves of only £39 million—down from £125 million—so what is his assessment of the impact of his Department’s cuts on the city of Liverpool?

[Kris Hopkins]

The councils facing the most demands are receiving the most money and will continue to do so. It is exceptional that a great city such as Liverpool is standing up and recognising its potential and how it can get itself out of the financial difficulties it faces. The fact that it is confident about its city deal, which will result in 15,000 jobs and 16,000 houses, as a consequence of its leadership, and the fact that it is growing its business base and drawing down significant amounts of money to support local businesses, demonstrates that the community understands the direction to go in, even if the hon. Lady does not.

[Mr Betts]

Given that this is a report by the independent NAO, should the Minister not be at least a little concerned about some of its findings? It states:

“The Department has a limited understanding of the financial sustainability of local authorities and the extent to which they may be at risk of financial failure”

and

“does not monitor the impact of funding reductions on services in a coordinated way.”

Is that not a damning indictment? If the Government continue with these policies, some councils will get into serious financial difficulties, and they will get there with the Government apparently unaware and seemingly uninterested.

[Kris Hopkins]

No local authority has not been able to secure its budget, and each year, as dramas and challenges have arisen, they have faced them and dealt with them. Furthermore, we should not forget that about £2.1 billion is lost to error or fraud and that, despite the challenges, local authorities have managed to grow their reserve base to £21.2 billion.

[Mr Steve Reed]

A transformation of services is fundamental to delivering savings on the scale required, but the NAO report states that the

“The Department has not…estimated the capacity of local authorities to carry out widespread service transformation. Nor has it estimated…the level of savings such projects could realistically make, how long this would take, or the potential impact on service users.”

Why did the Minister not ensure that this vital work was carried out?

[Kris Hopkins]

The money we put forward to support transformation in councils has been welcomed right across the country—in fact, more councils have applied than we have money for—and, as for outcomes, for every £1 put in, £10 is saved. We know what we are doing, and local authorities are leading the way in driving these savings.

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

It is now two years since the Department published its guidance, entitled “50 ways to save”, on how local government could make savings. Does the Minister have any plans to issue a second edition of this booklet, taking into account all the new ways in which councils, particularly Conservative councils, have come up with to save money since the first edition was issued?

[Kris Hopkins]

That is a pertinent question, and a new booklet has just been published that demonstrates how Conservative councils are leading the way in saving money and driving up services. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a copy.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

In every one of the four years in which I was a Minister at the Department for the Environment, we were told by the Opposition that our local government spending settlement would lead to the end of civilisation as we know it. Somehow local government continued and civilisation continued. Does my hon. Friend think that if local government manages better and cuts waste, it should be able to deal with an average 2.9% reduction in spending in 2014-15 without any serious hit on services?

[Kris Hopkins]

My right hon. Friend is right. Businesses out there face these reductions and challenges all the time, and local authorities have risen to the challenge and are delivering good services, which are rated highly by the public—despite the challenges out there. We have faced difficult circumstances as a consequence of the previous Labour Government who drove the economy into the ground. Local government is responding to the challenge of addressing those needs.

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

The Minister’s shockingly complacent response today underlines the NAO’s findings that the Department has

“a limited understanding of the financial sustainability of local authorities and the extent to which they may be at risk of financial failure…does not monitor the impact of funding reductions on services in a coordinated way”—

and, even worse—that the Department’s approach “obscures” the “substantial differences between authorities”. Does the Minister have a clue about the real impact of his massive cuts to local government?

[Kris Hopkins]

I think there was a question in there. We understand that there are huge challenges facing local authorities, but it is local auditors and local councils that are making the choices about priorities at this time, addressing the needs of the vulnerable people who need to be helped. I am confident that local authorities will continue to deliver high-quality services, despite the fact that resources are currently limited.

[Andy Sawford]

The truth, as this damning report by the NAO shows, is that the Government do not know and do not care about the impact of the cuts on the ground. Across the country, street lights have been turned off, bus services cut, lollipop patrols stopped, children’s centres closed and care services withdrawn. Will the Minister come clean and admit that this is just the start of what it really means to take Britain back to the 1930s?

[Kris Hopkins]

This House knows, I know and councils out there know that the reason why we have had to make the difficult decisions to make sure this country lives within its means is a direct consequence of Labour’s incompetence and economic illiteracy.

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

4. What guidance his Department has given to local authorities on steps they can take to increase the rate at which new homes are built.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

We have just extended the affordable homes programme—a total of £38 billion-worth of public and private investment, together ensuring that 275,000 new affordable homes will be built between 2015 and 2020. Council housing starts are at a 23-year high, and we expect the independent review into councils’ role in housing supply to report very soon.

[Mr Cunningham]

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that greenfield sites can be very highly valued by local residents and are important for protecting natural habitats and heritage? As we look to build the much-needed houses, will he take steps to assist local authorities to make sure that brownfield sites and inner-city spaces are fully exhausted before any greenfield sites are built on?

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right that local authorities should be looking to develop brownfield sites first. In fact, we are looking at that with the new starter homes programme that the Prime Minister announced today. We have also put in more money over the summer to encourage local authorities to develop those brownfield sites first and to make them more viable.

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

As my hon. Friend knows, Mid Sussex is making a great attempt to cope with the extraordinary demand for housing in the south-east. Does he agree that a rule allowing the Planning Inspectorate to accept housing development only when there is adequate housing infrastructure to support it would make a great difference to building in the south?

[Brandon Lewis]

That is a very good point. It is important for local authorities and developers to ensure that the infrastructure is there to support housing development, and authorities will seek to do that as part of the planning process and, indeed, as part of their own local-plan process. That is another example of how important it is for local authorities to have local plans in place.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

If Medway council had acted properly in approving the building of 5,000 houses in a bird sanctuary at Lodge Hill, would the Minister have needed to write to the council offering his guidance on the need for an evidence base to be submitted to him by 12 January?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman has stood in the House in the past and argued in favour of that development, but he has now changed his position. He and I have not had a conversation about the matter, and I think that that is the right approach, given that it involves a quasi-judicial planning process and the application is still live.

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

Although both unemployment and homelessness are at an extraordinarily low level in North Wiltshire, we are being told that we must have thousands of unwanted new houses—particularly in the Chippenham area—followed by factories to give jobs to the people who will live in those new houses. While it is fine for houses to be built where they are needed, surely central Government should allow areas such as mine, where housing and jobs are roughly in balance, not to have them.

[Brandon Lewis]

As my hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate, this Government ended the top-down approach adopted by the Labour Government, getting rid of the regional spatial strategies. It is now entirely for local authorities to make evidence-based assessments of local housing development needs, and then to consider how they can provide for them. Decisions should be locally driven, with local people in mind.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

If what the Minister has just said is correct, why did his own planning inspectors suggest to Knowsley council that it should consider using up green-belt land for future housing development as part of its local-plan process?

[Brandon Lewis]

I have not seen the details of that case, but if the right hon. Gentleman forwards them to me, I shall be happy to look at them. In my experience, planning inspectors tend to challenge local authorities about their evidence bases. The national planning policy framework makes it clear that green belt constitutes an environmental constraint, and local authorities can use such constraints as evidence bases when it comes to what they can actually provide. It is for them to do the research, build those evidence bases, and make their case.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The Minister recently suggested that councils did not need local plans, and that there was no role for central Government if they failed to adopt one. As he knows, however, without local plans communities have absolutely no say in where new houses are built. If he is really serious about local people deciding, why does he think that councils do not need local plans, and why will he not back our proposals to make it a statutory requirement for every council to have one?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got the planning process slightly wrong. Obviously local authorities in all circumstances have a say in planning, which is a quasi-judicial process. Planning applications go through local authorities. As I have said, there is no need for a statutory rule, because it is in authorities’ own best interests to have local plans, which mean local involvement and local decisions about what development should be allowed and where it should be allowed to take place. If there is no local plan, those matters will fall within the national planning policy framework.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effect of his Department’s demand for a repayment from Social Enterprise North West on local businesses and services in the North West of England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

My Department has worked with Merseyside partners to ensure that individuals and businesses are signposted to business support. My Department’s demand notice will not seek to reclaim any of the money from the 17 supporting organisations which operated in good faith throughout the process.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister believes what she has said, but it is not entirely accurate, and it does not entirely answer the question. Social Enterprise North West has been ordered to pay back nearly £1.5 million, although it observed the funding requirements that were laid down by her own Department, and hundreds of jobs and businesses are endangered as a result. Has she received representations from councillors, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and local businesses—I have been told that she has—and what will she do to right her Department’s wrong?

[Penny Mordaunt]

It is not just a question of our accounting requirements; it is a question of the European Commission’s rules, and they are perfectly clear. Failing to provide evidence of the way in which money is spent puts funding at risk, and it is totally unacceptable that Social Enterprise North West cannot provide proper accounts for that public money. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. We will not be recouping money from the 17 supporting contractors which operated in good faith, no match funding has been lost, and the money from the European regional development fund that is being returned from the project will be reinvested in other existing business support services in the Liverpool city region.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What additional support he is providing to local authorities to meet the demand for social care.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

This Government continue to deliver a fair settlement to every part of the country. In particular, we have introduced the £5.3 billion better care fund, which includes locally agreed plans for protecting adult social care services.

[Meg Munn]

Does the Minister not recognise that the better care fund is not new money, but is money taken from existing budgets? There are more people with more needs. Does the Minister not recognise that providing small amounts of low-level services to carers, who are providing for a lot of those needs, will ensure that most people can continue to be cared for at home, whereas now many people are facing difficulties in caring, and we will see elderly and disabled people living without dignity?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair point. Many Members in all parts of the House recognise the vital work that carers do in supporting their loved ones, and I have been particularly struck by children who care for brothers and sisters or parents. I certainly agree with the hon. Lady on that. In terms of resources, in the spending review the Government put an extra £470 million into supporting the Care Act 2014, and of course in the autumn statement a further £2 billion was announced to support the national health service.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

15. The accident and emergency department at Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth continues to struggle to meet its four-hour waiting time targets. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of the solution to this problem, the local NHS and the surrounding providers of care, the local authorities, must work together much more closely, particularly on the subject of discharge?

[Stephen Williams]

I absolutely agree that it is essential that local authorities and the health service work together to provide a seamless service for patients as they leave hospital and come into the care of local authorities. That is precisely what the better care fund is about. I am advised that the last round table in my hon. Friend’s district took place on Friday.

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

Is the Minister aware that, despite having cuts to its spending power of about twice the national average, Birmingham is increasing its child protection budget? To ensure that other forms of social care do not suffer as a result and to meet Birmingham’s long-term needs, some additional support is required. Will the Minister agree, perhaps in conjunction with colleagues from the Department for Education, to meet a delegation from Birmingham to look at what is possible?

[Stephen Williams]

Birmingham city council has obviously had considerable difficulties recently, which the Department has been heavily involved in trying to solve, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific proposals to put forward and would like to write to me or the Secretary of State, I am sure that we will look at them very carefully.

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

I understand that the Chancellor announced that the inheritance tax threshold will be frozen until 2017 and the money raised thereby will be put into social care. Is that part of the money my hon. Friend just announced, or is that additional?

[Stephen Williams]

That would be additional money, I believe, but just under £2 billion in additional support was announced for the national health service in the autumn statement, money that I am sure will be well received and well spent.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to stop unfair parking enforcement practices.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Councils are making a profit of £667 million a year from parking. That is unacceptable, so this Government are bringing forward a series of measures to make local parking fairer for residents and shoppers. This includes curtailing the use of CCTV spy cameras, introducing grace periods, and giving local residents and firms new rights to demand a review of yellow lines and parking charges in their area.

[Nick de Bois]

Over-zealous parking enforcement by these methods, and in particular by mobile cameras in Enfield’s Hertford road, is one of the most damaging practices to shops and shopkeepers, and the more so because Labour-controlled Enfield council is reducing the number of parking spaces. What advice does my right hon. Friend have for this council to put shoppers and high streets first?

[Mr Pickles]

On my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, he was kind enough to show me Hertford road, which does not have a very easy trading environment. We have placed an obligation on local authorities to look after local businesses, and we know that that plays an enormously important part in people’s management of their shops. I would simply urge Enfield council to get together with local traders to ensure that people do not have to drive further and further from Enfield to do their shopping.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me and many Congleton residents in objecting to proposals to introduce parking charges at Congleton War Memorial hospital for the first time? That plan is likely to increase, rather than decrease, local parking congestion, and rather than benefiting patients and their families it will in all likelihood benefit the car park charging company through aggressive fines.

[Mr Pickles]

I have a War Memorial hospital in my own constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has been vocal in pressing local health authorities on this practice, which particularly affects people who are visiting patients who are in hospital for a long stay. It does not seem to be the most sensible way of raising funds.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of (a) homelessness and (b) rough sleeping.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

Homelessness is lower now than in 27 of the last 30 years, and since this time last year we have seen a 38% decrease in the number of families in bed and breakfast for more than six weeks. This Government have supported innovation through the roll-out of No Second Night Out and StreetLink, which means that rough sleepers are being found more quickly and given the help they need to get them off the streets.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister’s response is astonishing. Under this Government, we have seen disproportionate cuts to the Supporting People funding, the disappearance of street outreach workers and an increase in homelessness and rough sleeping of more than a third. The number of homeless families in Nottingham has risen by a quarter in the past year alone. What assurances can the Minister give me that the proposed review of exempt accommodation to be conducted jointly by his Department and the Department for Work and Pensions will not result in this disgraceful situation becoming even worse?

[Kris Hopkins]

This Government are tackling homelessness using funds from welfare reform, with access to some £1 billion. I should like to make a comparison between our record and that of the previous Government. There were 136 homeless acceptances in Nottingham this year compared with 493 under the previous Administration at peak. This year, 90 households are in temporary accommodation compared with 391 under Labour, and as a consequence of this Government’s intervention, there are no people in bed and breakfast.

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

Earlier in the autumn, my hon. Friend the Minister visited Chester to see some of the homelessness provision there. He saw some first-rate services, but he also heard that homeless people were leaving other council areas, including Liverpool and Wrexham, to come to Chester to take advantage of our services. What will he do to ensure that Labour councils fulfil their obligations in the same way as Tory ones do?

[Kris Hopkins]

I recognise the caring work undertaken by my hon. Friend’s Conservative-led council to look after those vulnerable people. It is not appropriate for local authorities, of whatever political badge, to bus people from one authority area to another.

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

Last year, the then Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), said:

“There is absolutely no excuse for families to be sent miles away without proper regard for their circumstances…The law is clear: councils have a responsibility to take into account people’s jobs and schools when securing homes for those in need.”

Why, then, has the number of families being housed outside their local area increased by almost one third in this past year alone, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

[Kris Hopkins]

I reiterate that it is against the law for councils to move numbers of individuals wholesale to other authorities, but I would point out that 14,220 out- of-district placements, equating to 93% of the total, took place in London local authorities.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to freeze council tax charges for 2015-16.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Under Labour, council tax more than doubled. Under this Government, it has fallen by 11% in real terms. Further funding will be available to freeze council tax in 2015-16, which will mean five consecutive years of freeze funding since 2011-12. That is worth £1,075 for an average household over this Parliament. An announcement on the detail of this will be made shortly.

[Dr Offord]

I am very grateful for the Secretary of State’s response. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) and I had the tremendous problem of keeping council tax down in the London borough of Barnet under the last Labour Government. What steps will the Government take to continue in other areas to help hard-pressed families, pensioners and individuals by supporting them with their cost of living and to ensure that the London borough of Barnet protects front-line services?

[Mr Pickles]

I commend Barnet for freezing council tax for four successive years. It proves that councils can run their services efficiently and encourage growth without increasing taxes on local people. The council tax went from being a modest sum in people’s budgets to being absolutely overbearing, and it is exactly right that the most vulnerable people—pensioners and the like—have benefited from this freeze.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

20. I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier reply. As council tax is such a large bill, especially for those on fixed incomes, will he congratulate my local South Derbyshire district council on keeping its council tax at a zero increase for the past four years? We hope that this year’s settlement from the Government will help it achieve a record five years of frozen council tax.

[Mr Pickles]

On behalf of the Government, I say bless you, South Derbyshire. You have done a fantastic job. You have looked after the coffers very carefully and you have fulfilled good quality services at a reasonable cost, without going for the incremental rise every year.

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

12. What progress he has made on delivering large-scale housing sites.

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

16. What progress he has made on delivering large-scale housing sites.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

18. What progress he has made on delivering large-scale housing sites.

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

We are making excellent progress in helping to deliver large-scale housing sites. Through long-term loans for infrastructure, capacity funding and brokerage, we have helped unlock or accelerate more than 90,000 homes to date, and a further 200,000 homes could be unlocked or accelerated on sites shortlisted for investment and wider support.

[Mr Sheerman]

There are so many hard-working people in this country, including many firefighters, who would listen to that reply and not be able to believe the complacency. We have a Department with no leadership, no vision and no ambition, when we need a million new homes for our elderly people and for our young people, who have no chance of a home. This Government will face the wrath of those people at the next general election.

[Brandon Lewis]

As before, I am sure there was a question in there somewhere. [Interruption.] And the audience agree. I find the hon. Gentleman’s follow-up point slightly bizarre, in the sense that this Government have provided roughly 700,000 new homes in the past four or five years, including more council houses than were built in the entire period of the previous Labour Government.

[Mrs Hodgson]

But the truth is that the Government are simply not building enough affordable homes. The number of homes built for social rent over the past year is the lowest it has been for 20 years, so it is little surprise that the waiting list in Sunderland has increased on their watch, whereas it more than halved under Labour. Thankfully, these Ministers have less than five months left in post, but may we have a little more action from them, even in those five months, and a lot fewer re-announcements of yet more empty announcements?

[Brandon Lewis]

I simply point the hon. Lady to the facts: we have now delivered around 220,000 affordable homes in this Parliament, and there will be 165,000 over the next three years. It will be the fastest rate of building we have seen in more than 20 years, having inherited from the last Labour Government the lowest level of building since 1923. It was an absolute disgrace what was left by the last Government.

[Alex Cunningham]

My constituents are concerned that if more houses are ever to be built on Teesside again in substantial numbers, more farmland could be swallowed up even though countless brownfield sites are available. Many of these already have planning permission, yet developers have left them derelict for donkey’s years. What steps is the Minister planning to take to get action from such developers? What will he do if they refuse to bring these kinds of sites, many of them close to our town centres, back into use?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, we have in fact put some money in over the course of the summer—a few hundred millions pounds—to encourage brownfield development. We are also now looking at the housing zones, and we will be making some announcements on that fairly soon to make sure we get these sites unlocked. When local authorities are developing their local plans, they are making sure that they are delivering viable sites to provide the houses we all want to see built.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Leeds city council has divided the city into areas in order to set the house building targets, and in Aireborough the vast majority of the sites being considered are in the green belt. I am aware that the use of green belt can happen only in “exceptional circumstances”. Will the Minister confirm what the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about protecting the green belt, which is something that we always seek to do. The Secretary of State and I have outlined some further guidance on that in the past few months to make it clear that building on green belt land is something that we do as a last resort. Indeed, it is one of the exceptional circumstances to be taken into account against development to make sure that we protect our green belt. Obviously, every planning application has to be taken forward and adjudged on its merits by the local authority, planning inspectors and the Department.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one challenge in bringing forward large-scale housing sites is the failure of local authorities to allocate sufficient land for housing in their local plan? For example, the Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council has failed to bring forward a local plan, whereas Rugby borough council has had its local plan in place for some time, and has brought forward a site for 6,000 new homes at the Rugby radio site.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Rugby is an excellent example of a good, well-run council, which seeks to support growth and to provide homes for local people. It is important that local areas, in conjunction with the community, work out their housing need, make provision for it, and take advantage of the £1.5 billion that we are putting in to help unlock those kinds of sites.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

The coalition came to office promising localism whereby locally elected councillors would decide on large-scale housing developments. In Tendring, the Government have now insisted on an extra 12,000 houses. How is that localism?

[Brandon Lewis]

That is not how the system works. We do not have top-down targets. We got rid of the regional spatial strategies. It is up to the local authority to work out its housing needs and to look at the evidence base to see what it can provide locally, taking into account any environmental constraints.

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

The recent designation of Bicester as a garden city brings not a single new home to the table, as Bicester had already planned for and started to build 13,000 new homes as outlined in its local plan. Is it not time that the Government thought seriously about how to deliver our much needed new settlements rather than simply repackaging existing developments?

[Brandon Lewis]

With respect, I think the hon. Lady has missed the point. Bicester itself came forward and wanted to develop on garden city principles. When I was there last week, officials showed me around the excellent work that the local authority is doing to release some of the land, including looking at the infrastructure to see how they can make it possible. We are not following a top-down approach. I appreciate that the Labour party wants to have a suit in Whitehall deciding who builds and where, but we believe in localism. Local areas should lead on garden cities. They should come to us with the outlines of what they want to do. I am talking about local decisions, by local people and for local people.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

13. What estimate he has made of the number of small firms and shops in (a) England and (b) Derbyshire local authority area which will have a reduction in business rates in 2015-16.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

We do not hold figures for that year, but estimate that our retail relief is currently benefiting around 300,000 premises in England, including 4,700 in Derbyshire. We are also doubling small business rate relief for a further year, which is currently benefiting around 575,000 businesses, including 12,300 in my hon. Friend’s local authority area.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the Minister for her reply. As she knows, Belper in my constituency recently won the Great British High Street competition of 2014. What measures are the Secretary of State and his Department taking so that other towns and high streets can follow in Belper’s footsteps?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As well as providing rate relief and a raft of other packages, we are helping by instigating initiatives such as the Great British High Street competition. In entering that competition, Belper has enabled us to identify good practice, which we are now able to share. We have produced a publication, which we launched last week, and we are now rolling out a package of further training and support for areas in the country that are not as far ahead as Belper.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Now that the Minister for firefighters is on her feet, and taking into account the question about all those shops and businesses, will she agree that the firefighters have to deal with those? If there is a fire, an industrial disaster or a flood, the Government paint a lovely picture of our firefighters and the work that they do. Why does she not accept that the Government should be leaving their pension alone? Let them keep their pension.

[Penny Mordaunt]

If I can answer that question and remain in order—[Interruption.] We are obviously debating this matter later on today. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the regulations that have been laid are an improvement on the 2006 scheme that his party brought in. A recent serious fire in Staffordshire highlighted a really good business liaison programme between fire and rescue services. Even businesses that were not directly affected by the fire were able to call on those services to enable them to continue trading. That model should be rolled out elsewhere.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was characteristically ingenious in the construction of his question, and we are grateful to him—I say that in all sincerity—but I advise the House that it was in any case my intention to get to Question 19, and I remain cautiously optimistic that we shall do so.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

14. What assessment he has made of the rate of change in the number of empty homes since May 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

The number of homes empty for more than six months is now at its lowest level since records began. This Government have achieved a year-on-year reduction in long-term empty homes through council tax incentives such as the new homes bonus, opportunities to increase council tax and a Government programme of £200 million for empty homes funding.

[Jason McCartney]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally perverse that Labour-run Kirklees council continues to forge ahead with building homes on greenfield sites when there are thousands of empty properties and numerous brownfield sites in my beautiful part of west Yorkshire?

[Stephen Williams]

The national planning policy framework does indeed incentivise local authorities to bring forward brownfield sites first, and the Government want 90% of suitable brownfield land to have permissions in place through local development orders by 2020. With regard to my hon. Friend’s local authority in Kirklees, there are 718 long-term empties for which it charges the council tax premium, raising £387,000. If it worked with the owners to bring those properties back into use, it would get £783,000 in new homes bonus this year, plus £4.7 million over the full six years that the funding is available.

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

From the Minister’s response, we might think that everything is perfect in the garden, but the Office for National Statistics has shown that over 1 million homes are still empty. At the same time there are record numbers of people in this country wanting to rent affordable homes. What is he going to do to ensure that local authorities that are not using their powers to bring empty homes back into use now do so in order to end this absolute scandal of homelessness and empty homes in Britain?

[Stephen Williams]

I do not recognise the figure that the hon. Gentleman cites, but I will have a look at it. My information is that in England the overall number of vacant properties has fallen from the 770,000 when we came into office to 635,000 now. I write constantly to local authorities to remind them of the suite of powers available for bringing empty homes back into use, and I have gone on a series of visits across the country to encourage social enterprises, in particular—I have visited Leeds Empties, for example—to work with the community in order to achieve the double benefit of bringing a home back into use and getting some social enterprise spin-off benefit.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

19. What estimate he has made of the number of firefighters who will retire early on medical grounds with a reduced pension after the introduction of the new firefighters pension scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

Any firefighter who retires early on medical grounds, owing to being permanently unable to undertake their role, will be entitled to take their pension without a reduction. Our final scheme provides a better pension for those firefighters than the alternative scheme for which the Fire Brigades Union is lobbying.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister said on 10 November that no firefighter who fails to meet the standard would lose their job, yet Dr Tony Williams, who was appointed by the Government to assess the regulations, has said that two thirds of firefighters will not make the cut. How can she reconcile those two opposing views and cost firefighters over 20% of their pension?

[Penny Mordaunt]

That is not what Dr Williams said. The 2006 scheme, which was introduced under the previous Labour Government, has had firefighters working until 60. They have been working under the pension scheme with no protections if they fail a fitness test and are unable to continue their operational role through no fault of their own. We are introducing those protections. There is a written ministerial statement today and a statutory instrument will appear tomorrow, and it will guarantee, placing on a statutory footing—obviously firefighters are entitled to ill health retirement—that if there is not an underlying medical condition and they cannot pass the fitness test, either they will receive an alternative role or the authority will have to initiate a pension.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I have read the ministerial statement that has been placed in the Library this afternoon. It sets out the requirement for local authorities to consider an authority-initiated retirement. Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is her intention that under these circumstances firefighters will be guaranteed an authority-initiated retirement?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Absolutely. We are very clear in the ministerial statement that we have tabled today and in the guidance that will accompany it that that is what we expect to happen. In addition, because I recognise that firefighters need those safeguards, my Department will carry out an audit.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Some 180,000 homeowners have bought or reserved a property during this Parliament through one of the Government-backed schemes. Our support for home ownership also prompted a sharp increase in house building to a six-year high. Today we are setting out the next step of our long-term economic plan to improve the housing market. The starter homes programme will offer 100,000 first-time buyers the opportunity to buy a new home with a 20% discount.

[Alistair Burt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Has he received much communication from some of our smaller councils—town and parish councils—about the pressure they are under from vexatious freedom of information requests, inappropriate pressure from members of the public, and sometimes problems of resolving their difficulties with a monitoring council, such as those between Arlesey and Central Bedfordshire in my constituency? Does such a problem arise rather more often these days?

[Mr Pickles]

It is not a general problem, though we have come across it. I know that my right hon. Friend is very disturbed by it. The best way to avoid freedom of information requests is to be open, straightforward and transparent, and sometimes some authorities are not. But there can be no excuse for persecuting a public official. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 lays down guidance with regard to vexatious claims. I understand that my right hon. Friend intends to write to me and I will look at the case very carefully.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

May I start by expressing the Opposition’s concern about the situation in Sydney today? Our thoughts are with all the people who appear to have been taken hostage and with their families.

We are all aware of the threat posed by Islamism, the extremist ideology that wrongly claims to be informed by Islam and which attempts to recruit and radicalise our citizens. Can the right hon. Gentleman update the House on what his Department is doing with faith groups to help identify and deal with the sources of extremism and radicalisation in our communities?

[Mr Pickles]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about events in Sydney. Our primary thoughts must be with the hostages, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be as heartened as I am by the response to the worries expressed by Muslims in Australia about travelling on public transport, and the “I’ll ride with you” campaign, whereby Australian citizens are standing by the Muslim community and ensuring that Muslims feel they are good Australians.

We have spent about £45 million on integration projects since 2010 and an extra £11 million to support 29 projects this year, but I expect the right hon. Gentleman is more concerned about work with specific groups. Indeed, we have given priority to working with groups in east London, east Birmingham and along the M62 corridor. We work closely with them and with various other groups in the spirit of “not in their name”, to show that we recognise the full strength of the Islamic community’s love of peace.

[Hilary Benn]

Interfaith dialogue of the type that the Secretary of State describes with mainstream religious groups is important. The problem is that radical Islamists are not part of it, and Muslim communities are just as keen as others to know what he is doing to help them identify, isolate and deal with the conditions in which such an ideology develops. Does he agree that it is now time for his Department to focus its efforts on helping families to stop the radicalisation of their children and on promoting greater mutual understanding so as to undermine the corrosive effects of Islamism, which so damages our values and our democracy?

[Mr Pickles]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I intend to put out a written parliamentary statement that lays out the full breadth of what we have been doing to deal with this issue. The empowerment of women and of families in knowing what is going on on the web is a recognition of how things have changed. Those who expect this to come out of the mosque are living in a past world. This battle is fought on the internet and by modern methods of communication. Of course, as always, I will keep the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends completely informed about what we do.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T2. My right hon. Friend will be aware that Labour Front Benchers appear to have a plan to impose a homes tax on people earning more than £42,000, and this is causing great concern to my constituents in Wimbledon. I note that all Labour’s mayoral candidates for London have disowned the plan. Does he agree, first, that this tax is inequitable, and secondly, that our Government would never impose such an inequitable tax on my voters?

[Mr Pickles]

We certainly have no intention of persecuting the good people of Wimbledon; nor do we intend to make people suddenly find themselves in a mansion that they did not realise they owned. These are people who bought a property a few years ago and whose incomes have not gone up, but now Labour apparently wants to take £3,000 or £4,000 from them every year.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T3. Those who risk their lives to protect us deserve a decent pension. Will the Minister explain why firefighters have recently been on strike in England, but not in Scotland or in Wales?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

I am afraid there are some myths about what is happening in the other nations. Industrial action is taking place in the other nations; they have not settled. In fact, many aspects of England’s scheme are better. We will have a full debate on the issue this afternoon, when I hope that we will able to put some of the myths to bed.

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

T4. Langho, one of my pleasant villages in beautiful Ribble Valley, has recently had three hideous wind turbines imposed on it by appeal, against the wishes of local people, the local council, and, indeed, me. Will the Minister assure us that, in future, planning inspectors will give far more weight to localism and to the views of local people before deciding to impose hideous industrial furniture on a local community?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

It would be inappropriate to talk about a particular case that is still live in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I will say, however, that the Secretary of State has given clear guidance about pre-application consultation with communities. There are guidelines about protecting landscape and heritage, and the Secretary of State is able to recover applications if he believes that we need to test those guidelines. The best thing that my hon. Friend’s constituents can do is to ensure that they have a strong local plan in place that determines renewable sources of energy.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

T6. The Minister just praised firefighters from Staffordshire. I met them again last week, and they, like me, cannot understand why the Government, at this eleventh hour before the debate later today, will not agree a negotiated settlement on the firefighters’ pension scheme regulations. Why are the Government not taking account of the Williams report, why are they peddling the myth of redeployment, and why cannot we have a fair pension for those having to retire early on health grounds?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Again, the hon. Lady needs to be aware of the facts. We are taking account of the Williams report. We are putting in place protections that firefighters have not had before, including for those on the 2006 scheme, which requires them to work until 60. They are entitled to ill health retirement, as before, on an enhanced basis. Those who are unable to retain their fitness as they age—this is specifically for older workers—will get another role or an unreduced pension. [Interruption.] Those are the facts. If there is no operational role, they will get an unreduced pension. We need to get that message out to firefighters, because they are going to be making decisions about their financial future based on their understanding of the scheme, and it would be quite wrong to mislead them on that.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

T5. Small independent shops are the lifeblood of our high streets and I am glad to say, with Christmas just around the corner, that Worcester’s independent retailers say they are seeing increased footfall and that they are looking forward to their £1,500 discount on business rates next year. Will the Minister confirm that reforming business rates and discounts to small businesses can, alongside cuts to job taxes, help small businesses drive the economic recovery?

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I take this opportunity to congratulate Worcester on being a finalist in the great British high street competition? In addition to the discount he mentioned, the autumn statement also doubled small business rate relief for a further year and maintained the 2% cap on the inflation increase for next year. I am sure that all those things will help Worcester potentially to take the prize next year.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T9. When a useless Government Minister is sacked, including by the electorate, they get a huge pay out and a massive pension. Why is there one rule for the politicians and another rule for the firefighters?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We will debate this issue this afternoon, but I stress that we need to stick to the facts of the case. Many things about the regulations that came into law last week are an improvement on some of the schemes. We have addressed genuine concerns about people working until they are older. I hope this afternoon will provide us with the opportunity to get those facts on the record. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the previous scheme will finish at the end of this financial year, so if the regulations were revoked firefighters would be without a pension scheme and they would lose all the protections they currently enjoy.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

T7. This Government have introduced measures that cap the amount that councils can charge leaseholders for repairs to their properties and homes. In my constituency, some residents of Merridale court are being charged up to £12,000 by Wolverhampton Homes, with bills that have come all at once rather than spread over a period of time. Do Ministers think it is fair and reasonable that those pensioners should have to pay those fees?

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking on the case on behalf of his residents. He is absolutely right that we should ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that residents should be protected from any erroneous or over-the-top charges, as Florrie’s law, which was introduced in August, seeks to do. I would go further and say that, if those Wolverhampton residents do not feel they are being dealt with properly or appropriately, I would encourage them to go to the Leasehold Advisory Service, which can consider the first-tier tribunal to review their cases.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State recall that I asked him during the previous Question Time to give an early decision on the Coventry gateway project and that I followed that up with a letter? I have not received a reply to either request. I am sure he means no discourtesy, but could he tell us when we might expect a response, because a lot of jobs, business rates and development in the south of Coventry depend on it?

[Mr Pickles]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not replying earlier. He will understand that the issue is very much tied up with adjoining authorities. A number of schemes are currently being negotiated under various growth deals and I hope the Government will be able to make a decision fairly soon.

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

T8. The Secretary of State has made localism his thing and he has come across very strongly as the champion of the people. Will he ensure that the people’s voice is heard and listened to when the first wave of hydraulic fracking applications go through, and will he insist that the Government follow the precautionary principle so that all environmental and health concerns will be addressed before an application is granted?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for standing up to make sure that the process is followed correctly. Obviously, the planning process is quasi-judicial and planning authorities must go through the full process. I will make sure that the chief planning officer keeps an eye on what is happening and ensures that the process is followed, and I will keep an eye on the case myself.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

As I understand it, we will get an announcement later this week about the local government financial settlement for next year, which could involve a 10% reduction in local authority spending. That is as big a cut in one year as central Government Departments have faced throughout the whole of this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State, in the interests of transparency, give an assurance that he will come to this House and make an oral statement, rather than hide behind a written statement as he did last year?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Gentleman’s recollection is wrong: we made a statement from this Dispatch Box. We cannot anticipate what the business managers of this House will do. We will take the hon. Gentleman’s words into consideration.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but as usual demand has exceeded supply. We must now press on.

Access to Co-operative Ground (Scunthorpe)

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

In presenting this petition, I would like to praise the excellent work of the Friends of Scunthorpe Fields and Open Spaces, particularly Chris Jury, Rick Loudon and Stuart Green, in campaigning to secure continued free access to Scunthorpe’s Co-operative ground and getting more than 1,500 people to show their concern by signing the petition. I would also like to welcome North Lincolnshire council’s recent willingness to recognise the strength of feeling on the matter.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe County Constituency,

Declares their objection to North Lincolnshire Council’s decision to deny the general public access to the old Co-operative Ground adjacent to Central Park in Scunthorpe by erecting a fence around the perimeter.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Lincolnshire Council to remove the fencing erected around the old Co-operative Ground adjacent to Central Park and allow free public access to the area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001412]

UK Armed Forces (Iraq)

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

15:34

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the role of UK armed forces in Iraq.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

The United Kingdom is providing substantial support to the Government of Iraq through air strikes, surveillance, the gifting and transporting of equipment and the training of Iraqi forces in specialist skills. About 50 UK personnel are working with the Danes in Sulaymaniyah in northern Iraq, carrying out combat infantry and sharpshooter training, and we are coming to the end of the second of four three-week courses. We also have about 10 military personnel in Irbil, seeing how we can assist the Government of Iraq in training and equipping other Kurdish forces. The international coalition is developing its plan to build the capacity of Iraqi security forces and any future UK training contribution would be absorbed into this coalition plan.

In early November, I announced our intention to provide further training to the Iraqi military. No decisions on troop numbers, units or locations have been made, although we expect to focus on providing expertise in countering explosive devices. During Defence questions on 24 November, I also announced our intention to advise and assist the Iraqi armed forces through the secondment of advisory personnel to command headquarters. We are considering what contribution we can make and the details of any of these decisions will be announced to Parliament in the usual way.

[Vernon Coaker]

I am sure that many Members will, like me, have been surprised and dismayed that the Defence Secretary told a Sunday newspaper about the deployment of UK armed forces to Iraq before he told this House. Is it not true that that led to turmoil in his department? Yesterday morning, he said that hundreds of troops would be deployed across four training bases, but yesterday afternoon a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said that no decisions on troop numbers, units or locations had been made, so how many are there? What message does he think this sends to our armed forces? Is it one of clarity and decisiveness or one of confusion and uncertainty? These are serious matters and the British public will want to know that this is not being undertaken lightly.

We have supported steps taken by the Government, regional partners and the international coalition to combat ISIL, including the provision by UK forces of training and equipment to the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces, but we will scrutinise any developments and ensure that appropriate questions are asked. What assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the risk involved in expanding the training role to several locations across Iraq and the status and rules of engagement of force protection personnel? Will both training units and combat-ready personnel be solely under UK command and comprise UK servicemen and women alone? What role will the RAF, which is currently undertaking combat missions in Iraq, play? What discussions has he had with the Iraqi Government about this deployment? Does he agree that there must be no misunderstanding about British involvement in Iraq at any stage, which is why we need a clearly defined strategy?

There has not been enough clarity about the role of the UK armed forces, the scale of their involvement and the time frame for training operations. The Defence Secretary said just over a month ago that that would be very limited and at that stage only a dozen UK troops were involved in specific training tasks. Is there a strategy or are the Government making it up as they go along? Will the Defence Secretary explain reports that the National Security Council is meeting later this week to discuss and approve something he has already announced?

Finally, does he intend to come back to the House to report on the deployment so that we can have a full, open and proper discussion on these hugely significant matters? That is what the British public would expect and demand.

[Michael Fallon]

As I said, I have already announced, including in this House, that we are considering what further contribution we can make to the training of Iraqi forces. There is nothing new about that. Yesterday, I made it very clear that the numbers are yet to be finalised. When they are finalised, they will, of course, be announced to the House.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. He asked whether there will be a proper assessment of risk. Yes, I will take advice from my military advisers on the risk involved. On force protection, we must make sure that any training that we provide is properly protected, even though it is well away from the front line. The RAF strikes will continue. I will keep the House updated on the number of missions that are flown and the number of strikes.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with the Iraqi Government. I make it clear to the House that everything that we are doing in Iraq and everything that we are considering doing in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi Government. I clarified that in my visit to Baghdad and Irbil last month. It is precisely because the Iraqi Government have asked us and our coalition partners for help that we are considering this action at the moment.

I cannot comment on specific details in respect of the National Security Council, but I repeat that the details of our final decisions will be reported to the House.

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

Surely the key question is whether ISIS poses a threat to us, directly or indirectly. If it does, it needs to be dealt with by whatever means necessary. Are not too many western Governments getting close to conflict by opinion poll? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the state of co-operation with the Sunni tribes in Anbar province, which remains a key factor in whether we can win a ground war against ISIS?

[Michael Fallon]

The advance of ISIL is a direct threat to this country and other western countries, which is why some 40 countries are involved in the international coalition and why a number of them are considering putting personnel in to assist the training effort. On my predecessor’s second question, the support and enlistment of the tribes of the Anbar is critical in pushing ISIL back towards the western frontier of Iraq. There have been encouraging signs, but it is up to the Iraqi Government and the reformed Iraqi army to ensure that, in all their actions, they command the support of Sunnis, Shi’as and Kurds.

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

Some of us had the privilege to meet British and Danish troops in Iraq last week. The training includes medical training. Given that 60% of peshmerga injuries are caused by improvised explosive devices, where loss of blood is a significant factor, why are we not training them in the use of tourniquets, which was very beneficial to our troops in Afghanistan?

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly look at that suggestion. We gained expertise in countering IEDs and vehicle-borne explosive devices in Afghanistan and, as the hon. Lady says, we also accumulated considerable expertise in dealing with the injuries that they cause.

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

I urge the Secretary of State please to ensure that, along with the trainers, we deploy people who have expertise in Iraq, both military and civilian, to look specifically at the role of the Shi’a militia and the Sunni tribes so that we can credibly sit at the table with the Iraqi Government and the United States to challenge and debate the overall strategy, and drive a Sunni reconciliation.

[Michael Fallon]

I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Defence Committee, said. It is vital that the new Iraqi Government not only consider themselves to be inclusive, but demonstrate that they are inclusive. They must command the support of the Sunni tribes and show that the Shi’a militia that are associated with the effort to halt ISIL are part of an overall inclusive effort that cuts across political, religious and tribal divisions. I have emphasised that throughout. There are encouraging signs in the Iraqi Government, in the reform of the Iraqi military and in Defence Minister Obeidi’s proposals for a national guard that can help to secure ground that has been won back from ISIL. However, there is a long way to go in ensuring that that effort is genuinely inclusive.

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

Given the current UK deployment in Iraq, what long-term consideration is being given to the implications of training the peshmerga on possible independence for Kurdistan in the future and on relationships with the Iraqi army and the Iraqi Government?

[Michael Fallon]

I welcome the recent rapprochement between the regional administration in the Kurdish areas and Baghdad. It is essential that that is built upon so that oil revenues can be properly allocated and spending, especially on the military, can be considered by the Government of Iraq as a whole. The priority now is surely to halt the advance of ISIL and help the Government of Iraq, the Iraqi army and the Kurdish forces to push it back from the territory that it has claimed.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Last Monday afternoon, members of the Defence Committee were at the presidential palace in Baghdad, and in answer to my questions the President said no to British troops on the ground against insurgents but yes to more equipment and training and a continuation of the airstrikes. Does the Secretary of State agree with the President and me that if UK combat troops returned, they could be regarded as occupying forces, which would create other difficulties for Iraq?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with both my hon. Friend and the President of Iraq, in no particular order. The President of Iraq himself has said that he does not want British or any other foreign combat troops involved, which is why we need to make it absolutely clear that we are not proposing to return combat troops to Iraq. The effort that we are making is relatively small-scale and should be seen alongside the contributions being promised by others, including the Germans, the Spanish, the Danes, the Italians, the Australians and the New Zealanders, all of whom are considering what effort they can make to help with training and equipment.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to defeat this ISIL criminal caliphate cult, or Daesh, it will have to be done not just in Iraq but in its headquarters and heartlands in Syria? What is the international coalition of 40 countries to which he referred going to do about that?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of these matters through his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is right that in the end ISIL can be defeated only if it is defeated in both countries, Syria and Iraq. That is why we welcome the strikes that other members of the international coalition, including the United States but also our allies in the Gulf, have undertaken against ISIL, particularly in the north of Syria. That helps to disrupt ISIL’s supply lines into Iraq. Our part—it is all that the House will allow us to do at the moment—is in Iraq, but we have plenty to do there through airstrikes, surveillance, the supply of equipment and the consideration that we are now undertaking of further training.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When I deployed to Bosnia in 1992, it was supposedly in a non-combat role, but the chiefs of staff insisted on ensuring that I had a field surgical team with an operating theatre and three general practitioners, for several hundred people. If we deploy several hundred people into Iraq, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are adequate medical facilities to look after our soldiers if by chance they are wounded, even though they are not in a combat role?

[Michael Fallon]

The House has the benefit of my hon. Friend’s considerable expertise in these matters, and I will certainly take up his suggestion. I emphasise that if we deploy further personnel, they will not be in the combat zones or on the front line. This will be a training effort to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces in some areas of expertise, in particular in encountering improvised explosive devices, as well as the sharpshooter tactics on which we have already been instructing.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Last week the members of the Defence Committee who went to Baghdad met Vice President Ayad Allawi. He brought with him 30 tribal sheikhs who described the total destruction of Shi’a and Sunni villages, the murder of men in the villages, and the abduction of women and children. People were left with nothing in an attempt to clear land for criminal elements within the militias. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the training we provide is not used by militias for their criminal activities, because often those militias are also part of the Iraqi army?

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady is right and we must always be careful who we are training. It is important that the Iraqi Government—she will have seen this on her visit to Baghdad last week—follow through on the reforms they are proposing. The army must become genuinely inclusive and militias must be properly under control. Holding ground that can be liberated must have the full-hearted support of local populations, and that will be particularly important as ISIL is pushed back in the tribal areas of the Anbar.

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

The brave peshmerga whom we visited being trained by the British Army in Sulaymaniyah last week did a fantastic job in stopping the breakneck advance of ISIL in the summer, and they are to be congratulated. They did so against huge odds in terms of personnel, equipment and training, and to this day they are a pretty makeshift army. Does the Secretary of State agree that although it is vital that this should be a Kurdish or Iraqi battle against ISIL, we have a vast role to play in terms of equipment, training—particularly IED training—and we must do our part to combat the dreadful wickedness that is ISIL?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. ISIL is a threat to us in this country and generally to the west, as well as a threat to all those in Iraq—particularly those of other religions or indeed their own religion—who want to live at peace. That is why, with the support of the House, since early summer we have been considering what we can do to supply the peshmerga. We have supplied heavy machine guns and helped to airlift other equipment and ammunition that is needed, and we are considering—it is still only considering—the scope of training that we are able to offer in some of those specialist skills.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The public are right to be concerned about mission creep in Iraq, and about the lack of candour by the Ministry of Defence when it comes to boots on the ground. In September I asked the Secretary of State whether forward air controllers are directing air strikes in Iraq. I was given a holding answer in October, no reply in November, and we are now getting towards the end of December. Can we have some candour from the Secretary of State on the simple question of whether forward air controllers are directing air strikes in Iraq?

[Michael Fallon]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received an answer to that question and I will look into it. We have made it clear that we are not involved on the ground in combat in Iraq, as that goes beyond the wishes of this House. We are involved in air strikes, surveillance and intelligence gathering, and certainly in the supply of equipment and training.

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

May I press my right hon. Friend a little more on Syria? I met representatives of the Syrian national coalition last week. Bearing in mind the vital part that the repression in Syria plays in giving support to ISIL throughout the region, can the Secretary of State say when he intends to come back to the House to explain what more we can do to support fighters in Syria who are currently fighting Assad and the extremists in order to protect the Syrian people?

[Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend, who was a most distinguished Minister for the middle east, is certainly right to advise the House that Syria should not be neglected in all this. As well as the surveillance capabilities that the military is providing, we are in discussions with the international coalition about making a contribution to a programme to train the Syrian opposition, as I told the House during Defence questions on 24 November. We continue to scope that mission with our international partners. That kind of training would almost inevitably have to happen outside Syria itself, but it is under active consideration at the moment.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

The urgent question has illustrated that we need a far broader debate than we are having at present. I visited Iraq 26 times when I was special envoy on human rights. Many of the things we put in place were not just military matters: we trained civil society, we retrained journalists, we insisted on the rights of women and we trained the judiciary. I have just visited both Baghdad and Kurdistan with the Foreign Affairs Committee and we need to look again at what we actually achieved. My worry is that some of those gains are now slipping away and we need to reinforce them.

[Michael Fallon]

I think the House will endorse that. The right hon. Lady knows as much about Iraq, in particular about the Kurdish areas, as anybody in this House. There are lessons on the type of aid that was given and what we can do now to help the new democratically elected Government in Iraq to build on some of the earlier support we offered. On whether there should be a debate on Iraq, that is not a matter for me. However, I look forward to my appearance before the Select Committee later this week.

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

When insurgents such as ISIL break cover and seize and hold territory, they lose the advantages of secrecy and surprise. It should therefore not be too difficult in the short to medium term to expel them, but then they will go back to guerrilla and terror tactics. Will the Government have in place a medium to long-term strategy for containing that sort of warfare? We have lacked such a strategy in the past when we oscillated between nation building at one extreme and doing little or nothing at the other.

[Michael Fallon]

The tactics of ISIL vary and there is some evidence that it is already altering its tactics in the face of air strikes. The overall strategy has to be led and endorsed by the Government of Iraq. It is very important that, in the end, the campaign is led by the home-grown army of Iraqi and Kurdish forces, with the support of the international coalition. The strategy has to be formulated there rather than here, but we can offer specialist expertise.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In 2003, there was massive opposition to Britain going into Iraq. Those concerns are still there, yet we have now heard that more British troops are going back into Iraq and that a British base is being built in Bahrain. Is the Secretary of State not presiding over an expansion and an extension of British military activity in the whole region? Is he really sure where all this will lead, what the cost will be, and what the casualties will be?

[Michael Fallon]

What I am sure of, first of all, is that ISIL presents a clear and present danger to us in the United Kingdom. There have been acts of violent extremism on the streets of our capital and elsewhere. This is a very direct threat and there are Britons, sadly, who have gone to fight for the jihadists. There is a direct British interest in ensuring that ISIL is not allowed to capture further territory in Iraq and is thrown back out of it. That is why we are supporting the legitimate Government of Iraq, and why we are acting at their request in considering what further training and support we are able to offer. So far as the base in Bahrain is concerned, we have ships and aircraft permanently present in the Gulf. Having a permanent base there will make deployment much easier.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

One of the most important things the Defence Committee heard last week was the strong desire by Governments in the region, particularly the Government of Jordan, to “Arabise the narrative”. What more can the UK Government do to support the strong desire that this be seen as an Arab-led initiative against an evil form of extreme Islam and that we in the west—countries such as Britain, the United States and France—be seen as acting in support of those efforts?

[Michael Fallon]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The extent to which our allies in the Gulf accept that they and other regional parties have a regional responsibility to help the Government of Iraq deal with this challenge is encouraging. The recent conference in Kuwait on combating the ideology of ISIL was an important illustration of that. In the end, this has to be dealt with by the legitimate Government of Iraq, with the support of the region and the international community.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Although the humanitarian work is valued and appreciated, should we not avoid mission-creeping into a new war before we have had an explanation of why 632 British soldiers died, having been ordered into Iraq in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and into Helmand in the belief that not a shot would be fired?

[Michael Fallon]

I think that everyone in the House is awaiting the well overdue publication of the Chilcot inquiry, and anything that can be done to accelerate that would be welcomed on both sides of the House. Helmand is a better place than it was when our troops went in, however, and we should pay tribute to the work done there and the sacrifices made.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

We are all proud of the work done by the combined school for explosives and bomb disposal now based at Bicester. Do I understand it from my right hon. Friend’s statement that either Royal Engineer and/or Royal Logistics corps limited bomb disposal capacity will be deployed to help train Iraqi service personnel in dealing with bomb disposal and improvised explosive devices?

[Michael Fallon]

No decision has been taken about which units are likely to be involved or which locations they are likely to be sent to; this is simply something we are considering at the request of the Iraqi Government. As my right hon. Friend says, however, this is expertise that we have in this country, and there are lessons learned from the Afghan campaign that we think we could usefully contribute to assist the Iraqi military.

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

I want to be clear about something the Defence Secretary just said. The House has only given permission for us to go up to the Iraqi border because it has never been asked to go beyond that. If he wants to do that, the Prime Minister should have the courage of his apparent conviction and ask the question. Will the Defence Secretary be specific about the request from the Iraqi Government? Have they made a specific request for the kind of increased ground force deployment he outlined to The Sunday Telegraph this week?

[Michael Fallon]

I did not outline any ground force deployment; I made it clear that we were not considering the deployment of combat forces to Iraq. I discussed the effort we might make in support of the Iraqi military with Iraqi commanders and the new Iraqi Defence Minister, Minister Obeidi, when I was last in Baghdad, and I discussed the same matter in Irbil. This is expertise that the Iraqi and Kurdish forces would certainly welcome.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to congratulate Prime Minister Abadi and Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani on coming together to form the revenue-sharing and hydrocarbon deal, which will allow them to pay for some of the equipment, training and so forth. Of course there are challenges facing both—the unification of the Peshmerga and, of course, the militias that we have heard about today. There has also been talk of the formation of a Sunni national guard. Has the Secretary of State had a chance to discuss that with both parties in Kurdistan and Baghdad?

[Michael Fallon]

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the agreement—only an interim agreement at this stage—between the Kurdish regional authority and Baghdad about the allocation of oil revenues. I hope both sides will build on that to forge a stronger relationship. So far as the national guard is concerned, yes, I did discuss the issue in Baghdad, and I view it as essential for that national guard to be truly national, so that it does not comprise simply Shi’as, Sunnis or Kurds but is genuinely national and cuts across all the political, tribal and religious divisions.

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

This deployment is a new worry for the families of service personnel. Can the Secretary of State provide an estimate of how long the tour of duty will be on this particular mission?

[Michael Fallon]

I am sorry, but I cannot make any such estimate at the moment, simply because we have not yet decided the numbers or which units will be involved. As soon as we have further details, they will of course be reported to this House.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend further update us on the support for military training and aid that our allies in the Gulf states are providing to the Iraqi Government?

[Michael Fallon]

A number of allies in the Gulf have already contributed equipment and have been involved in air strikes, flying in support of the coalition efforts in Syria, in particular. They are looking to see what other logistical help they can provide. A number of them provide bases and other support for the international effort.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the threat presented by ISIL, I think the whole House would support any effective action. However, before we left Iraq, we trained, equipped and supported the Iraqi army, yet it crumbled in the face of the threat from ISIL. Why is the Secretary of State convinced that this intervention will be effective and will not simply drag us further into front-line involvement in this war?

[Michael Fallon]

We are not going to be dragged into front-line involvement, as I have made clear. The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the previous Iraqi Government did not enjoy the full support of all parts of Iraq, which is why the army did not command the loyalty of all parts of Iraq and why it crumbled in the face of the ISIL onslaught. The new Government are, I believe, genuinely representative, comprising Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish Ministers, and the reforms we have seen so far show, I think, that the Government understand the need to be wholly inclusive of all the different elements of Iraq. It is early days and there is a challenge, as the hon. Gentleman said, in that these divisions still remain. It is up to us to help the new Government of Iraq to overcome them.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Given that the only strategy to beat ISIL is probably a large ground offensive involving tens of thousands of troops, does my right hon. Friend believe that such a resolution will ever by executed by the Iraqi and Kurdish forces?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do have confidence that ISIL can be pushed back if we are able to help re-equip and retrain the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. We have had some significant offers of support in principle from other coalition partners: the Australians are offering up to 400 personnel; the Germans about 100; the Spanish 300; the Italians 280; the Danes 120. A number of countries are coming together to offer the sort of training and support that they are each able to offer individually in overall support for those ground forces.

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

When Parliament was recalled to debate ISIS in September, many of us expressed concern about the potential for mission creep, and I am afraid that the manner of the Secretary of State’s announcement has not reassured us. He said that these activities would be undertaken at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. Who will co-ordinate them, and is it true that, as has been reported in the press, we will be based at either of the training centres in which the United States currently reside?

[Michael Fallon]

As the hon. Lady knows, everything that we are doing in Iraq is either at the request or with the permission of the Iraqi authorities. As for the location of any training effort, it has yet to be decided. The coalition is considering a number of sites divided between the Kurdish and southern areas and areas around Baghdad, but we have yet to finalise exactly which country is likely to offer further training where.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

There have been reports that, in addition to those in the countries mentioned by my right hon. Friend, Iranian military advisers are playing key roles in the fight against ISIL. Can my right hon. Friend tell us more about how the efforts of such a diverse range of international military advisers are being co-ordinated on the ground?

[Michael Fallon]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not co-ordinating efforts with Iran, but more than 40 countries are now involved in the international coalition, a number of which have made significant training offers. We are considering—scoping—what training offer we might be able to make, in addition to those that have already been made.

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

The Secretary of State said that there was an acceptance of regional responsibility and spoke of some of the contributions that had been made, but does he categorically believe that regional partners are providing enough support on the ground in the form of kinetic activity? If not, does he envisage any circumstances in which the fairly hazy commitment that he has described today could increase?

[Michael Fallon]

We have made it clear that we want to see this effort underpinned by support from the regional partners, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made exactly that point during his visit to Ankara last week. All the regional parties must be involved. We have seen how ISIL has swept across the borders between Syria and Iraq, and has managed to seize a large amount of territory. I think the regional partners understand that the integrity and survival of Iraq are key to the region. We are continuing to encourage them, as I did during the Manama conference in Bahrain two weeks ago. We are encouraging them to continue to contribute, not least because we think it important for public opinion in western Europe to take account of the part that they are playing in the effort against ISIL.

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

I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend shares my admiration for the Royal Marines and for what they did in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is he considering using them to deliver the level of expertise and training that they have clearly demonstrated, so that they can provide the top-notch advice that I think is so desperately needed?

[Michael Fallon]

I much appreciated my visit last week, with my hon. Friend, to the Royal Marines in his constituency, and I am well aware of the formidable strengths and expertise that they bring to operations of this kind. I should emphasise, however, that we have not yet made any decisions about the number of personnel, or about the units from which they might be drawn.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Are there any differences between the Secretary of State’s assessment of the training requirements of the Iraqi armed forces and the Iraqi Government’s own assessment of its training needs?

[Michael Fallon]

Broadly, no. All this is being done in close co-operation and discussion with the Iraqi Government. I had discussions with the new Iraqi Defence Minister and his officials in Baghdad, who were fairly open about gaps in their military, their capabilities and their equipment, and about the areas in which they look to the rest of the international community for assistance.

Northern Ireland (All-party Talks)

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

16:15

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the talks process in Northern Ireland following the Prime Minister’s visit.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the cross-party talks which have been taking place in Stormont over the past nine weeks.

In September the Government concluded that the time was right for a fresh round of political discussions to be convened with the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government reached the same conclusion and co-ordinated statements were issued. The aim was to address some key issues which are hindering the effectiveness and credibility of devolution and the Stormont Executive. These included: welfare reform and the Executive’s budget; the so-called legacy issues of flags, parading and the past; and reform of the political institutions.

The talks began at Stormont house on 16 October. As a signatory to the Belfast agreement, the Irish Government have been fully involved in all those matters where they too have responsibilities, consistent with the three-stranded approach, which means that the internal arrangements for Northern Ireland are a matter for the UK Government and the parties. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks for the positive and constructive role played throughout by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charlie Flanagan TD, and his team of officials. In addition, I am very grateful for the support and wise counsel of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The US Government have also been supportive and closely engaged with this process, in particular through Secretary of State Kerry’s representative, Senator Gary Hart.

So far, around 90 hours of the formal talks have taken place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, have been closely following the whole nine-week process and on Thursday they joined the discussions directly. They conducted an intensive round of talks with the Executive parties and I would like to thank both of them for their support, perseverance and ongoing commitment to this process. Despite their efforts, by early Friday morning they made a realistic assessment that there was still insufficient consensus across the parties for a broadly based agreement to be reached. Shortly afterwards, all five Executive parties declared their firm intention to continue to strive for a deal. They asked me and Minister Flanagan to take part in a resumption of discussions on Friday afternoon, which we duly did.

Let me briefly set out to the House the outline of the deal put on the table on Thursday. A draft heads of agreement was tabled including, first, a fresh approach to the past which puts the needs of victims and survivors at its heart; secondly, devolved arrangements for adjudicating on parades that would see the Parades Commission replaced by a new authority; and thirdly, reforms to the institutions such as support for those parties that might want to form a formal Opposition within the Assembly. The draft also sought a commitment from the Executive to press ahead with welfare reform, although with a number of flexibilities to reflect Northern Ireland’s circumstances, and to implement a serious efficiency programme to make long-term savings in the cost of government. This draft heads of agreement was the result of the work of both the UK and Irish Governments, again respecting the three-stranded approach, and we believe it represents a balanced package and a sound basis for cross-party agreement.

During the evening, the Prime Minister also set out proposals to provide further financial assistance from the UK Government. This included flexibilities which would have given the Executive nearly £1 billion of extra spending power to help them through their current difficulties and support their most important priorities. It would also allow the devolution of corporation tax to go ahead. A change which just a few years ago seemed inconceivable and undeliverable is now within the grasp of Northern Ireland’s leaders, if they choose to take it.

The talks resume this week and the stakes are high. All parties agree that if there is no agreement before Christmas, we will not get this close again for months or even years. In particular, failure to agree a balanced budget would leave the Executive increasingly unable to conduct even ordinary day-to-day business effectively. So this week is crucial. We all have a responsibility to do whatever we can in the few days left to us.

The UK Government have shown that they can compromise, even over hugely sensitive and difficult issues regarding Northern Ireland’s past and even when resources are constrained by the pressing need to deal with the deficit. We will continue to do all we can to deliver agreement within the financial constraints in which we are operating, but the UK and Irish Governments can do only so much. Ultimately, whether an overall agreement is reached will be down to Northern Ireland’s political leaders. They have the chance to show that, once again, they can move Northern Ireland forward towards a better future in which politics works, the economy grows and society is stronger and more united. That is the prize on offer, and I know that all the participants in the talks will have the support and good will of this House in our attempts to seize it.

[Mr Lewis]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Christmas is meant to be the season of good will, but for a second consecutive year in Northern Ireland there is a real risk that it will be a season of entrenched mistrust and political failure. The people of Northern Ireland want progress. They yearn for politicians who offer hope that the journey to a shared future, while not easy, is irreversible and who accept that a shared obligation and a shared commitment to a better future require compromise and mutual respect.

Of course, the UK and Irish Governments have responsibilities too. Three years of relative disengagement by the UK Government have damaged trust and weakened mutual understanding. It also has to be recognised that Northern Ireland faces unique challenges related to the past. A properly resourced, comprehensive framework should be part of any agreement, but fairness also means that there can be no blank cheques or exemption from tough choices. Northern Ireland has the right not to implement aspects of Tory-Lib Dem welfare cuts, but a refusal to implement any welfare reform is neither affordable nor credible.

I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Will she spell out how the £1 billion of extra spending power offered by the Prime Minister is broken down? Where is the money going to come from? How quickly will the loan element have to be repaid, and at what rate of interest? What is the Government’s estimate of the overall annual cost to Northern Ireland’s budget of the current instruments to deal with the past and of those envisaged under new arrangements? Finally, Prime Ministers usually attend political negotiations either to announce an agreement or to roll their sleeves up and stick around to make an agreement possible. As the Prime Minister did neither, can the Secretary of State explain the strategy underpinning his flying visit to Belfast last week? Does she expect him to engage further in the talks before Christmas?

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his questions. I agree that people in Northern Ireland want to see progress and confirmation that their leaders are striving towards building a genuinely shared future, and that they are prepared to see their political leaders accept compromise and make difficult decisions.

It is most emphatically not true that the UK Government have been disengaged over recent years. We have followed all these matters closely and we pressed for the establishment of the Haass talks in the first place. Also, the economic pact has seen our two Administrations in Belfast and London working more closely than ever before. The devolution of air passenger duty took place in double-quick time to save Northern Ireland’s transatlantic flights, for example, and the G8—a huge opportunity for Northern Ireland—was brought to Northern Ireland personally by the Prime Minister. I agree that, in this situation, there can be no blank cheques for the Executive. We all have to live within the constraints of the need to deal with the deficit.

On the financial package, the Prime Minister outlined a contribution of £10 million a year towards the running of the Historical Enquiries Unit, which is proposed in the draft heads of agreement. The Government would also approve the use of Northern Ireland’s existing allocation of £200 million of the re-investment and reform initiative borrowing for 2015-16 to implement an exit scheme for the Northern Ireland public sector, to be used in that financial year. That includes the £100 million already sought by the Executive as part of their draft 2015-16 Budget. The Government would also agree that the Executive may use a further £100 million of their RRI borrowing power in each of the five subsequent years, beginning in 2016-17, for the same purpose. The Prime Minister also set out plans to support the establishment of the peace and investment fund proposed by Northern Ireland’s leaders, including allowing the Northern Ireland Executive to keep additional funds generated from asset sales in the financial year 2015-16, after the achievement of a balanced budget. I assure the shadow Secretary of State that the Prime Minister did indeed roll up his sleeves and engage in intensive negotiations, because he, like all of us here, is determined to reach a successful outcome.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her perseverance, working with the local parties on matters that we know are of intense interest and concern to them. Does she think they have really got the message that the devolution of corporation tax, bringing economic benefits which have so dramatically helped the Republic of Ireland, would be of enormous significance and would in many ways measure up to the level of the agreement years ago, and that we really are in the final hours? As I understand it, a Bill is ready to be laid, but it has to be laid this week. If the local parties blow this opportunity, they deserve to have the obloquy of future generations descend upon them—they must not fluff this opportunity.

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that one of the most urgent matters at stake is the devolution of corporation tax, and the clock really is ticking on that. If we are to pass legislation within this Parliament, we need to introduce it as soon as possible, not least because the Opposition Front-Bench team has not yet been prepared to give its support to the potential devolution of corporation tax.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I offer a critical observation, not for some partisan motive, but out of experience of negotiating at such summits alongside Tony Blair, when he was Prime Minister? I was both troubled and astonished that the current Prime Minister left the summit prematurely in the way that he did. My experience is that any Prime Minister has to coax and progress the discussions and negotiations, and there is a chemistry about those and a momentum that it is possible to develop. Walking away as he did leaves a kind of political paralysis which I suspect and fear may continue. That is extremely damaging and I am extremely worried about the situation.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with reassurance that the Prime Minister has not walked away; he continues to follow these matters with the greatest of attention, because he cares about Northern Ireland and wishes to see a successful conclusion to this process. The reality is that both he and the Taoiseach made a realistic assessment on Friday morning that the parties were still far apart on a number of issues, and there was an indication that on some key issues some parties were simply not prepared to move. In particular, it was very difficult to see that Sinn Fein was prepared to move on matters relating to welfare reform.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Is not one of the deeper and wider problems in Northern Ireland the fact that the Assembly and the Executive were set up in the way they were, although for the very laudable reason of bringing about peace and bringing people together? Does the Secretary of State agree that that model is not a good one for effective and efficient decision making? Is she discussing with the parties of Northern Ireland ways in which changes might be proposed by them that might move us towards a more efficient system?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have had those discussions at great length, including discussions about how to amend the petition of concern process. The Chairman of the Select Committee is right to acknowledge that the institutions set up to secure a peace settlement can often find it difficult to take difficult decisions, but they are capable of it; adaptations can be made. However, improving the way the institutions work will be an important part of an overall agreement.

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

Of course these matters do not just affect the Northern Ireland parties; national issues and national security issues are at stake in the discussions on the past. On parades, we are still awaiting the Secretary of State’s announcement about what she is going to do on north Belfast and the Ligoniel parade. That could unlock the way for progress being made, so it is important that the UK Government—our Government—play their part in moving things forward as well. Although I welcome what the Opposition spokesman has said, I remind him that part of the reason for the mistrust at the moment is the previous Government’s actions in relation to on-the-runs.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the north Belfast panel will be constituted shortly. I agree that national security matters are at stake, not least because the current dispute over welfare reform and budgets means that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is facing significant funding cuts. Those cuts could impact on its ability to deliver community policing, which is an important part of our counter-terrorism strategy as a means of building support for policing within the community.

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

Will the Secretary of State be slightly more specific about what is holding up the talks? In particular, she mentioned Sinn Fein’s opposition to reform of welfare. She will know that Sinn Fein wishes to see the destruction of the Northern Ireland entity, which is not exactly the position that most other people take. Is it a fact that we may have to impose a solution—I am not entirely clear about how that can be done—to ensure that things move forward?

[Mrs Villiers]

I shall be as brief as possible. There remain significant differences of view on a number of matters. There is no sign as yet that Sinn Fein will move its position on welfare reform. Further progress is needed on a specific plan for efficiencies within the Northern Ireland Executive. On the past, issues around thematic work and inquests will be quite difficult to resolve. On parading, the discussions that took place in the summer under the party leaders’ talks indicate that the criteria for adjudicating parades and the sanctions to be attached to a code of conduct remain the main sticking points.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

How on earth can the Prime Minister come to the conclusion, after 24 hours, that there is no realistic way of reaching a consensus? Over the years, both with the Good Friday agreement and the St Andrew’s agreement, the Prime Minister actively tries to ensure that there is a consensus. The Secretary of State should go to Downing street and persuade the Prime Minister to do that again—and quickly.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK Government will continue to work as hard as possible to secure an agreement out of this process.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I agree with the Secretary of State’s earlier sentiment that the solution to every problem in Northern Ireland cannot be more money from the English taxpayer? Will she now confirm that there will be no bigger offer than the £1 billion that was talked about last week to get this deal over the line?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said many times, the solution to these problems cannot be a big cheque from the UK Government. That is partly because it would not solve the problems, and partly because there is no more money. We have made it clear that we are not prepared to subsidise a more expansive welfare system for Northern Ireland. We are certainly prepared to continue to discuss the funding of matters such as new institutions on the past.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that £700 million of an existing borrowing power that we originally negotiated for strategic capital investment to be used for voluntary exit schemes does not seem to people to be new money or a big attractive offer? Is she not concerned that she has informed the House that the issue of inquests will be difficult? The two Governments propose that the families who have fought for inquests and had new inquests opened will now be told that, no, they will not now have an inquest. There is to be a new arrangement as part of the historical investigations unit that may not work in respect of the inquest and also damage the working prospects for other key aspects of the HIU’s work.

[Mrs Villiers]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the flexibilities offered in relation to borrowing powers would be of significant assistance to the Northern Ireland Executive in delivering the voluntary exit scheme for which they are calling. It was a significant and serious offer, but one that accepts the realities of the financial constraints we are under. I fully appreciate the difficulties concerning inquests. The Government are in listening mode, and we will continue to discuss the matter with the parties over the next couple of days. Whatever the outcome, it is vital that the cases be dealt with within a framework that is fully compliant with our obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister’s failure to broker a deal last week caused considerable disappointment in Northern Ireland, although I have to say that I do not think it caused much surprise, since he did not stay there very long trying to bring about success. However, it is the season of good will, so could the Secretary of State provide us with some reasons to be cheerful about the likelihood of success in the near future in these talks? That would be very welcome.

[Mrs Villiers]

I think that the reasons to be cheerful are that all the Northern Ireland parties accept that we need to find a deal and that everyone accepts that going into the next financial year with an unresolved budget would lead to increasing chaos and make it increasingly difficult for the Executive to perform even their ordinary, day-to-day functions. No one wants that. I think everyone accepts that that would be bad for every party that is a member of the Executive. I think there is that willingness to make progress. We are relatively close on matters, for example on how we set up new structures to help deal with the past in a way that better meets the needs of victims and survivors.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that she wants to see a fresh approach to the past. Does she realise that that will be very difficult while there is still so much secrecy about the on-the-runs? The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is facing increasing difficulty in getting the ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair to give evidence for its inquiry—we have had to summons him and he has not come yet. There are people from the Northern Ireland Office whom the Secretary of State seems to want to prevent coming to speak to us. We have to get the inquiry finished and we have to get the past looked at very differently, but we need some openness and transparency from the ex-Prime Minister.

[Mrs Villiers]

One of the advantages of setting up new structures on the past is that it allows us to reflect upon and respond to mistakes made in the past so that whatever we set up is transparent, balanced, fair and properly accountable. I very much welcome the work that the Select Committee has done on the matter. It is for the Committee to negotiate with former Prime Minister Blair. I certainly hope he will accept the invitation to give evidence. In relation to junior civil servants, the Government’s approach is consistent with that taken by previous Governments: we do not generally put forward junior civil servants to answer in Select Committees.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is it not entirely predictable that many people in Northern Ireland, having observed the operation of the welfare cap in England and Wales, look with great trepidation at deepening poverty, increasing homelessness and all the problems that have been associated with that policy here?

[Mrs Villiers]

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the benefit cap—I think that is what he means, rather than a welfare cap. The reality is that setting a cap on out-of-work benefits at £26,000 a year puts it somewhere in excess of average earnings in Northern Ireland. I think that most people would agree that it is entirely fair to restrict the benefits that an out-of-work family can receive to levels that are equivalent to or below the average that a working family can bring home by going out to work.

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

I would like the Secretary of State to clarify the maths on this. Some £1.5 billion has been cut from the Northern Ireland budget since 2011 to assist the UK Government in reducing borrowing and tackling the deficit, yet the solution now being put forward is to ask Northern Ireland to increase its borrowing by £500 million. Is that not simply inflicting a high burden of cost on the residents of Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s figures on the Northern Ireland block grant, which has actually gone up in cash terms. In real terms there has been a reduction, but it has been around only 1% for every year of the spending review. The reality is that the Northern Ireland Executive have a larger budget now than they did when they set their programme for government, because of Barnett consequentials. Those figures compare favourably with policing and the Home Office, for example, which have had to take a significant cut in England, and English local government, where the reductions have also been very significant.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach for the work they did, and not just over recent weeks but in the run-up and on Thursday and Friday. Does she agree that there is a distinct difference between all parties recognising that an agreement is necessary and all parties having the will to deliver it? Does she agree that all parties recognised the need for an agreement even before Richard Haass and his team arrived 18 months ago, yet we are in practice no closer to such an agreement? Far from further devolution of corporation tax and other matters being at stake, what is actually at stake if there is no serious agreement in the next few days is the existing devolution that we have in Northern Ireland, because without a budget the Assembly simply cannot function.

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that the credibility of the institutions is on the line. If the Assembly cannot get its budget right, it is very difficult for it to perform its basic functions, and it would be in for significant criticism if it cannot resolve these matters. As to the hon. Lady’s comment that the parties recognise the importance of delivery, and her question about whether they have the will to do it, I hope they do and I believe they do. Time is running out. It is crucial that we seize this opportunity because we will not get another one for months, if not years, to come.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The main reason that the talks failed this week was Sinn Fein’s deluded belief that Northern Ireland should be totally exempt from the implications of UK budgetary policy and welfare reform. Will the Secretary of State confirm and put it on the record for those head-in-the-sand ostrich economists who advise Sinn Fein that if Northern Ireland wishes to deviate from the welfare reform package which is available in the rest of the United Kingdom, that money must be found from the Northern Ireland block grant and there is no additional money available?

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes, I can certainly do that. There will be no new money for welfare reform.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

The leader of the Minister’s sister party in Northern Ireland said last week that the Government were trying to bribe the people with their own money. The truth is that they are trying to bribe the people to accept an agenda that the people there do not want. It is disgraceful that this involves things as important as identity and the past and the future of the place. Does this not show that because we have a Prime Minister with the attention span of a gnat, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, he has left a vacuum—the worst thing one can do in Northern Ireland—which proves that he is not up to the job?

[Mrs Villiers]

That is nonsense. The Prime Minister made a realistic offer. Remember, what the Prime Minister can put on the table by way of financial assistance is severely constrained by the huge mess that Labour made of the economy in the years when it was in government.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We all appreciate the gravity of the situation, but will the Secretary of State tell us what the Prime Minister intends to do during the next few days to break the logjam?

[Mrs Villiers]

We will be doing everything we can to break the logjam over the coming days. We have thrown everything we can at the process, including stretching ourselves on the past, and taking forward proposals for corporation tax devolution, despite a degree of lack of enthusiasm from our coalition partners. We are doing everything we can to do the right thing for Northern Ireland, but ultimately this process will not succeed unless Northern Ireland’s political leaders are prepared to make the compromises necessary for an agreement.

Point of Order

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

16:42

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the urgent question on Iraq, I asked a question of the Secretary of State but I did not declare my pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests, which I now put on record.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who approached me about this matter. The House appreciates what he has just said.

business of the house (today)

Ordered,

That at today’s sitting the motion in the name of Edward Miliband relating to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 shall be proceeded with as if Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) applied to it; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England)

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

16:43

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2848), dated 23 October 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 October, be revoked.

This is an extremely important debate—I thank the Government for providing time for it—about an issue that firefighters feel very strongly about and which has been the cause of industrial action. Ministers ought to ask themselves why that is.

Let me begin by saying to the Minister that it was not acceptable to table a written statement this afternoon suggesting that all the concerns have been dealt when, on reading it, we discover that that is clearly not the case. Nor is it acceptable to claim, as she did in Communities and Local Government questions earlier, that she will guarantee an unreduced pension to firefighters who cannot maintain their fitness and cannot be redeployed, when in fact her own letter to me, also of today’s date, confirms that that is not the case. She should not try to pull the wool over firefighters’ eyes. I will return to that point later on.

This dispute is not about the need for change in this or other public sector pension schemes. We know that we are living longer and will therefore draw a pension for longer, and that means higher contribution rates and later retirement ages. Any Government have to ensure that public sector pensions are financially sustainable. Nor is this debate about challenging the cost ceiling for the regulations, because we accept that. This debate is about producing a pension scheme that is fair to firefighters and workable—something that, to date, DCLG Ministers have failed to do. Unlike the Governments in Scotland and Wales, Ministers have laid before the House regulations that are unfair to firefighters who, through no fault of their own, may have to retire between the ages of 55 and 60, and that are not based on what we would regard as a common understanding of fitness levels. I want to deal with each of those points in turn.

The Minister knows that the scheme is not the only one possible within the cost limit. The Government Actuary has told them that, and firefighters know it too. That is why the devolved Governments have proposed lower actuarial reductions. Firefighters in England, a very large number of whom have been lobbying their Members of Parliament in recent weeks, are therefore asking this question: if a different scheme can be offered to firefighters in Scotland and in Wales, then why not in England?

Regulation 61 of the statutory instrument deals with the penalties firefighters will face should they need to retire between the ages of 55 and 60. Under the Government’s proposals, firefighters will lose 21.8% of their pension at the age of 55, yet the Government Actuary has shown that there are two different ways of calculating that reduction: one that seems fair to firefighters, and another that is not, which is the one that the Government have chosen. This issue of the reduction is where negotiations in Scotland and Wales have made most progress. Scotland is not proposing a 21.8% reduction, as in England, but a 9% reduction, and in past weeks, Wales has also moved to consult on 9%.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just want to put on the record that we have a very amicable settlement with firefighters in Northern Ireland. Every time he referred to Scotland and Wales, my colleagues and I were saying that we have a very good settlement in Northern Ireland, which is why we do not have industrial action. The Government need to learn lessons from a very successful process in Northern Ireland.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Indeed, there has been no industrial action in Northern Ireland, and that is why I did not refer to the agreement that is in place.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather difficult for people like him, me and the Secretary of State, who do not need to maintain a level of fitness in order to earn our income, to understand the very real fear among firefighters? This issue has not been put up by the Fire Brigades Union; firefighters really do fear that they are not going to be able to cope with the inevitable deterioration that age brings to strength.

[Hilary Benn]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the concerns that very many firefighters have talked to many Members of the House about. That is, in part, the nub of this issue.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Although the Scottish Government have sought to find the best solution possible for firefighters in Scotland within the envelope available, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that 60 is not an appropriate age for firefighters to retire and agree that we need to revisit the question of whether that is an appropriate healthy working life expectancy?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because when the 2006 regulations were introduced they made provision for that retirement age. The difference and the reason that there was no industrial action in 2006 was that firefighters felt that other jobs were available for those who could not maintain operational fitness. As I shall say in a moment, those jobs do not exist anymore.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons this Government cannot reach agreement on local government pension schemes in particular is that they are vindictive towards public services in general? We should also bear it in mind that this country’s fire service in general has suffered massive cuts under this Government.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend’s latter point is absolutely correct. It is very clear from this debate and the campaign that is being waged that Ministers have completely failed to win the confidence of firefighters.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way one more time at this stage and then make some progress.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I applaud the way in which my right hon. Friend is contesting the regulations, because Labour Members simply cannot accept them when they fail to protect the public and needlessly put firefighters at risk. The Minister told the House earlier today that she will guarantee an unreduced pension to those firefighters who, through no fault of their own, face dismissal because they cannot meet the fitness standards, but the regulations do not provide that guarantee. Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that the firefighters themselves were told by the Minister during the negotiations that that would be the case, so they have been let down directly by the regulations?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is a limited time for this debate and a lot of people wish to speak. We must have very brief interventions.

[Hilary Benn]

I agree with my right hon. Friend and I shall come back to that point later.

On the offers made in Scotland and Wales, those devolved Governments are subject to exactly the same cost ceiling, so they have adjusted their accrual rates to come up with a fairer scheme. Why does that matter? It matters because firefighting demands certain standards of physical fitness, yet some firefighters reaching the age of 55 will, after decades of service and through no fault of their own, find they are unable to continue because they cannot meet the fitness requirements.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

May I make some more progress, if my hon. Friend will bear with me?

The FBU has proposed a fairer scheme, accepting that the accrual rate will need to be adjusted. In other words, firefighters will accept less pension if the Government will accept a smaller actuarial reduction for those forced to retire early. Indeed, an e-mail to the Department in January from the Government’s own deputy chief actuary reported back on the calculation of active early retirement factors from age 55. It confirmed that Ministers could indeed propose a scheme with a 12.8% reduction at age 55—rather than the proposed 21.8%—and calculated the exact accrual rate to ensure that the Treasury bears no extra cost. In other words, Ministers could reduce the actuarial reduction if they wanted to. Instead, they have laid regulations before the House that will leave those retiring at 55 facing the loss of more than a fifth of their pension. How is that fair?

That is the first problem with the regulations, and I now wish to turn to the second problem. The concern that many firefighters have expressed about having to take early retirement with a reduced pension would not be so great if there were other, non-front-line jobs in the fire service that firefighters over the age of 55 could be redeployed to for the rest of their career. The Minister talked about such jobs earlier. That used to be the case, but, as has been pointed out, reductions in funding for the fire service mean that there are far fewer of those jobs.

The Government commissioned Dr Tony Williams to conduct a review of the normal pension age for firefighters and to consider the associated fitness issues. This is the second relevant matter to this debate. Dr Williams published his report in January 2013, but I do not think that Ministers have taken proper account of what he had to say. There is not currently a nationally agreed fitness standard across the 46 fire and rescue authorities in England. Dr Williams says there should be one, and so do the chief fire officers. There is a very strong case for it, but the Government’s position has been that individual fire and rescue authorities should determine their own appropriate standard. In England, many use an aerobic fitness test, among others, that measures a firefighter's maximum oxygen intake with each breath, the so-called VO₂ max measurement. The Williams review stated:

“The general standard used by many FRSs is a minimum fitness level of 42…while some have an ‘at risk’ standard of 35…where firefighters are allowed to continue on operational duties for a limited period while they undergo remedial fitness training.”

The Government, however, claim that firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness until the age of 60 based on the following line in the report:

“a 35…VO₂ max would ensure that 100% of firefighters who remain physically active will still be operational at age 60 assuming they remain free from injury and disease.”

[Mr Donohoe]

One of the most important aspects is the safety of the public. If a 60-year-old comes to my house and he is unfit, I am not sure that I want him to deal with a fire.

[Hilary Benn]

That is the concern of everyone in the House. The most important thing is that firefighters should be fit to do the task they are asked to undertake and that they volunteer to do on behalf of society, and I am coming to that point.

We have two different potential measures of fitness, one of 42 and another of 35. Why does that matter? Dr Williams adopted a VO₂ max of 42 as the benchmark for his recommendations because fitness levels are not academic. It is a question of safety. He said:

“Studies show that below an aerobic fitness standard of 42…the risk of sudden catastrophic cardiac events increases, and below the level of 35…the increase is significant”.

More recently, an interim report, produced by the university of Bath in March and entitled “Enhancing the Health, Fitness and Performance of UK Firefighters”, identified that

“firefighters with an aerobic capacity below an occupational fitness standard of 42.3…would not be guaranteed to be safe and effective in their ability to complete necessary roles within their occupation…the lower VO₂ max standard of 35…for continuation of work with remedial training amongst operational firefighters is potentially unsafe for the majority of firefighters.”

The House is owed an explanation from Ministers. What do they have to say about that? I hope that the House will now understand why concern has been expressed about the question of fitness standards.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I will give way, but then I am going to make progress.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my right hon. Friend come on to the issue of women firefighters, many of whom are fearful of being driven out? On the one hand, we are trying to get more women firefighters and on the other they are terrified of being driven out by these fitness standards.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and if she bears with me for just a moment I shall come directly to her point.

This is the central problem with the regulations: Ministers appear to have based all their assumptions for the pension scheme on the 35 VO₂ max measure. They assume that all firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness when they cannot even tell us what the fitness standard will be and when their own assumption of a fitness standard would put the safety of firefighters and the public at risk, which is what the Williams report and the report from the university of Bath say.

Dr Williams also states that many of the fire and rescue authorities, understanding the importance of the VO₂ max standard, insist on a standard of 42 for operational fitness. Furthermore, Dr Williams found that in the best case assumption, if the 42 standard were used, as opposed to the 35 standard,

“the age related decline in VO₂ max”—

due to the natural ageing process—

“would indicate that 15% of firefighters would be unfit for duty at 55 years, increasing to 23% at 60 years of age”.

As for women firefighters, Dr Williams said this:

“more women are likely to drop below the required aerobic fitness standard as they age.”

Those figures amount to a lot of firefighters, yet the Government have failed to respond properly to the Williams review. In fairness to the Minister, she has set up a working party to consider fitness standards, but we do not know what that working party will recommend. Given that many fire and rescue authorities have a fitness standard of 42, is she going to tell the House that she thinks it will recommend a lower fitness standard than that which is currently applied by many fire and rescue authorities?

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Since it is my hon. Friend, I will go against what I just said and give way.

[Chris Williamson]

I am interested in the point that my right hon. Friend is making about the lower fitness standard. Is he as incredulous as I am at the Minister saying that the Government are implementing the Williams review, when that review said that the lower aerobic fitness standard ran the risk of

“sudden death particularly while undergoing high levels of physical exertion”?

Is it not a disgrace and a stain on Government Members that they are prepared to put firefighters at risk of being killed while on active service?

[Hilary Benn]

The advice that has been given to Ministers by Dr Williams should be taken seriously, including that on the safety of firefighters, because the safety of firefighters impacts on the safety of the work that they do on behalf of members of the public in fighting fires. If a lower figure is recommended by the working party, the Minister will have a big problem, because Dr Williams has told her clearly that a number of firefighters will not be able to maintain their fitness up to the age of 60.

There is another problem.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

Time is very short and I want to bring my remarks to a close.

While claiming that firefighters will be able to maintain their fitness, the Minister has simultaneously reassured the House that there will be redeployment opportunities. However, she has provided no evidence of that being the case. At oral questions on 10 November, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) asked:

“Given that the Minister has recognised that there remain severe reservations about the fitness test for firefighters, is she saying that she will pass regulations that will ensure that firefighters who fail the fitness test will not lose their jobs, because there are insufficient numbers of back-office jobs in the fire service to accommodate them?”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1165.]

The answer from the Minister was, “Yes.” If firefighters believed that answer, there would not be a problem, but they do not. The reason is that the Minister has been completely unable to explain to the House how she intends to ensure—that is an important word—that firefighters who find themselves in that position will not be dismissed. Indeed, when I asked the Minister last week in a written parliamentary question

“how many redeployment opportunities there are within the Fire and Rescue Service to accommodate firefighters who are unable to maintain an operational fitness standard”,

she replied:

“We do not keep data on redeployment opportunities for firefighters.”

If the Department has no data, the Minister does not know, so how exactly can she make the promise that she has made? Where will the jobs suddenly come from?

The Minister then tries to rely on the Government’s promise to put fitness principles on a statutory footing, but there is a problem with that, too. The national framework is only guidance and cannot be binding because section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Act 2004 requires only that fire and rescue services “have regard” to the advice. In case there is any doubt, the Local Government Association employers said in response to the consultation:

“Whilst an FRA would of course have to be mindful of the content of the Framework it would not be compelled to comply with it”.

If fire and rescue authorities cannot be compelled to do so, where is the guarantee?

The alternative would be to pay an unreduced pension. My final question is where the Government’s guarantee is on that. I have here today’s written ministerial statement, which I have read carefully. Where is the guarantee? There is not one. I also have here the letter that the Minister wrote to me today, in which she says:

“The Framework also reminds fire and rescue authorities of the fact that they have the opportunity to retire firefighters over 55 on an unreduced pension if they so wish.”

That is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to finish my remarks.

If we follow the Government’s logic, either the regulations are based on a flawed assumption about VO₂ max levels or an additional burden will be placed on fire and rescue authorities at a difficult time. The truth is that the Government have put the pension regulations cart ahead of the fitness horse.

To conclude, the regulations are unfit because Ministers have drawn them up based on the flawed claim that all firefighters can maintain their fitness—it is flawed because Ministers cannot tell us what the fitness standard is and because their assumption on fitness is not safe. The Government claim that they will be able to maintain operational fitness standards for firefighters, and they try to offer reassurances that anyone who falls below those standards will be redeployed, even though by her own admission the Minister cannot say how many redeployment opportunities there are. They have failed to come forward with fairer early retirement actuarial reductions, despite the Government Actuary costing the alternative within the same financial constraints. Ministers have claimed that there is a guarantee that firefighters who cannot be redeployed and cannot maintain their fitness will get an unreduced pension, but the documents before the House today show that there is no such guarantee.

For all those reasons, we cannot support the regulations. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have signed the early-day motion, know that the regulations are not fit for purpose, and I urge the House to revoke them so that Ministers can come back with something that will actually work and is fair to England’s firefighters.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and limited time is available. I will not put a formal time limit on speeches as yet, but let us see whether Members will keep their remarks to less than five minutes out of courtesy to colleagues. That does not apply, of course, to the Minister.

17:06

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

I can see that it will be up to me to recalibrate the debate —both the issues, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has been telling only half the story, and the tone. The Opposition have come to the House in anger to ask for the revocation of a pension scheme that improves considerably on their 2006 scheme, through a debate that they nearly did not call for—they did so only when there was no possibility of its being held before the regulations became law. Hon. Members and firefighters will draw their own conclusions about why that was the case.

The Opposition have proposed no alternative, let alone said how they would pay for it. They have not responded to the consultations, including the latest one on fitness. Protections will be introduced for firefighters, including those in the 2006 scheme who already work until 60.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady says that the Opposition have not provided an alternative, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has pointed out that alternatives have been found in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, so alternatives do exist.

[Penny Mordaunt]

No, the House should be clear that no alternative scheme is available. If the regulations were revoked, a new scheme would have to be designed and consulted on and then introduced in April, and there is very little time to do that. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Minister must be heard. We have a short time for this debate, and Members must not waste time by jeering and laughing.

[Penny Mordaunt]

To refute the Opposition’s position is a straightforward job, but it is not the one I will focus on this afternoon. The fire service has had three years of wrangling over the arrangements, and there have been many changes to the scheme since it was originally proposed. Firefighters still have concerns, and we should remember that this is their debate. Many have taken the time to lobby Members and to write to me and meet me, and we owe it to them to focus on the outstanding issues, the facts of the matter and their concerns for the future. This is an opportunity to air their worries and their suggestions as to what should be done.

I thank all hon. Members who have put in to speak, raised their views with me or approached me with genuine concerns and in search of solutions. I am here to listen, and I will do all I can to address those concerns and provide reassurances, either today in the House or in the future. Let this debate be of the calibre that firefighters deserve, and let us remember that loose talk has potentially damaging consequences for those in the scheme, if they believe it. Many firefighters will be making financial decisions about their families’ future based on the messages that they take away from today’s debate. Let us remember that what we do today has far-reaching consequences.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

When the Minister has finished lecturing the House, will she kindly tell us why, if there is no alternative to what she proposes, the dispute has been settled in various parts of the United Kingdom, within the same financial envelope? Why can she not even say how much this unnecessary dispute is costing the public?

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Jake Berry]

Let me return to the pertinent point—today’s debate is important and members of the fire service who are in the Gallery will want to hear it. I visited Rossendale Rawtenstall fire station and had a meeting with the Fire Brigades Union. Its two main areas of concern are, first, someone’s ability to be redeployed in the service at a similar level of pay and pension contribution if they fail the fitness test; and, secondly, some members of the fire service are disproportionately affected by having 20 years of service but not being 45 at the date specified. Will the Minister provide further assurances?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) is not correct in what she says, and the other nations have not settled. I will cover the points raised by my hon. Friend in my speech.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

Let me make a little progress and then I will give way. Our goal has been to create a pension scheme that is sustainable and fair to firefighters and the taxpayer. The need to reform public service pension schemes is well established and not in dispute, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central noted. People are living longer, and the average 60-year-old now lives 10 years longer than in the 1970s. The cost of public service pensions has increased in real terms by about a third over the last 10 years, and the most recent fiscal projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the gross cost of public service pensions is set to exceed £40 billion in the coming years.

Firefighters are not immune to those longevity increases, and the average firefighter retiring aged 50 today after a 30-year career is expected to live and draw a pension for 37 years in retirement. It should come as no surprise to any Member of this House that a pension scheme in which the average member spends 25% more time in retirement than in employment is not sustainable. [Hon. Members: “Give way!] I will take interventions, but I want to make some progress. That is why one of this Government’s first acts was to ask Lord Hutton to chair the independent public service pensions commission and undertake a fundamental review of the structure of public service pension provision. Lord Hutton was clear in his report that the status quo was not tenable, and he proposed that a normal pension age for firefighters should be set at 60—[Interruption.]

[Lady Hermon]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to make a point of order, but as the Minister is not prepared to give way I would like to correct the record. There is no industrial dispute with firefighters in Northern Ireland, and I would like the Minister to produce evidence that there is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a contribution to the debate, and I am sure that the Minister will put her view or correct the record if she wishes in due course. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House will be quiet and allow the Minister to speak. There has been quite enough.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The retirement age of 60 was introduced in the new firefighters pension scheme 2006—a scheme that the shadow fire Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), helped to introduce as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister. It is the same age that Lord Hutton said should apply to members of the armed forces and the police, but it is well below the retirement age set for most public sector workers, recognising the unique nature of the occupation. Lord Hutton also proposed actuarially fair early retirement terms, and that pensions should be calculated on a career average arrangement. He found that the firefighters pension scheme 1992 is the most expensive public service pension scheme, at 37.5% of pensionable pay. Currently, for every £1 a firefighter pays into the scheme, the taxpayer pays an extra £5.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will make some progress.

In 2008-09 the taxpayer topped up the firefighters’ pension fund with £260 million, just to meet that year’s expenditure. In 2012-13, the top-up was £370 million. The top-up is forecast to rise to nearly £600 million by 2018-19, an increase of £340 million over 10 years. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would agree that it is not fair to expect taxpayers to meet all the increased costs—

[Mr Lammy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Lammy, the Minister is not giving way.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take interventions, but I want to make some progress.

Those costs are being met by taxpayers, many of whom have no expectation of enjoying such a generous pension. That is why we ask firefighters, like other public servants, to pay more towards their pensions and rebalance the cost to the taxpayer. There have been three years of negotiations and many changes to the scheme. The notion that there has not is plainly untrue.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will turn to the issues of contention, but I will take interventions.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the Minister. Does she accept that one of the most serious incidents in the past few years that we asked firefighters to deal with were the riots that went on for four days? Does she accept that the taxpayer wants firefighters who are fit? Does she accept that 60 is too old, and that a fitness test they cannot meet causes huge concern in constituencies such as mine?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Labour is pretending to be outraged. Will my hon. Friend confirm that firefighters retiring at the age of 55 under the new scheme will see a significantly smaller reduction in their pension compared with the scheme introduced by Labour in 2006? Enough of this false outrage: let us talk about the substantive issue.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I will come on to the point about fitness shortly.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will make some progress.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that, when an intervention is taken, the speaker addresses that intervention and answers it before taking another intervention?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order. The Member who has the Floor can answer interventions as he or she wishes. [Interruption.] Order. We will have order in this House. This is a serious debate, not a matter for squabble. Now stop the noise.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know many Members wish to speak and make interventions. I am trying to take as many interventions as I can, but if people want me to take fewer I will consider that.

The Opposition and the FBU have two main issues: working until 60, and the impact that that might have on a firefighter’s ability to have a full career and, consequentially, a full pension in the service. I have already mentioned that the normal pension age for firefighters has been 60 since 2006. That was introduced by a Labour Administration. It is the same age for members of the armed forces and the police under the reforms. More than a third of firefighters currently in the service are members of the 2006 scheme and have the expectation that they would retire at 60. A natural consequence of the 2006 scheme is that all firefighters would, in due course, have a normal pension age of 60 without any further action by the Government. No strike was called in 2006, and nothing was done by the previous Administration—nor by the national joint council, which is made up of the employers and the FBU to oversee firefighters’ terms and conditions—to ensure that firefighters would get the support needed to work until 60. It is clear that this was not a particular area of concern to either the previous Government or the FBU in 2006, but it appears that it has become one now. I want all firefighters, whichever scheme they are on, to be confident that they will be able to work until their normal pension age and achieve a full pension.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am going to finish this point.

Older workers are vital to the fire service. They have technical knowledge and expertise, and a great knowledge of, and contacts in, their local communities. In contrast to the image of them as clapped out and not up to it, they are invaluable to the service. I want them to remain part of it. It is clear we need to address those concerns to assure people in the service that they will be taken care of if they cannot maintain their fitness and to give younger workers the understanding that they can have a full career in the service.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way and for reminding us that the last Government raised the age to 60. Firefighters repeatedly ask me and want assurances about what other roles will be available for them at 55. Will she provide as much reassurance as possible on that issue, about which I and many of my hon. Friends have concerns?

[Penny Mordaunt]

On that point—seeing as I have been asked to answer interventions immediately—I have expanded the terms of reference of the fitness working group to consider those work force management issues, but I shall give further details about that later.

The issue of fitness has been of personal interest to me. It is likely to be of particular concern to women in the fire service and is the most recent issue we have addressed in the changes we have made. Hon. Members will know that we have set up a working group on firefighter fitness to set out what good practice looks like and to explore the future shape of the work force, and we have consulted on putting principles in the national framework on a statutory footing to introduce protections for older workers. The consultation closed on 9 December. I tabled a written ministerial statement today, along with the proposed amendments to the framework, and we are making the necessary statutory instrument to bring it into force.

These principles were designed with the intention of ensuring that no firefighter aged 55 or over was dismissed purely as a result of losing fitness through no fault of their own. If a firefighter loses health, either physical or mental, they will be eligible for ill-health retirement, and under the final regulations these will be better than the union’s alternative scheme design for “active factors”. If they lose fitness, they must be given the opportunity and support to regain it. If they cannot, again through no fault of their own, they will be offered an alternative role or an unreduced pension. DCLG will audit compliance among fire and rescue services.

I come now to the key point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. The union has argued that the framework is simply guidance that can be ignored, and it has cited legal advice it has received on that point, but that advice is flawed. The national framework is not simply guidance; it is a statutory instrument, and under section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 fire and rescue authorities must have regard to it in the exercise of their functions.

To ensure that the fitness principles are being implemented effectively by fire and rescue authorities, I have included in my proposals a review after three years. The union claims this is the wrong kind of regulation—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will make some progress because this is a central point.

The union wants another kind of regulation—at this time in the pension scheme. I have explained to the union that the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 does not provide the power to put fitness or wider employment issues in the pension scheme. Without a single service, as there is in Scotland, there is no single fitness policy to refer to.

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend is seeking to offer a guarantee to firefighters in the position she describes, but what would happen if, once this is implemented, a particular fire authority did not give that level of support to firefighters found to be unfit and did not implement the guidance she describes?

[Penny Mordaunt]

As well as putting the framework on a statutory footing, my Department will be auditing compliance. A small group of people might benefit from the protections, but many more will be thinking about their future in the service, and we need to make it clear, through the fitness group’s work on good practice and by putting the framework on a statutory footing and providing accompanying advice, that we expect fire and rescue authorities to do this.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will make a little more progress.

Despite what the union claims, it remains the case that under the regulation agreed in Scotland, it is for the employer to consider providing an unreduced pension to a firefighter who loses their fitness. In those cases, they will have to make a judgment about whether there are “mitigating circumstances” that mean an unreduced pension should be paid. That is the same judgment that English fire and rescue authorities will make. The only difference is that, south of the border, decisions will have to be made having full regard to the fitness principles this Government have set out in the national framework—and the fitness working group will identify good practice to help fire and rescue authorities in that task.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

There will, of course, be a few firefighters who cannot maintain operational fitness. In such instances, the fire and rescue authority will assess why that might be the case. If a firefighter cannot maintain operational fitness for a medical reason—it could be due to a deterioration in the joints, for instance—and that reason is permanent, they will be considered for ill-health retirement and payment of their unreduced pension. Where there is no medical reason or the reason is not permanent, Dr Williams found that the fire and rescue authorities provide remedial training and that the great majority of firefighters are able to increase their fitness levels within a few months. So we are talking about a small group of people, but it is worth remembering, as I said, that many more firefighters who may never find themselves losing capability will be reassured by the fact that those protections are in place. Those protections will encourage people to stay in the service and in the pension scheme.

As well as the work of the fitness working group, much else is happening to improve the support and focus on fitness and well-being. Funds have been made available from the recent LIBOR fines to help firefighters who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. This is a diagnosable medical condition, so, depending on severity, individuals would be eligible for ill-health retirement and payment of an unreduced pension.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

The issue of mental health is rightly being given considerable focus with an additional £4 million of the LIBOR funds being made available to Mind, the mental health charity. In the remainder of this Parliament, I will be working with women’s groups in the fire service to examine what further we can do to promote good practice on issues of direct concern to them, and I would like to place on record my thanks for the time they have already taken to meet me.

It of course remains the case that some firefighters may choose to leave the service before age 60, and the scheme facilitates that by allowing firefighters to retire early on a cost-neutral basis and, as Lord Hutton recommended, with an actuarially fair reduction to reflect the longer time the pension is likely to be paid.

[Mr Bone]

Will the Minister explain which firefighters will be affected? Surely there must be a 10-year protection for existing firefighters at a certain age. What sort of protection will be provided; when is it going to kick in; when will this first affect firefighters?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We have chosen to protect those who are closest to their retirement age—everyone within 10 years of that age.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am going to make some progress because I do not have a lot of time left.

Let me return to the issue of active factors, about which I was asked earlier. Active factors present a very uncertain early retirement calculation, as they will be very sensitive to short-term changes in inflation and earnings growth. For instance, the Government Actuary’s Department has calculated that using the actual earnings and inflation figures between September 2008 and September 2012 to set the factors would result in an early retirement reduction of about 27% at age 55 under active factors. This compares with the early retirement reduction of 21.8% under the 2015 scheme regulations—a massive improvement, of course, and almost half of what the 2006 scheme introduced. [Interruption.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The Minister is not giving way. Members must allow her—[Interruption.] Order. The House must allow the Minister to conclude her speech.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Given that time is short, I am going to turn to the issue of redeployment opportunities, which many Members raised. Let me be frank that the availability of other redeployment opportunities is a matter for the employers, but the situation today cannot be compared with what may be the case in 2022, just as it cannot be compared with the roles that applied a decade ago when fire and rescue services were responding to twice as many incidents. Increasingly, firefighters are doing different jobs, working more closely with their communities to prevent fire or developing more specialist rescue capabilities.

What I can say is that if firefighters are prepared to extend their roles away from those prescribed in the national joint council conditions of service—the “grey book”— more alternative roles may be possible. That in turn may allow the service to develop a more diverse work force that will benefit from the experience and skills of older workers, more women, and members of other communities who remain under-represented. I think that would be a good thing.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way, on that point?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Bear with me.

The fire and rescue service faces a time of change as it responds to the changing needs and priorities of the communities it serves. If it is to reach its full potential, we need its firefighters to focus on that goal and not to be distracted by industrial action, divisive negativity, scaremongering, and poor employer practice. They deserve better: they deserve better than the 2006 scheme. The new scheme provides substantially better early and flexible retirement terms, focuses more on good practice in fitness, and pays more regard to supporting a more diverse work force, and women in particular.

[Hilary Benn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

No. The right hon. Gentleman has had his say.

The regulations that I have laid are fit for purpose, and follow the recommendations of both Lord Hutton and Tony Williams. They are enhanced by the changes in the national framework for fire and rescue for England, and underpinned by the working group facilitated by the chief fire and rescue adviser.

I understand that firefighters may not want to work longer than they planned to, but, although I have ensured that those who are closest to their normal retirement age will be fully protected and will experience no change, not all of them can be immune to public service reforms that are affecting every other public service work force. The firefighters’ pension schemes have been reformed according to exactly the same principles as other public service pension schemes, and the 2015 firefighters scheme will remain one of the best.

Members will be aware that if the regulations—which follow three years of negotiations—fall today, no scheme will be in place after March 2015. The existing schemes will be closed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 on 13 March 2015, and if a new scheme and transitional protections for the old schemes are not put in place shortly, firefighters will not have access to a pension scheme from 1 April 2015, and those who have protections will have lost them.

Members will be able to express their thoughts about what action should be taken in future years, but, for all the reasons that I have given, it is vital that these regulations stand.

17:32

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I would normally want to say that the Minister had said something with which I agreed, but I have to say now that never in my time in the House have I heard a Minister try to flannel in this way by simply reading a speech without taking interventions even from her own side. I know that that has sent firefighters, and the public in general, the message that the Government are split on this issue. Many Back Benchers who are present today would vote with us if they were not on a three-line whip. I hope that many of them will see that this is the one occasion on which they might decide that it is worth rebelling, because the issue is really important.

As one who has been involved with the Fire Brigades Union for many years, I feel that the union has a very fair case. This is not really about money. We have seen the settlement in Scotland, the settlement in Wales and the settlement in Northern Ireland, all of which have involved the same financial costs. Something very strange has happened. The union was negotiating fairly, with honesty and decency, and tried to secure a settlement for months. When a new Minister arrived, the Minister and the union met time after time. I could quote plenty of things that the Minister said that suggested that movement was going to happen, but I will not do so, because I know that many of my colleagues want to speak. Suddenly, in October, everything stopped. I do not necessarily blame the Minister, because I know that Ministers cannot always do what they would like to do, but someone, somewhere, prevented the negotiations from continuing.

Common sense could have sorted out an issue that is vitally important to the public. We can all sleep easy in our beds at night because we know that the firefighters are out there ready to protect us. We have seen what they have done when there have been terrible tragedies in this country. We saw it, for instance, when a helicopter crashed in my constituency recently. I simply do not understand how, in this day and age, when every other part of the United Kingdom has been able to secure a settlement that is fair and within the cost constraints, we cannot have the same here today.

So I say to all Members that it is wrong that this should have had to happen. The Opposition brought it, but the Government should have brought this and allowed this regulation to be voted on. I understand that many Government Members will not want to rebel and will feel they have to be loyal, but I say this to them: “This is a matter where you really should examine your conscience. Go and talk to your firefighters in your area. Listen to them, and they will be telling you today, ‘These regulations could be revoked. We could go back and get a settlement long in time, and get it in place before 1 April’”. I hope all Members of all parties will join together to support the FBU, and to publicly support the firefighters and the public in what they want to see: a decent deal for firefighters.

17:35

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I want to make one point before I begin my very brief speech: if we ever needed a case illustrating why there should be English votes for English MPs, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) has made it throughout this debate. This has nothing to do with firefighters in Scotland, and I fail to see why the hon. Gentleman constantly tried to derail the Minister.

However, it is important in this debate that we realise the role that firefighters play. We have not had a 9/11 in this country, but if we ever did, we would be aware, as would the general public, of the worth of our firefighters. I make that point to begin with because some of the representations I have heard are, “Firefighters are now fitting smoke alarms, talking to children in schools, and not fighting as many fires as they used to.” I want a firefighting force that is ready and able to do a job should it need to be done—should a catastrophe, God forbid, ever hit our country.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister is talking to women’s groups, but I ask her to clarify whether the female firefighters she is talking to are members of the fire authority or have been put forward by the fire authority, or are they women who are actually serving on the front line? There is a world of difference between the local fire authorities and the firefighters who have their feet on the ground and carry the equipment. I am a woman, and I have been to my fire station, Ampthill, and I could not pick up the equipment. I am not unfit, but I could never in a million years even lift that equipment. I am 57, and I realise that my fitness has deteriorated to a degree, which I have had no control over. I would like to know what those women on the front line feel they are actually able to deal with and work with.

The lives and futures of many firefighters and their families and children depend on this settlement and they deserve better representation than they have had. Some of the aggressive rhetoric, dialogue and language I have been subjected to on Twitter—and I support the firefighters —has not been helpful to their cause. It has certainly not been helpful when trying to get other MPs to support them. That aggression and language does not help at all.

I also ask the Minister to respond to the following point for me. I know that it is the fire authority that decides what the levels of fitness should be and who takes responsibility, but in my experience too many members of the local fire authority do not even know about the job of firefighting. They do not consult active firefighters and they do not even visit local fire stations, so I have no idea how they can understand the role—what is expected of firefighters and their changing role. When the Minister and her working party are looking at the fitness assessments and how they are applied, will she consider looking at the possibility of local firefighters working in local stations becoming part of the process, rather than having a top-down process whereby fire authorities dictate to their work force?

We have the cost-neutral alternative in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so will the Minister tell us why it works there and is not considered here? I know those countries have probably less than half the number of firefighters in the UK. A lot of people have already asked about this, so could the Minister give us more information? If the scheme is working in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, why is it not applicable to the UK? What can we do to make it applicable to the UK?

I believe that the Minister has good intentions, and I understand that not everything is within her power, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has just said. I know, and the firefighters know, that she is doing her best. They also know that the age of 60 was brought in by the previous Administration, who also ducked bringing in the reforms that were necessary because of the changing demographics, which came in like a train. Labour Members chose not to address that issue, so their faux outrage just does not carry water—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is about to conclude.

[Nadine Dorries]

I am, and I would like to conclude by saying that if the Minister could answer my questions, I and my firefighters in Bedfordshire would be very grateful.

17:40

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Let us try and get to some of the facts. The people who did the medical assessments said quite clearly that almost none of the women assessed would be able to work after the age of 55, and that 90% of the men would be unable to work after that age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made that point earlier, but it was not mentioned at all by the Minister when she was asked what she was going to do. She said nothing about reducing the figure from 42 to 35, but to do so would be a classic way of getting round the wrong that would be done by getting unfit people to do work that should be done by fit people.

We have an agreement in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but we will have no agreement in this country unless people agree to go without 22% of their pension. The figure in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is only 9%, and the unions agreed to that after proper negotiations, but those on the Tory Front Bench clearly do not want such an agreement in this country. People are also talking as though the contributions come from nowhere, but the people who are paying into their pensions are paying at least £4,000 a year. They are paying 14% of their wages. They are paying £61 a month more now than they were three years ago, despite the fact that they have not had a decent pay rise in the past four years.

We have been here before, in the early 1980s and the 1990s when we were dealing with cuts in local government and thousands of people went out of the back door on ill-health retirement as a way of ameliorating the effects of redundancies. The difference then was that the money was there to do it. It is clear that the squeeze on councils and fire authorities today will not allow people to be able to go in that way. The Government keep talking about redeployment opportunities. I would love the Minister to explain all this to the fire service in Tyne and Wear, where we are facing a 35% budget cut. The part of the service laughingly known as the back-room chunk of that represents 17% of the budget. We are going to have to find twice as much money as those back-room costs, which is ludicrous.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is describing cuts that are very similar to those being implemented across Merseyside and all the metropolitan boroughs. One of the many questions that the Minister failed to answer is: where are these non-operational, back-room jobs for firefighters to go into if they do not pass the fitness test?

[Mr Anderson]

Exactly. When the former fire Minister, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, was asked by the Tyne and Wear fire chief how he was supposed to implement the changes, he was told to “get on and manage it”. There has been cut after cut after cut.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Anderson]

No, I must finish my speech.

I will make one last point. In the past few weeks, 24 million households in this country have had a tax receipt showing a breakdown of exactly where in the public sector their taxes have been spent. I ask the Government to do something more tonight. After the vote, I want them to send out to those 24 million households a copy of today’s Hansard, so that, somewhere down the line, if one of those firefighters up in the Public Gallery dies when they should not have been tackling a fire, or if one of our constituents dies while being rescued by someone who should not have been doing the job, people will know who to point the finger at.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I tried to make the time limits on speeches voluntary but it is not really working, so we shall have to have a time limit of three minutes if everyone is to have a chance to get in.

17:44

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The time available does not allow me to spend time discussing the value we attach to the fire service or the issues that arise because the previous Government introduced the age limit of 60, but there is a central issue—

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Sir Alan Beith]

No, in my three minutes I am going to make an important point—there is a central point to make. The Minister’s written statement today states:

“These principles…will ensure that no firefighter faces a situation where they are forced to retire without access to a fair pension where they lose fitness through no fault of their own.

I do not doubt her sincerity in asserting that that is what she believes should happen, but what I am still doubtful about, and what I still want to hear more about, is how we ensure that it does happen and that if a particular fire authority does not apply those principles, some action is taken to protect the individual affected. I envisage a situation in which one or two fire authorities do not carry out the letter or the spirit of this framework and I want to know what happens to the individuals in those cases. When people are as close as I am to Scotland—at the border—they look over that border, and firefighters see clearer, firmer protection on the other side. So I would like the Minister to give me clearer assurance as to how she ensures this happens. Merely stating that the framework is part of a statutory framework does not tell me how I can be sure that that firefighter can be protected.

Other firefighters are also affected adversely even if we sort that issue out. For example, a man who has served for 32 years and who had hoped to retire at 50 —he is under the previous scheme—will not now be able to do so. There are also people who will be worse off if the kind of changes that have been proposed are made, for example to assist those retiring at 55, 56 or 57 with a 12% rather than a 22% reduction. But members of the FBU have accepted that it might be reasonable to help that particular group. My primary concern is for the firefighters who, given a lack of non-operational jobs, find they are losing their job and do not know how to enforce what the Minister has said tonight.

17:46

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). This is a simple issue but it has been complicated by today’s written ministerial statement. I do not have a declarable interest, but I should point out that, as a former firefighter, I was a member of the firemen’s pension scheme and I served with the London fire brigade from 1974 to 1997.

Various comments have been made about the “generosity” of the firefighters’ pension scheme, but I have to point out to the Minister that the contributions to the scheme were hiked in the late ‘70s to 11% for firefighters to cover for partners and children who were being left because firefighters were being killed and kids were being orphaned. The second point to make is that the previous rules the Minister keeps referring to, requiring compulsory retirement at 55 or after 30 years’ service, were changed to allow and then to require firefighters to stay to 60. That was done on the basis of alternative jobs or an appropriate pension for those not making the standard.

Two points are important to note. First, firefighters now pay 14.2% towards their pension, so this is not a cheap scheme. Secondly, and crucially, the alternative employment is not there. That is due partly to general reductions in public expenditure, because of austerity, and partly to the success of the service in helping to reduce the number of fires, which, alongside safer buildings, smoke detectors, sprinklers, fewer smokers, legislation and so on, has led to smaller fire brigades. The alternative jobs just do not exist. So that is the first problem for the Government.

The second problem is on the fitness and health question. The Government commissioned Dr Tony Williams to make an assessment and he said that two thirds might not be able to make the cut. The Minister challenged that, but we need more information on how that could possibly be the case. Under these rules, firefighters, through no fault of their own, risk losing a large amount of their pension that not only have they worked and paid for, but most of us would say they are entitled to expect.

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

I come back to the point about two thirds of firefighters not making the cut. If we have a proposal here that two thirds of them are going to lose up to a quarter of their pension, is there anybody with a fair mind who would think that is okay?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely appropriate point. Of course firefighters are not perfect, and no group of workers is, not even MPs—most people would say especially not MPs. But there is nothing more galling for firefighters than to hear Ministers and MPs singing their praises for their emergency skills and then treating them like this. Many Government Members recognise that that is not right, and many Liberal Democrats have signed the early-day motion.

The Government have a chance to show decency, common sense and fairness. The public want to know why, if the devolved Assemblies can reach agreement on the matter—the Minister said that that is not the case, but Members from Northern Ireland said that it is —firefighters in England cannot have the same deal. I hope that the Government relent on the matter. If they do not, I hope that there are enough Members on the Government Benches who will abstain or vote against their party to ensure that these regulations are revoked.

I have four quick questions for the Front-Bench team. First, in her written ministerial statement, the Minister says that section 22 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 could be used. In how many instances has that section been used by a Secretary of State? Secondly, she said that fire authorities in the devolved regions can initiate retirement, and that those initiated retirements are paid for by the Government, so why is that not happening in England? Thirdly, she says that the framework makes that not just advisory, but statutory. Will she put that in the Library of the House, because that is not the legal advice that our firefighters are getting? Fourthly, she says that firefighters would see a reduction in their pension of 21%. Does she think that that is the way to treat our fire brigade?

17:51

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

All of us elected to Parliament bring with us the memories of our experiences before we became MPs. For me, one such experience is of having lived in New York at the start of the century—specifically of having lived there on 9/11. That day, 341 of the 2,977 people who died were firefighters. They died running into buildings to help other people get out. The firefighters in New York were heroes, and we have every expectation that our own firefighters in the same situation would act heroically as well. We have a special responsibility today to get these regulations right. So, how are we doing? The answer must be: not very well.

We start with the shadow Secretary of State’s speech. It was very nice of him to quote my question and to see him getting up to speed on this issue, but it is a little bit too late in the day. It was not clear whether his speech was more about the specifics of the regulation or, since that postcard from Rochester and Strood, about the Labour party trying to reconnect to the working people that it has left behind. Who better than the brother of a wannabe viscount to lead that charge? These issues are substantive. If changing the retirement age is a substantive issue, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman knows what he is doing. If, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the age of 60 is incorrect, what we will find is that we begin to undo the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and let loose a £1 trillion liability on the public purse. I do not know what the intent of the shadow Secretary of State is. I do not know what the intent of the Leader of the Opposition is. On controlling energy prices, taxes on homes and pensions, the right hon. Gentleman is a man who likes to throw snowballs at the sun to claim that he creates Christmas, so that he can set false expectations for people.

Let me turn now to the Minister. In response to my question, she said that she would ensure that firefighters who failed the fitness test would not lose their jobs. She said that that guarantee could be given within the national framework agreement. The Local Government Association has clearly said that it would not be compelled to comply with it. That does not sound like a convincing guarantee, does it? I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that she must make this guarantee a “must”, not a “may be” or a “trust me” but a “must”. We must ensure that we give that guarantee to our firefighters to do them justice for their heroism on our behalf.

17:54

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it not an absolute outrage that we have only 90 minutes in this zombie Parliament for such an important debate? This matter should have been worthy of at least a day’s debate.

The men and women in the fire and rescue service do a tremendous and dangerous job. We are talking about not just their pensions and whether they finish at 55 or 60, but the safety and health of our constituents. I do not want a 60-year-old man or woman climbing up a ladder, expecting to pull me—16 stone and 6 ft 1—out of a window and climbing back down the ladder again. If there is anybody here who thinks that is the right thing to do, they know how to vote tonight. We must treat this matter extremely seriously. We are not talking about a normal job here. It is a job for young, healthy people who keep themselves fit throughout their whole career. They should not be doing this job in the twilight of their career at 60 years of age. For heaven’s sake, everybody knows that! It is no good trying to deny it. We want young men and women rescuing people in our communities.

The matter has been sorted out in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Why on earth can we not sort it out here in England? It is purely about ideology. Who do we want to see when there is a bomb attack, a problem in the tube station, an explosion or a fire? We want to see the fire and rescue brigade.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to Northern Ireland. Clearly, the Northern Ireland Assembly understand that there is a physical issue and recognise what people are able to do at the age of 55 and 60. They have also secured their pension fund. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that whereas Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have accepted the union’s view, here, in England, the supreme example of what is being done elsewhere cannot be done?

[Ian Lavery]

That is the very point I am trying to make. It is common sense. We are asking the Minister: why not accept that here in England, when everywhere else in the UK has? The answer has everything to do with ideology. There is no one who wants this change. The general public are opposed to it; a large number of MPs are opposed to it; the workers are opposed to it; and the medical experts are emphatic in their opposition. They say that it is not right to suggest that people aged 60 can do this sort of work. No one, apart from this Government, supports this measure. We want the Government to reconsider. We want our firefighters to have the same as the firefighters in Northern Ireland: retirement at 55 without any financial penalty. They are losing 21.8% of their pension if they retire at the age of 55. It is an absolute outrage. MPs would not accept that, so why should members of the Fire Brigades Union, people who support our communities? There are no payment guarantees. We want law, not guidance. It is not good enough to say at the Dispatch Box and in a ministerial statement put out on the day of the debate that everything in the garden is rosy. We owe the members of the fire and rescue service a huge debt of gratitude. But gratitude does not put food on the table and feed the kids. I salute the dedication, commitment and professionalism of the men and women in our tremendous service. Let us get our act together tonight, revoke the statutory instrument and negotiate a fair deal for firefighters.

17:58

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I speak as a member of a fire service family. She has been very kind in meeting me on several occasions to answer my many questions. My main concerns are: remaining operationally fit to the age of 60; the absence of redeployment opportunities; and the effect on pension entitlement for those firefighters who are unable to remain operationally fit.

Firefighting is a physical occupation that requires a high level of fitness to undertake tasks safely—safely for the individual, their colleagues and members of the public. The Williams review estimates that two thirds of firefighters between the ages of 55 and 60 are below the recommended fitness level, meaning not that they are overweight but that that age group has naturally occurring age-related conditions such as arthritis, worn joints and many others. Firefighters are interdependent in dangerous situations, and most aged 55 to 60 are not as fit as those half their age. When they go into a building that is on fire and full of smoke, they have to wear breathing apparatus, and there might be people who have to be brought out to safety. A watch is only as strong as its weakest link.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I stress to my hon. Friend, whom I know is very concerned about these issues, not least because of her connections, that a great many firefighters are already required to work until 60. At the moment, older firefighters have no protections. We are introducing a measure that will improve the current situation and ensure that if there is no operational role for someone to go into, they will get not just a pension but an unreduced pension.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments.

Operational fitness has been a major concern in agreeing future employment and pension arrangements. I have read in briefing material that two types of ill health retirement attract immediate access to a reduced pension, but there is concern that another, wider group of firefighters will not meet the new fitness standards and will be deemed not competent, but not permanently unfit, and therefore will not eligible for an ill health pension. If there are no redeployment opportunities—given that, according to the FBU, only five fire authorities have 16 redeployment opportunities between them at the moment, that seems likely—they worry that they will be at risk of dismissal without access to their pension until they reach the normal retirement age. It is the “No job, no pension” spectre that they fear. I hope my hon. Friend can say something about that in her concluding comments.

Will my hon. Friend also please clarify the effect of the revised pension scheme on the following groups of firefighters who are no longer operationally fit: those aged 55 to 60 with a diagnosable medical condition, whether job related or not; those aged 55 to 60 who have failed the fitness standards, but without a diagnosable medical condition; and those two groups under the age of 55? Will they receive a full or reduced salary if redeployed? Will they receive a full or reduced pension if retired? Will pensions be paid immediately on retirement, or will they have to wait until the normal retirement age?

Will my hon. Friend do more to encourage fire authorities to reach a consistent standard, so that firefighters across the country know what to expect with regard to their pensions if they are deemed no longer competent to continue? It would help to avoid future strikes, which nobody wants, firefighters least of all—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

17:59

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Perhaps I can get to the nub of the matter: lowering fitness standards to ensure that firefighters can work to the age of 60 is reckless in the extreme. No responsible Government would do that, because there is no doubt that it would result in somebody dying. The Government should think again. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), is on the record as saying:

“The government believes a solution can be reached, but not under the shadow of industrial action, which only serves to damage firefighters’ good standing with the public. By calling more strikes during an open consultation the FBU leadership has once again shown it is not serious about finding a resolution.”

I thoroughly disagree. Reputational damage is indeed being caused, but not to our highly regarded and respected firefighters; it is the Government’s reputation that is being trashed.

Firefighting is a dangerous and physically demanding job. Firemen and women risk their lives rescuing people from burning buildings and endanger themselves in hazardous situations in order to keep us safe. Most people agree that, given their commitment and the risks they take, they should be entitled to a fair and workable pension scheme. It is the Government’s standing with the public, not the firefighters’, that is being damaged by this shambolic pensions dispute.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is so depressing is not only the content of this debate, but the spirit in which it is being conducted? The Government are losing faith with the firefighters and essentially blackmailing them. That is what is in front of them: a blackmail. They are being told to accept it or leave it.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. Firefighters have been presented with a Hobson’s choice: to continue working in a dangerous job beyond the point at which the body is capable, or to have their pensions starkly reduced if they opt for retirement. Worse still, the Minister has said today that if firefighters do not back down, they will have no cover whatsoever. What sort of a way is that to treat such valued public servants?

I have been contacted by a constituent, a 45-year-old firefighter. Under the pension scheme in place when he joined, he could have retired at 50 as he would have accrued more than 25 years’ service. However, the retirement age has been raised to 55, and because full pension protection will be given only to firefighters within 10 years of the normal pension age, from 2016 his pension will now be only partially protected. The situation is blatantly unfair to my constituent, who has paid into his pension scheme since joining the fire brigade and has always been led to believe that his retirement year was 2020. He feels that he has been discriminated against on the basis of age, and on the balance of evidence I find it difficult to disagree with that conclusion.

Some firefighters will be penalised for their age. Although someone older with fewer years of service who is within 10 years of the normal retirement age will be fully protected, my constituent and many others in a similar situation will not. I am sure that officials and legal teams have applied their collective minds to the application of the Equality Act 2010, because it seems to me that this flies in the face of the spirit of the legislation, which is that workers should not be discriminated against on the basis of their age.

Our firefighters routinely put themselves in danger in their line of work. They save lives and keep us safe. We should value our fire services and the brave men and women who keep them running. The minimum we should expect is for the Government to ensure that services remains workable, keeping firefighters and the public as safe as possible. Those who commit themselves to such a physically demanding career should have a fair pension scheme and should expect to be able to retire in security. Firefighters demonstrate great dedication to others and real determination in their line of work. I suggest that the Government take a lesson from our firefighters, take note of the points raised in this debate and return to the negotiating table with a realistic and fair proposal.

18:07

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and I certainly agree with his tribute to firefighters. I find myself in a very difficult position tonight in deciding how to vote on this statutory instrument. The very first debate I ever had in Westminster Hall was on Rushden fire station, which the Conservatives were fighting to keep open and the Labour county council wanted to close. In Northamptonshire we have an excellent fire and rescue service. In some respects it leads the whole of Europe. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) want to intervene? I will tell the hon. Gentleman, while I am at it, that Tom Pursglove, the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, and I are today launching a campaign for more fire cover for north Northamptonshire. We will go up there tonight and—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Corby want to intervene?

Turning to firefighters’ pensions, there is one issue that seems to cut through all of this. I have spoken with the chief fire officer and the FBU representatives and seen firefighters on the picket line, and I went to see Green Watch in Wellingborough. In all these disputes, we should ignore the FBU and the employers and listen to the actual firefighters and what they tell us. The one problem is that firefighters are genuinely worried that when they get to 55 they might, through no fault of their own, lose their pension. If the Minister could give me an assurance that those firefighters would be redeployed or—

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am very happy to give those assurances—[Interruption.] We have done that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to hear the answer, and I am sure the rest of us will gain from what the Minister has to say.

[Penny Mordaunt]

If someone fails a fitness test through no fault of their own and they do not qualify for ill health retirement, they will get a redeployed role or an unreduced pension. That will be put on a statutory footing in the national framework—a full, unreduced pension, if not an alternative role.

[Mr Bone]

Having heard the words of the Minister, I think the whole House can now support the statutory instrument.

18:10

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

I am the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. Firefighters expect the House to rise to the occasion. This is not a party political issue.

In 2006, when the previous Government introduced the new pension scheme with later retirement at 60, I opposed it, but at that time all those in the old pension scheme were given a guarantee and an assurance that they would remain in that scheme and it would be protected. Those coming into the new scheme were told that if there was a problem with regard to their fitness, there would be alternative jobs for them. Those alternative jobs did not exist. We identified only 15 over that whole period. Since then we have lost 5,000 firefighter posts. In addition, the alternative jobs that existed have been reclassified from grey book to green book, which means cuts in pay.

The firefighters therefore feel betrayed. They were given assurances, they signed up to the scheme, they entered a pension scheme as a legal agreement, they paid their contributions, and now they are seeing their pension put at risk, even those in the new scheme. All they are asking for is for the House to rise to the occasion tonight, revoke the regulations and allow negotiations to take place. Negotiations have worked in all the other countries in the UK; they can work here as well.

Our firefighters are anxious, first, that, as has been reported, they will lose about 21% of their pension entitlement. Secondly, the assurances that the guidelines will be put on a statutory footing simply mean that fire authorities must have regard to those guidelines; they will not be enforced on those authorities. That means that firefighters could, if they are not fit enough, lose their job and at the same time have their pensions cut considerably. That is what they are fearful of, and we would all be fearful of that, wouldn’t we?

The other issue that firefighters have brought up is the fitness standards they have to meet. If they cannot meet them, they are forced into that situation. They will therefore not be providing the level of service needed to keep our people safe. I urge Members to support the motion. This is not a party political debate. Vote tonight to enable the Government to have time to come back and negotiate a settlement.

A few years ago there was a peak in the number of firefighters who died protecting our country. I met their families. We have a duty of honour to the firefighters to protect them tonight, just as they protect our community.

18:13

One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).

18:13

Division 114

Ayes: 261

---

Labour: 236
Liberal Democrat: 8
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Scottish National Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 313

---

Conservative: 278
Liberal Democrat: 34

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, HC 838; Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 838; Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 November 2014, on counterterrorism and human rights; Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on counter-terrorism and human rights, reported to the House on 26 November 2014, HC 836; Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, HC 859; Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 859.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Clause 1

Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

18:28

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 29, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2) This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force until a future date.

(3) The date specified in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament under subsection (2) may be modified by subsequent resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.”

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 30, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met.”

Government amendment 13.

Schedule 1 stand part.

New clause 8—Police bail for terrorism suspects—

‘(1) Section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) after “offence” insert “or on suspicion of being a terrorist under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000”.

(3) In subsection (2)(b) after “Act” insert “or section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".

(4) After subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) A grant of bail under this section shall last no longer than six months from the date of release.”

As an alternative to the ad hoc passport seizure and retention scheme set out at Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill this new clause would make police bail, with conditions, available for those suspected of terrorism.

[Mr Hanson]

Mr Streeter, I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee. I rise on behalf of my hon. Friends to speak to amendments 29 and 17.

I hope you will allow me a little leeway, Mr Streeter, before we begin the debate. Although this Bill has nothing to do with what has happened in Sydney, Australia, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to recognise that there has been a serious incident there and for us to express our condolences in relation to those who have died as a result. It reminds us that terrorism and terrorist activity are never far from our shores and from individuals in our communities as well. That is why it is important that we look at the new clauses and amendments before us in what will be, I hope, a positive discussion and debate.

The Government believe there is a need to legislate on counter-terrorism. There is a terrorism threat in the United Kingdom: on 29 August the independent joint terrorism analysis centre raised the UK national terrorist threat level from substantial to severe. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but a lot of background conversations are going on in the Chamber and we can hardly hear the most important speech that is being made. Will colleagues please keep the noise down?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to you, Mr Streeter.

It is important that we recognise that terrorist attacks are, sadly, highly likely. According to the Government’s own analysis in the explanatory notes:

“Approximately 500 individuals of interest to the police and security services have travelled from the UK to Syria and the region since the start of the conflict. It is estimated half of these have returned. In the context of this heightened threat to our national security, the provisions of the Bill”

are designed to address those matters.

My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and I have tabled amendments 29 and 17 because there needs to be a debate about two particular issues. If the Bill’s measures are agreed by both Houses they will become law, but there will be no end date or review date for the powers. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that clause 1

“shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force until a future date.”

It goes on:

“The date specified in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament under subsection (2) may be modified by subsequent resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.”

The amendment is therefore designed to create, in effect, a sunset clause to review the legislation, which is not unusual for terrorism legislation. It would not demand that we revisit the whole clause by seeking to enact new legislation; it would simply require a resolution to allow the provisions to continue. The amendment has merit and I will willingly discuss it with the Minister.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Although I agree with the shadow Minister that that amendment does, in principle, have some merit and that it focuses the mind on the fact that we need consolidating legislation to deal with a whole range of different terrorism-related issues, does he not recognise that the raw logic of his proposal is that if such a sunset clause is agreed, the provisions could end up entirely unprotected if the Government did not introduce any new legislation at that point? That would not be a desirable state of affairs.

[Mr Hanson]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at amendment 29, which states:

“This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force”.

Therefore, it does not require new legislation; it simply requires a resolution of this House, which could be agreed in an hour-and-a-half debate, as has happened in the past. Indeed, clause 17(5) states:

“Subsections (1) to (4) are repealed on 31 December 2016”,

so there is already a remit for a resolution to review the provisions. Amendment 29 has a similar purpose.

Amendment 17 is slightly different. It states that, if an individual has had their travel document removed under the provisions of clause 1 and schedule 1, they

“may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions…of this schedule were met.”

At the moment there is no appeal procedure for an individual who has lost their passport, and that needs to be considered.

On amendment 29, clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which defines a number of areas and sets out a course of action relating to the seizure of a passport from a person suspected of involvement in terrorism offences. Under the heading “Interpretation”, the schedule states that immigration officers, customs officials, qualified officers and senior police officers can remove a passport from an individual. By “passport”, it means either a United Kingdom passport or one issued by another nation. The schedule defines involvement in terrorism-related activity as the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; conduct that facilitates the commission of terrorism; conduct that gives encouragement to terrorism; and conduct that gives support or assistance to terrorism. The schedule also includes powers to search for, inspect and retain travel documents. Authorisation for that will not just be sought from a senior police officer; the schedule also includes conditions for how that authorisation will be agreed.

I refer to those points because they are definitive statements. They may or may not be appropriate or work in practice, but whatever the Minister tells us today he will accept that the Prime Minister indicated in his announcement at the end of August that the measures would be introduced. It is now December, which means that the Bill has been drafted speedily. I make no general criticism of that, but even the Bill’s explanatory notes state that there has been limited consultation on a range of aspects, even though the matters covered in schedule 1 involve serious powers.

The schedule allows for the period in which the document can be removed and retained by the judicial authority to be extended from the initial 14-day period to 30 days. Paragraph 14 states:

“This paragraph applies where a person’s travel documents are retained”.

Paragraph 14(2) gives the Secretary of State a great power:

“The Secretary of State may make whatever arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to the person… during the relevant period”

and

“on the relevant period coming to an end.”

The Secretary of State is also bound by schedule 1 to produce a code of practice covering training, the exercise of functions by constables, the information to be given, and how and when that information is to be given. The code of practice will be published in draft and laid before this House. All those matters are covered by schedule 1.

I have gone through the schedule in detail because it covers an awful lot of potential activity that may or may not work as the Government intend it to. The purpose of our proposed sunset clause is not to say that Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose clause 1 or schedule 1, because, although some Members might, we do not. Our amendment addresses the fact that the schedule proposes creating a complex new code of practice relating to the criteria covering individual officers and others who can exercise the powers, including removing the passports of not only British citizens but citizens of foreign countries.

If we enact that in the next few weeks, it will be a serious piece of legislation. In view of the reasons the Minister has given for introducing the provisions, it would do no harm for him to consider—this is the purpose of amendment 29—a date for us formally to allow the legislation to fall, unless the House is satisfied with the original proposal. By December 2016, there will have been a general election and the House of Commons will be composed of whoever has been elected, and whoever is the Minister will be able to review the legislation to see whether it works. They would then be able to table a motion to pass a resolution allowing the legislation to continue unamended.

[Mark Field]

The shadow Minister is making some fair points and I think the whole House would broadly support the idea that we need to consider how the Bill will be applied in practice. We all recognise that the new powers raise some legitimate concerns relating to civil liberties. Rather than having a sunset clause, has the right hon. Gentleman given some thought to the idea of imposing on the Home Office an obligation, within a year of the Bill being enacted, to produce a full report on the workings of this novel change in procedure?

[Mr Hanson]

We did consider those matters and I originally drafted an amendment that sought to do that. I could have tabled it last Thursday but I decided to focus our debate on whether the legislation is fit for purpose. I am not saying that it is not; I am simply saying that there are severe changes in the Bill that restrict individuals, give powers to police officers and others, set out a new code of practice and give a range of powers to the Secretary of State to do what they wish with detained individuals. If the Opposition are to support the clause this evening, as we will, it must be reviewed at some point in the future. The mechanism we suggest means that a Minister, whoever that might be, must review the situation and either table a motion or, if the legislation ultimately falls, table a replacement piece of legislation in time for 31 December 2016.

I am not seeking to cause difficulties for the Minister with amendment 29. I simply want him to consider in detail his proposals in clause 1 and schedule 1 and whether we should have a sunset clause. We want such a clause because one of the gaps in the legislation means that there is no mechanism for appeal in the event of the powers in schedule 1 or clause 1 being exercised against an individual. An individual's travel documents will be removed for 14 days, and potentially for 30 days, but in the meantime there is no mechanism through which they can appeal effectively against that decision. Amendment 17 allows for an appeal in the courts on the subject of

“the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met”.

The Committee will agree that the right of British citizens to travel freely, unrestricted by state interference, is crucial and historical.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, would not the right approach be to accept his amendment 17 and the judicial right of appeal rather than having a sunset clause? Does he plan to press that amendment to a vote?

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to this place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I shall wait to see what the Minister says, but I am minded to say that it is important that the right of appeal is paramount. The Minister might or might not accept the amendment and I will have to listen carefully to his argument, but if he does not accept it there will be an opportunity to test the will of the Committee should we so wish.

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

The shadow Minister has already said that schedule 1 is detailed and that there is a lot to contemplate in it. Would not adding the right to appeal further complicate it? People will already get their passport back after two weeks, so why this additional complication?

[Mr Hanson]

I was coming on to those points, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might help if I outlined some of the circumstances. If an individual’s passport is removed, it will be because there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in some activities that mean he should not travel abroad. That suspicion might be well founded—I am trying to be fair, and I doubt that the power would be exercised if it were not well founded—but there still might be occasions when an individual was travelling to a difficult, challenging country for a family wedding, a holiday, an employment interview, or for other perfectly legitimate reasons. The security services might wrongly identify an individual; that can occasionally happen. The individuals responsible might have challenges for a range of reasons. The information supplied to the security services—for example, by a parent whose adult child is travelling—may be wrong.

The simple point is that if that power is exercised, the individual loses their passport and their ability to travel and so might well miss a job interview, a family wedding or a holiday and might be wrongly marked out in their social circles. That could happen. I am not saying that it will, but it could. Amendment 17 is meant to ensure that if that individual feels that they have been wrongly treated, they have a right to ask for a review by a court. It is reasonable to do that under UK law.

[Julian Smith]

After two weeks, the individual will get their passport back anyway. This is a really wishy-washy way of carrying on, and we should either be confident that this is a good measure or not. They will get their passport back within two weeks.

18:45

[Mr Hanson]

This is a very strong and effective power, which the Opposition support as it will ensure that measures are taken against individuals who might go abroad for terrorist purposes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one of the balances of strong powers is the right to strong redress. It might only be for 14 days, as he says, or it might be for only 30 in due course, but that could mean losing a £5,000 or £6,000 holiday with no compensation, missing a family wedding or a person’s own wedding or losing a job opportunity for what could be a case of mistaken identity.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervene, because I know that he has expressed concerns about the power. In a very helpful article in The Guardian on 3 September, he said:

“Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence…But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent…people will find their travel plans wrecked.”

I agree with him and that is why, even given the 14-day period, I think that we should consider the proposal in amendment 17. I hope that the Minister will do so.

[Mr Grieve]

I expressed that concern and it remains a concern, but the interesting point about amendment 17 is that if we were to allow an appeal, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, how quickly could such an appeal be heard and would it have a significant impact on the shortness of time in which a passport might be capable of being returned, given that we now know that there will be two weeks, or 14 days, for that return to take place? I listened carefully to what he has to say and it seems to me that he is making a good point, but I would also be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the right hon. Gentleman how such a system could be made to work in reality.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me say that interventions should be slightly briefer than that.

[Mr Hanson]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but we are in opposition, which is a difficult and cold place. We do not have the officials that the Minister has. The principle is that we believe there should be an examination of the right of appeal on any decision that has been taken. The purpose of amendment 17 is to place that argument before the Government so that they can say whether they believe there should be any right of appeal or whether they believe that 14 days or 30 days is sufficient, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and that there is no need for an appeal as it would not resolve the issue. It is inherent in any decision of this seriousness that an individual should be able to challenge a decision on the grounds of mistaken identity or the grounds of loss of service in a court.

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise, Mr Streeter, for taking up too much time. I shall be brief and make more frequent interventions, if I am allowed them. It seemed to me when I made that point back in September that a particular concern was somebody who might be prevented from going away for a wedding or for employment reasons and who wanted a rapid review, but I am also realistic about whether such a rapid review can be made available in practice. That was why I raised at a subsequent date the other question of whether we should consider compensation if somebody were disadvantaged.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point and we probably agree on the principle. The purpose of amendment 17 is to give the Minister the opportunity to tease out the practicalities of deliverability for any form of appeal. I take the view—it may be old-fashioned, but that is not for me to say—that if someone is effectively charged with involvement in terrorism, which is why a passport will be removed, that is a serious initial action by the state against an individual. The individual might be the subject of mistaken identity or factually wrong information might have been given, whether maliciously or not. They might be travelling for perfectly legitimate purposes, as I have said. In each of those cases, they should ultimately have the right to say to a third party, “I appreciate that these facts have been put before the passport remover, but they are fundamentally wrong and I demand my passport back.” That must be possible in a more speedy and effective way than is the case under the Bill.

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

Is it not the case, if we believe in fairness and the rule of law, that the stronger the action taken against an individual by the state, the more powerful the argument is that the individual should have the right of appeal? Without the right of appeal, the Bill gives the state excessive powers.

[Mr Hanson]

That is an important point.

As the Committee will know, under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, there is the power to stop and question individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. The annual report on the Terrorism Acts by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, that was published in July this year gave facts and figures about that power. It included the number and ethnicities of the people who have been examined under schedule 7 in recent years. Although he noted that there was not overwhelming evidence that the power was exercised in a “racially discriminatory manner”, he noted:

“It remains imperative that police should exercise their considerable powers in a sensitive, well-informed and unbiased manner”.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Would the proposal in amendment 17 not be stronger if there was a time limit within which the Home Office had to reply to the application to remove a passport, so that the court would have to consider the matter in a timely manner? There is a parallel in the people who are denied entry to this country or are deported from this country and who have to appeal from a third country. The fact that there is no time limit means that the injustices that such cases often involve can go on for a very long time.

[Mr Hanson]

That suggestion is worthy of consideration.

The official Opposition tabled an amendment to say that there should be a right of appeal for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield set out. That concern is shared by Members across the House. It is a basic right of appeal. We can look at how it could be exercised, as ever. We might be able to improve the amendment technically. However, if we had not tabled amendment 17, we would not be having a debate about the right to appeal against this measure. The purpose of the debate is to say to the Minister that we think there should be a right of appeal. If the Minister is sympathetic to that idea, he can take it away.

[Mark Field]

rose—

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I give way first to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Field]

Perhaps I do not share the great faith in the bureaucratic competence of the Home Office that was expressed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It was the opposite.

[Mark Field]

I guessed that that was the case. I was being slightly ironic. One issue with the notion that we could have appeals is that if there was a great emergency and the passports of many dozens or even many hundreds of people were seized, the appeals process would become unwieldy. One hopes that such a situation will not come about. If there was a small number of individuals at any one time, it would be quite manageable, but if there was a large number, that would make it more difficult.

[Mr Hanson]

We do not yet know on how many occasions the power will be exercised. I suspect that a vast number of passports will not be seized, but we cannot anticipate that. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,

“500 individuals of interest to the police…have travelled from the UK to Syria…since the start of the conflict.”

That has happened over the past 18 months to three years. The number of individuals travelling out of the UK who may be of interest might be small, but that does not mean that they should not have the right of appeal because, as I have said, mistakes can be made.

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for referring to me as his hon. Friend. I remind my right hon. Friend that, as he would have been well aware when he was in the Northern Ireland Office, under the Belfast agreement, which was signed on Good Friday, people who are born in Northern Ireland are entitled to citizenship of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, and to hold the passport of the United Kingdom, the passport of the Irish Republic or both. If those travel documents were confiscated, would it be the Irish passport and the British passport for those who have both? There has to be some form of appeals mechanism if they are confiscated, because the issue is even more complicated if people are leaving or entering Northern Ireland.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. She will see that under paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, passport means “a United Kingdom passport” or

“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of an international organisation”.

It is imperative that we consider the issue of appeals because foreign citizens or citizens of the UK might have two passports.

If information is provided about an individual, this measure will allow the serious act of removing their passport and stopping them travelling. Although it will no doubt be very well researched, very well executed and very well managed by the security services, the police, immigration officers and others who are allowed to undertake these matters under schedule 1, the possibility of wrong or disputable facts will always be there. Those wrong or disputable facts will mean that a UK citizen loses their liberty, their passport and their ability to travel. We need to be cognisant of that issue.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Further to the point that was made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), if a passport that was issued by a state other than the UK was seized, does my right hon. Friend envisage that that state would seek to join the appeal against the seizure? Does he believe that Ministers have fully taken account of the diplomatic implications of that?

[Mr Hanson]

Again, that demonstrates why the issue of appeals is important. Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 refers to

“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”.

I can envisage a situation in which an individual who is the citizen of and holds the passport of not, dare I say it, the Irish Republic, but another country in the European Union or even a country outside the European Union, but who is resident in or travelling from the UK, is suspected for a range of reasons of involvement in terrorism-related activity under paragraph 1(10) of schedule 1. Again, the UK would be in the difficult situation of depriving an individual from another country of their passport on the basis of a range of suspicions that may or may not prove to be factual. I am in danger of repeating myself and am being careful not to do so, but we need to examine such facts carefully. The purpose of amendment 17 is to stimulate a debate about that.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to wind up my remarks, but I will give way.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is his mechanism for appeal? Surely the measure allows border control officers to take a passport without giving too many reasons and, after two weeks, for a judicial review to take place. How would his appeal process work? How would we avoid giving away intelligence during the appeal that could jeopardise the United Kingdom’s security?

[Mr Hanson]

That is a valid point, but judicial review is not what I would call a cheap and easy process. It could not be accessed quickly and easily by an individual who had lost their passport in the circumstances set out in schedule 1. The hon. Gentleman will see that we have included in amendment 17 a reference to appeal “in the courts”. That is intended to stimulate debate—it could be a magistrates court, a court sitting in private or a Crown court. We simply say that the appeal should be in a court. The schedule allows the Secretary of State to produce a code of practice, which could indicate which court should deal with such matters and whether it could sit in private. It would be reasonable for the code of practice to do that.

19:00

My purpose in tabling amendment 17 was to focus on the issue of appeals. I will be happy to withdraw it if the Minister provides reassurance, or we might revisit the matter in the other place. However, since the publication of the Bill and Second Reading, we have felt that we needed some mechanism for examining the case for appeals.

I have detained the House for far too long, but I wish to say two final things. First, amendment 29 is simply about a date of review and would not detract from the Bill in any way, shape or form. It would simply provide a date by which the Secretary of State would have to examine clause 1 and decide either to continue it or bring forward new legislation. One reason why we need that review is that there is no appeal mechanism, which amendment 17 would provide.

Secondly, I will listen to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has to say about her new clause 8. I have some concerns about her proposal for police bail for terrorism suspects. We need to think carefully before using police bail if a Government have decided to remove someone’s passport. I do not wish to comment further on the new clause at this point, but I will listen to her remarks.

I hope that the Committee will consider my points about the Opposition’s amendments, and I hope for a positive response from the Minister.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I would indeed like to say a few words about new clause 8, which I tabled. As we know, there will be situations in which it is necessary to prevent a person from leaving the country, but I would argue that the police already have a tried and tested way of preventing suspects from doing so—the power of arrest, combined with the ability to require passport surrender if a suspect is arrested and released without charge. However, passport surrender is not currently possible in the case of those arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as conditional police bail cannot be granted following such arrests. That anomaly means that there is a currently a loophole in the ability of law enforcement to require passport surrender of terrorism suspects. It would be much simpler to remove that loophole than to proceed with the convoluted passport retention scheme set out in clause 1 and schedule 1.

The safest and fairest way to prevent suspects from leaving the country to participate in terrorist activity would be for police officers to use their powers of arrest. If an individual was considered to pose an immediate risk to the country, they could be detained rather than left to roam the UK for 30 days, as would happen under the Government’s proposal. If they did not pose an immediate risk, they could be detained and bailed, and their passport could be surrendered as part of the process.

Including that provision in the Bill and removing the bar on police bail would be much simpler and fairer than a convoluted passport surrender scheme. It would deliver the same practical result as the Government seemingly wish to achieve—preventing individuals from leaving the country—but would do so in a way that, crucially, protected against misuse and discrimination.

My new clause is intended to give the police the powers they need, and to enable them to exercise them consistent with upholding suspects’ human rights. That would act as a greater deterrent, by allowing for arrest rather than summary passport seizure, and would help to overcome some of the in-built discrimination that exists in relation to stop-and-search and would inevitably be part of a stop-and-seizure approach to passports.

[Mark Field]

I do not wish to cast judgment on the two proposed processes, but does the hon. Lady not recognise that the arrest and bail process would probably involve a higher threshold than mere passport seizure? Considerably fewer people would therefore be subject to it, so it might not make the rest of us much safer. The Government’s intention in using passport seizure is to stop those who wish to escape these shores—they will not necessarily be guilty of any offence before doing so.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think his point stands up. Under new clause 8, an individual considered to pose an immediate risk to the country could be detained rather than being left to the roam the UK, as would happen under the Government’s proposal. If they were not considered to pose an immediate risk, they could be bailed and their passport seized. Seizing a passport as part of the bail process would be more effective than what I believe he proposes.

[Mark Field]

The problem is not that there would be a risk of people roaming through the UK and being a direct and immediate risk to other UK citizens. It is that they might leave these shores to carry out terrorist activity abroad.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not see that as being more of a risk under my new clause, the advantage of which would be that we would not be involved in a so-called stop-and-seizure approach, which we know is often not effective. Summary stop powers do not yield effective results—Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found that in most years since 2001, more than 1 million people have been stopped and searched, but only 9% were subsequently arrested. If the summary sanction were the removal of a passport, that failure rate would be too high. In addition to risking injustice for the individuals concerned, such an approach would serve to perpetuate a climate of fear and suspicion rather than encourage good relations between different communities in British society.

The Home Secretary herself recently recognised the prejudicial nature of stop-and-search powers and sought to scale them back. She stated:

“Nobody wins when stop and search is misused. It can be an enormous waste of police time and damage the relationship between the public and police.”

It appears odd to legislate for a new stop-and-search-type power when the problems that such an approach causes have been clearly identified and when it is contrary to the Home Secretary’s policy on stop-and-search away from the borders.

I do not think that my suggestions in new clause 8 would reduce our ability to ensure that we are secure. On the contrary, they would make us better able to know where people are, and crucially, they would mean that we would not use so-called stop-and-seizure powers, which have been discredited and are not very effective.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for the opportunity to debate a number of provisions relating to part 1 of the Bill, particularly the power of passport seizure and, most relevantly, schedule 1.

The right hon. Gentleman highlighted some of the real-life events that are taking place elsewhere. We will all have been shocked to see the pictures on the television screens during the past few hours. The incident in Sydney is profoundly shocking, and it is deeply distressing to hear of the fatalities that have arisen from the hostage situation. The facts are still emerging, but our thoughts are with the families of those caught up in the tragic events. We all stand with the Australian Government and the people of Australia in utterly condemning anyone who would seek to use violence to advance political ends. The incident reminds us again that we must all be vigilant.

I will turn shortly to the new clauses and amendments, including amendment 13, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. In the light of the debate, however, I think it will be helpful if I make some general points about the power of temporary passport seizure and its importance.

The increasing number of people travelling to engage in terrorism-related activities overseas, and returning to the UK with enhanced terrorist-related capabilities, means that we need an additional power to disrupt an individual’s ability to travel at short notice. The Government are clear: we will provide the police with the powers they need to stop people travelling to fight for terrorist organisations overseas. Clause 1 makes provision for schedule 1 to the Bill, which provides for the

“seizure and temporary retention of travel documents”

at port by the police. Under the schedule the police—and designated Border Force officers at the discretion of the police—can seize and retain a travel document when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person at a port in Great Britain intends to leave to engage in terrorism-related activity outside the UK. That power can also be exercised at a port in the border area in Northern Ireland.

Right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted different measures, and existing powers have different tests and focus on different things. The new measure is significant because it will give the police, or Border Force officers directed by the police, power to seize travel documents, including passports and travel tickets, at a port to disrupt immediate travel—I underline that point—based on “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is travelling for terrorist-related activity. The passport is not cancelled and the document can be held for up to 14 days or, as we have heard, 30 days if the retention period is extended by a court.

[Lady Hermon]

This important Bill does not just apply to international terrorism, it applies to terrorism, and we in Northern Ireland have been afflicted for years by terrorism waged by dissident republicans. Will the Minister confirm whether he has been to and driven along the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? How many border posts and Border Force officials did he meet on that trip?

[James Brokenshire]

I had the pleasure of visiting Belfast on a number of occasions when I was security Minister, but I have not travelled along the direct route that the hon. Lady highlights. The important point is that the power clearly applies to people who are seeking to leave the United Kingdom to engage in terrorist-related activity outside the UK. We are arguing for such a power because of the effective way that it can disrupt terrorist-related activity.

[Lady Hermon]

I am sincerely grateful to the Minister for giving way because this is a really important point. We have a very open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and we are the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a frontier with another EU member state. There is no border built; there is no wire or wall, and it is full of little lanes and easy access to the United Kingdom. I am extremely anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland does not become the soft underbelly of the rest of the United Kingdom for those who would wish us ill or want violence in this country. Will the Minister consider increasing the number of Border Force officials along the porous border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand the hon. Lady’s sincerity and the manner with which she has advanced her point, and we must be vigilant about risks and threats that may be posed to the United Kingdom, whether in Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK. There is good work between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana, and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have a clear joint interest in ensuring border security. Indeed, we very much consider the common travel area to be an external border, which is why we work closely with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that it remains effective and in no way goes down the path mentioned by the hon. Lady. The Government must maintain that sense of vigilance and focus.

[Mark Durkan]

I represent a border constituency and we do not particularly want the border demarcated further in ways that applied historically. Schedule 1 defines the border area as one mile from the border with the Republic of Ireland. Is that as the crow flies, or when travelling? If there is a dispute about where the person was stopped and had their passport seized, how will the question of where the seizure took place be resolved?

19:15

[James Brokenshire]

Ultimately, those facts will concern any challenge that may be made, and a review may be undertaken of the proper exercise of the power and oversight provided for in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Delyn commented on the nature of the protections in the Bill. I hope that will assure the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the way such things would be advanced and protected, and that oversight is provided to deal with the issues he has raised.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the person whose passport or travel documents are removed be informed of the reason they have been taken away? The maximum time the passport can be held without going through a legal process is two weeks. When does the Minister envisage that there will be a review of that decision, and when can the person reasonably expect to get their documents back and be allowed to travel? The points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) were clear—the issue is one of access to a judicial process, rather than an executive decision, which is effectively what the removal of the documents would be.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman leads me neatly to mention a number of protections in the Bill, and to say how we will ensure that the exercise of this power is proportionate and suitably circumscribed by a range of stringent safeguards. Some of the points about the need for speed and assurances about the exercise of such powers have been well made. A powerful power is being advanced in schedule 1, and those who exercise it must be satisfied that it is necessary to retain the relevant documentation. The different mechanisms available to challenge a decision underscore why we regard current protections as proportionate to this power.

In essence, officers who might exercise the power would be governed by a specific code of practice that would specify how they are to use it. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that the constable must have

“reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is there—”

in the port—

“with the intention of leaving the United Kingdom for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity”.

The officer then has to seek a further review by a senior police office of at least superintendent level to confirm that the power is appropriate in that case. There is a further review by an officer of chief superintendent rank within 72 hours of the officer’s findings, and that is referred to the chief constable who must remain satisfied with the case. Even from an administrative perspective there are a significant number of checks and balances to ensure that the power is being exercised effectively. If the documents are to be retained beyond the 14-day period, there is a court process and a review to consider how further oversight should be provided.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I completely understand why the Government have decided that within the 14-day period there should be no appeal or review, but I cannot understand why paragraph 8 of schedule 1 prohibits or prevents the judge from considering whether there is a basis for the order or retention in the first place. All the judge can do is ensure that those who are considering the matter are doing so diligently. He is not able to look at the foundation and basis for the entire retention—at whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. and learned Friend highlights the mechanisms provided in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 on the manner in which the judge must be satisfied with the continued need to retain the documentation. His point is the basis or central tenet for the use of the power in the first place. Indeed, I think this relates to the point advanced by the right hon. Member for Delyn in one of his amendments. Judicial review is available to challenge the basis of the original decision. Therefore, there is a judicial right to question and challenge the basis on which the officer has used the power in the first place, as set out in paragraph 2 of schedule 1. We therefore believe there is a direct means to be able to challenge the underlying decision.

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

The Minister refers to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). Judicial review is an extremely difficult and expensive route to secure justice. The point about magistrates, as the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) says, is the diligent and expeditious use of an administrative power. Where there are grounds for a simpler right to appeal relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which is where someone has suffered repeated instances of having their documents taken off them. On that basis, a swift appeal system would at least give some confidence that it was not being used indiscriminately.

[James Brokenshire]

For the relevant document to need to be retained, the provisions in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 must remain outstanding: there must be consideration of whether the Secretary of State would use the royal prerogative, whether there are charges to be brought against that person, or whether there are other measures that may be relevant. The requirement still needs to be satisfied, which is why we have brought in the 14-day provision to ensure direct oversight and checks and balances through the mechanisms in the schedule.

On cost, following further discussions with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, it may be helpful to clarify and expand on the evidence I gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December, on the availability of legal aid for those subject to the proposed temporary passport seizure powers and to provide clarity on the potential scope of legal aid in this context. I have written to the Chair of the Joint Committee today on this issue.

Legal aid would potentially be available for the magistrates court proceedings provided for in the Bill, but at present that would be a discretionary decision for the director of legal aid casework. The Government are considering whether it would be proportionate to bring those proceedings within the scope of the general legal aid scheme to put individuals’ access to legal aid, subject to the statutory means and merits tests, beyond doubt. Legal aid is available under the general civil legal aid scheme for judicial review challenges by those subject to the temporary passport seizure power and the temporary exclusion order power, subject to the statutory means and merits tests.

Returning to the provisions, a code of practice will provide clear guidance on how police and Border Force officers will exercise the powers. The Government will carefully review all responses received to the consultation that we propose to undertake in respect of the code, to ensure it contains effective guidance and provides clarity to officers on how the new powers should operate. The power is a proportionate and prudent response to the threat we face. It will allow the police to disrupt travel at short notice when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is travelling for terrorism-related purposes.

Let me now turn to the amendments before us. I shall deal first with those from the Opposition. Amendment 17 seeks to provide a process for individuals to appeal to the courts against the decision to remove their travel documents at port. As I have described, the Bill already provides a specific court procedure. In addition, the individual can decide, at any time, to seek a judicial review of the initial passport seizure in the High Court, where closed material proceedings may be available to allow consideration of any sensitive material. I do not believe, therefore, that the amendment adds a significant additional safeguard to the use of this power.

Amendment 29 seeks to introduce a sunset clause to the temporary passport provisions. Doing so may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose if they believed that the powers would end in two years’ time. Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue. Our law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with it in a necessary and proportionate way. I wish we could be confident that the conflicts that attract these individuals will be resolved in two years, but it would be imprudent to plan on that basis.

[Mr Hanson]

If that is the case, why does clause 17 have a repeal date of 31 December 2016?

[James Brokenshire]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raises that point. The parallel I think he seeks to draw is not relevant in this context. As he well knows, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, to which this provision relates, contains a sunset clause because of the need to have further and wider debate on communications data. What we are talking about here is a specific and focused power to deal with the immediate operational needs of our police and law enforcement agencies at the border to disrupt terrorist travel. Therefore, the parallels he seeks to adduce between the two clauses do not actually stack up.

[Lady Hermon]

The Minister referred to sending out a very clear signal to jihadists who wish us ill in this country. I agree entirely and I am sure the Committee agrees too. May I invite the Minister to confirm that the Bill will also apply to dissident republicans who sit in the Republic of Ireland and wish to bomb and murder prison officers and other members of the security forces within the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, so that the message is as loud and clear to dissident republicans as it is to jihadists?

[James Brokenshire]

Terrorism can take all sorts of different forms. The Bill is rightly not specific on what terrorist-related activity outside of the UK may be relevant, so I think the power is appropriately drafted.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised a point about the one-mile limit and I am conscious that I have not addressed it. The Northern Ireland border area is defined in the same terms as in other legislation, such as schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Northern Ireland border is one mile from the Republic of Ireland as the crow flies. I hope that provides certainty.

Let me now turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As she has explained, they would remove the temporary passport seizure provision in its entirety. She also flagged up a point relating to the availability of police bail. I am sure the hon. Lady takes public safety extremely seriously, particularly in the current climate where we are facing the biggest challenge to our security since the horrific attacks of 9/11. The nature of terrorism-related arrests inherently means that the exact risk to the public from an individual, or their suspected involvement in a terrorist plot, may not be well understood at the early stages of an investigation. That is part of the reason why the police also have the power, 48 hours after the arrest of a terrorist suspect, to apply to the courts for a warrant of further detention to extend the initial detention up to a maximum of 14 days, subject to the seven-day review. To grant bail as the hon. Lady would want to, and at the stage she would want to when significant parts of an investigation are still ongoing, would increase the risk of potentially dangerous individuals being released before they have been sufficiently investigated. That is a risk the Government are not prepared to take.

In preparing for this debate, I noted that when the right hon. Member for Delyn was a Minister back in 2009 he made exactly the self-same point. There are certain issues we disagree on, but his statements on the record underline the issues relating to the use of police bail and other relevant factors. We continue to judge, responding to David Anderson on this very point, that the granting of bail is not appropriate.

[Caroline Lucas]

Plenty of experts who agree that our security is the ultimate goal also see that my amendment is more robust than the Government’s proposal. With bail, one can attach a wide range of conditions, including curfews, restrictions and so on, and it is simply an anomaly for our security forces not to have this tool in their toolbox should they need it for terrorism.

19:30

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady has made that point several times, and she has been consistent in advancing her case, but there is a balance of risk, and we judge that bail in these circumstances would not be appropriate because of our fundamental focus on protecting national security. Furthermore, the Bill provides appropriate safeguards in several different ways to ensure that it is proportionate and meets the issues of necessity.

Finally, the Government are making a technical amendment in relation to the code of practice. Amendment 13 would

“make it clear that the Secretary of State can comply with the obligations”

in paragraph 19

“to publish a draft of the code…to consider representations, to make any appropriate modifications”

in the light of those representations

“and to lay the draft before Parliament by doing so before the Bill receives Royal Assent.”

Without the amendment, it could be argued that such things would only be valid if done after the Bill becomes an Act. The amendment removes any doubt about that.

With the assurances I have given, I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will be minded not to press their amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and for reminding me that I have form on police bail as a Minister in the last Government. He will be pleased to know that although I gave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the opportunity to make her case, we do not support it, having listened to it. We might have form on this issue, but that form is consistent with our approach to the matter.

Our amendment 29, on a sunset clause, and amendment 17, on the right of appeal, still bear merit. The Minister has not convinced me that a sunset clause would be damaging in the long term to the Bill. Neither, given the concerns of Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others about appeals, am I persuaded not to press amendment 17.

[Julian Smith]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think carefully about pressing his amendment. What sort of message will it send to terrorists and people who threaten our country if he goes down this wishy-washy path of supporting the Bill but saying we should review it in 18 months’ time?

[Mr Hanson]

Having been counter-terrorism and policing Minister in the last Government, I know the extent of the threats we face, perhaps even more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that anybody has ever accused me of being wishy-washy on these matters—in fact, I have often been accused of being a little too harsh. However, it is right and proper, when we give powers to remove passports from individuals, that the House of Commons at least commits to reviewing those powers in two years—possibly to see whether we need to make them stronger; it might not mean we want to make them weaker. If he had his passport taken off him at Heathrow or Dover on spurious grounds, he would wish to have an appeal process in place. It is one of the basic tenets of this House of Commons.

So, not being wishy-washy, but being committed to tackling terrorism at its core and taking firm and effective action to reduce the threat to this country, I still believe we need to review the Bill in two years’ time and give people the right to argue their case, should they so wish, and question the grounds on which their passport has been taken from them. On that basis, I would like to press amendment 29 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:34

Division 115

Ayes: 220

---

Labour: 210
Plaid Cymru: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 301

---

Conservative: 259
Liberal Democrat: 38
UK Independence Party: 2
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

Amendment proposed: 17, page 30, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met.”—(Mr Hanson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:46

Division 116

Ayes: 222

---

Labour: 211
Plaid Cymru: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 301

---

Conservative: 259
Liberal Democrat: 39
UK Independence Party: 2
Independent: 1

Amendment made: 13, page 36, line 13, at and insert—

‘( ) Anything done before the day on which this Act is passed is as valid as if done on or after that day for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).” —(James Brokenshire.)

This would make it clear that the Secretary of State can comply with the obligations to publish a draft of the code of practice under Schedule 1, to consider representations, to make any appropriate modifications and to lay the draft before Parliament by doing so before the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

Temporary exclusion orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 3 to 10 stand part.

Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 7, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—

““specified individual” means a person named in a notification and managed return order and in relation to whom Conditions A-D of section [Notification and managed return orders] are met.

“a carrier” has the same meaning as at section 18.”

Amendment 15,  page 7, leave out lines 20 to 24.

Amendment 16,  page 7, leave out line 41.

Clause 11 stand part.

New clause 4— Notification and managed return orders—

‘(1) A “notification and managed return order” is an order requiring a person (“a carrier”) to notify the Home Secretary that—

(a) a specified individual intends to travel to the UK, and

(b) the date, time and location of the specified person‘s scheduled arrival.

(2) The Secretary of State may impose a notification and managed return order if conditions A to D are met.

(3) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the specified individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism related activity outside the United Kingdom.

(4) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a notification and managed return order to be imposed on a carrier in relation to a specified individual.

(5) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the specified individual is outside the United Kingdom.

(6) Condition D is that the specified individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

(7) During the period that a notification and managed return order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.”

New clause 5—Notification and managed return orders: supplementary provision—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must give notice of the imposition of a notification and managed return order to the specified individual and the carrier.

(2) Notice of the imposition of a notification and managed return order may include notice that the specified individual may be stopped, questioned and detained on return to the United Kingdom.

(3) A notification and managed return order—

(a) comes into force when notice of its imposition is given; and

(b) is in force for the period of two years (unless revoked or otherwise brought to an end earlier).

(4) The Secretary of State may revoke a notification and managed return order at any time.

(5) The Secretary of State must give notice of the revocation of a notification and managed return order to the specified individual and the carrier.

(6) If a notification and managed return order is revoked, it ceases to be in force when notice of its revocation is given to the specified individual and the carrier.

(7) The validity of a notification and managed return order is not affected by the specified individual—

(a) returning to the United Kingdom, or

(b) departing from the United Kingdom.

(8) The imposition of a notification and managed return order does not prevent a further notification and managed return order from being imposed on a carrier in relation to the same specified individual (including in a case where an order ceases to be in force at the expiry of its two year duration).

(9) The imposition of a notification and managed return order does not prevent a further notification and managed return order from being imposed on another carrier contemporaneously or consecutively in relation to the same specified individual.”

New clause 6—Penalty for breach of notification and managed return order—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations setting out the penalties to be imposed for breaching a notification and managed return order.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision—

(a) about how a penalty is to be calculated;

(b) about the procedure for imposing a penalty;

(c) about the enforcement of penalties;

(d) allowing for an appeal against a decision to impose a penalty;

and the regulations may make different provision for different purposes.

(3) Provision in the regulations about the procedure for imposing a penalty must provide for a carrier to be given an opportunity to object to a proposed penalty in the circumstances set out in the regulations.

(4) Any penalty paid by virtue of this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument; and any such statutory instrument may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

New clause 9—Imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice (a “TEO”) impose a “temporary exclusion order” which requires an individual not to return to the United Kingdom on an individual if conditions A to E in section [Conditions A to E] are met.

(2) 1n this Act “temporary exclusion order” means requirements, restrictions and other provision which may be made in relation to an individual by virtue of section [Conditions A to E] “prior permission of the court” and Schedule [“Proceedings relating to temporary exclusion orders”].

(3) An individual subject to a TEO may not return to the UK unless—

(a) the return is in accordance with a permit to return issued by the Secretary of State before the individual began the return, or

(b) the return is the result of the individual’s deportation to the United Kingdom.”

New clause 10—Conditions A to E—

‘(1) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom.

(2) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual.

(3) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.

(4) Condition D is that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

(5) Condition E is that—

(a) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 3, or

(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the urgency of the case requires a temporary exclusion order to be imposed without obtaining such permission.

(6) During the period that a temporary exclusion order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.”

New clause 11—Prior permission of the court—

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.

(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.

(3) The function of the court on the application is—

(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).

(4) The court may consider the application—

(a) in the absence of the individual;

(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and

(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.

(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.

(6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

(8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.

(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—

(a) condition A;

(b) condition B;

(c) condition C; and

(d) condition D.”

New schedule 1—Proceedings relating to Temporary Exclusion Orders—

Introductory

1 In this Schedule—

“appeal proceedings” means proceedings in the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session on an appeal relating to temporary exclusion order proceedings;

“the relevant court” means—

(a) in relation to TEO proceedings, the court;

(b) in relation to appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session;

“rules of court” means rules for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed in the court, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session.

Rules of court: general provision

2 (1) A person making rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must have regard to the need to secure the following—

(a) that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed, and

(b) that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision—

(a) about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings;

(b) enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing;

(c) about legal representation in the proceedings;

(d) enabling the proceedings to take place without full particulars of the reasons for the decisions to which the proceedings relate being given to a party to the proceedings (or to any legal representative of that party);

(e) enabling the relevant court to conduct proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party to the proceedings (or any legal representative of that party);

(f) about the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate (see paragraph 10);

(g) enabling the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in the party’s absence.

(3) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;

(b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.

(4) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as restricting the power to make rules of court or the matters to be taken into account when doing so.

Rules of court: disclosure

3 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that the Secretary of State is required to disclose—

(a) material on which the Secretary of State relies,

(b) material which adversely affects the Secretary of State’s case, and

(c) material which supports the case of another party to the proceedings.

(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 4.

4 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure—

(a) that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the relevant court and any person appointed as a special advocate;

(b) that such an application is always considered in the absence of every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);

(c) that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest;

(d) that, if permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide a summary of the material to every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);

(e) that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that provision to the effect mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) applies in cases where the Secretary of State—

(a) does not receive the permission of the relevant court to withhold material, but elects not to disclose it, or

(b) is required to provide a party to the proceedings with a summary of material that is withheld, but elects not to provide the summary.

(3) The relevant court must be authorised—

(a) if it considers that the material or anything that is required to be summarised might adversely affect the Secretary of State‘s case or support the case of a party to the proceedings, to direct that the Secretary of State—

(i) is not to rely on such points in the Secretary of State‘s case, or

(ii) is to make such concessions or take such other steps as the court may specify, or

(b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely on the material or (as the case may be) on that which is required to be summarised.

(4) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;

(b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.

Article 6 rights

5 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court made under any of those paragraphs, is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

(2) The “Human Rights Convention” means the Convention within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 21(1) of that Act).

Rules of court: anonymity

6 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision for—

(a) the making by the Secretary of State or the relevant individual of an application to the court for an order requiring anonymity for that individual, and

(b) the making by the court, on such an application, of an order requiring such anonymity;

and the provision made by the rules may allow the application and the order to be made irrespective of whether any other TEO proceedings have been begun in the court.

(2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session to make an order in connection with any appeal proceedings requiring anonymity for the relevant individual.

(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the references, in relation to a court, to an order requiring anonymity for the relevant individual are references to an order by that court which imposes such prohibition or restriction as it thinks fit on the disclosure—

(a) by such persons as the court specifies or describes, or

(b) by persons generally,

of the identity of the relevant individual or of any information that would tend to identify the relevant individual.

(4) In this paragraph “relevant individual” means an individual on whom the Secretary of State is proposing to impose, or has imposed, measures.

Initial exercise of rule-making powers by Lord Chancellor

7 (1) The first time after the passing of this Act that rules of court are made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Schedule in relation to proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the person who would otherwise make them.

(2) Before making rules of court under sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

(a) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;

(b) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

(3) But the Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making the rules.

(4) A requirement to consult under sub-paragraph (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.

(5) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) must be laid before Parliament, and

(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period.

(6) In determining that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.

(7) 1f rules cease to have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (5)—

(a) that does not affect anything done in previous reliance on the rules, and

(b) sub-paragraph (1) applies again as if the rules had not been made.

(8) The following provisions do not apply to rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under this paragraph—

(a) section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Parliamentary procedure for civil procedure rules);

(b) section 56(1), (2) and (4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (statutory rules procedure).

(9) Until the coming into force of section 85 of the Courts Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 is to be read as a reference to section 3(2) of that Act.

Use of advisers

8 (1) In any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings the relevant court may if it thinks fit—

(a) call in aid one or more advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor, and

(b) hear and dispose of the proceedings with the assistance of the adviser or advisers.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint advisers for the purposes of this paragraph only with the approval of—

(a) the Lord President of the Court of Session, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Scotland;

(b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland;

(c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in any other case.

(3) Rules of court may regulate the use of advisers in proceedings who are called in aid under sub-paragraph (1).

(4) The Lord Chancellor may pay such remuneration, expenses and allowances to advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph as the Lord Chancellor may determine.

9 (1) The Lord President of the Court of Session may nominate a judge of the Court of Session who is a member of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of that Court to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(a).

(2) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(b)—

(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;

(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).

(3) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(c).

Appointment of special advocate

10 (1) The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded.

(2) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to in this Schedule as appointed as “special advocate”.

(3) The “appropriate law officer” is—

(a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General;

(b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland;

(c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

(4) A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent.

(5) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if—

(a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

(b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;

(c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”

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

I am very pleased to be able to participate in this part of the debate on an important Bill, and particularly pleased to be able to talk about temporary exclusion orders. Let me begin by explaining the background.

Earlier this year, the joint terrorism analysis centre raised our national terrorist threat level from substantial to severe. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. Approximately 500 individuals who are of interest to the police and security services have travelled from the United Kingdom to Syria and the region since the start of the conflict, and it has been estimated that half of them have returned.

In the context of that heightened threat to our national security, we need a power that will allow us to disrupt the travel, and control the return, of British citizens who have travelled abroad to engage in terrorist-related activity, and to manage the threat they pose. The temporary exclusion power will do just that. It will make it an offence for an individual who is subject to an order to return to the UK without first engaging with the UK authorities. It will also allow for the imposition of certain limited requirements on the individual on his or her return.

Let me make it clear that this is a discretionary power, which will be considered for use on a case-by-case basis. Let me also reassure the Committee again that it will not render any individual stateless. British nationals who are made subject to an order will have the right—which their citizenship guarantees—to return to the UK. Clauses 2 to 11 relate to this TEO and set out the way it will operate and issues around the permits to return.

19:59

As I have said, this measure will not make anybody stateless, but it will mean that when the people concerned return, they do so on our terms, and that could quite possibly be in the company of a police officer. The process of managed return will be a valuable addition to the suite of powers available to our agencies.

It may assist the Committee if I set out in more detail how the power will operate. I, as Secretary of State, can impose a TEO if I reasonably suspect that an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity while outside the UK, and I consider that such an order is an appropriate tool to manage the threat he or she poses to the UK. Individuals subject to TEOs will have their British passports cancelled. They will be a class of passengers for whom authority to carry will have to be sought by carriers, under a new authority to carry scheme.

The TEO will be imposed for two years, with the possibility of a new order being imposed following consideration after this time limit expires, but a person subject to an order will be allowed to return to the UK within a reasonable time frame if they make an application to do so or if they are deported by another country. To be clear on this point—because some might get confused about the two-year time frame in the Bill—that relates to the time the order remains extant and for which the terms of the order can be brought to bear on the individual. If the individual remains a threat at the end of that period, clause 2 allows for the imposition of a further order on the same individual.

As I have said, these individuals will not be rendered stateless. They will not be left unable to return to the UK for an indefinite period. They must be issued a permit to return within a reasonable period if they apply for one, and attend an interview if required to do so. I should restate, to make this very clear to the Committee, that the policy is compliant with all our domestic and international legal obligations.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for taking part in this section of the debate. That is lovely, and although the Minister was very good, it is always very nice to have the Home Secretary here in person.

We have an individual who lives in south Armagh—this is not in any way to criticise the people of south Armagh, who are ordinary, decent, hard-working individuals—whose land straddles the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am not going to use parliamentary privilege to name him, but he is well known to the security services on both sides of the border and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and it is well known that he funds dissident republican terrorism. I would like the Home Secretary to confirm that that particular gentleman could be excluded using the temporary provision power in this new legislation. I would love to see him kept out of his territory and his land in Northern Ireland. Please confirm that he can be.

[Mrs May]

I appreciate the eagerness with which the hon. Lady rises to refer to that case, but I have to say to her that I am not going to comment on a particular case. As the Minister indicated earlier, however, the Bill is not, of course, restricted in the type of terrorism it refers to, and it does refer to those who have taken part in terrorist-related activity outside the UK, but I emphasise that situations would be looked at case by case, so this is not a power that will automatically be applied to any individual who satisfies those criteria. It is a matter of looking on a case-by-case basis to determine where it is appropriate to apply this power.

[Mr Grieve]

I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said, particularly about our compliance with our own national and international legal obligations. One anxiety that has been expressed about this measure is that a person could be particularly vulnerable during the period before they might return, if they are located in a country whose human rights record is inadequate. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might focus on that issue, because my understanding has been that consular protection would remain for such an individual in exactly the same way as for somebody whose passport was still working.

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to respond to that point. We as a country take the issue of human rights responsibilities very seriously in dealing with other countries and their treatment of individuals, but the individual would remain a British citizen and, notwithstanding that their passport had been cancelled and they had to apply for the permit to return, as a British citizen consular facilities would be available to them in those circumstances.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

How would the person concerned prove to the British consular service that they were the person they claimed to be?

[Mrs May]

In such circumstances, the passport will probably still be in the individual’s possession, although it will have been cancelled in the sense of its ability to be used to provide access to the United Kingdom, so I would expect them to have that document available to provide that proof.

On the points made about the individual being in another country, if an individual subject to an order attempts to travel to the UK, we will work closely with the host country and consider appropriate action. This may include detention pending deportation action, but only where appropriate under the laws of the other country, and, again, where appropriate, UK police officers will escort the individual back to the UK.

We are discussing this proposal with other Governments, in particular France and Turkey, in order to agree how it will work best in practice. The problem of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq and then seeking to return home is one we share with many of our international partners, and so far these discussions have been constructive.

Once in the UK, the police may interview the individual in order to explore their activities abroad. We may then subsequently require them to engage with a programme, potentially comprising reporting, notification of change of address and de-radicalisation activities.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and her colleagues. New clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 all require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a TEO. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—indeed, it appears to have been copied so directly that the right hon. Lady may want to reconsider the title of new clause 9, which refers to the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I suspect might be an error.

As the Minister with responsibility for national security, it is right that I, as Home Secretary, and not the courts, impose an order of this kind. As I have said, this is a discretionary power that will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact. With oversight of all other national security and counter- terrorism matters, I am best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a TEO is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat we face. For the same reasons, to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.

We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power. A TEO does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK, and the in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. There is therefore no need for a requirement to apply to the courts before imposing an order, and it will of course remain open to an individual to apply for judicial review of the decision to impose an order.

[Caroline Lucas]

The way the Home Secretary is describing how people can respond to a TEO suggests they would be able to access legal services. It does not take into account that they might be in a failed state, for example, or be being controlled by others or not have sufficient money. Does she not accept that in those circumstances, a TEO could actually mean a loss of intelligence about the suspect’s whereabouts and a loss of control?

[Mrs May]

But we are talking about an individual who, having had a TEO placed on them, attempts to travel to the UK, at which point they would have to apply for a permit to return and the arrangements for them to be accompanied by a police officer could be put in place. I recognise that there could be some circumstances in which a person might not have immediate access to the legal review, but they would be able to get it at the point at which they chose to return to the UK. This is about having the ability to ensure that certain people return to the UK on our terms, and that it is a managed return.

[Frank Dobson]

When would such an order become valid—when it was served on the person concerned? How would the British officials involved identify the person in order to serve the order on them? Would the process be triggered only if the person sought to come to this country?

[Mrs May]

A temporary exclusion order will be in place, and it will come into effect when it is served or deemed to be served on an individual. The arrangements relating to its being served are similar to those that we use for certain immigration rules relating to people outside the country.

I was about to talk about how the carriers will know whether to carry someone, because that subject has been mentioned in some of the other new clauses. On the question of whether the courts or the Home Secretary should make the decision, the Government and I are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of this temporary exclusion power and, for the reasons I have set out, I believe that the Secretary of State is best placed to ensure that it is used in that way. I would hope, therefore, that the shadow Home Secretary will not press her new clauses to a vote.

Opposition Members have also tabled new clauses 4, 5 and 6 and amendment 14, which seek to make provision for “notification and managed return orders”. These would be orders imposed on a carrier such as an airline to notify the Secretary of State that a specified individual intended to travel to the UK and to notify the date, time and location of that individual’s arrival in the UK. Carriers already provide advance passenger information to the Government’s border system. That information enables the current authority-to-carry scheme to operate and, similarly, it will underpin new schemes under clause 18 of the Bill. When an individual intending to travel to the UK is a person who is inadmissible to the UK, the national border targeting centre will contact the carrier to refuse authority to carry the individual to the UK. The Government intend that individuals who are subject to temporary exclusion orders will be a class of passengers in respect of whom authority to carry must be sought by carriers, under a new authority-to-carry scheme.

The proposal that a carrier should be required to tell the Secretary of State that a specified individual intends to travel to the UK implies that every carrier operating to the UK needs to know the details of every individual liable to a managed return. Disclosing to carriers around the world the details of individuals reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity outside the UK is unnecessary. The Government hold and maintain those details, and we match them against information provided by carriers. We know from our experience of planning for and operating the current authority-to-carry scheme that carriers much prefer the Government to do the matching. It is for the Government to take the responsibility for getting that right and making the right decisions, which can result in individuals being prevented from travelling to the UK or, under the Bill, being liable to temporary exclusion and a managed return.

Equally, the new clause providing for penalties to be imposed on carriers that fail to notify the Secretary of State when a specified individual is travelling to the UK is unnecessary. Criminal penalties are already in place for carriers that fail to provide passenger and crew information when required to do so, and there is provision in schedule 2 to the Bill to complement those provisions with civil penalties.

Finally, amendments 15 and 16 relate to the interpretation of the temporary exclusion measure. The first of those amendments would impact on our ability to prosecute an individual for breaching a temporary exclusion order. The second would prevent us from correctly implementing a temporary exclusion order, should a host country seek lawfully to expel the individual under powers other than deportation. Both amendments would seriously jeopardise key fundamentals of the policy and, perhaps, would not produce the result intended by the Opposition.

20:14

In the light of what I have said, I hope that those who have tabled new clauses and amendments will see that they are unnecessary and will not press them to a vote. This is a necessary power that will be important in enabling us to mange the return of those who have undertaken terrorist activity outside the UK. I believe that it is a necessary and proportionate power.

[Lady Hermon]

The UK authorities will have an obligation to let the Home Office know about the passenger lists in relation to individuals returning to the United Kingdom, but can the Home Secretary reassure the Committee that she will work closely with her Irish counterpart to ensure that the Irish Government keep similar information about those who are suspected of terrorism abroad? We must ensure that there is close co-operation on the two lists, which might contain the details of highly suspicious individuals coming back into Ireland and indirectly back into the UK through Northern Ireland.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, given our relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the operation of the common travel area. I can assure her that we work very closely with the Irish Government on the necessary information exchange between us, to ensure that the common travel area could not be—and, in general, is not—a means by which people can access the UK when we do not wish them to do so.

As I was saying, this is a necessary and proportionate power and, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is entirely appropriate to introduce a power that will enable us to disrupt and mange the return of a number of individuals who have been involved in terrorist-related activity outside the UK.

[Mr Hanson]

I should like to speak to the amendments and new clauses standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her explanation of the measures in the Bill, which are worthy of discussion today. We have tabled new clauses 4 and 5 to provide a supportive narrative to the one that the Home Secretary has put forward. The new clauses and amendments taken together form some of the options that could support the control of terror suspects who are at our border in the UK rather than at a foreign port. They provide a mechanism for the issuing of a notification and managed return order, which would be similar to the measure proposed by the Home Secretary but with a slightly different emphasis.

It is important that we recognise the threat posed by British citizens travelling abroad to participate in terror camps or to join the fight with ISIS in the middle east. The threat from ISIS is serious, and the Government need to do more to prevent young people from being groomed and radicalised to go and fight, and, using the measure in clause 1, to deal with such people when they try to return, having left the country to take part in such activity.

That threat is still live. On 21 October, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, was quoted as saying that five Britons were travelling to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS every week. The Government’s own information states that more than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria and that as many as 250 are now seeking to return. Self-evidently, we need a mechanism to protect the British citizen and to deal with those who wish to return. It is also vital that we are able to deal with people we know to be involved in these activities but who are unaware that we know about them. There is a synergy between what we are trying to achieve and what the Government are proposing. We particularly think there may be practical difficulties with the Bill in relation to individuals at foreign ports returning to the UK, and I would welcome the Home Secretary’s view.

The blanket exile proposal—I know the Home Secretary has not used that phrase—was referred to by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, as an

“announcement waiting for a policy”

when it was made. He was worried, and still has some worries, about whether it is legally and practically workable. We now have plans before us that, at first sight, appear closer to managed return than exile, but I wonder how they work in practice. If the aim of the policy is to keep dangerous individuals out of the country and then, ultimately, to manage their return, we need to explore real issues about that, not least what happens when individuals do not choose to apply for consent to come back—or indeed when they do choose to do that. The Home Secretary has touched on this, but what happens to individuals in particular countries? Would Turkey be happy to detain, potentially for months on end, a Briton suspected of illegally fighting for a terrorist organisation if he or she turned up at Ankara airport but was banned from departing to the UK? What options are in place for that? It is not clear whether the British Government have negotiated agreements with particular countries and whether they intend to do that on a case-by-case basis. What provision is in place—if it is not detention—to stop an individual who finds themselves faced with an order at the airport taking an alternative course of action, either returning to the host country in a different way, or returning and leaving for another country, not the UK? There is a practical argument as to what happens under the Bill to individuals in whom the Government have an interest.

Our new clause 4 seeks to examine an alternative model, which could work in parallel with the Government’s proposals but gives an opportunity for a managed return. We have tabled new clauses 4, 5 and 6, and the consequential amendments, which we are happy to look at and to reflect on, given what the Home Secretary has said about them. There is an argument to be made that the Government’s measure is too blunt a tool, in that it either prevents people from coming back or allows them to return. A more graduated response would give the security services and the Government much greater choice in how they want to approach each individual. Our notification and managed return orders proposal provides an alternative that gives security to the Government and takes effective action against individuals in whom the Government have an interest, but does so by allowing them to return to the UK and be managed in the UK, as opposed to leaving us facing some practical difficulties elsewhere.

Our approach would require carriers to provide advance notice of travel bookings for certain named individuals in whom the Government have an interest, and that is well and good. It would allow the British authorities to have advance knowledge and notice of suspects’ travel plans so that arrangements could be made for police interview or arrest at the port or border immediately on their return to the UK. If that model were used as well, it would in part transfer the procedure that the Government are trying to achieve in a foreign port to a UK port. At that point, interviews could be undertaken and action could be taken against an individual, and we could also ensure that we had dealt with an individual of interest to the UK Government in the UK That could be an alternative model.

[Mr Grieve]

Is not one potential problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal, which is in many ways perfectly reasonable in structure, that it does not prevent the individual from continuing to travel abroad between third countries? If the UK Government reasonably suspect that somebody is involved in terrorism, ensuring that person’s managed return—an act of a responsible Government—to this country is perhaps a priority. Is there not a danger that the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would enable such a person to continue using their passport abroad, because the carrier would have no responsibility to give notification of travel between different countries?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which touches on one reason why we are presenting alternative, parallel models. I am not saying that the provisions in new clause 4 would be appropriate in every circumstance, but I do not believe—if the Home Secretary can convince me otherwise, we will look at that—that provision is in place for a formal managed return, as under our proposals; we simply have the Home Secretary’s proposals for a request to come back or for detention at a foreign port of entry to prevent someone from returning. We are seeking to give her a menu of options, and our approach could be a better way of managing individuals. Judgments will be made by Ministers and the security services as to how this could be managed, but the concerns expressed by David Anderson QC and by Liberty, which I thank for its assistance in helping us to table these provisions, give rise to a potential alternative that could be examined.

[Julian Smith]

How would the right hon. Gentleman get around the Home Secretary’s comments about the security implications of his model—giving out data to carriers that could compromise British national security?

[Mr Hanson]

We would be looking to do that in a number of circumstances anyway; data are already given to carriers about individuals. Under the Government’s model, information would also be provided to the carrier that the individual was of interest to the UK Government.

[Mrs May]

On the face of it, this may not look like a significant point, but it is. There is a very real difference between giving a list of a large number of people to a carrier and saying, “If any of these people travel, please tell us” and looking at the carrier’s information and saying, “This individual shall not be allowed to travel.” The amount of information about individuals that the carrier holds is very different under the Government’s proposal; much more information about individuals would be held by the carriers under the Opposition’s proposal, and that provides less protection for the individuals.

[Mr Hanson]

Again, these are matters of genuine debate and interest. The point I make to the Home Secretary is that this is entirely in her gift. Under the model we are proposing, her model is not being deleted from the Bill. It is still there to provide the ability to say to carriers, “If Mr X or Miss X turns up at Schiphol airport, we wish you to take action against them and exercise the powers in the Bill.” I could have turned the television on at any time in the past month and seen the names of individuals that we know have travelled abroad—individuals that are publicly travelling abroad and that relatives have said have travelled abroad. It is quite possible for the Home Secretary not to make these two possibilities mutually exclusive. The issue is simply—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Security and Immigration wants to back up his boss and intervene, I am happy to allow him to do so. The debate is about the practical difficulties of the Home Secretary’s proposals, which are to have people sign to say that they will come back under managed return, to have detention or to stop carriers at ports. Are they the sole way to deal with every case that is brought before the Home Secretary’s notice? We are trying to provide at least one alternative for consideration.

20:30

Before I move on, may I say to the Home Secretary: well spotted on our deliberate error? We did put terrorism prevention and investigation measures at the top of one new clause. As she has noticed, we modelled the court procedure on the basis of her own legislation on TPIMs. Taken together, new clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 have the effect of creating a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go in order to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order under the proposals in the Bill. As has been said in our previous discussions, there is currently no judicial process before a TEO can be awarded.

David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, gave evidence on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. According to media reports and the transcript, he was sceptical about the imposition of the proposed temporary exclusion orders against suspected jihadist fighters. He said:

“If the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM she has to go to a court first and if the court says she’s got it wrong, it will say so.”

There is a mechanism and judicial oversight for that. The principle is the same in relation to temporary exclusion orders. We must look carefully to see whether the power requires the intervention of the court at any stage or whether it is envisaged as something that the Home Secretary can impose. That is a real debate for this House to have. The Home Secretary has the power to impose an exclusion order on an individual under the Bill if it becomes law. She would also have that power under our proposals in new clause 4. Would it be better for her to have that power and have it judicially overseen by a court procedure, so that we can ensure that we have independent scrutiny of what the Home Secretary does? That is not our suggestion, but the suggestion discussed by Mr Anderson as the terrorism overseer.

The language used in new clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 mirrors precisely—almost too precisely—that used in the Government’s own TPIM legislation. I hope that the Government can accept—if not today, perhaps during the passage of the Bill—that the procedure to go through to award a temporary exclusion order under our clause would be sound, fair and efficient in the same way that TPIMs can be on the same legislative basis.

[Julian Smith]

The rights being removed under the exclusion orders are nowhere near the same as those being removed under TPIMs, so the need for executive dynamism and an ability to move quickly should trump the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

[Mr Hanson]

It is still a big deal to refuse a British passport holder access to the United Kingdom. It is a very big step to take. I am not saying that it is the wrong step to take, but it is a big step. The powers under current TPIMs and, potentially, under the revised TPIMs, involve restrictions on movement and contact. The Bill as proposed could involve detention in a foreign country, pending return to the United Kingdom under a managed process. Charges may not have been made. A person could be held simply on the basis of evidence that has been gathered by the security services. Although those measures are not the same, an element of judicial oversight is something to which we should aspire. As a fair man, I am tabling these issues so that the Home Secretary can reflect on them because I am aware of the concerns that exist outside and inside this House. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy scrutiny of these sections of the Bill and their implications when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. It is important that we flag them up here to say that we should have in place a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary has to make her case to a relatively small cohort of individuals in order to progress the matter. I do not want to have the Home Secretary tied into a long-winded or unresponsive channel for application. I do not want the Home Secretary to have a slower processing ability that means she cannot enable counter-terrorism activity to take place in a speedy and effective manner.

However, if the Government believe that the TPIM regime is not unduly cumbersome when trying to control terror suspects in this country, there seems little reason why it should not be appropriate for use on individuals in other countries, particularly as the Home Secretary will often know who they are and have a close interest in them. The current stipulation is that the Home Secretary simply has to reasonably consider whether someone is involved in terror-related activity. That is a very low bar, and one that I think should be subject to judicial oversight.

In conclusion, I think that the Government should at least look at the alternative model set out in new clause 4, which has widespread support. I would also genuinely like to hear from the Home Secretary why she feels—she has already indicated as much—that the arrangements for TPIMs are not appropriate for what is still a severe restriction on liberty, which might be the right thing to do, under the proposed TEO notice. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has put forward some alternative proposals, by way of probing amendments, on how this matter might be approached. Having listened to the comments from both sides of the Committee, it seems to me that there is actually a substantial measure of agreement that it is proper for the Government to take action to deal with the question of the managed return of individuals who have gone abroad from this country and whom the Home Secretary reasonably considered might be involved in terrorism.

It is slightly unfortunate that we have become mired in the title of temporary exclusion orders, because it seems to me, having read the Bill, that what we are really talking about is managed returns and how that process is properly to be done. In that context, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems perfectly logical. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn, one of the problems with his proposals is that as the passport remains with the individual whom the Home Secretary reasonably considers to have committed an offence, that individual could use the passport to travel between third countries at will. If the United Kingdom wishes to act responsibly, particularly as we currently have a system whereby we remove passports from individuals trying to travel abroad in some circumstances, it seems rather odd that we should preserve that mechanism.

On the other hand, there is an issue that I think the Committee has to consider. A point was made earlier about how notification of the removal or revocation of a passport might take place. In some cases it might prove impossible in practice to communicate the revocation to the individual concerned and to indicate that a managed return must take place, because the temporary exclusion order is now in place, through the person contacting the consulate. That raises the prospect of an individual turning up at an airport, having purchased a ticket, only to be turned away at security. I might be wrong about that, in which case it would be useful to know how the Home Office envisages that working in practice. That in itself might not matter at all. If we are dealing with a country that is a trusted partner—my right hon. Friend indicated that there were discussions with France and Turkey—that might not be a problem. The individual’s return might simply be delayed until they have gone to see the British consulate and been interviewed.

However, the proportionality test that has to be applied to these cases means that my right hon. Friend will have to assess whether an individual—notwithstanding the fact that she might reasonably consider them to have been involved in terrorism—might be put at serious risk of having their human rights infringed, for example by being detained or tortured, if revocation of their passport would lead to their being exposed as a person who could be viewed as a terrorist in circumstances in which the Government would feel unable to share that information with the Government of that country because they were concerned about the risks that would be attendant on their arrest.

There is an issue of practice and practicality that needs to be thought through, and I hope that as a result of this debate my right hon. Friend and the Home Office may be in a position to provide reassurance as the Bill goes through the House that they have that subject very much in mind. Having listened to my right hon. Friend talk about proportionality, I am reassured that this is a matter of which she is well aware, as I know from the experience of working with her as a colleague; she knows it can sometimes be an issue. Subject to that, the process that she has adopted, which requires the individual to go to the consulate and get, in essence, a one-way ticket back to this country so that we know when the individual is returning, seems perfectly proper as long as the delay period is not too long, and as long as there is not some subtext intention of causing that individual problems in the country in which they happen to be located—a point that I made earlier.

That brings me to a further point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, which is about judicial process. I raised on Second Reading and again subsequently my question why it is so difficult to have a system in which there is not a judicial process to initiate it. I appreciate that there is a difference between a TPIM and the temporary exclusion order proposed—a difference in terms of the restrictions that may be placed on the individual when they return, which are capable of being challenged by judicial review anyway, and because the revocation of a passport is an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is different in nature and quality from a TPIM. It is nevertheless a draconian sanction.

As my right hon. Friend will confirm, removing passports from individuals in this fashion is not a process that has previously been carried out, certainly not in circumstances where the individual when they are abroad does not have the possibility of accessing a different nationality, for example. I continue to wonder whether a judicial process might be valuable. My right hon. Friend may have powerful arguments to make against that, but I have not yet had explained to me in quite the detail I would wish the Government’s reasoning on this point. The point has been made that a temporary exclusion order may have to be issued as an emergency or rather quickly. The current TPIM system allows for a TPIM to be issued without a judge’s sanction—an imprimatur—if necessary, so that could be included in this process.

However, it strikes me—perhaps I am wrong, and I am always prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong—that in this process there is likely to be a slightly more leisurely approach anyway, because the Government will know that an individual is abroad and likely to come back to the United Kingdom, and unless that return is likely to happen very quickly, I would have thought it might normally be possible to apply ex parte to a court for the order to be sanctioned and for some scrutiny to be carried out as to the reasons why it is to take place. If that were to happen, it would also allow for a measure of judicial scrutiny as to whether the issue of the temporary exclusion order might endanger a person’s fundamental rights because it would expose them to risk in their present location.

Those are my thoughts on this matter. I should make it clear that I put them forward in an entirely probing spirit because the principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing seems to me, as I indicated earlier, to be utterly unexceptionable, even though it is an unusual power. However, in the context of the risk and threat that the United Kingdom faces which, as I have said on several occasions, I believe to be a real threat, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal that the Government are trying to achieve. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal, which will enable us to get the right outcome on the provision. If we get the right outcome, history has shown that it will cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary far less trouble with court challenges thereafter.

[Frank Dobson]

As the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whose constituency and constituents experienced the bombs on the tube at Russell square and on the bus at Tavistock square, I am second to no one in my desire to prevent terrorism from taking place in this country. It behoves all of us to do whatever we can to protect people in this country from terrorism and not to have terrorists on the loose, whether they are home-grown and have not been abroad, foreigners who come here, or British citizens returning to Britain. Those British citizens have rights and duties. One of their most important rights is the right of abode in this country as a citizen, but they also have a duty not to break our law or, as I understand it, international law.

20:45

The British Government also have rights and duties in this regard: a right to enforce the law, a duty to comply with the rule of law, and a duty to protect all our citizens, whoever they may be and wherever they may be. If British citizens abroad are suspected of terrorism by British officialdom—by the British Government and their agencies—then the British Government have a duty to bring them to justice, but in the process of doing so, they cannot stop them being treated as British citizens.

Temporary exclusion orders are in danger of neither protecting people’s fundamental rights nor getting people brought to justice. A person suspected by the security services, and then by the Home Secretary, of being a threat to security is either guilty of it or not guilty, but whichever they are, these things apply. That person is then to be served with an order, or “deemed” to be served with one; I am not quite sure what “deemed” means in these circumstances. If they are served with such an order, one effect will be to tip them off that if they come back to this country they are very likely to be prosecuted for terrorist offences. That may cause them to wish not to come back but to disappear. Allowing a British citizen who is suspected of terrorism to disappear—in fact, in certain circumstances, possibly to be provoked into disappearing—does not seem to be a particularly good idea.

As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, there is then the question of somebody who has been fingered by Britain as a terror suspect subsequently being picked up by the security service of the country in which they are located. This does not quite amount to rendition, because we are not sending them there; it is a sort of stationary rendition whereby people are left in a place where they may be in danger.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my right hon. Friend think that this will lead to a whole cadre of virtually stateless people who will congregate together in one place, and that will be a problem for absolutely everybody rather than one state? Surely, as he rightly says, a state has a responsibility towards its own nationals.

[Frank Dobson]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. The whole proposition of exclusion orders seems to be predicated on the idea, first, that these people are totally rational; and secondly, that their greatest desire is to come back to Britain. Neither of those things will necessarily be the case, because some very odd people are going to be involved.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be in danger of attacking the idea that was originally presented rather than that contained in the Bill, which is much closer to being a process of determining that, if somebody who is thought to be dangerous comes back to this country, we can control, monitor and supervise them. Surely that is a more sensible objective, which the original, apparent objective of making people stateless would not have been.

[Frank Dobson]

I agree that the Government have modified their position since the first daft statements were made—things have been made more rational—but I do not think they have come up with the best proposition. The proposal for notification and managed return orders may not be perfect by any means, but it is a better proposition than that suggested by the Government.

The peculiarity of the functions of British consular services when a person is suspected is extraordinary. The consular services will serve people with an order and then, if somebody else nicks them and puts them in prison or starts torturing them, the same consular services will turn around and start looking after their interests. That seems to me to be at the odd end of the functions of a consular service.

[Mr Winnick]

If this measure does not succeed, what would my right hon. Friend say in response to the powerful argument made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the judicial process? Would there not be a very strong case that a court should decide on temporary exclusion orders?

[Frank Dobson]

That might be an improvement, but the practicalities of what happens in Turkey or Syria are not changed by a court decision or endorsement here.

What the process does not do—I would have thought that we all want to see this done—is bring people under our jurisdiction, prosecute them and, if they are found guilty, jail them. Surely that should be the main objective of Britain’s policy. The process is likely to get them picked up, but not by us: they will be picked up by somebody who may or may not be one of our allies. I believe, therefore, that the basic Government proposal undermines and interferes with their fundamental rights of abode in this country and it does not achieve what we want, which is to see terrorists brought to justice. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) would address both issues, so it would be an improvement.

The human right of a British citizen to abode in this country is not some fancy right dreamt up in Brussels or Strasbourg, and it has not been created by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a right of citizens to which Gladstone and Disraeli would have subscribed, not to mention Palmerston, who, after all, sent a gunboat to Greece to protect the interests of an exceedingly dodgy Maltese who probably had committed a crime. There is nothing new about this right and we need to be very careful abut doing anything that would undermine it.

I believe that notification and managed return orders do not deny the fundamental rights at all; do not expose people to being picked up by the Turkish authorities and still less by the Syrian authorities; involve the identification of the suspects but do not tip them off that they will be arrested if they come back to this country; which the temporary exclusion orders do; bring the suspects within British jurisdiction; and will result, if those people are guilty, in their being prosecuted and punished, which is what we want. We do not want them roaming around. If they come back here and are guilty of what they are suspected of, they will be picked up when they arrive at the port, the airport or St Pancras station. That is what we want to happen and it will not happen under the exclusion orders.

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

I had not intended to speak today, but I have been sitting here getting rather more uncomfortable about some aspects of the proposal. I do not propose to go into the complex practical issues, which were well laid out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who gave thoughtful input, as ever, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They outlined the issues and complexities very well and I suspect that those complexities will best be addressed by negotiation between those on the two Front Benches, which is not something I often recommend.

What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference. Over time, I have become progressively concerned about the accretion of fairly absolute power to the state in counter-terrorism policy. Absolute power is pretty important. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that these measures did not impinge on people’s liberties in the same way as TPIMs might, but I am afraid that the impingement is pretty sizeable. I do not necessarily disapprove of it at all, but it should be exercised with a degree of judicial care.

These accretions of power have come about since the late 1980s and the 1990s when we avowed the various security services that had up until then not been recognised in public policy, or that were at least not in the public domain. At the time, it seemed quite reasonable for the Crown prerogative to be used as a method of giving warrants and of enacting the state’s will to protect the public. I took the 1994 Bill on the Secret Intelligence Service through the House. We did not foresee the level of use—the number of warrants used and the level of power being exercised—that is now necessary to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat.

What is more, we did not give much thought to how such power might be abused—not that it is at the moment, but it might be in the future—or how many errors might occur, which does happen. We had at the back of our mind a model of accountability that, frankly, does not work. The Minister for Security and Immigration will be familiar with the number of times on which he and I have had exchanges that amount to my asking him a question and his writing back something like, “I never comment on security matters.” That is not a particularly good form of accountability for any mechanism.

My concern is that along with progressive secrecy, secret courts and all the other things we now have, the weak accountability—

[Julian Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

If my hon. Friend will permit me, I am coming to the end of my speech.

The level of secrecy, the low level of accountability and the power accruing to the Government, which is enormous when we think about our historic liberties in this country—this is in no way a criticism of the Home Secretary, as I would say the same of any Home Secretary, any Foreign Secretary or any Secretary of State—are why I am attracted by new clause 11. I do not know whether it will be pressed to a vote tonight, or whether it will come back on Report, but I ask the Government closely to consider the TPIM model. It is very sensible and those on the Opposition Front Bench have made a good case for it.

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to say a few words about the amendments tabled in my name. The tone of the debate has been useful and thoughtful and I have agreed with much of what others on both sides of the House have said. We are all trying to grasp our way towards something that provides robust security while guaranteeing human rights. My worry about the Government’s proposals on temporary exclusion orders is that they get that balance slightly wrong. There is a significant risk that, for many of the reasons that were outlined by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), they will, rather perversely, be counter-productive. I therefore think that the alternative system of notification and managed return orders has a lot to commend it, although the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) caused me to think again about how it would work in practice. There is a lot to explore here.

21:00

I come at this issue not just as a representative of a party that has often spoken out about the way in which successive Governments have used the threat of terrorism to justify the undermining of hard-won civil liberties and human rights, but as the MP for a city that was once home to two brothers who have just lost their lives fighting in Syria. Jaffar Deghayes, who was aged 17, and his brother Abdullah, who was aged 18, died in separate incidents earlier this year after leaving the UK in the belief that taking up arms against the murderous Assad regime was the right thing to do. They might have been typical of the kind of young idealists to whom the Bill will apply, had they not been killed, but instead tried to return home.

Their father, Abubaker Deghayes, still lives in Brighton and I would like to share his response to the proposals we are debating:

“The strategy you are using with our sons does not work. You are criminalising them just out of the fear they might become a threat to this country. Do not push them to be radicalised, used by groups like Isis who are out for revenge and thirst for blood.”

His advice bears listening to. Not only does his bitter personal experience give him insight into how we might better respond to the growing number of British citizens leaving home to fight abroad, but his position is, in many ways, backed up by evidence.

If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, which clearly it is, it might well be counter-productive to condemn individuals to being exiled from their families and friends. Evidence from countries such as Sweden and Denmark clearly indicates that families and friends can play an essential role in challenging and ultimately overturning extremists’ beliefs. I know that that is not the subject of what we are discussing, but I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the whole issue of de-radicalisation tomorrow. I will say no more about it now because the Chair, Mr Crausby, would stop me, but this issue is related to the amendments on alternative de-radicalisation programmes that have been tabled for debate tomorrow.

If return is denied to those who, for practical or other reasons, have been unable to apply for the permit that removes the temporary exclusion order, we will run into problems. I was not convinced by the Home Secretary’s response to my saying that people may well not be in a position to access legal advice or may not have sufficient funds to jump through all the hoops that the TEO requires them to jump through, particularly if they are in a failed or failing state. Such people will effectively be denied the right to return.

The Home Secretary’s plans assume that the people in question will know that they are subject to a TEO. That cannot be guaranteed, given that many of those who are targeted will be in countries that are suffering from internal armed conflict. They will not just be sitting behind a letter box—it is much more complicated than that.

If somebody does have the means to apply for a permit to allow them to return, they will have to attend an interview. Failure to do so, either because they are unable to do so or are prevented from doing so, could result in their being refused the right to return.

[Julian Smith]

I am trying to keep up with the hon. Lady. What are the circumstances that will make it impossible for people to apply to the consulate or somewhere else to come back to the UK? She is making a number of assertions that she is not backing up.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not think that I am making assertions. I am asking questions about whether it will be possible for people in all circumstances to go through very formal processes at a time when they may well be living in a culture of fear and when, by definition, severe conflict is going on. Such people might already have been fingered as someone who is trying to leave and be at particular risk of attack from others. I am describing a rather more complex situation than someone simply using the postal system, knowing what they have to do next and then marching down to the consulate and doing it. The reality on the ground is likely to be far more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

If someone does complete the process successfully, the Home Secretary will have what is defined as “reasonable time” to let them come home. I am concerned that, as far as I can see, there is no indication of what that time would be. The period of enforced temporary residence in another country could effectively trap British citizens in countries where jihadi groups have a strong presence, such as Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq. As the human rights group Liberty states:

“Those who are equivocal are more likely to be pushed towards terrorist factions by the imposition of executive led punishments and enforced periods in close proximity to such groups.”

If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, why would we take steps to alienate individuals by condemning them to exile when some of them—I quite understand that this does not apply to all of them—may simply have made a terrible mistake? They may have been horrified by the bloodshed and barbarism that they have seen and want to find a way to come home.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has referred a number of times to “exile” for the individuals concerned. We have to be absolutely clear that the provision will not exile an individual or prevent them from having the right to return to the United Kingdom. It will mean that when they return to the United Kingdom, it will be on a managed basis under terms that the Government set.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the Home Secretary, and I accept that she is technically correct, but I am describing a situation in which, because a person has not been able to follow the process that she described, they cannot find a way back and feel as though they were in exile.

If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, it is surely sensible to ensure that individuals who definitely pose a threat are somewhere where it is easier to keep an eye on them, investigate them, arrest them, charge them and prosecute them, should the evidence warrant it. Surely we want suspected terrorists close at hand so that we can take targeted action against them rather than allow them to roam who knows where doing who knows what. As the old adage goes, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer”. Moreover, if someone is intent on carrying out a terrorist attack on British soil, does the Home Secretary really believe that having to apply for a permit and attend an interview will act as any kind of deterrent or obstacle?

The Government’s scheme does have one element to recommend it, which is the steps taken to ensure that agencies and the police know of an individual’s location should they need to place him or her under surveillance. That comes from the stipulation that someone return on a specific flight to a specific airport. However, I argue that the same outcomes could be secured by placing a simple notification requirement on carriers, as set out in new clauses 4 to 6. Crucially, as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras described, that approach would not automatically alert a terror suspect to the fact that they had come to the notice of the authorities and that their return was being monitored. I argue that it would instead facilitate a targeted and intelligence-led response, and that the ability to undertake close surveillance of suspects would be maximised, with a view to arrest and prosecution. The option under existing counter-terrorism powers of interviewing a suspect on their arrival back in the UK would also be retained, and there would be further options as appropriate.

I have some concerns about the human rights aspects of the proposals on TEOs, but I also believe that they could end up being counter-productive from a security perspective. They will not provide the robust level of security that people in Britain have a right to expect.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and now the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have all argued, from slightly different standpoints, that the ideal situation is to have some sort of judicial process. I do not think anybody could argue against that from a democratic and human rights perspective. In cases in which there is the possibility of a prosecution or other judicial process to bring about the type of outcome that we desire, that is clearly the preferred option.

As I see it, the choice is between the measures in the Bill—temporary exclusion orders with a managed return—or a form of judicial process that might be even worse than that. Perhaps the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but in almost every case I can envisage that would be affected by this process, the information that will determine the trigger of a temporary exclusion order would be based on intelligence—she is not shaking her head in disagreement, so I will assume assent on that point. If that is the case, any form of judicial process to verify or authorise that process would inevitably involve wholly or partly closed proceedings. It would be impossible to give evidence from intelligence in open court for all the reasons that we have repeatedly debated. Although that is the ideal situation, given the presumption that in most, if not all, of these cases the evidence will be intelligence based, it will be difficult to rely solely on a court proceeding, no matter how it was constructed or held, other than on the basis that it would be either closed, or at very least semi-closed.

[Mr David Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman is a thoughtful and long-standing expert in this area, and he is right to say that it will be a Special Immigration Appeals Commission style process. In the past, however, SIAC-style processes with control orders and TPIMs have prevented quite egregious errors—he will remember the case of MI5 presenting the same passport two weeks running against two different suspects, and that being caught and stopped by the SIAC. My concern is not just about the increase in power; it is also the error rate and the fact that someone can be denied serious rights without a proper review. The right hon. Gentleman is right that a SIAC-style process would be necessary. He knows I am not fond of that, but it is better than nothing.

[Mr Howarth]

I think I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but none of that changes the fact that, regardless of the quality of the submission to the SIAC court, some intelligence material would be required. Even from a justice point of view that is not an ideal situation, and that is a problem.

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as well as the intelligence issue, the British people want the state to act in a nimble and dynamic way, as long as measures are proportionate, against one of the biggest threats to our security in decades? I suspect he acknowledges that broader point given his role on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Mr Howarth]

I was coming on to talk about the sorts of cases that we might be confronted with. If my remarks answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, so be it. If not, I am sure he will intervene again.

Temporary exclusion orders and the managed return process, as the Home Secretary described it, is seen as the alternative to a judicial process that for various practical reasons would either be not very just, or at least closed or partly closed. It would therefore be impractical and difficult to judge whether proceedings were fair or otherwise for anyone who was not involved, and even for some of those who were. In principle the provisions in clause 2(1) are probably acceptable, but I have a couple of issues—this goes directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith)—about how they will work in practice. Perhaps one way of looking at it would be to give examples of the kinds of cases that we are likely to see with people returning from Syria or Iraq. For convenience, I have bracketed them under three headings. They are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that in some cases all three will apply, and in others just one.

21:14

The first group identified, supported by research, are those who return traumatised. We have all seen graphic examples of horrific acts that have taken place. Some of those returning traumatised will have witnessed beheadings and other atrocities carried out by those they have fought alongside. They may have had mental issues before they went out to fight with ISIS—or whichever group they were with—but it is certainly possible, because of that trauma, that they will have mental health issues when they come back.

The second category has been well documented by researchers in touch with people in Syria and Iraq: it is those who have gone out for idealistic reasons. They may have understandably opposed the Assad regime, felt there was a humanitarian cause and gone out there to do their bit for democracy and the liberation of the people in that part of the world. There is no doubt that some of them will become disillusioned. They may be quite easy to reintegrate back into society. They have seen the alternative and perhaps will have come to recognise the merits of our democratic system, the rule of law, human rights and so on.

[Frank Dobson]

I wonder whether, when the Home Secretary replies, she could make it clear who, in relation to Syria, would be regarded as a terrorist suspect. Would someone who is not a jihadist but has gone out to fight against the Assad regime, sympathising with and supporting the British Government, be regarded as a terrorist? There may even be a few who have gone out to fight for the Assad Government. Would they be regarded as terrorists? It is not at all clear.

[Mr Howarth]

I think I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, although I rather suspect it was aimed more at the Home Secretary than at me. Some fighters out there are involved in ISIS or another group and they went out to fight for a completely different cause from the one they have ended up fighting for. It is literally that complicated.

On the disillusionment front, we will talk about the Prevent strategy tomorrow. I suspect there are some means by which Prevent, or a revised form of Prevent, would be appropriate for those who have come back disillusioned and want to reintegrate back into society.

I am sure nobody will disagree that the most difficult group are those who were radicalised in the UK, adopted a particular kind of Salafist view and went out specifically in pursuit of jihad. They think still that they are out there creating a caliphate, which is the whole meaning behind what ISIS are doing. Some will return not because they have stopped believing in that particular ideology, but because they want to resume their activities in the UK. That is the most difficult group.

To conclude, I would be grateful if the Home Secretary answered a couple of questions. I realise it is difficult in an open forum such as this, but will she indicate what assessment will be carried out of the individuals concerned to determine which of those three categories—it might be all three—they fit into? Will the conditions applied to a managed return relate to that assessment? If she could say a bit more about that, it might give people greater confidence that the process she is proposing is preferable to a judicial process that, because it is based on intelligence, might at worst be completely closed and at best partly closed.

[John McDonnell]

I seek some clarity on clause 9 on pages 5 and 6.

We know of two young men who have left my constituency to fight—we believe—in Syria, and we worked with one of the families, with the assistance of the Government, to enable them to go to Turkey to try and convince the young man to return. When I read his letters to his parents, I found them to be extremely sincere. He thought he was going to Syria to fight against the Assad regime—he called it “jihad”—to protect people being bombarded by the regime and to prevent what he considered to be war crimes. I also found him sincere in his hope that his parents would not be distressed. It was a rather sad leaving letter. At one point, he explained to his parents that there was still a few bob left on his Oyster card for them to use. It was a short, extremely moving letter from a young man in his late teens, early 20s, explaining his intentions. I believe that many young men, and possibly women, have gone out with what they and others would consider to be the best of intentions: to engage in a military action to protect people from the abuse of human rights by a dictatorial regime that, as we now know, was using gas and other weapons against its own people.

I am trying to find a mechanism to encourage people to come back and be reintegrated into our society because I think that a lot of people who went out realise they made a mistake; they might have thought their intentions virtuous in the first instance, but I think many of them would now acknowledge that they made a mistake and it has gone wrong. Clause 9, however, introduces significant offences. It states:

“An individual subject to a temporary exclusion order is guilty of an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the individual returns to the United Kingdom in contravention of the restriction on return specified in the order.”

It would be extremely helpful if the Home Secretary gave us greater clarity, either now or later, about what a reasonable excuse would be. I would not want practicalities—for example, a person not knowing they had an exclusion order against them—to be an issue. Clause 9(4) states:

“In a case where a relevant notice has not actually been given to an individual, the fact that the relevant notice is deemed to have been given to the individual under regulations under section 10 does not…prevent the individual from showing that lack of knowledge of the temporary exclusion order, or of the obligation imposed under section 8, was a reasonable excuse for the purposes of this section.”

We need to be clear about what a reasonable excuse would be in this instance.

Many of these individuals already led chaotic lives, but they are now in a zone of operations that in itself is chaotic, and I think that many will want to return. However, the fact that there is uncertainty about what would be a reasonable excuse for returning—of getting on that plane and coming back—and the risk of up to five years in prison or a summary conviction of up to 12 months could act as a disincentive.

I think we should be easing the path as best we can to as many as possible of those who want to come back to be de-radicalised or rehabilitated. In some instances, unless we are absolutely clear about the nature of these offences and, in particular, about what would be construed as a reasonable excuse for return when the person does not know whether a temporary exclusion order is in place, it could provide a disincentive to carrying out the purpose that the Government, the Opposition and others want to happen—the process of managed return.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I shall speak briefly because I know the Home Secretary is about to reply. Following the speech of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about the general direction in which anti-terror law has gone, I want to make two essential points. Ever since I have been a Member, we seem to have had some piece of anti-terror legislation before us every year. I assume that there is a very large department in the Home Office that is writing next year’s anti-terror Bill and the one for the year after that. I am sure there will be an ambition to do that.

The theme that runs through all such legislation is an attempt to give greater and greater executive powers to the Home Secretary, which are usually rowed back by a combination of the courts and parliamentary action; then, a year or two later, we come back to yet another counter-terror Bill in respect of which the Home Secretary, no doubt with the very best of intentions, is nevertheless given a high degree of executive power. It is no part of our duty as elected Members of Parliament to undermine an independent judicial process and hand executive powers to Ministers, on the basis of which they can either detain or exclude people under any process whatever. That is fundamental to what I understand our democracy to be.

Although there is—ultimately, I suppose—some degree of judicial oversight when an excluded person finally comes back to this country, I would have thought that the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) are surely true and important. If someone goes abroad, albeit on the basis of perhaps misguided notions about what they can do when they reach the zone of conflict to which they have gone, they will be there and will subsequently be prevented from returning. That might render them at risk of imprisonment by another judiciary, which might have much less concern for human rights than anyone here, and they could then be tortured and all kinds of terrible things could happen to them. Would the possession of British nationality on the part of someone affected in that way require the British Government to intervene on their behalf to stop them being tortured, given that the Government opposed their return to Britain in the first place? This whole process is full of many complications and contradictions, which I hope have been adequately thought through by the Home Secretary in introducing this legislation.

Secondly, I want to note the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We are involved in a process of making subjective judgments about who goes where to fight for what, and for whom. My right hon. Friend made the point that if somebody goes to fight for ISIS in Syria—I wish they would not; I have no truck whatever with ISIS—they will be deemed to be a terrorist and a dangerous person. If they go to fight for the Syrian Government, I presume the same point applies, but if they fight for the free Syrian army, which is supported by the Americans and the British, and they do things as despicable as they would in any other force, are they then deemed to be all right? Do they then have to prove which particular force they joined in Syria’s three-way civil war?

There is a further complication. If someone enters Syria from Turkey to fight with the Kurdish forces, having been taken there by the PKK, which is a listed terrorist organisation in Turkey, they would nevertheless be on the side of the Kurdish forces against the forces of the Syrian Government and against ISIS. There are an awful lot of contradictions surrounding how we decide who is a good fighter and who is a terrorist; who is struggling for liberation and who is a terrorist. There was a time when people involved in Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa were known as terrorists; they were later welcomed to this country as freedom fighters. Things can turn full circle.

None of what I am saying is intended to give any succour, comfort or support to ISIS, but I feel that we should think about this rather more carefully and avoid the knee-jerk reaction of saying, “These are bad fighters and those are good fighters, so we will ban these and allow those in.”

21:30

[Mr George Howarth]

My hon. Friend has already answered the question that I was going to ask, but I will make my point anyway. I am sure he agrees that there is no comparison between the barbaric acts that are being committed by members of ISIS and what was done by the freedom fighters in South Africa.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Of course that is true. I have no truck with those who commit those barbaric acts, and nor does any other Member.

Our job is to scrutinise legislation, and that is exactly what we are doing tonight. We can vote to change some of the amendments tonight, or we can return to the issues on Report. However, I hope the Home Secretary understands that a great many of us are deeply concerned about the principle of dealing with British nationals in this way, as we would be in relation to any other country. We are concerned about the long-term consequences: about what such treatment does to those people, and about the increased radicalisation of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about that.

I have encountered young people who have been attracted to what ISIS is doing. They say that what the west did in Iraq and Afghanistan was appalling, and was questionably legal in the case of Afghanistan and definitely illegal in the case of Iraq. We are living with the consequences of the war on terror of 2001, and if we continue to try to create legal obstacles and make value judgments about people without considering the overall policy we are following, we will return to legislation such as this again and again, year after year.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

That is a humbling thing. It is, however, a lamentable fact that my constituent Omar Hussain appeared on the BBC to express considerable support for ISIS. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such people need to be subject to special measures when they return to the United Kingdom?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have no support for ISIS whatsoever, and obviously that should apply to someone who has committed crimes, but we should bear in mind that expressing a political point of view is not in itself an offence. The commission of a criminal act is clearly a different matter, but expressing a point of view, even an unpalatable one, is sometimes quite important in a democracy. We should be slightly cautious about announcing that we will start to deal with people on the basis of a general view that they have expressed. We should think seriously about where our foreign policy has brought us, and what our legislative position now is.

[Steve Baker]

I am very much inclined to agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the problem is that this particular individual expressed support for beheadings with a knife. I feel that the practical realities mean that we must take special measures in the case of such people.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I would want that person to have some kind of treatment, or I would want measures of some kind to be taken, but expressing support for something and doing it are two rather different things.

There are very unpleasant parallels in the British colonial past. I sat through the hearings in the High Court when the Mau Mau people were seeking compensation. The way in which they had been treated by the British Army in Kenya in 1955 was disgusting and disgraceful beyond belief. We are now going through a horrible, vile period in Syria. We must understand where we have come from and how we will get through this period without denying our own civil liberties and encouraging more people to join in this whole ghastly process.

[Mrs May]

This has been a constructive and well-informed debate. Some Members have raised practical questions and others have raised questions of principle, but it was the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) who brought home to us why we must look at the issue of our terrorism legislation when he explained that his own constituency had been affected by not the theory but the actuality of terrorism, and that people had lost their lives as a result. So this is not an academic discussion; we are talking about a real threat to this country, and we need to do everything we can to combat that.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) talked about the balance between civil liberties and national security. I have always taken the view that without our security we cannot enjoy our civil liberties, but I would simply point out that this Government reviewed counter-terrorism legislation when we came in and took a number of steps such as reducing the period of pre-charge detention from 28 to 14 days, so we have been very conscious throughout of the need always to be aware of the freedoms we hold dear and the desire to ensure we can maintain them.

I am grateful for the constructive tone adopted by most of those who spoke in the debate. There will of course be discussion of the details and consideration of how best to achieve our desired objective, but many of those who spoke recognised the legitimate aim of what the Government are doing. It is perfectly legitimate to try to ensure we can manage the return to this country of those who may pose a threat to the people of the UK.

The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) talked about the complexity of the situation we are dealing with, particularly in relation to Syria and Iraq. People going out there, sometimes with the best of intentions, may find themselves being radicalised. People may go out to fight or work with one particular group but get caught up in fighting with other, more extreme terrorist organisations. So it is a very complex picture; I understand that.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of whether people would be looked at in categories, and described a number of categories. As I have said, individuals will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Whether they meet the criteria set out in the Bill will be considered, and that will include looking at them in much the way he described, and putting in place the appropriate measures in relation to particular individuals. Of course, such considerations will be made in consultation with operational partners, notably the security services and the police, but that this will be done on a case-by-case basis is a very important element that people should remember.

[Mr George Howarth]

My point in illustrating those categories is that the hope is that the conditions attached to the return would point individuals in the direction of prevention or some form of surveillance, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) accepted might be necessary. I was interested in those two things coming together.

[Mrs May]

I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman was making, and the intention is indeed that that will be done on a case-by-case basis—both the question whether there should be a TEO, and how that individual would be managed on their return to the United Kingdom. For some, it would be appropriate to look at further action when they return to the UK—for example, it could be right to put someone on a TPIM—or it might be appropriate for them to be put in the direction of some form of programme that helps to de-radicalise them. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of potential prosecution, too, and it may be that there is evidence and it is appropriate to prosecute somebody when they return. So we are talking about this being done on a case-by-case basis. I know that is a well-used phrase, but that is genuinely intended to operate in this instance.

I hope that answers the point the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made in referring to her two constituents who had died in Syria. Of course we think of the father she quoted, who has seen his sons die in those circumstances. Again, I assure her that we would decide whether to impose a TEO on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, people will go out to Syria for a whole variety of reasons, some of them believing they are going for humanitarian purposes.

The Government have given a clear message to everyone: if you are thinking of going out to Syria for humanitarian purposes, don’t go. There are better ways of helping the people of Syria than going out there and potentially getting caught up in the fighting and losing your life.

I welcome the constructive approach adopted by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who led for the official Opposition, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I want to respond to some of the points that they and others have raised. A number of Members spoke as though the Opposition’s notification and managed return proposals were an alternative to the Government’s proposals, but I think the right hon. Member for Delyn made it clear that they were in addition to our proposals. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked what would constitute a reasonable excuse. In fact, that would ultimately be for the courts to decide. A reasonable excuse could involve circumstances in which an individual had inadvertently breached the terms of their permit to return to the UK for practical reasons—for example, when their plane had been diverted.

[Frank Dobson]

If a person who had been made the subject of an order that had been deemed to have been served came to this country without knowing that it had been served, would they have committed an offence?

[Mrs May]

I was about to come on to the issue of serving the order. It is set out in the Bill that the fact that someone does not know that an order has been served is not necessarily a sufficient excuse, but that is a matter that would be tested in the courts. They would be looking at the action that was to be taken in relation to a breach, and it would be for them to determine what a reasonable excuse would be. An order would be served in person whenever possible, but when that was not possible, we would seek to ensure that an individual was made aware of the order through other mechanisms. We might, for example, seek to serve it at the individual’s last known address or serve the order to file. As I said earlier, similar systems work effectively in other contexts, such as informing foreign nationals about decisions on their immigration status.

[Frank Dobson]

This reminds me of one of my constituents. He went to Somalia and then went to Djibouti, where he was arrested and handed over to the Americans. When he said he was a British citizen, he was told, “No, you’re not. The Home Secretary has taken your citizenship away.” He was unaware of that fact, but I gather that the order was deemed to have been served on him in Somalia because it had been sent to his mother’s address in Islington.

[Mrs May]

As I have said, when it is impossible to serve an order on an individual in person, it is standard practice to make every attempt to serve it in a way that ensures the information gets to them. Using their last known address is one way in which such decisions are served.

[John McDonnell]

Can we be clear on this point? Clause 9(4) states that when a relevant notice

“has not actually been given to an individual, the fact that the relevant notice is deemed to have been given to the individual…does not…prevent the individual from showing that lack of knowledge of the temporary exclusion order…was a reasonable excuse”.

To be frank, that will not be strong enough in many cases.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as I have just said to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, the point is that what is a reasonable excuse will be tested in the courts. I did not quote the exact words but I cited the spirit of the point in clause 9(4). As I say, that matter would be tested by the courts and it would be for them to determine whether or not what the hon. Gentleman describes constituted a reasonable excuse.

21:45

Let me deal with two specific points about the Opposition proposals, the first of which relates to the process of information going to carriers for the notification and managed return order. The proposal works only because the full name and birth details of individuals are disclosed to all carriers. The existence of that list and any failure by any carrier to protect that data could expose a number of individuals to mistreatment, and we must not forget that some countries’ national airlines are state owned and operated. This goes to the point I made when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Delyn: there is a real difference between saying that the Government hold all the information, obtain it from the carriers through advance passenger information about individuals, carry out the matching, determine whether there is an individual for whom authority to carry should not be given and then give that information on that individual to the carrier, and the Opposition’s proposal, whereby information on a large number of individuals should be given to all carriers on the off chance that one of those individuals will attempt to travel with one of those carriers.

That difference is important, and as I indicated in earlier remarks, what we have found in dealing with carriers is that they feel, as the Government do, that the responsibility for getting that matching process right in determining whether authority to carry should be given for an individual should rest with the Government. On requiring that notification from the carriers, the information as to who is being carried is already provided by carriers when they submit advance passenger information to the Government’s border system. But, as I say, it is then for the Government to determine whether one of those individuals is somebody against whom action should be taken through not providing the authority to carry.

As part of the TEO, the individual’s passport will have been cancelled, which makes it much more difficult for them to travel through other countries. That point was made by a number of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. He, like a number of other hon. Members, mentioned the other issue I wish to deal with: whether or not the decision to impose a TEO should be for the courts or for the Secretary of State. Comparisons were made with TPIMs, where we have that judicial process in place, but even in that process the initial decision is taken by the Secretary of State. Arguments have been made in the past that the decision should be given over entirely to the courts, but I have been clear that it is important that such decisions, where we are imposing restrictions on an individual, are being taken by someone who is democratically elected and therefore accountable to the electorate—to the people—for them.

As for whether or not there should then be a separate automatic court process in relation to the imposition of a TEO, this is about the operation of a royal prerogative in terms of the cancellation of a passport, and that operation currently does not have that judicial process inserted within it—the decision is taken by the Secretary of State. That is the first point to make. The second point is that the TPIMs have far more restrictions that can be imposed on an individual than would be imposed simply by the TEO. A number of hon. Members referred to the TEO in terms of taking away the right of abode for somebody in the UK, and I intervened on the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion in respect of her use of the term “exile”. This is not about saying to somebody that they are for ever exiled from the United Kingdom and cannot return. This is about not stopping somebody’s right of abode in the United Kingdom, but saying to an individual about whom there is concern that they have been involved in terrorism-related activity outside the UK that when they return they will do so on the basis of a process that the Government have put in place such that their return can be managed.

[Mr Winnick]

What makes some of us uneasy about temporary exclusion orders—I was certainly uneasy about them from the very beginning—is that excessive powers are being given without the individual having legal redress. I hope that one does not have to say that one is against terrorism and loathes every form of criminality, when we see what is happening with terrorism and what is happening in Australia. That does not alter the fact that these powers should be subject to some form of legal redress, and it is unfortunate that they will not be.

[Mrs May]

They are subject to a form of legal redress; it is called judicial review. The debate has not been about whether there is some form of legal redress available to individuals but about whether there should be an automatic court process after a decision has been made by the Secretary of State.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to intervene again.

[Mr Winnick]

The judicial process comes afterwards, and it can be very complex for the individual concerned. What I am saying is that if the Secretary of State is going to take powers such as temporary exclusion orders, those powers should be subject to a court order, and the arguments should be put in court. There may be some obvious restrictions for reasons that have been stated, but at least they are all part of living under the rule of law.

[Mrs May]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the power to remove a passport from an individual—the royal prerogative power—is not subject to an automatic court process. This is more akin to that royal prerogative exercise in the removal of a passport than it is to the imposition of the sort of measures that can be within the terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Let us be clear: a judicial review is not an appeal; it is an examination of process. It is no more and no less than that. To call it a judicial oversight is really not correct.

[Mrs May]

The point is that there is a process in which the courts consider whether the decision by the Secretary of State to exercise the temporary exclusion order was reasonable. Let me come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). If we look at the difference between a royal prerogative power and the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, the restriction on an individual that can be imposed through a TPIM is far greater than that imposed through the exercise of the royal prerogative power. This power of the temporary exclusion order is more akin to the royal prerogative power, which is why I believe that the proposals in the Bill are appropriate for the sort of measure that we are putting in place.

As the Bill goes through its various stages in this House and the other place, there will be further discussion on the issues that have been raised by hon. Members today. What we are proposing is a new power, but it is both necessary and proportionate. As I have said before, it will not render anyone stateless. It will ensure that those who have been fighting abroad and who want to come back to the United Kingdom do so in a managed way and on our terms, and it is compliant with all our domestic and international legal obligations. I invite all those who have tabled amendments to withdraw them, and the Committee to agree that clauses 2 to 11 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Mel Stride.)

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 7 together.

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

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1988 (River Tweed) Amendment Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 October, be approved.

Public Procurement

That the draft Single Source Contract Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.

Water Industry

That the draft Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 11 November, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 18 November, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

petition

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

21:55

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

In presenting this petition, I would like to praise the excellent work of the Friends of Scunthorpe Fields and Open Spaces, particularly Chris Jury, Rick Loudon and Stuart Green, in campaigning to secure continued free access to Scunthorpe’s Co-operative ground and getting more than 1,500 people to show their concern by signing the petition. I would also like to welcome North Lincolnshire council’s recent willingness to recognise the strength of feeling on the matter.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe County Constituency,

Declares their objection to North Lincolnshire Council’s decision to deny the general public access to the old Co-operative Ground adjacent to Central Park in Scunthorpe by erecting a fence around the perimeter.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage North Lincolnshire Council to remove the fencing erected around the old Co-operative Ground adjacent to Central Park and allow free public access to the area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001412]

Housing Development (North Somerset)

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Dr Fox, I remind you that at 10 o’clock I will have to move the motion again. I am just warning you so that as you are warming up in your speech you appreciate what is going on.

21:57

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

I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Never having warmed up in less than two minutes, that should be something of a challenge.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate—a little earlier than expected tonight—what has increasingly become a total fiasco around housing needs in North Somerset. Let me begin by describing how we got to today’s absurd situation. As a result of the election of the coalition Government in 2010, greater decision making powers were returned to local councils, so North Somerset council was able to provide a revised regional spatial strategy that reflected local needs, infrastructure and objectives, which had a total target of 14,000 houses by 2026. That was a dramatic reduction on the previous regional spatial strategy target of 26,750, which was abandoned after the 2010 election and the defeat of the Labour Government.

North Somerset’s core strategy was put before the planning inspector for public examination at the end of 2011. The inspector determined that the plan was sound and it was adopted in April 2012. However, the plan was subsequently challenged in the courts by the university of Bristol, which wants to build on green-belt land in my constituency. That is, in my view, an appalling testament to how much it values its own coffers and how little it values the local environment.

In the High Court, the judge ruled that the Government inspector had failed to provide proper reasons in his report to support his conclusion that North Somerset’s 14,000 housing target was appropriate. Let me be clear—this was a failure on the part of the inspector, not of North Somerset. Had the inspector given adequate reasoning, North Somerset would now be required only to provide 14,000 houses.

22:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

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

[Dr Fox]

At this point in the story, we expected that there would be merely a re-examination process where the inspector would provide more detailed reasons for the support of North Somerset’s core strategy. Unfortunately, the judgment did not provide a remit for the re-examination process. As a consequence of the inspector’s error, North Somerset council had to submit the key parts of its plan, which had been remitted, for re-examination. Of course, by this time the context had changed significantly with the publication of the national planning policy framework in March 2012. The stated objective of Government was now to

“boost significantly the supply of housing”

and to ensure that the plans met the

“full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area”.

There was, however, one overwhelming problem in the context of North Somerset. Planning on housing numbers, and perceived need, had been done in conjunction with the local authorities in Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire. The other three authorities had their plans accepted in full, which meant that only North Somerset would have to have its numbers reconsidered in line with the 2012 NPPF assumptions. Bizarrely, we are now being asked to meet what is termed “Bristol’s unmet need”—something that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will understand from your own constituency interest—although the adopted Bristol city plan did not identify such a need.

So what are the implications of all this? First, we have found ourselves with a new inspector who has told our elected council that even an increased number of 17,000 houses is too small, and that 20,000 would be a starting point for discussion. It is clear that the number is rising back towards the 26,000 target that was in the RSS specifically abolished by the Government. It seems that the bureaucrats always get their way, whatever local or nationally elected politicians want in the names of those who cast their ballots.

Secondly, despite the fact that the error came from the planning inspector and not from the council, it is the council tax payers of North Somerset who have had to carry the burden in legal and other costs of well over £100,000 so far. Why on earth is this not being carried by the Planning Inspectorate, which is where the mistake occurred, and therefore by central Government funding?

Thirdly, and most importantly, the problem caused by the original Government inspector’s error is being compounded, as the delay to the adoption of the core strategy is holding up progress on the detailed allocation of sites for new housing, and creating uncertainty over the council’s five-year land supply. This means that local villages around North Somerset are being subjected to developers attempting to grab large greenfield housing sites in the hope of being able to receive planning permission on appeal. Villages such as Yatton, Claverham and Backwell in my constituency, and Congresbury and Churchill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) are under attack from speculative development. That is clearly at odds with, and undermines, the Government’s objective of a plan-led system.

As my hon. Friend the Minister can see from the maps I have supplied, North Somerset is not able to accommodate the scale of housing without encroaching into flood zones, green belt, sites of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will assist us in defending those hugely sensitive areas. Even a housing target of almost 21,000 dwellings—50% more than had originally been determined to be necessary—will put enormous pressure on those lying outside the green belt. The infrastructure in villages such as Yatton, where the GP surgery and the local primary school are already full, is utterly unsuitable for that level of growth. More of the housing needs of Bristol need to be met in the city through redevelopment of brownfield sites, as is accepted by all the authorities in the sub-region. Indeed, North Somerset council has worked hard to secure the south Bristol link road, which will open up access to south Bristol and facilitate regeneration there—the type of regeneration we all need.

So what do we want? We have already worked hard with Bristol city council, South Gloucestershire council and Bath and North East Somerset council on their longer-term strategic housing needs as we start to work together towards our strategic housing market assessment for the period to 2036. It seems utterly ludicrous to be asked, in effect, to work out a largely arbitrary housing allocation while preparing that plan. The most logical thing would be to put back in place the North Somerset core strategy originally agreed by the Government inspector while we assess, with our three partner authorities, the wider developmental needs of the region.

The Government must give these commitments: they must underline the importance of the plan-led system, ensure that the Planning Inspectorate withstands the pressures from developers, and allow democratically elected councils to get their locally prepared plans in place.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for calling this extremely important debate. Large areas of the land he is talking about are green-belt land. Just as people in south Gloucestershire and Kingswood have happily protected the green belt, it must be up to local residents to decide whether they wish for building on the green belt; they should not have some kind of mission creep from Bristol. Does he agree that the plans set out by Labour in the Lyons review that would allow Bristol to expand into areas of North Somerset and south Gloucestershire are completely unacceptable, and that we must preserve and protect the green belt wherever possible?

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, as I am for that of my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Weston-super-Mare.

I think we all speak with one voice when we say that the Government must tonight reiterate that green-belt protection will not be weakened and that the Bristol green belt will be retained in its entirety to defend the adjacent North Somerset countryside from development. Additionally, it must be made clear that greenfield development should come only as a last resort after all brownfield sites are exhausted. Finally, the infrastructure that is needed to support new development, including schools, GP surgeries and, where appropriate, roads must be provided by the developers; the cost must not fall disproportionately on local council tax payers.

In North Somerset we are facing an expensive fiasco that is undemocratic and producing unsustainable outcomes. We have been very patient, and our very competent council has been extremely co-operative. Now we need answers.

22:08

[The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) for securing this debate and for his staunch advocacy of the views of his constituents and of North Somerset council. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has made similar representations.

I regret that as a result of a legal challenge by Bristol university, elements of North Somerset council’s plan have had to be re-examined. I understand that this legal action successfully challenged the methodology for calculating existing housing need in North Somerset. The issue will have been thoroughly considered by North Somerset council and at the re-examination. The challenge was partially successful. The judge’s decision handed down on 14 February 2013 said that the inspector, in appraising the council’s housing requirement figure as 14,000, failed to give “adequate or intelligible reasons” for his conclusion that the figure made sufficient allowance for latent demand—that is, demand unrelated to the creation of new jobs.

Although the judgment found shortcomings with the inspector’s approach, the housing calculation methodology, which ultimately led to the plan being thwarted, was proposed by North Somerset council. I welcome the fact that the re-examination of elements of the North Somerset local plan appears to be nearing its final stages, but I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, many of his constituents and others have concerns about the approach to housing need coming through the re-examination process.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that my ministerial role means that I cannot comment on the approach proposed by the North Somerset local plan, as it is currently at examination. However, I hope that some of the points I am going to make on the issues to which his specific concerns relate will none the less be useful in putting the matter in context and give some surety and confidence.

As my right hon. Friend said, he has previously raised concerns directly with the Planning Inspectorate about its handling of the initial examination of the plan. Again, propriety prevents me from commenting on the conduct of independent inspectors, but in general terms their role is to ensure that plans are consistent with national policy and sound in other respects, and they cannot propose amendments to plans other than where asked by the relevant council.

For many years we have failed as a nation to deliver sufficient housing to meet growing demand. That is why our policy rightly asks that authorities plan to meet objectively assessed development needs in a way that is consistent with national policy as a whole. Localism means a choice over how the needs of communities are best met, not whether they are met.

I will return in a moment to the balance between enabling sustainable housing and conserving the natural and historic environment, as it is of central importance to planning nationally and in North Somerset.

[Dr Fox]

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the liability of the Planning Inspectorate and its role in this mess, I simply ask, for the sake of natural justice, how it can possibly be defensible that a mistake made not by the local authority, but by the Government inspector, can lead to the local authority and the local council taxpayers carrying the financial liability rather than the person and the funding source from where the mistake emanated?

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend rightly makes the case on behalf of his local authority and I appreciate the points he makes. As I understand it, the core issue behind the judge’s decision related to the way in which the housing assessment was done. That is a matter for the local authority, but I will look into the specifics of what happened with the Planning Inspectorate. I will touch on that later, but perhaps I could also arrange to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the issue.

Housing pressures are felt as equally, possibly more acutely, in the west of England as they are elsewhere in the country. National housing data indicate high demand for homes in North Somerset. I am also aware that affordability is more acute in North Somerset than in many other parts of the country. The evidence of North Somerset council itself suggests housing need of close to 26,000 homes, and the regional spatial strategy noted a figure of 26,750. Both figures are some 6,000 above those that the council is currently considering in its examination.

[Dr Fox]

I apologise, but that is simply not accurate. The figure of 26,000 was in the regional spatial strategy that we were elected to abolish, and we did abolish it. Those numbers were not drawn up in terms of local need in North Somerset. They were drawn up by bureaucracy, which seems to be getting its way by the back door. Neither the local authority nor central Government, who abolished the strategy, wanted those numbers, but they keep coming back. Why is that? Is democracy meaningless in this process?

[Brandon Lewis]

The figure in the regional spatial strategy was 26,750. The supporting evidence provided by North Somerset council indicates that its housing need may be as high as 25,950. Those are the figures it is working on. Obviously, this is a two-stage process and the second stage will focus on what the council can deliver within environmental constraints. I will return in a moment to the point raised by my right hon. Friend, but the council is looking at what it can deliver and I believe the figure it is currently considering is more like 20,000.

Our policy asks that authorities plan for their areas on the basis of the appropriate evidence, including preparing a strategic housing market assessment to identify the scale and mix of housing likely to be needed over the plan period. That evidence should inform local plans to establish an aspirational but deliverable vision for the homes, jobs and infrastructure that are needed in areas. I stress that there are three parts to that.

I know that my right hon. Friend and his constituents rightly place a high value on the environment in North Somerset, much of which is of exceptional quality. Let me make it absolutely clear that, as our planning guidance sets out and as we re-established in guidance just this summer, establishing development needs is only the first part of the plan-making process and should be unconstrained by policy restrictions.

Once an authority has objectively assessed needs it is then important to look closely at constraints, whether they are related to the environment, landscape, or infrastructure provision, to determine what level of development it is appropriate to provide and where. Policy is absolutely clear that need does not automatically equal supply and there are strong protections in place to guard against inappropriate development. Let me stress some of the examples to give confidence to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Those protections cover the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas vulnerable to flooding, even in the absence of a local plan. I know from the maps I have seen that those are all areas that are important in Somerset, and particularly in North Somerset.

Our guidance, published in March 2014, sets out specifically that local plans should be

“realistic about what can be achieved and when”,

including in relation to the constraints that infrastructure might put on delivery. Similarly, guidance published in October of this year sets out the Government’s view that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the green belt and other harm to an extent that constitutes the “very special circumstances” required to grant permission for inappropriate development in the green belt. We made it clear in the guidance that the presence of constraints, such as the green belt, might limit the ability of an authority to meet its need. That is an entirely legitimate evidence base.

Leaving aside the protections in national policy that always apply, we are all agreed on the importance of getting plans in place as they set the framework in which decisions are taken locally, and we have returned power in plan making to the local level wherever possible. As my right hon. Friend outlined, we revoked the unpopular regional strategies. We have enabled communities to introduce neighbourhood plans and have reformed local plan making so that inspectors may propose modifications to a plan only if invited to do so by the council.

Of course, much of North Somerset’s local plan, including on protections for sensitive areas, has been in place since April 2012. I also want to be clear that, as set out in the national planning policy framework, emerging plans may start to carry weight in decision taking before they are formally adopted. I would take the opportunity to welcome recent progress in the wider west of England towards getting local plans in place. In particular, Bath and North East Somerset council adopted its plan on 10 July, and Mendip district council’s plan was found sound on 2 October. Alongside already adopted plans in other areas, that recent progress has put authorities and communities on the front foot in determining what is appropriate and where.

In general, we have recently seen a substantial uplift in plan making. Now 80% of authorities have published a local plan compared with 32% back in 2010 and 60% of councils now have adopted local plans compared with just 17% when the Government came to power. Neighbourhood planning, introduced in the Localism Act 2011, also gives communities real power to bring forward their vision for the sustainable development of their areas and has been eagerly taken up by communities.

More than 1,200 communities across the country, covering more than 5 million people, are now developing neighbourhood plans. I welcome the fact that there are four such groups of which we are aware at various stages of the process in North Somerset. I understand that Backwell parish council’s neighbourhood plan has passed examination, Long Ashton parish council’s work is subject to planning consultation and Winscombe and Sandford parish council has applied for its proposed area to be designated as a neighbourhood plan area. I would very much encourage those organisations to progress with their plan-making work.

We recognise that legal challenge can in some cases unnecessarily delay planning. That is why we have introduced a raft of reforms to ensure efficiency in the legal handling of planning matters to complement our wider reforms improving the efficiency and speed of the system. The reforms include reducing the window in which claims for judicial review can be made against planning decisions, introducing a permission stage into the statutory review of plan making to weed out unmeritorious challenges at an early stage and establishing a specialist planning court within the High Court to speed up the determination of challenges to planning and infrastructure schemes.

I encourage all Members to focus on the positive progress that has been made recently in respect of North Somerset’s local plan at examination and to look towards getting plans in place. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare have issues with how we got to where we are.

[Dr Fox]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, as a member of the Government Whips Office, is unable to make his voice heard, so perhaps I may speak for both of us. We seem to be in a ridiculous position. The plan was put forward in 2011, agreed by the inspector and adopted in 2012, yet here we are at the end of 2014. If I am not mistaken, at the end of 2015, we will begin the planning period in which we will look at housing allocation through to 2036. It would be the height of absurdity if we were one of only four councils in the sub-region to be asked not only to look at our 2026 housing allocation, but to start the process all over again at the end of next year and look at the 2036 allocation. Surely this is a complete waste of public resources, as well as being utterly contrary to what my hon. Friend the Minister says is the Government’s aim, which is to encourage greater localism.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we want to encourage localism. That is why we want the decisions to be made locally. I appreciate the frustration that the legal process has brought into this case. I know that he appreciates that I am limited in what I can say about any specific case, particularly while it is going through examination. However, I am happy to discuss this issue with my right hon. and hon. Friends in greater detail at an appropriate point and to write to them to outline the detail behind their queries, particularly in respect of the Planning Inspectorate and the legal situation, so that I cover any issues that I have been unable to address this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

22:21

House adjourned.

Petitions

Monday 15th December 2014 Petitions

Monday 15 December 2014

Spread Co Limited

Monday 15th December 2014 Petitions

The Petition of sundry former employees of Spread Co Limited,

Declares that although Spread Co Limited (based in Northwood Hills) has a heavy online presence it is actually a small company with fewer than 50 members of staff occupying a few rooms above an inexpensive row of shops; further that Spread Co Limited has made losses for most of its history; further that despite its small workforce Spread Co Limited has attracted numerous staff complaints and civil claims; further that Spread Co has been making redundancies and has been cost-cutting since 2012; further that an Employment Tribunal this year found that the CEO of Spread Co Limited, Ajay Pabari, had treated a manager, Richard Pashley, unlawfully as well as treating a female member of staff unlawfully (although the female member of staff did not win her constructive dismissal claim as she had resigned prematurely against legal advice) and that other members of staff had compromised claims successfully; further that there have been repeated and multiple claims that Spread Co Limited has been involved in questionable financial practices and employment blacklisting; further that there have been repeated complaints about Ajay Pabari, Matt Funnell (the Head of IT) and Richard Pashley; and further that the Petitioners believe it appropriate to warn investors and customers of the substantial risk to their money.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Financial Conduct Authority and the Data Protection Commissioner to investigate Spread Co Limited, Ajay Pabari, Richard Pashley and Matt Funnel in relation to the numerous staff complaints that Spread Co has attracted, the claims that Spread Co Limited has been involved in questionable financial practices and employment blacklisting and the complaints against the individuals mentioned.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming.][P001416]

Localised healthcare in North East Cambridgeshire

Monday 15th December 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the North East Cambridgeshire Constituency,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that healthcare should be more localised in North East Cambridgeshire; further that residents of North East Cambridgeshire face long travel times and costs when requiring procedures which should be delivered locally; further that the Petitioners believe that treating patients locally brings significant benefits; and further that there is a community campaign entitled ‘Treat Me Local’ calling for healthcare to be more localised in North East Cambridgeshire which has been signed by 1,389 individuals.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the ten pledges of the Treat Me Local campaign in North East Cambridgeshire are fulfilled within twelve months.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Stephen Barclay, Official Report, 25 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 888.]

[P001401]

Observations from the Secretary of State for the Department of Health:

Decisions about local services should be made as close to patients as possible, by those who are best placed to work with the patients and the public to understand their needs. Patients and carers should be at the heart of the NHS, through shared decision-making about their care and meaningful involvement in how health services are organised.

Local NHS commissioners now have the freedom and autonomy to take responsibility for meeting the needs of local patients and the public by working closely with secondary care, other health and care professionals and with community partners to design joined up services.

These commissioning arrangements encourage innovation by placing commissioning with the local GPs who know patients best and are aware of the latest clinical evidence and technological advances in health and care.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has met local commissioners to discuss the “Treat Me Local” campaign, and local commissioners have welcomed his interest in developing health services further for the local population.

Westminster Hall

Monday 15th December 2014 Westminster Hall

Monday 15 December 2014

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Monday 15th December 2014 Westminster Hall

Paediatric First Aid

Monday 15th December 2014 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to the Millie’s Trust campaign to train all nursery nurses in paediatric first aid.

Mr Chope, it is a great pleasure to conduct this debate under your chairmanship. It is a sombre subject that we are addressing this afternoon, and it is a difficult address for me to give, knowing the circumstances, and the family, Joanne and Dan Thompson, who are here with us today to listen to our proceedings. In parts, it might also be a difficult debate for Members to listen to.

Tragically, Millie Thompson passed away aged just nine months after a choking incident at a nursery school in my constituency of Cheadle. Following Millie’s tragic death in October 2012, her parents, Dan and Joanne Thompson, set up a charity called Millie’s Trust, as a legacy in Millie’s memory. I am delighted that they are able to be here today to witness our debate.

This Backbench Business debate is the next step for the Thompsons’ campaign, which has one simple aim: that all nursery and pre-school staff receive paediatric first aid training.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I am particularly grateful to the family, who are with us today. However, it is almost amazing that this requirement is not already law and on the statute books. The fact that there so many Members here from across the House should perhaps send a message to the Minister: “Let’s get this on the statute books really quickly.”

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I could not agree with him more. I am delighted that so many hon. Members from across the spectrum in the House of Commons have been able to find time to be here today, when I know that—as ever in this place—there are plenty of other important issues being debated at the same time.

Millie Thompson was just nine months old when her parents, Joanne and Dan, left her in the care of a nursery in Cheadle Hulme. Her parents had done what every parent does when placing a child in an educational establishment, and as far as they were concerned they had chosen the very best place for their daughter because the establishment had an outstanding Ofsted rating in early 2012.

Millie Thompson passed away on just her third day at nursery. The Thompsons received a phone call stating that Millie was having problems breathing and when Millie’s mum arrived at hospital, sadly Millie had already passed away. Millie had choked on her lunch, which consisted of food that she had been competent at eating for several months previously, which added further to her parents’ distress.

On further investigation by the police, a few things became apparent. The nursery had used various first aid companies for their training, many of which no longer exist. Furthermore, the majority of staff were trained in first aid at work, which of course is not the same as paediatric first aid. However, two members of staff were trained in paediatric first aid, but we will see later why I believe that that was not effective enough and why we would like a change in legislation.

Millie was not given full choking treatment from any member of staff; she received only the bare minimum of treatment, which consisted of a few slaps to the back. Sadly, Millie’s parents have had to view CCTV coverage from outside the nursery on that tragic day, which showed many people running around, including the supervisor and the two members of staff who were trained in paediatric first aid.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a very moving case. Does he agree that it is surprising, bearing in mind all the other requirements and regulation around child care, that this requirement is not just part and parcel of it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) suggested, most of us would have assumed before this incident was highlighted that that was the case, and that trained people would be there and able to see the signs if such a tragedy was happening.

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and, yes, I totally agree. As the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) also suggested, most parents—I am a parent myself, although my children are now grown up—would assume when they are taking their children to a nursery that has all the relevant certification and regulation that the staff there will be adequately trained, and I intend to emphasise that point later.

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

I used to chair the Children, Schools and Families Committee and I remember pushing Ofsted on this issue; I also represent Huddersfield where the National Day Nurseries Association is based. This case has been a wake-up call to everyone that paediatric care in an emergency is totally different from first aid and needs specific training. I hope that this positive intervention from parents who are grieving—they are being positive and doing something about this issue—is an example to all of us to make these changes quickly.

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Again, I could not agree more. I think that everybody, once they have focused on the issue, starts to appreciate that there is a significant difference between having a general qualification in first aid and having a qualification in paediatric first aid, which by the very nature of the fact that it involves dealing with small children—in this case, Millie was only nine months old—is rather more specialist. However, parents would naturally assume—I think we all would—that if they are placing their child in a nursery, the nursery would be covered.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that tribute must be paid to the Thompsons; after such a terribly tragic experience, they have made something positive through Millie’s Trust, which is creating a legacy in Millie’s memory. I will say more about that legacy later.

I will go back to the point I was making about the CCTV coverage. Millie’s parents have stated that it was obvious from that footage that when Millie was being taken out to the ambulance she was “like a rag doll” and they believe that at that point she should have been receiving CPR.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and of course he is right to highlight these issues here in the Palace of Westminster today. However, this tragic incident not only highlights the failures in the nursery system—that is, the lack of paediatric first aid training—but the fact that until recently the ambulance services were not compelled to have the appropriate paediatric equipment in their ambulances. If one good thing has come out of the Millie’s Trust campaign, it is that the North West Ambulance Service has now pledged to ensure that all its ambulances have the appropriate paediatric equipment.

[Mark Hunter]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he is absolutely right. I will come on to the point about how the North West Ambulance Service has responded to this case in the positive way that he has indicated.

On the day in question, Millie was being fed by the supervisor of the nursery, who had worked in child care for some 20 years; she was an experienced person. Yet, when this tragic incident happened, Millie received no treatment from the supervisor, because she was not trained in paediatric first aid. Instead, she handed Millie to another member of staff.

After Millie had received the slaps to her back, she was left in the arms of someone who was trained in first aid at work, not paediatric first aid. That should not have been the case. Sadly, of the two paediatric first-aiders at the nursery, one chose not to be involved and went to look after the other children while the second administered the back slaps and then left the building, through the nursery grounds, and went to the main road to wait for the ambulance. This should never have happened. The paediatric-trained first-aider should not have left Millie’s side until the paramedics arrived.

I will outline the treatment that Millie should have received and what should have happened at that point in time. Millie, as I said, received a few back slaps and was then held in a non-paediatric-trained first aider’s arms for around 10 minutes. On arrival, the paramedics immediately began standard choking treatment for a baby. By this point, it was tragically too late and Millie’s heart had stopped beating.

In a statement from the nursery, it was stated that one of the untrained staff members finger-swept Millie’s mouth, which all guidelines and all paediatric first aid courses state is the wrong thing to do. The treatment for a choking baby, as outlined on the NHS Choices website, is as follows:

“A baby who is choking will be distressed and may be unable to cry, cough or breathe.

Lie the baby face down along your forearm or thigh, with their head low. Support their head.

Give up to five firm slaps to the baby’s back between the shoulder blades with the heel of your hand. (The heel is between the palm of your hand and your wrist.)

Stop after each slap to check if the blockage has cleared. Look inside the baby’s mouth and remove any obvious blockage. Do not poke your fingers into the baby’s mouth unless you can see and reach the blockage. You may push it further in.

If the airway is still blocked, give up to five chest thrusts.

Stop after each thrust to check if the blockage has cleared.

If the baby’s airway is still blocked after three cycles of back slaps and chest thrusts, you should: dial 999 for an ambulance immediately. Do not leave the baby—take him or her with you to the phone; continue with the cycles of back slaps and chest thrusts until help arrives.

In babies under one year old”—

remember that Millie was under one year old—

“chest thrusts are used in an emergency to clear a blockage from their airway. Important: do not use abdominal thrusts with babies under one year old.

Lie the baby along your forearm on their back, with their head low. Support their back and head.

Give up to five chest thrusts. Using two fingers, push inwards and upwards (towards the head) against the baby’s breastbone, one finger’s breadth below the nipple line.

Check if the blockage has cleared after each thrust, by looking inside the baby’s mouth and removing any obvious blockage.”

Again,

“Do not poke your fingers into the baby’s mouth unless you can see and reach the blockage as you may push it further in.”

This is standard choking advice and every paediatric first aid course teaches these guidelines, which means that the staff involved that day should have given a statement as I just stated it.

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

We are all moved by the hon. Gentleman’s description of what has happened, and impressed that he has put on the record exactly what should be done. I am the grandfather of a seven-year-old child, and we all go through these agonies about what we would do. Has he made any estimate of the amount of time and difficulty there would be in incorporating this work in a straightforward, standard course for paediatric care workers, so that we can see just how little time would need to be spent to make sure that all those working in nurseries have that sort of information available to them, and have practice doing what he has stated needs to be done, should there be a choking incident involving a baby?

[Mark Hunter]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The Millie’s Trust campaign has done an awful lot of work in this regard and is satisfied, I think, as most hon. Members who have considered the issue would be, that this can be done at no great cost. We hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government are serious about their intention to address the subject. As other hon. Members have already said, with the benefit of hindsight, there is a loophole in the regulation that needs to be addressed urgently.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate and congratulate Millie’s Trust on its campaigning work on this issue. Was any member of staff on the premises that day trained in paediatric first aid? If there was, what happened?

[Mark Hunter]

Yes, there was. I mentioned just a few moments ago that, of the two paediatric first-aiders who were at the school at the time, one chose not to be involved, by going to look after the other children in the nursery, while the second member of staff with a qualification did carry out the back slaps, but then left the baby and went via the nursery grounds on to the main road to wait for the ambulance to arrive. So the child was actually left without the continual support of somebody qualified in paediatric first aid, which of course the guidelines clearly stipulate.

[Ann Coffey]

Would not the member of staff trained in paediatric first aid have appreciated the seriousness of the situation?

[Mark Hunter]

The only answer I can give is that one would like to think so. I think any parent would have assumed that to be the case. However, I will come on to that and to what the coroner said in this regard as well.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the Chamber. It is a truly tragic story. Does he agree that, although this is always a serious issue, as more couples go back to work and ever more people are using child care, the gravity of this situation increases? One child lost is one too many, but with more people using child care they require more reassurance.

[Mark Hunter]

I could not agree more. That is one reason why it is long overdue for the Government to take this issue seriously and why they should make provision for a change in the regulations that will require this to happen in future. Hon. Members will be shocked to hear that in some respects the capacity of the regulations to help in a situation such as this has, in my view, been reduced; they have been weakened rather than strengthened. I am sure that that is the result of the law of unintended consequences, but that is what has happened and it will be a cause of great concern to all of us.

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

I was a divisional surgeon with St John Ambulance and I also lectured in emergency medicine. The hon. Gentleman makes a good, specific case about what happens in nurseries, but very many more people are parents than nursery workers. Does it not seem absurd that, at the beginning of the 21st century, we spend so much money both on the National Health Service and on education, yet future parents can go through both systems without ever learning some of the most basic life-saving skills, which are readily available—they would not dream of not teaching their children to swim—but are not taught nearly widely enough in our society?

[Mark Hunter]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. In fact, Millie’s Trust—the legacy set up in the child’s memory—provides paediatric first aid training free of charge to interested parents. As hon. Members can imagine, a great number of interested parents have been stepping up, wanting to take advantage of that. The training courses are also provided at cost to commercial organisations, such as nurseries. Again, as hon. Members can imagine, as a consequence of this case and other tragic cases there has been a great deal of interest in that. However, it is pertinent to say that parents themselves might also want to make themselves aware of the correct practices and procedures, should such unfortunate circumstances come about.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, and congratulate Millie’s Trust on highlighting awareness of this issue. I met a member of the family at Little Blossoms nursery in Barrowford in my constituency at a fund-raiser for Millie’s Trust. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has said. When I was talking to people and raising money for Millie’s Trust, it was providing people with the free pocket face shields that can be put on a key ring. Those of us who are qualified and trained in delivering CPR always have a face shield on us in case we come across a choking incident that has developed into something where CPR needs to be given.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

rose—

[Mark Hunter]

I give way to the chair of the all-party group on first aid.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the manner in which he has spoken. I follow on from the previous two interventions. Sadly, I am a parent who has walked this way, albeit at a different age and in different circumstances. We need to reinforce the need for first aid right across society. In each occupation and discipline, account needs to be taken of the specialist medical needs. First aid in schools, which I have been banging on about ever since I became a Member of Parliament, needs to be brought in, but the specialist needs of occupations need to be bolted on to that.

[Mark Hunter]

My hon. Friend’s contribution was, as ever, clear and concise. It gave a clear indication of his experience personally and as the chair of the all-party group on first aid.

To move on for a moment to the current guidelines, the Department for Education published its new statutory framework for the early years foundation stage in March. It became effective in September. Paragraph 3.25 of section 3, which is on the safeguarding and welfare requirements of early years providers, states:

“At least one person who has a current paediatric first aid certificate must be on the premises and available at all times when children are present, and must accompany children on outings. Childminders, and any assistant who might be in sole charge of the children for any period of time, must hold a current paediatric first aid certificate. Paediatric first aid training must be relevant for workers caring for young children and where relevant, babies. Providers should take into account the number of children, staff and layout of premises to ensure that a paediatric first aider is able to respond to emergencies quickly.”

What the Thompsons, Millie’s Trust supporters, I and countless other Members are asking is: why stop at one person? Does that not leave a nursery open to the possibility of another such tragedy? What happens if the first-aider is off ill, called away or panics?

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Children’s day nurseries are places where all sorts of bugs go round. Often the level of sickness absence is a lot higher than in other places of work. Is it not right, therefore, that more people are trained so that if paediatric first-aiders are absent because of sickness, someone else can take up the reins?

[Mark Hunter]

That is indeed the case I am advocating, so I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comment. If the trained first-aider is off ill or has been called away urgently or even, dare I say, panics when presented with a choking child, who is able, under the current guidelines, to step in and provide the assistance that could save a child’s life? Furthermore, I am concerned that the Department is heading in the wrong direction on this issue. The new update to the framework, which came into effect in September, has placed the onus on the child care facility to decide how many staff need to be trained. It is now up to the individual organisation; there is no national regulation on that. No ratio on first-aiders to children on site has been given or suggested by the Department. That is a weaker position than we had previously, when the framework clarified that

“first aid training must be local authority approved and be relevant for workers caring for young children”.

On first aid training providers, it is my view and that of the campaign that straightforward guidelines should be in place on who can administer paediatric first aid training and to what level. Many child care providers do not realise that a nursery using a first aid training company that is not regulated must carry out its own due diligence. Would it not be best if everyone obtained a regulated first aid qualification accredited by an Ofqual-recognised awarding organisation, so that we can make it easier for parents to have confidence when placing their loved ones in the care of others?

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

The hon. Gentleman is making an important and powerful case. Does he agree that as part of that training, it is essential that people are given opportunities to practise on dummies? As we might have seen with that qualified person in the nursery, sometimes people faced with these situations, without having practised on dummies, panic.

[Mark Hunter]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She raises an issue that I hope to address in the rest of my speech. I am sure that we would all agree that parents should be able to walk into a nursery and see “Level 3 Paediatric First Aid” on a certificate and be satisfied that the nursery has followed platinum-standard guidelines. I will move on to why that is particularly relevant, as a couple of Members mentioned earlier.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the current guidelines had in effect watered down the previous position. Has he been able to ascertain from Ministers before the debate why that is the case? What is the thinking behind that dilution of the position when this terrible tragedy occurred?

[Mark Hunter]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, we have not been able to ascertain that, but I hope the Minister will address that in his response.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about regulation, but regulation will not do everything—it never will. What I discern in the tragic circumstances of Millie’s death is panic. I believe that people were running around and did not know what to do. I am sure that Millie’s parents, being so passionate, have already thought of this, but what we need are not Baker days, but Millie’s days, where every three months there is training for all the staff. That training will trickle down fast if the culture is changed, and then there will not be the panic that we saw.

[Mark Hunter]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He was one of the Members who referred to the rising number of children in nursery schools, which is why this debate is particularly pertinent and topical. More and more people are looking to avail themselves of the opportunity to place their children in nurseries. The Department for Education’s child care and early years providers survey in 2013, which was published in September, revealed that the number of registered places in full day care settings rose by 10% between 2011 and 2013. Due to the introduction of funded provision for disadvantaged two-years-olds, there was a whacking 72% increase between 2011 and 2013 in the number of two-year-olds attending sessional settings in the 30% most deprived areas. This debate is on a huge issue that potentially affects an awful lot of people.

As demand increases, supply rises to meet that demand. As new nursery places are provided, we have a duty to ensure that all children are safe and that all staff are well trained. None of us here will need reminding that children younger than one are extremely vulnerable and need constant care and attention. In the rush for nursery places and with the subsequent waiting lists, I firmly believe that parents are making an assumption that all nursery staff are adequately trained in how to provide the appropriate paediatric first aid, but we now know that that is sadly not always the case.

As an aside, hon. Members may be interested to know that I recently inquired about the provision of training here in Westminster, at Parliament’s nursery. The answer is that all relevant staff are trained in paediatric first aid. If it is good enough for the children of Members and House staff, it ought to be good enough for every child attending nursery anywhere in the country.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. As is evidenced by the attendance today, the campaign has generated huge interest—particularly, for understandable reasons, in Greater Manchester. I was aware of the case, but not of the policy background, which the hon. Gentleman has described. I simply want to indicate my support for the campaign and for the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that everyone involved in the Millie’s Trust campaign will be heartened by the interest shown by hon. Members from right across the House, including the hon. Gentleman.

During the inquest into Millie Thompson’s death in December 2013, the coroner, John Pollard, said:

“It is of national importance that the legislation surrounding nurseries regarding paediatric first aid is reviewed.”

He also recommended that the North West Ambulance Service review some of its policies, including what paediatric equipment each ambulance should carry. I am pleased to report that, since the inquest, it has successfully carried out that review. The coroner has said that the issue is of national importance and called for the policies around paediatric first aid treatment in nurseries to be reviewed, so I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

The North West Ambulance Service has gone further by introducing a minimum requirement list of paediatric equipment that every ambulance must now carry. The service’s urgent review and subsequent changes have ensured that any errors made in how it reacted to the 999 call regarding Millie Thompson will not be repeated. It has taken seriously what the coroner advised, and Millie’s death has had a positive outcome that will help other children in future. We acknowledge that the Department for Education deals with a wider remit than that of the North West Ambulance Service, but it is disappointing that we have seen action from the ambulance service on the coroner’s recommendations, but none as yet—although we live in hope—from the Government.

Following Millie’s tragic passing, the Thompsons decided to set up a charity to provide paediatric first aid training to anyone who wants to learn. They have successfully built what is now a national charity in just two years. It provides free training to parents and hugely discounted qualifications to anyone who needs paediatric first aid training, which is what Ofsted requests. Over the past two years, the charity has trained about 7,000 people, many of whom are nursery nurses. Millie’s Trust is a registered centre through Qualsafe, which is an Ofqual-recognised awarding body organisation.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to speak for a second time and for making that point. Millie’s Trust is a bona fide, regulated, registered charity. Did the coroner make any comment about the training competence of whoever trained the first aiders? I was alarmed when my hon. Friend said earlier that unregulated people may be out there providing first aid training; they may not be competent to do the job that they tell people they are able to do.

[Mark Hunter]

The coroner made a wide-ranging series of points in his response. I do not have his report to hand, but I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first aid, gets to see a copy. It is fair to say that the coroner addressed the wider concerns and the relevance to any future measures that may need to be taken.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), I sadly lost a young member of my family in my earlier life, so I know what the experience is like.

I want to stress that the issue is not limited to England. People in Ireland are currently trying to get a Bill through that would do exactly what the hon. Gentleman is supporting here today. We must ensure, because of how we deal with education and health matters in this great nation of ours, that the same recommendations are made in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is quite right. As I progress through my speech, I will be discussing the experience in Ireland and elsewhere. The Irish Government are indeed making moves towards ensuring that such regulations are in place. That is credit to the Thompsons, who, at the request of the Irish Government, have had two or three meetings with officials over there to see how that might best be done.

Millie’s parents have taken it upon themselves to use the success of the charity, combined with the recommendations of Mr Pollard, to start an awareness campaign about the current legislation. I turn to what the Thompsons and their campaign seek to achieve. The first thing to say is that they do not stand alone. Thousands of people from my Cheadle constituency, from Stockport, from Greater Manchester and from all around the UK have rallied to their side to sign their e-petition, which now has more than 102,000 signatures. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall read out the petition:

“Following the death of Millie Thompson and the coroner’s suggestion in December 2013 that ALL nursery nurses should be trained, Millie’s parents are now campaigning to have it made law that everyone working in a nursery MUST be trained in Paediatric First Aid.

Please support and sign this petition in memory of Millie and for the future safety of your children.”

The campaign’s objectives are simple and straightforward, and I do not think that anyone here would demur from the idea that such important issues need addressing now.

Regarding the awareness campaign, it has become extremely apparent to Millie’s Trust that the majority of people, including parents and child care workers, do not know about the current legislation—just as Millie’s parents did not know about it until this tragedy struck them. Most parents presume that when they put their child in the care of a nursery, they are in the safest possible place. In fact, if disaster strikes in a situation such as Millie’s, the reality is that many staff would not know how to help a child who was choking, struggling to breathe or needing CPR. Is that really protecting our children as they should be protected? Is that really what parents should expect when they leave a child in someone’s care, often when paying high costs for the privilege?

Health and safety is up to date in every other aspect in the UK, so why has the simplest safety for children been forgotten about? Why has the legislation been allowed to fall so far behind modern times? If legislation was not there to be changed, we would still be placing children in cars without child seats and we would not be wearing seatbelts. It is time that this legislation was brought into the 21st century.

In June, the Thompsons and I met the Minister then responsible for this area, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). We had a helpful meeting. The Minister listened to the Thompsons’ case and told us about the new requirements in the statutory framework that came into force in September. The Thompsons and I want the requirements to go further and we look forward to meeting the Minister who will reply today at the conclusion of the debate. I should report to hon. Members that the Minister has indicated his willingness so to do.

I am struggling to understand the reticence about moving to a requirement for all nursery staff to be trained in paediatric first aid. Under the Thompsons, Millie’s Trust has been a revelation, providing paediatric first aid training as cheaply as possible and making it available to people whatever their financial situation. The Thompsons do not want any other parent to go through the tragedy that befell them. I sincerely hope that I will not do them a disservice by saying that if they can set up a charity and begin providing the necessary training to thousands so rapidly, why can the Government not do the same, or at least make it a legal requirement?

In England, there is no mandatory requirement for anyone on a child care course to achieve a qualification in a paediatric first aid course, whether a national vocational qualification or an award from the Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education. In the National Nursery Examination Board course that child carers took during the 1990s, first aid was a requirement. When the course became an NVQ or a CACHE award, that requirement was taken out. Will the Minister address that concern as well? At the meeting with the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Thompsons asked him who made the decision to remove the first aid part of the course and why—a fairly simple and straightforward question. The Minister could not give an answer off the top of his head, and Mr and Mrs Thompson were told that his Department would research the matter and contact them with the findings. It saddens me to report that some six months later they are still waiting for an answer to that simple and straightforward question.

We are not asking the Government to fund the courses for nursery establishments. The majority of nurseries are private and are run as a business, for profit. We simply want the regulations changed to make it clear that, as a business, nurseries have to build paediatric first aid training for their staff into their annual business costs.

I want to touch briefly on precedents elsewhere. For example, in Australia the legislation includes regulation 136(3):

“The approved provider of a family day care service must ensure that each family day care educator and family day care educator assistant engaged by or registered with the service—

(a) holds a current approved first aid qualification; and

(b) has undertaken current approved anaphylaxis management training; and

(c) has undertaken current approved emergency asthma management training.”

Each family day care educator and educator assistant must hold all three qualifications.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does that cover childminders?

[Mark Hunter]

The hon. Gentleman asks his question from a sedentary position, but I believe so.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am sorry. A lot of children in this country are with childminders in small groups.

[Mark Hunter]

I am sure that we can check that out afterwards. I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that.

In Minnesota, in the United States, in June 2010 at a child care centre a young girl called Hannah Kozita, aged only four, passed away after choking on a grape. Within a year, the state had seen fit to pass what is commonly referred to as Hannah’s law. One year after that tragedy, therefore, that particular state had introduced a new law including a new requirement from May 2011 for all teachers and assistant teachers in child care centres to have CPR training, including, specifically, CPR for children and infants. The law also required at least one trained staff member to be present whenever a child was on a school trip, and for training to be completed within 90 days of the law being passed. What is good enough for Minnesota, ought to be good enough for us in the UK.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) referred earlier to circumstances in Ireland. The Thompsons have been warmly received in the Republic of Ireland. They have made a number of visits there, at the request of the Irish Government, to talk about what ought to be done. Earlier this month, Millie’s Trust was invited to Ireland by Denis Naughten, TD, the Member for the Roscommon, South Leitrim constituency, following an earlier visit to Ireland in April. During their most recent visit, the Thompsons received vital support from Senator Jillian van Turnhout, who is also a successful children’s rights activist.

Mr and Mrs Thompson presented to TDs and Senators in Leinster house in Dublin to make them aware of the state of existing legislation. The Thompsons met with an extremely positive reaction. The TDs and Senators even received a mini-training session, which they all accepted was valuable knowledge, despite the small amount of time available. Following the presentation, a meeting was set up with Ireland’s Minister for Children, Dr James Reilly. I am pleased to report that the outcome of that meeting was also extremely positive. Dr Reilly was surprised to hear how Millie had received only “a few back slaps”. He went on to offer his own experience of watching a valuable member of his staff freezing when having to deal with working with a child in an injection scenario, even though she was extremely competent when dealing with adults. That goes back to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the understandable reaction of some to panic in such distressing circumstances.

Dr Reilly’s Department has since been in touch with Denis Naughten, TD, to ask Millie’s Trust to provide research information on legislation in other countries to see how it was worded when the law was updated. That Department has no problem with encompassing what Millie’s Trust is seeking to have done. That is extremely positive support as a consequence of the awareness that Millie’s Trust has created not only in the UK, but further afield.

In conclusion, I will revisit one or two key aspects of what I have said. The passing of Millie Thompson in a local nursery school was a tragic accident. The circumstances, choking, can happen to any infant at any mealtime in any child care provider or nursery school within the UK, or even at home. We can do nothing about such instances, but we can ensure that those responsible for responding are as well trained as possible.

The requirement for only one member of staff to be trained in paediatric first aid is simply not sufficient; it does not allow for illness, for large numbers of children or for the trained member of staff panicking when faced with a genuine emergency. My contention and that of the Thompsons and everyone behind Millie’s Trust is that the majority of parents assume that most pre-school staff will have paediatric first aid training. The best response to that mistake is to ensure that all staff are adequately trained.

The number of children in nursery schools is going up. We must ensure that they are all safe, not only the ones who go to the most diligent child care providers. More than 100,000 people have signed the Thompsons’ e-petition calling for the Government to introduce universal paediatric first aid training. Parents throughout the country want to see that change implemented. In Australia, in the state of Minnesota and, as looks increasingly likely, in the Republic of Ireland, the requirement for nursery staff to have paediatric first aid training is being implemented easily and straightforwardly. The UK must follow suit.

The last line of the Thompsons’ e-petition reads:

“Please support and sign this petition in memory of Millie and for the future safety of your children.”

That last part sums up our hope for the campaign in the future. It is not about concerns to do with new red tape, additional bureaucracy or even cost; it is about the future safety of all UK children, and it is about doing our utmost to ensure that a tragedy such as Millie’s death is never, I hope, repeated.

17:20

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) has presented his case comprehensively; the interventions he took and his responses to them have dealt with virtually every aspect of the debate.

I will address the wider need for first aid. I was shocked to hear that the element of first aid required under the previous regulations for child care was withdrawn. We need an explanation of why, bearing in mind that many of us have been pushing for first aid to be made part of the national curriculum. I brought forward a Bill in the previous Parliament on that issue, and have raised it at regular intervals at Education questions; most recently, I raised it with the Secretary of State for Health when he made a statement on greater investment in the NHS a few weeks ago. A population trained in first aid would bring massive financial savings, and would save several thousand lives a year—think of those in need of attention after a heart attack or a road crash.

Today’s debate is specifically about young children and infants. We have heard a catalogue of things that went wrong. I pay tribute to Millie’s parents for the diligent way in which they have turned a personal tragedy into a hope that we can take things forward, so that no other parents—or grandparents, uncles, aunts or family friends—will experience such a tragedy in the future.

I repeat the point I made in an intervention: if we start with five-year-olds knowing about nose bleeds—both theirs and other people’s—by the time they leave school, they will be trained in life-saving techniques for the rest of their lives. On top of that, we then need to bolt on, occupation by occupation, the specific first aid requirements that each profession needs. Clearly we do not need to train someone in a car factory on how to deal with an infant who is choking, but a person working in a nursery needs to know all about dealing with whatever calamity might occur to a young person there.

One point my hon. Friend mentioned has caused me great concern. Until today I had simply assumed that people who taught first aid were qualified up to a required standard, meaning that they were registered and regulated to give first aid and first aid training. We know that St John Ambulance and the Red Cross are qualified first aid organisations, but I am aware of other organisations, companies, groups of friends or whoever, who come together to provide first aid cover at events at a much lower rate than those two charities. I do not know how qualified those people are.

That is a serious issue that the Government need to look at and investigate. Who is providing first aid at events and how qualified are those first-aiders? That is why I asked my hon. Friend whether the coroner had made any comment about who trained the two members of staff at the nursery who, on the day in question, fell short of what was required. I do not know this, but it may well be that they had not been fully trained by qualified trainers. That is a huge area that the Government need to look at, although it is probably more an issue for the Department of Health than for the Department for Education.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very moving debate. I thank hon. Members who have intervened. Specific thanks must go to Millie’s parents, who have devoted many months now to a campaign that has come quite quickly into the Houses of Parliament. We owe it to them to take the matter forward.

17:24

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter)—not just for securing the debate, but for his calm and measured argument.

This debate marks yet another milestone in democracy. A while back, the tragic death of a nine-month-old child would not have led to a giant petition, signed by over 100,000 people, being considered by Parliament, with the chance perhaps to change the law. Although that would not have happened but for changes in parliamentary procedure, it is above all the result of the remarkable reaction and leadership shown by Millie’s parents, the Thompsons. Joanne is motivated by the purest motive that any of us parents could hope for—to make something positive out of profound tragedy, and light a candle in the darkness.

Although many of us can think of other recent examples of constituents campaigning successfully on issues dear to their hearts, today’s starting point must be to recognise both the very sad circumstances of Millie’s death and the positive reaction of Joanne and her husband afterwards in founding their charity. The heart of today’s debate is whether it should be mandatory in law for everyone working at nurseries to be given paediatric first aid training, or whether the law should stay where it was when the Childcare Act 2006 was brought in, under which it is mandatory that someone on the premises is trained, but not everyone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made a case for first aid training for every individual in the United Kingdom. He has a point: it is right that we should all go on a course. It is one of the best things I have ever done—I did so fairly recently, and no doubt far too late in life. However, that does not necessarily mean that to do so should be mandatory, thereby having rules, regulations and punishments attached to it—that people should be fined or there should be some other punishment for not going on a first aid course. I am not sure that today is the moment for a discussion of whether we should legislate that everybody should go on a course.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I should point out to my hon. Friend that I was not saying that there should be first aid training for every person, but that it should be part of the school curriculum. Clearly, over three generations everybody in the country would then be a trained first aider; others could—this is the example he has set himself—go voluntarily for training. However, if parents are entrusting their children to a nursery, it should be mandatory for the staff to have specific training for the needs of the role that they may be called upon to perform.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is right to differentiate between the two. The point I was going to make was that the fact that I went on a first aid course about two years ago does not necessarily make me that competent to attend to someone in a life-or-death situation today, let alone at some point in the future. Although it is a great idea that everybody at school should learn first aid, again, that will not necessarily make them competent to act in a life-or-death situation. As other hon. Members pointed out, the stress of that situation, the possibility of panic and the absence of recent and up-to-date experience of handling dummies and so on, will be crucial.

That brings me to the key points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. He rightly touched on the fact that the number of children in child care is rising and on the need for care for the most vulnerable—this point will be especially relevant to the Minister, whose son cannot be much older than Millie was at the time of her death in 2012. The case that has been made today for mandatory paediatric first aid training for everybody working in child care is therefore a powerful one. The coroner concluded that, first, the ambulance service should carry paediatric equipment for such a situation and, secondly, that there should be a national review.

Joanne and her campaign for Millie’s Trust have already achieved the first objective, which other ambulance services around the country may want to consider. I shall certainly write to my own ambulance service in Gloucester. The second objective is open for the Minister’s response, and I hope he will bear in mind the already remarkable achievement of the trust in having trained several thousand teachers for free. This is a fantastic objective, and the number of teachers who have already been trained is fantastic.

I do not know the precise cost of ensuring that every person in every nursery is trained, and I hope that it would not increase the cost of the child care provided to so many of our constituents around the country. I hope that it will be absorbed by the nursery as a necessary part of providing that trust in child care that all of us who are parents would expect.

Today’s debate is an important step in recognising what an individual has done on behalf of her own child and her own family situation, but it has much wider applicability across the land to all of us who are parents and to everyone who puts their children, with trust, into a nursery school. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle made a strong case that is the stronger for having been measured and reasonable. I hope that the Minister—a reasonable man and a young father to boot—will be able to give us some reassurance about the national review as quickly as possible. I suspect that all of us here today hope that that review will lead to mandatory provision of paediatric first aid.

17:31

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this debate, but I do not intend to speak at great length. There may be an interruption to our proceedings, and we want to hear the Minister’s response.

I commend the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) who introduced the debate in a calm and measured way. He told us about Millie Thompson and the tragic circumstances of her death, and outlined the aims of the subsequent campaign that her parents instigated. He said that despite that, the Government may have watered down some of the regulations since that campaign started. Before the conclusion of this debate, we need to hear whether that is the case and, if so, why. I commend the hon. Member for Cheadle on leading this debate in such a measured, calm, careful and considered way.

I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who told us that he has had tragedy in his own family and therefore brings his own experience to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) is no longer in his place, but he intervened earlier. I commend other hon. Members who have contributed, including the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) who made a short speech emphasising that the hon. Member for Cheadle had made a strong case.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and many others will be grateful that it is happening because more than 100,000 members of the public signed the petition that Millie Thompson’s parents started. It is absolutely right to take this opportunity to join in the tributes from other hon. Members to the tireless campaigning work undertaken by Joanne and Dan Thompson over the past two years since the tragic death of their nine-month-old daughter, Millie. Following their horrific loss, they have worked immensely hard to try to create something positive, launching Millie’s Trust last year to campaign for every nursery carer to be trained in paediatric first aid, and to provide courses to increase the number of nursery staff with first aid training. We should commend them on the practical training they have provided by setting up that trust.

The remarkable number of signatories that the parents’ petition has attracted demonstrates clearly that they have struck a chord with the public, and it is absolutely right that we consider carefully whether the current requirement for first aid training in nurseries is appropriate. What happened to Millie’s parents is something that every parent dreads: the sudden death of a perfectly healthy child whom they had dropped off at nursery on another ordinary working day. All of us who are parents can empathise with their sorrow and desire to understand what happened and why it happened to their daughter, but no one who has not experienced what they experienced can possibly understand the pain that they carry with them every day.

As we heard, Millie died after choking on mashed shepherd’s pie during her third day attending a nursery in Cheadle Hulme in October 2013. It is important to note, as hon. Members have done, what the coroner said about the case. He was concerned enough by what he heard during the inquest to raise serious questions about whether regulations on first aid training for nursery staff were set at the right level, and furthermore took the unusual step of announcing publicly that he would be writing to the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), to urge a move to first aid training for all nursery staff. The coroner described that

“as a matter of national importance”.

The hon. Member for Cheadle highlighted that.

The paediatric first aid certificate of the member of the nursery staff immediately to hand when Millie began choking had expired. Recognising the seriousness of the situation, they called for help from the staff member on duty with up-to-date training. Technically, the nursery was at that time, fulfilling its duty to ensure that at least one staff member trained in first aid was on duty. After looking at the circumstances of the case, the coroner’s verdict was death by misadventure, and the question arose of whether having that single member of staff available—we have heard more details from the hon. Member for Cheadle about what happened—was sufficient. As has been asked, what would happen if they were elsewhere in the building or engaged in a task that it would be dangerous for them to abandon immediately with other children in the nursery’s care? In serious medical situations involving the youngest children, any delay can mean the difference between life and death. We can genuinely understand the coroner’s concern regarding the regulations on first aid training and why he was moved to take the action that he did in writing to the Secretary of State.

Opposition Members and, I am sure, all hon. Members, are firm believers in securing high quality, affordable, flexible child care. We believe that at the heart of that mission is a continual drive to improve the standards and standing of child care staff. We are fortunate, as a nation, to have many highly-skilled, dedicated and hard-working people working on the front line in nurseries, children’s centres and as childminders. There is a real desire among the best practitioners for improved training, including ongoing retraining throughout an individual’s career in child care. They know that that route will lead to better care for children, as well as eventually improving pay and conditions for child care staff. As we move towards a child care sector where higher standards of training and professional development become the norm, improving the standard and quantity of staff trained in paediatric first aid must be at the heart of that.

The Minister may tell us that immediately to demand that every staff member must be fully trained would bring difficulties for the sector—it will be interesting to hear his response—but it is certainly right that that should be the goal. In larger child care settings in particular the requirement for a single first aid-trained staff member may not be sufficient. Rising professional standards in the child care sector ought to pave the way for parents and regulators to expect more in terms of the skills and training of staff. In this particular case, tougher regulations may not have made a difference, but the tireless work of Millie’s parents since her death has opened a serious and vital debate about whether the regulations that we have now are sufficient.

Everyone here today wants to do everything possible to prevent further tragedies of the sort that Joanne and Dan Thompson have suffered. To help us judge what is being done, we need to hear the Minister’s answers to a number of different points. Will he tell us what the previous Secretary of State’s response was to the coroner’s letter following the inquest and in what terms he responded to the coroner? I am sure the House would be very interested to know how he responded to that call from the coroner.

I have the Government’s response to the e-petition here, and it is quite brief and light in detail—I know that is often the case in the way that such things are set out. However, I and the rest of the House would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether there is any kind of ongoing review of the suitability of required levels of paediatric first aid training in child care settings, and if so, what form that review is taking.

The Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), met Millie’s parents back in June. Further to what the hon. Member for Cheadle said, will this Minister tell us more about what actions arose as a result of that meeting? What follow-up actions were taken by the Department after that meeting? What were the new requirements that, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, had been explained to the parents during the course of that meeting, and in particular, why have they not received an answer, as he reported, about who made the decision to remove the first aid requirements? If the Minister is not able to provide that answer directly to us here and now, will he commit on record today to providing it to the House in the very near future by writing to those Members present and to the Thompsons, and will he place a copy of that response in the House of Commons Library, so that it is available for all to see?

We would all like to know why, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, there has apparently been a watering-down of the regulations in this area since this terrible tragedy occurred. Does the Minister accept that that is the case? If not, will he explain why he does not accept that what has happened since constitutes a watering-down, and if he does accept that the regulations have been watered down since these tragic events, will he explain to the House why that has happened? What is the thinking behind it and what is he going to do about it, in the light of the strength of feeling that has been expressed across the House today and given the campaign that the Thompsons have launched and the e-petition with more than 100,000 signatures that has prompted today’s debate? I look forward very much to hearing the answers to those questions and to the issues raised by other hon. and right hon. Members during the course of this debate.

17:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I start by offering my deepest sympathies to Mr and Mrs Thompson for the tragic death of their daughter, Millie, in October 2012. I would also like to say how much I admire the worthwhile work that the Thompsons are doing through Millie’s Trust in their daughter’s memory, providing first aid courses free of charge for people who are pregnant or have children under 12 months, and providing two-day courses for a charge to nurseries. Those are all incredible feats in a very short period of time, and I congratulate them on that. It is no accident that Joanne Thompson won the Lorraine Kelly inspirational woman of the year award.

This debate has come about following Millie’s tragic death and because of the impact of Mr and Mrs Thompson’s e-petition, which has gained more than 102,000 signatures, to have it made law that everyone working in a nursery must be trained in paediatric first aid. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on securing today’s debate on this important matter. I also thank all the hon. Members who have spoken here today. I have listened to their contributions and I agree that Millie’s death is a wake-up call for all of us. I hope during the course of my speech to address the points that have been raised so far.

As many hon. Members have said today, we can all agree that all young children deserve the highest possible level of safety and care. As a new father myself, with an eight-month-old son who is about to start nursery, I know that I want the nursery that I choose for my son to have an exemplary safety record, so that I can be reassured that he will have the best possible care. That is because the safety and welfare of children in all settings, whether in social care, schools or early years provision, is paramount.

What do we want to achieve? We want to ensure that there are confident, capable paediatric first-aiders in all nurseries, taking responsibility and responding quickly in an emergency. What are we doing to deliver that? The statutory framework for the early years foundation stage sets the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to age five. All nurseries must meet these standards to ensure that children learn and develop well and are kept healthy and safe.

In the light of Millie’s case, we have strengthened the early years foundation stage requirements. From this September, the early years foundation stage has made it even clearer that nurseries must always have staff available who are trained in paediatric first aid. Beyond that, we added to the paediatric first aid requirement that nurseries

“should take into account the number of children, staff and layout of premises to ensure that a paediatric first aider”

is “available at all times” and

“able to respond to emergencies quickly.”

In other words, if a nursery is operating over three floors, with children on each floor, it is not acceptable for it to say that it only has one first aider, because it is operating on three floors.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle said, will the Minister state whether training in those first aid requirements are being given by people who are qualified first aid trainers and not just people who say they are qualified first aid trainers?

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. I know that he has a lot of experience in these matters, which brings me on to one of the points that has been raised in this debate. It has been said that the regulations have been watered down since September. That is simply not the case. We have strengthened the regulations by saying that providers must take account, as I have said, of the number of children, the staff and the layout. Although we have removed the local authority approval, we replaced that with a requirement to meet the course content for British Red Cross and St John Ambulance, so based on good practice of those with expertise.

[Ann Coffey]

The Minister seems to be saying that he is not prepared to ensure that all staff working in a nursery have training in paediatric first aid. Two staff in this nursery were trained. Does he think that the nursery had trained enough staff in paediatric first aid? If he does not think that is so, why will he not bring in regulations to ensure that the number of paediatric staff that he thinks are suitable to be trained in a nursery are trained?

[Mr Gyimah]

That is a very good intervention. I am developing my case, but as I said at the outset, it is obvious that we need two things. We need enough staff trained in paediatric first aid, but also, importantly, we need to ensure that they are confident and capable of acting in an emergency, rather than panicking and not dealing with it. We do not want it to be the case in an emergency that there are a number of people who have a first aid certificate but it is not clear who is the point person who is capable and competent to deal with that kind of situation.

[Ann Coffey]

As the Minister will be aware, the campaign that Millie’s Trust is running is aimed at ensuring that every member of staff in a nursery is trained in paediatric first aid, because it believes, rightly, that that will protect children in all situations. The Minister has not answered my question; I have heard a lot of good intentions from him, but I return to the question that I asked him. If he does not think that it was sufficient, in the nursery in this case, to have only two members of staff trained in paediatric first aid, why will he not regulate to ensure that all members of staff working in a nursery are trained in paediatric first aid?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady makes a very passionate point. As I said, I will develop my case further. What I am saying is that the requirement of the EYFS means that nurseries must think carefully about whether they have enough trained staff. That is about more than ensuring that they have enough trained staff to cover leave or staff sickness. We know that, in some instances, the speed at which a trained first-aider can attend to a child who needs help can be crucial in ensuring a good outcome for the child. We are already seeing how the new requirement is being delivered on by many nurseries, which are taking into account staff turnover, holidays and sickness.

The hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned the House of Commons nursery, which advertises that all its staff have first aid certificates. In fact, many nurseries continue to do that as a point of differentiation between them and other nurseries, so I would say that the strengthening of the EYFS is having an effect on the market. We are putting lots of other things in place to strengthen that even further.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I apologise for joining the debate late: I was in a statutory instrument Committee. I have been listening carefully to the debate and the Minister’s responses. The more I listen, the more I wonder what the reason is for not having everyone trained to the extent that the e-petition asks for. As the Minister explains things more, he seems to be confirming my growing feeling that that would probably be the best way forward. Will he spell out why the Government are reluctant to go down that route?

[Mr Gyimah]

We want to create a situation in which we have competent people dealing with this kind of incident. On its own, a first aid certificate, which means that someone can tick the box to say that they have a first aid certificate, does not mean that that individual will be able to deliver first aid as and when an incident happens. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) mentioned, in the case of one of the people who had a first aid certificate in this instance, their certificate had expired. If someone gets a first aid certificate, they have to renew it every three years.

I want to ensure that we do not end up legislating and having a tick-box culture, thinking that that in itself has addressed the problem, when there are a number of other things that we can do, as I will explain if hon. Members allow me to develop my points further. I am referring to work that we are doing with the National Day Nurseries Association to help nurseries to understand what it means to have capable and competent staff and how they can respond in an emergency. I believe that that is far more important than a tick-box approach to dealing with this kind of situation.

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the Minister for taking another intervention. With respect, I do not think that anyone here today has been arguing for a tick-box culture and, if I may say so, I do not think that that phrase is particularly helpful to the consensus that has emerged during the debate.

I want to follow up the intervention from the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). The Minister referred to the changes to legislation. The fact of the matter is that it rests with individual organisations, individual nurseries, to decide what is and is not sufficient. The Minister says that if a nursery is operating over three floors rather than one floor, that is a different consideration. But as long as it remains the decision of the individual establishment, there will be inconsistencies.

Certain establishments—better-funded ones, with much more money—will no doubt ensure, as some already do, that every relevant member of staff has paediatric first aid training, but until it becomes necessary for all relevant staff to have that training, there will always be some nurseries, some of these businesses, that choose not to have every relevant member of staff trained. That is the core of the problem. The Minister needs to provide some clarity on why, apparently, the Government do not think that that would be a logical way forward. It would remove any uncertainty.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He used Ireland as an example in his speech and, in the light of the intervention that he has made, I will refer to the Irish example. The Irish are actually moving towards the framework that we have in this country with the early years foundation stage. In response to a parliamentary question, they have said explicitly:

“The final draft will include a requirement that early years services have a person trained in first aid for children available at all times.”

The solution that we are adopting, which can best be described as one that allows nurseries to use their professional judgment in appointing the right staff to this vital role, is not as anomalous as the hon. Gentleman describes. I have said before and I will say again that not everyone who works in a nursery will be ideally suited to being a first-aider. Nurseries should ensure that their first-aiders have the confidence and the reliability to cope with an emergency, and I believe that the EYFS achieves that. At this stage, I do not feel that we need to amend those requirements further. I do, however, want to remain fully informed of the effects that those changes are having on the ground, and I know that the Department for Education plans to undertake a review of them next year.

I also know that the Thompsons were concerned that some nurseries might not know how to interpret the strengthened requirements. I am pleased that in direct response to the Millie’s Trust campaign, the Department for Education will issue in February new guidance for nurseries, setting out clearly what the expectations are and how nurseries can deliver on them effectively. I have asked the National Day Nurseries Association to help with that guidance. It will be identifying a number of nurseries delivering exemplary paediatric first aid practices, including methods used to ensure sufficiency of first aid-qualified staff, and providing case studies and videos to ensure that nurseries are absolutely clear on what the PFA requirements mean and how they should work in practice.

[Ann Coffey]

Despite what the Minister is saying, we could still have a situation in which a nursery, under his example, had decided that having two staff trained in paediatric first aid was sufficient—and a child died. That clearly shows that the way to protect children is not to rely on nurseries exercising their professional judgment, but to make it mandatory that all staff be trained in paediatric first aid. Otherwise, at some time in the future, there will be another inquest because a nursery has exercised its professional judgment. Sadly, for the child who might die in the future, that is not enough. Surely the Minister can accept that the way forward has to be making it mandatory for all staff in nurseries to have first aid training. We cannot leave this matter just to the professional judgment of individual nurseries.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady makes another very passionate intervention. Of course we want to ensure that the requirements in the EYFS are being delivered on in every nursery. As she rightly points out, we do not want just to leave that to the nursery’s professional judgment on its own. We should remember that Ofsted regulates and inspects all early years provision. Before a nursery can open, Ofsted checks that it meets all the registration requirements, including those for first aid. It also inspects all nurseries on how they meet the EYFS requirements, including those for paediatric first aid.

If a nursery fails to meet the requirements on first aid, that will impact on Ofsted’s inspection judgment; as anyone who has looked at the nursery market will know, nurseries crave a good judgment from Ofsted because it is a point of differentiation in the market. Ofsted’s judgment is therefore really important. If the nursery does not meet the requirements on first aid, Ofsted will respond with appropriate steps. That may include giving the nursery a short time to meet the requirements. Where necessary, Ofsted can take enforcement action.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

To ensure we have consistency of practice in the sector, I would like to hear from professional bodies and training providers about how they support nurseries in providing paediatric first aid. I would be delighted to discuss the guidance further when I meet Mr and Mrs Thompson later today. The guidance will be published next year, and I very much want to have their input and involvement.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I apologise for not being here for the whole debate. I welcome the inclusion of the requirements in the Ofsted inspection, but will the Minister tell us how frequently our nurseries are inspected? My understanding is that an outstanding one, which would have been judged on previous criteria, might not be inspected for several years. In taking the approach that he is, does the Minister consider that time is on his side?

[Mr Gyimah]

That is a good question. There is an Ofsted inspection cycle for every nursery, but there is also a cycle for the first aid certificate. If someone has a certificate, it will expire after three years, and they will then have to go back and do a two-day course to have it refreshed. I am counselling against believing that the acquisition of a certificate alone will prevent such awful tragedies from happening again. What will prevent them from happening again is nurseries knowing what best practice is and implementing it, rather than just saying, “Our staff have the certificate, so we are covered.” That is what I want to avoid.

[Richard Graham]

In a sense, there are two slightly different issues. I think the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) was close to implying that, had everyone received paediatric training in the nursery where Millie, very sadly, died, these events would not have happened, but I am not sure that any of us here today is in a position to make that judgment. However, on the wider point, many of us feel that future tragedies would be much less likely if everybody did receive paediatric training, so will the Minister respond to the call for a review, which the coroner, in effect, made?

[Mr Gyimah]

I can commit to a review next year of how the requirements have been strengthened and how they are bedding down in the nursery sector. I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. None of us can say what would happen if there was another situation on the ground, but we do have the coroner’s response, and I can commit to a review.

[Mark Hunter]

Further to that intervention, does the Minister agree with this statement from St John Ambulance:

“Ensuring that every adult working in a child facing role has appropriate paediatric first aid training would decrease the delay in responding to a first aid emergency, and increase the quality of care”?

If he does, is that not somewhat inconsistent with his previous response?

[Mr Gyimah]

It is a powerful point. To restate my argument, not everyone with a certificate is necessarily the right person to deal with an emergency. We can argue that the likelihood of not having the right person on hand is reduced if everyone has that certificate, but we want to have a situation where nurseries follow recognised best practice, rather than to mandate it just so that everyone can say, “I have the certificate, and that is it.” We obviously value what St John Ambulance does, which is why the EYFS requires nurseries to use its training or British Red Cross training.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister has helpfully confirmed that the national review will go ahead, as the coroner wanted. To avoid any doubt, will he confirm that it will include consideration of moves to make it mandatory for everybody working in nurseries to receive paediatric training?

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend is fast bringing me to the end of my speech—I was going to address that right at the end. Yes, when we have a national review, we will look at making this mandatory.

[Kevin Brennan]

May I press the Minister on the nature of the review? Is he talking about an internal departmental review or about getting independent experts to look at the issue and come to a conclusion? Furthermore, on the timetable, he will be aware that we will be pressing up against all sorts of deadlines next year, if I can put it that way. The review will have to get under way quickly if he is to deliver on what he is promising the House, so when will it get under way?

[Mr Gyimah]

We have been looking at that since Mr and Mrs Thompson had their meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). Once I have had a meeting with them, we will publish details of the nature of the national review, but that is not to say that the issue is not of great importance for us.

Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who focused on whether we have watered down the regulations. I touched on the point about local authorities. I would also like to reassure him that, at the heart of the increase in the skills and qualifications of the early years work force, we have emphasised the importance of paediatric first aid, which is included in professional child care qualifications, although that might not necessarily lead to a certificate that can be renewed every three years.

Our standards for early years teacher status mean that all early years teachers will know how to establish and sustain a safe environment and employ practices that promote children’s health and safety. Our early years educator criteria, which the hon. Gentleman is intimately familiar with, mean that all early years educators will understand how to respond to accidents and emergency situations.

[Nic Dakin]

May I bring the Minister back briefly to the review? Can he give us a commitment to there being some independence and timeliness to that review?

[Mr Gyimah]

As I said, the review is of the utmost importance to us. I have committed to a review, and the Department will look at it as expeditiously as it can. Of course, independence is also important.

The Opposition spokesman asked for the previous Secretary of State’s response to the coroner’s report. I will write in due course to those who have spoken to provide them with the necessary information.

On the actions following the meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, a letter was written to Mr and Mrs Thompson. We have also commissioned a good practice guide from the National Day Nurseries Association. On the removal of first aid requirements from qualifications, we will provide an answer in writing to Mr and Mrs Thompson and put it in the Library.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and Mr and Mrs Thompson that the Government recognise the importance of keeping children healthy and safe. We are focused on strengthening the EYFS. We will produce guidance and, in due course, a national review, which will include the question of mandatory training.

Paediatric first aid training is, and will remain, a statutory requirement for all nurseries and pre-schools. I hope that I have given the necessary assurance that the Government take the matter seriously and that we will work with Mr and Mrs Thompson to ensure that there will not be another awful tragedy such as the one they experienced.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) wants to make a winding-up speech, but if he does I remind him that a Division in the House is expected at 13 minutes past 6.

18:10

[Mark Hunter]

Yes, I would like to take the opportunity of summing up. To be candid, I find the Minister’s response a little disappointing. There seemed to me to be a fairly clear consensus—not only among the hon. Members who spoke, but also in the sources of information from which many of us quoted—that there is a need for something to be done.

No one is saying that the Government have deliberately neglected the situation or allowed it to happen; I am quite persuaded that the law of unintended consequences was involved. However there is clearly a problem, and as long as it is within the purview of individual establishments to take their own decisions about what is adequate and what is not and about whom they go to for the training—so that they need not be certified and accredited—there will still be doubt and uncertainty in the mind of many parents. A case has been made for a national framework.

[Mr Gyimah]

According to the EYFS, the content of the providers’ first aid courses should be from the British Red Cross and St John Ambulance, so that it is based on the good practice of those with expertise. The hon. Gentleman misquoted me on that.

[Mark Hunter]

The key point is this—I happen to have the St. John Ambulance note in front of me so I will refer to it again: St John Ambulance believes that every adult working in a child-facing role should have had training in paediatric first aid.

By highlighting the tragedy, and bringing it to the attention of parents throughout the country, we are giving the Government an opportunity to be seen to be listening and acting. It will not cost much money or need much legislative time to establish the safeguards, so that every parent taking their child to nursery will know that all relevant members of staff are adequately trained in paediatric first aid. It seems a simple, straightforward and relatively inexpensive request, and I am still baffled about why the Minister’s response has not been more optimistic and positive. I appreciate, however, that it will not be entirely down to him. I hope that we can explore the matter further in the private meeting to follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the e-petition relating to the Millie’s Trust campaign to train all nursery nurses in paediatric first aid.

18:13

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 15th December 2014 Written Statements

Monday 15 December 2014

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Monday 15th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

Today the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander) and I have published and laid before Parliament an updated Charter for Budget Responsibility. This charter must be approved by the House of Commons before it is brought into force. A debate and vote on the charter will be scheduled in the House of Commons for early in the New Year.

The Charter for Budget Responsibility sets out the Government’s approach to operating fiscal policy transparently and managing sustainable public finances in the long-term interests of the UK. The purpose of the charter is to improve the transparency of the Government’s fiscal policy framework. It sets out the Government’s commitment to managing fiscal policy in accordance with clear objectives and targets.

The autumn statement 2014 update of the Charter for Budget Responsibility presents a revised fiscal framework, following a review by the Government.

The existing fiscal mandate, set in 2010, reflected the exceptional fiscal challenge the Government faced. In 2010 the Government said that they would revisit the fiscal rules once the public finances were closer to balance. Since then, the Government have made significant progress on their fiscal consolidation.

Public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP has fallen by more than a third since 2009-10 and is forecast to have fallen by half by the end of 2014-15. The Government are forecast to meet their fiscal mandate two years early in 2017-18, having reduced the cyclically adjusted current Budget deficit from its peak of 4.7% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.6% of GDP in 2013-14. On the OBR’s central forecast, the cyclically adjusted current Budget will be in surplus by 0.7% of GDP in 2017-18.

In this context the horizon on the fiscal mandate can safely be shortened to create a tighter constraint on future fiscal policy choices. The new framework presented today sets a three-year rolling horizon. At Budget 2015, therefore, the target year for the fiscal mandate will be 2017-18.

Both parties in the coalition Government are committed to reducing public sector net debt (PSND) as a percentage of GDP. The OBR forecast that PSND will peak in 2015-16 at 81.1% of GDP, a year later than the current supplementary debt target. The revised Charter for Budget Responsibility sets a new supplementary target for debt to be falling as a percentage of GDP in 2016-17.

Meeting the fiscal mandate and putting debt on declining path will require further difficult decisions to be made by Government. The Government have set out detailed spending plans for 2015-16. Choices will need to be made about the composition of further consolidation beyond 2015-16. In order to meet the fiscal mandate and supplementary debt target set out in the updated charter the Government estimate that on current forecasts around £30 billion of discretionary consolidation is likely to be required over the following two years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Public Sector Pension Reform

Monday 15th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)]

Introduction

The Firefighters Pension Scheme Regulations 2015 were laid in Parliament on 28 October. Reforms to pension schemes are essential. People are living longer, with the average 60-year-old living 10 years longer now than they did in the 1970s. As a result, the cost of public service pensions has increased in real terms by around a third over the last 10 years and is now £32 billion a year.

The Firefighters’ Pension Scheme 2015 will remain among the very best pensions available, with guaranteed benefits that are inflation proofed. The coalition Government recognises that firefighters regularly undertake duties under tough conditions and that they deserve a good and generous pension. This is why, since the start of the reform process we have agreed to a number of enhancements.

The normal pension age of firefighters is 60, and has been since 2006. It is lower than the pension age for other public sector workers, reflecting the physical nature of the occupation. A normal pension age of 60 is being retained for firefighters in the 2015 Scheme.

Firefighter Fitness

The Department is acutely aware that firefighters have concerns over maintaining their fitness as they grow older. Fitness is, and will remain, the responsibility of individual fire and rescue authorities, the employers of individual firefighters. No changes to those requirements are being made with the 2015 Scheme. However, we consider that more work needs to be done to support firefighters in maintaining their fitness and there needs to be a stronger and clearer framework within which fire and rescue authorities make their decisions about fitness. This framework should be fair and transparent, and should provide strong reassurance for firefighters.

Consultation on Amending the National Framework for Fire and Rescue England

To that end, we announced on 28 October, at the same time as the regulations were laid, that we were also consulting on an amendment to the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England. The National Framework has a strong statutory basis. Under section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, fire and rescue authorities must have regard to the Framework in exercising their functions. Section 22 of the Act also provides powers of intervention if the Secretary of State considers an authority is failing, or is likely to fail, to act in accordance with the Framework. Clearly, it is not a document which can be ignored, as the Fire Brigades Union has claimed.

The consultation concluded on 9 December, and we are keen to ensure that firefighters know as quickly as possible the outcome and our final decisions. Having reviewed all the consultation responses, we are pleased that the majority of fire and rescue authorities agree with the principles by which they would be expected to manage fitness and fitness-related issues in their authorities. We have built these clear principles around those agreed by the employers and the Union through the National Joint Council for Fire and Rescue Services, and adopted in Scotland.

Principles regarding Firefighter Fitness

These principles recognise that firefighting is a physically demanding occupation, and that firefighters need to have appropriate levels of fitness. To this end the National Framework will require all fire and rescue authorities to have a process of fitness assessment and development; ensure that no individual automatically faces dismissal if they fall below fitness standards and cannot be deployed operationally; provide all operational personnel with support to maintain their fitness for the duration of their career; and commit to providing a minimum of six months, development and support for firefighters if they fail a fitness test. It also requires that fire and rescue authorities ensure appropriate reference of firefighters to occupational health providers where necessary, and to identify reasonable adjustment or redeployment in role where it appears the medical condition does not allow a return to operational duties.

We have also included an additional requirement that, should a firefighter fail a fitness test through no fault of their own, the fire and rescue authority will consider suitable alternative employment, and if that is not possible, and the employee is at least aged 55, consider an authority-initiated retirement. It is important that fire and rescue authorities explore fully all options open to them, and ensure that their employees are treated with the fairness and dignity they deserve.

These principles, if implemented effectively through fire and rescue authorities in their fitness policies and procedures, will ensure that no firefighter faces a situation where they are forced to retire without access to a fair pension where they lose fitness through no fault of their own.

Independent Review of Operation of Principles

We have also committed to an independent review in due course to ensure that appropriate fitness standards, training, testing, monitoring and management policies and procedures are in place in each fire and rescue authority, which are in line with the principles set out in the Framework.

A Fair Pension

Additionally, through the improvements we have made to the 2015 scheme, any firefighter who chooses to retire early, between the ages of 55 and 60, will still have access to a pension that is actuarially fairly reduced, in line with both Lord Hutton’s and Dr Tony Williams’ recommendations. In the 2015 scheme, a firefighter retiring at 55 would see a 21.8% reduction to their pension (and no reduction to benefits earned in the 1992 scheme if the firefighter was a member of that scheme). This compares very favourably with the 40.5% reduction applied in the 2006 scheme.

There is absolutely no prospect, as the Fire Brigades Union has deliberately and misleadingly claimed throughout its dispute, of firefighters who lose fitness having “no job and no pension”.

We are today publishing an addendum to the National Framework and making the necessary statutory instrument to bring it into force.

Strong transitional protections

Because of the strong transitional protections built into the 2015 scheme, no firefighter will have to work beyond their current expected normal pension age until 2022. That provides a number of years for fire and rescue authorities and firefighters themselves to ensure that their approaches to fitness are developed to support firefighters working longer. In addition, there is a considerable amount of experience with regard to working with older firefighters, with over 1,000 firefighters already over 55 years of age in employment.

Fitness Working Group

To further support fire and rescue authorities in meeting their statutory requirements under the revised National Framework, we have set up, along with the Local Government Association and the Fire Brigades Union, a fitness group facilitated by the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, Peter Holland. This group will provide an important opportunity for employers, employees and Government to consider the issues around fitness in more depth, and identify good practice to address them. This process, linked with generous ill health arrangements and the opportunity for redeployment, supported by the principles in the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England, will ensure that firefighters continue to receive one of the best pension packages available.

Availability of National Framework Addendum

A copy of the addendum to the Fire and Rescue National Framework will be placed in the Library of the House and is also available on my Department’s website.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Monday 15th December 2014 Written Statements

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss):The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council will be on 15 and 16 December in Brussels. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice), will represent the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP and Michelle O’Neill MLA will also attend.

There are both agriculture and fisheries items on this month’s agenda.

The primary focus of the Council will be the agreement of the Council regulations fixing fishing opportunities for 2015 in EU, and certain non-EU, waters and in the Black Sea.

In addition on agriculture, the presidency will seek adoption of draft Council conclusions on error rates for agricultural expenditure and on strengthening of EU policies for young farmers. We understand the presidency will seek agreement of a document outlining future work on the proposal for a regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products. There will be progress reports on a number of proposals for regulations including fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products; the aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational establishments; protective measures against pests of plants; official controls performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material and plant protection products; and zootechnical and genealogical conditions for trade and imports into the union of breeding animals and their germinal products. There will also be a progress report on the proposal for a directive on zootechnical legislation.

There are currently five any other business items:

Implementation of the landing obligation

Outcome of the trilateral ministerial meeting on animal welfare

Extension of the eligibility of expenditure under Rural Development Programme 2007-2013

36th Conference of Directors of EU Paying Agencies

Issues related to the implementation of additional measures on the fruits and vegetables market.

OSCE Ministerial Council

Monday 15th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I represented the United Kingdom at the 21st Ministerial Council meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), held in Basel, Switzerland on 4-5 December 2014 and hosted by Swiss Federal President and OSCE Chairman-in-Office Didier Burkhalter. The Council is the key decision-making body of the OSCE and was attended by Ministers from across its 57 participating States.

The Council took place in the final month of a year when the OSCE has been at the centre of the international response to the Ukraine crisis, and this subject dominated the Council. In my interventions in the discussions that took place on 3 and 4 December, I made clear that by its actions Russia was fully responsible for the instability in eastern Ukraine, and that its illegal annexation of Crimea would not be recognised by the international community. I said that Russia must implement its commitments under the Minsk Protocols, by withdrawing military personnel, equipment and weapons from Ukraine’s sovereign territory, ceasing the supply of separatist factions, and securing its border with Ukraine. Only then will there be space for a political solution to the crisis. I also commended the role of the OSCE in facilitating dialogue and providing valuable impartial reporting from eastern Ukraine, in particular its special monitoring mission, to which the UK has provided and will continue to provide significant financial and personnel support.

Similar sentiments were expressed in plenary by US Secretary of State Kerry, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Klimkin and EU High Representative Mogherini among others. It is regrettable that Russian obstruction meant that a declaration on the OSCE’s role in, and support to, Ukraine could not be agreed despite the vast majority of OSCE States' desire to do so. However, in his Chairman's summary

https://www.news.admin.ch/messaae/index.html?lana=en&msQ-id=55531 President Burkhalter noted that many states had expressed the view that the crisis was the result of the pressure of one participating State against another; that the so-called referendum in Crimea had been in contradiction with the Ukrainian constitution; that Russia’s actions in Crimea had been in violation of fundamental OSCE commitments and international law; and that the territorial integrity, political independence and unity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders must be respected.

In the margins of the Council, I attended a meeting hosted by the Lithuanian Foreign Minister with Crimean Tatar leader Mustafa Dzhemilev, who described the restrictions and violations that the Tatars are now experiencing following Russia’s illegal annexation. Separately I met representatives of Russia-based civil society groups, who detailed the worrying trends of restrictions and threats that such groups face from the Russian authorities. Both meetings underlined the need for tough messages to be given to Russia about its conduct both in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and also within Russia where human rights must be properly respected.

Aside from discussions on Ukraine, the Council agreed decisions or declarations on a number of topics, including on countering kidnapping and hostage-taking committed by terrorist groups; on countering the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters; on enhancing efforts to combat anti-Semitism; on the continuation of the Helsinki +40 process; and on the Transdniestrian Settlement Process. President Burkhalter additionally announced the launch of a panel of Eminent Persons to run through 2015 with the support of the incoming Serbian and German Chairmanships, with a remit to provide proposals on how to rebuild trust and establish respect for core OSCE principles.

I also met Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic, who will chair the OSCE when Serbia take over from Switzerland at the end of 2014, where we discussed the need for the OSCE to stay strongly engaged on the Ukraine crisis as we move into 2015.

I am placing a copy of the UK intervention in plenary, and of the OSCE Chairman’s summary of the first day of discussions, in the Libraries of both Houses.

It is also available online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements.

Benefit Cap Review

Monday 15th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today I am publishing the Command Paper Cm 8985 “The benefit cap: a review of the first year”.

This review is published in line with the statement made by the then Minister for Employment on 1 February 2012. The document draws on a suite of evaluation commissioned by my Department, with key findings peer reviewed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, or on its behalf by independent researchers.

The review also draws on the benefit cap official statistics and evidence previously published by my Department.

The extensive new evaluation material is attached to this statement and will also be published today on the gov.uk website.

The review brings together and summarises the messages across all of the evaluation publications. Key findings include:

There is consistent evidence of positive employment-focused behavioural change for claimants affected by the cap, including lone parents and carers. It is clear that the priority of claimants affected by the benefit cap is to find work and they are succeeding in doing so.

Many claimants were encouraged to find work as a result of the cap. Capped households were 41% more likely to go into work after a year than a similar uncapped group of households (those with benefit income just below the cap level). Among lone parents and families in London there was an even greater likelihood of capped cases moving into work than similar uncapped cases.

The benefit cap is a popular policy, 73% of the public support it in principle and 77% of the public agree that it is fair for households with no-one working to receive no more in benefit than the average amount working households receive after tax.

Very few capped households have moved house and where they have done so, the vast majority have moved locally. The benefit cap has led to little, if any homelessness and local authorities have coped well with its introduction.

I enclose below a brief description of each evaluation report:

Benefit cap: Analysis of outcomes for capped claimants

Analysis of administrative data carried out by departmental analysts and peer reviewed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This document examines the historical estimates of those in scope for the cap and effects of the benefit cap by comparison of outcomes of capped claimants and comparable groups. Evidence is presented on movement into work (proxied by Working Tax Credit exemption), moving house and movement out of scope for the cap.

Post-implementation effects of the benefit cap



An Ipsos MORI longitudinal telephone survey of capped households identified from the October 2013 Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE). The first wave of the survey was carried out with 1,200 claimants in February 2014, and the second in August-September 2014 with 468 of the same claimants. This work examines the behavioural change over time on employment, finances and housing.

In-depth interviews with people affected by the benefit cap

A Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research (CCHPR) report based on interviews with 50 households affected by the benefit cap These households were identified from the same source as the Ipsos MORI surveyed claimants. This work explores coping strategies of households and changes in behaviour around work and well-being, mobility and household structure, income and well-being, and beliefs and expectations. It provides contextual information around themes explored in the survey.

Supporting households affected by the benefit cap: Impact on local authorities, local services and social landlords

This report by CCHPR draws on work in 10 case study local authorities (LAs); a survey of social landlords; and consultation with major lenders to the Housing Association sector. A variety of LA staff were interviewed in May-August 2013 and again in September 2014 in case study areas; 26 landlords were interviewed in 2013 and again after one year in these areas alongside 47 local agencies (including CAB and voluntary organisations); and variety of lenders were interviewed and provided written responses to the consultation in October 2013 and 2014. It provides information on how local services have been affected and how they are working with capped claimants.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements.

Grand Committee

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Monday, 15 December 2014.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, it is now 3.30 pm and, as usual on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Committee

15:30

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 1: Reform of Class 2 contributions

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill, which ought to give the opportunity to explore in a little more detail the issues that we discussed previously. The Minister will appreciate that it was a fairly limited Second Reading, and I imagine he is anticipating that this Committee stage will also not be too prolonged. I certainly want to assure him that it is unlikely that I will ruin his Christmas Day and Boxing Day by giving him things to worry about on Report in the new year. We will move with some dispatch with regard to the Bill, because we are of course broadly in favour of it and have indicated that broad support at all stages. However, we have one or two anxieties, on which I would just like the Minister to give us the necessary reassurances that we have not detected thus far.

There are concerns about those who are going to be affected by the legislation. As the Minister will appreciate in particular, many who will be affected will be on low incomes, and therefore the issue of how and when payments are made is not a trivial matter but one that is bound to cause concern. We are worried about women claiming maternity allowance in the future. The Bill clearly recognises that pregnant women come into a particular category when it comes to claiming and we want to be certain about that, as well as about the rather broader category of those who claim universal credit. It would be very remiss if people on low incomes found themselves, as a result of this legislation, at a disadvantage when it came to claims for universal credit.

The self-employed will of course welcome the fact that the Bill introduces a simplification process and moves liability for NICs to the end of the tax year. However, that also means that there will be accumulated obligations that need to be paid, which for some low-paid workers could easily present very real problems indeed. We say this against the background of the Government making considerable play of the increase in the number of workers in the self-employed category. However, we detect that a very large number indeed are getting very little in terms of reward from this employment. We will come later on to those who were dangled a carrot—not, I hasten to say, by the Government but by unscrupulous intermediaries—about how to take a position with regard to the payment of NICs. We want reassurance from the Minister that he has fully taken on board the problems that may accrue for people who necessarily—we all know the evidence that establishes this—operate on the margin.

The Minister explained that the self-employed will continue to have the option of spreading the cost of paying NICs, but what is the method of payment? Is the Minister in a position to confirm that these payments may be made by monthly direct debit? That was the recommendation from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and I would welcome his comment on that. Is the payment system due to be reviewed after implementation? We see it dealing with a group of people, some of whom—while many will find this very straightforward and will have welcomed the main proposals in the Bill, as indeed do the official Opposition—will find issues difficult. We wonder whether the Government have set in train a commitment to review the implementation of this part of the Bill.

The Government say that the simplification measure will help the self-employed, but of course it is the self-employed who have been the hardest hit in the cost-of-living crisis. A great number of the self-employed operate on very tight margins indeed, while those who have been self-employed for a considerable period of time, and are now subject to what may be an improvement in the way that NICs are collected, are likely to fall into the category of those who have lost significantly in recent years because average incomes have plummeted.

What other steps have the Government taken to address the impact that the cost-of-living crisis is having on self-employed people? It is clear that there has been a significant drop since this Government came into office, and therefore it would be a mistake on all our parts if, in thinking about the Bill as a progressive and helpful measure—a view that in broad terms we take—we failed to identify why those who are the hardest hit in our society might well find some difficulties in complying with the new arrangements.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on Clause 1. He concentrated on the self-employed and the provisions for people to have a budget payment option available to them so that they can spread the cost. I assure him that budget payment plans will be operable and people can opt for them, paying by direct debit or standing order. They will allow an individual to decide the amount that they want to pay each week or month, change the regular payment amount, stop making payments for up to six months and cancel payments at any time. Indeed, even after they pay into the budget payment plan, an individual can choose to have the money repaid to them if they believe that there will be no eventual liability, or if they need it for another purpose. Indeed, we believe that this system is more flexible than what is currently available under the class 2 direct debit system, because someone is free to vary or cancel the arrangement at any time and there is no liability until a return is filed. They may request the money that they have paid through a budget repayment plan to be returned back to them, right up to the point when a future amount becomes a liability.

The noble Lord asked whether we would review the provision after implementation. The provision will indeed be kept under continuous review, because we are as keen as he is that everybody who operates it should be able to do so easily.

The noble Lord talked about the cost-of-living crisis as regards self-employed people and about the fact that, when many self-employed people become self-employed, they do so on a lower level of income than they were on when they were employed. That is undoubtedly true, but many people who start off on a lower level of income as self-employed build up a business and end up as well off as, if not better than, they were when they were employed. In addition, there is evidence that, for some people at least, being self-employed gives much more flexibility, which they welcome, and gives them a better work-life balance than they were able to achieve when they were in full-time employment.

The noble Lord talked about the cost-of-living crisis, but, as he is aware, the rate of inflation is low and falling and is likely to stay low; many prices—such as the price of petrol and food—are now falling and, as a result of the lower level of inflation, we are now seeing real wages rising across the board. All forecasters suggest that not just this year but for the next year and the next few years—indeed, for the entire forecast period—real wages are expected to rise. Therefore, while we do not in any way underestimate the impact of the recession on living standards, we believe that a very significant corner has been turned, and that the combination of low inflation, falling prices and rising real wages will mean that people will see greater prosperity than they have done as we have recovered from the great shock of 2008.

I hope that I have been able to give the noble Lord some reassurance on the specific questions that he raised.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3: Application of Parts 4 and 5 of FA 2014 to national insurance contributions

Debate on whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is pleased that we are making encouraging progress.

In moving that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill, I will reflect the fact that we are, of course, as committed as the Government to tackling tax avoidance and that we strongly believe that everyone must pay their fair share. As the Minister will recognise, tax avoidance is now a major issue as regards the operation of our economy, and there is not the slightest doubt that the public want things done. This is not the Bill in which to tackle the bigger of the issues—as regards multinationals and the problem of where they locate their profits as opposed to where they locate their sales and receipts—but the Bill is nevertheless a significant means of tackling tax avoidance, and we support that.

We are grateful in particular for the extension of measures to tackle high-risk promoters of NICs avoidance schemes, but we want some reassurance from the Minister that HMRC will be sufficiently resourced in order to implement both the measures and their safeguard. As the Bill has been considered, there has been constant reference on the government side to the amount of work that needs to be done—there is a great deal for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs to take on board. In a period when the major government priority seems to be to reduce the number of people who serve our society as national or local civil servants, he will forgive me if my party is anxious about how the Bill will be implemented as regards the manpower necessary to deal with these issues of tax avoidance.

We ask the Government to keep the measures on accelerated payments and follower notices under review, in addition to the new targeted anti-avoidance rule, as part of the review of all tax avoidance measures. It is quite clear that there are aspects of the collection of NICs—or the failure to collect NICs—which relate to quite a substantial business advising on how to avoid tax. We are pleased that the Government have recognised this as a significant problem, and the Bill represents their determination to act.

15:45

Legislation is one thing; implementation is another. It is the latter that I want reassurance from the Minister on. Will there be a report back to Parliament on the impact of these measures on the flow of tax avoidance through tax avoidance schemes once the legislation is implemented? We would certainly appreciate a Statement to both Houses updating us on progress within a period of time after the legislation becomes operative. Will the Minister tell us when HMRC is expected to produce the governance for the key decisions on which cases can be designated as followers? That is going to be so important to those who are involved in this field. If the legislation is going to be at its most effective, it is quite clear that, where a case is won by HMRC, all are well aware of the implications of that and the fact that HMRC will pursue any who follow the behaviour that has been subject to correction in the courts. What disclosure of tax avoidance schemes will be within scope? We think that Parliament has the right to know this.

The Minister will recognise that the wider public want the examination of tax avoidance schemes carried through with the maximum degree of rigour. I hope he is able to give responses that satisfy us on this very important point.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises the key question about whether these provisions will actually have any impact. The statute book is littered with provisions that have not been fully implemented or properly policed. One has to think only of the minimum wage, which, when it was established, simply had no proper provisions attached to it to ensure that people were paying it. I am very pleased that this Government have been able to make considerable progress in implementing a measure that everybody agrees is a good one but which was not being effectively implemented in the past.

As far as these measures are concerned, the Government have provided significant reinvestment of around £1 billion specifically to combat revenue lost and at risk through non-compliance. This means that, while most of HMRC’s lines of business are reducing in size, the number of roles in compliance is increasing very considerably. HMRC has brought together all its work to tackle avoidance into a new counter-avoidance directorate. Around 100 staff have been recruited into the directorate to deal with the issue of accelerated payment notices, and a further 100 will be added in 2015. That is a very considerable additional resource. HMRC is also deploying additional staff to handle collection work and additional legal staff. HMRC is taking a flexible approach which will depend on the number and nature of legal challenges. The Tribunals Service is currently recruiting additional tribunal judges, both to handle the cases involving accelerated payments and follower notices and, more generally, to accelerate the number of cases going through the tribunal.

The noble Lord asked about the procedures which HMRC has in place in respect of follower notices. HMRC already has strong governance procedures in place to handle a range of complex issues such as these where significant amounts of tax are involved. Therefore, as with any of its responsibilities, it has put in place appropriate governance for follower notices and accelerated payments. The case team, advised by litigation specialists and solicitors, is responsible for analysing the decision to be used as the basis for the follower notice, identifying the relevant principles and reasoning and setting out how those apply to the potential follower notice cases. The recommendation is signed off by all relevant parties in the department before being submitted for approval. It is then presented to a senior governance body, chaired at senior Civil Service level, to consider whether or not to give that approval. The taxpayer can make representations that the judicial ruling is not relevant to their arrangements and must do so within 90 days of receiving the notice. The representations will be considered by an independent HMRC officer who is unconnected with the team which issued the follower notice and the governance panel which decided that the judicial decision relied upon was relevant.

In terms of how the department will monitor the effectiveness of the scheme, the purpose of the legislation is to change behaviour, so its success is not measured just by how many promoters are subject to the new information powers and penalties but by the number that improve their behaviour to acceptable levels and demonstrate this to HMRC without any need for action under the legislation. The frequency of use of the legislation will of course be monitored by HMRC, which is putting in place the governance arrangements that I have just described. But its wider success will have to be viewed more holistically—with regard, for example, to the need for additional legislation or for legislation to stop specific schemes in the future.

The noble Lord asked about a specific Statement to both Houses on the effectiveness of the scheme. The most logical way in which an annual report can be given on the effectiveness of the scheme will probably be in HMRC’s own annual report, which it is of course open for this House to debate and which is considered, I believe, by the other place. The Government are as keen as the noble Lord is to see how effective the scheme is, because we think it is an important way of improving the collection of tax. The Government will make sure that they constantly monitor its effectiveness and report on that. As I say, I think HMRC’s annual report would probably be the first way of doing that, but it would be open both for the Government to report separately, should they think it necessary, and for Parliament to keep HMRC and the Treasury up to the mark in terms of the information they provide to Parliament.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5: Categorisation of earners etc: anti-avoidance

Debate on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, let me say that this is an important provision in the Bill, which the Opposition support. We are glad to see that this important piece of legislation gives effect to certain promises that have been given on the overall issue of targeting tax avoidance.

In his previous answer, the noble Lord made it quite clear that there will be additional tribunal judges and so on, and I very much welcome that commitment because we all know the blockages that can occur in the work of tribunals. However, on the question of the staff in the new directorate, I was not too sure whether he was indicating that staff were being transferred from other parts of the department, because the department is so overladen with people with the expertise to get the work done that it is easy to effect such a transition, or whether further recruitment had been necessary. That point also applies to Clause 5, which deals with the important dimension of tax avoidance.

It is quite clear that the Government need to take further action to tackle the issue of false self-employment. In the past, many of the stories about that have issued from the construction industry, but it is quite clear that the vast growth in the number of self-employed applies far beyond the bounds of just the construction industry. It is clear that there have been occasions when self-employment levels have been very high in certain industries, but the construction industry stands out: the average is 14%, but in the construction industry it is 40%. What is the incentive among so many of the people who contribute to that industry being identified and set up as self-employed? Partially, it is to do with the nature of the work, but the construction industry is not that unique in the work that it does. For the construction industry to have such a substantial number of self-employed raises the obvious anxiety that it is of advantage to intermediaries, when considering taking on labour, to act in a way in which they take on “self-employed” workers, who are not really self-employed because they are effectively under the direction of those who see that their work gets done. This is a very real problem.

We want to confirm that the Government have committed themselves to monitoring closely the impact of changes introduced by this Bill on the issue of false self-employment. Ministers are aware, as we are, of the degree of self-employment that exists, which has probably been increasing in significant numbers in recent years. Are the Government committed to bringing forward new measures to tackle any continued abuse in this area? We would like a timeframe for some kind of review on this issue. It is commendable that the Government express the correct sentiments, but the Government are to be truly applauded only when they have properly served the nation by having delivered. We are interested in the question of delivery.

Let me say that we have reasons for anxiety. In the 2012 Autumn Statement, the Chancellor forecast that the Swiss deal would raise £3.12 billion. The latest figures from the ONS put the revenue to date as £868 million, which is a shortfall of £2.25 billion. As all Members of the Committee will recognise, that is a shortfall of almost two-thirds. In July, HMRC’s director-general of business tax told the House of Commons Treasury Committee that the actual amount recovered is now expected to be “reduced substantially” to around £1.7 billion, which is a shortfall of £1.42 billion. Despite the fact that the Government set out with the best of intentions, that is the result of ineffectiveness.

15:59

In October last year, HMRC published figures that showed that the tax gap—the difference between the amount of tax that should in theory be collected against what has actually been collected—had risen from £34 billion in 2010-11 to £35 billion in 2011-2012. The Government might regard a £1 billion increase as not terribly important, but we can all think of constructive ways in which £1 billion of extra revenue for the Treasury could be used for the public good. Again, that illustrates the difference between intention and achievement. In July this year, the National Audit Office found that HMRC’s performance targets for the amount of tax expected to be raised from 2010-11 onwards were set at £1.9 billion a year lower than they should have been. That is post evaluation of performance.

Surely these three illustrations—and there are others—must give the Minister cause for concern, and should certainly give the Committee cause for concern, when the intentions behind this legislation are stated and when we look at what the achievements have been in the recent past on other measures.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of specific questions about this clause. The first question, on staffing, asked whether HMRC had the appropriate level of staffing and whether staff had been transferred across from other parts of HMRC or recruited specifically. HMRC carried out a review of the resource required and is committed to ensuring that the appropriate resource is in place to introduce the new changes. As regards where the staff came from, some were transferred and some were recruited. There is a maximum pace as regards how quickly you can beef up this kind of compliance department, because it is highly technical work, and in particular people coming in from outside need to have a considerable amount of training to get up to speed.

The noble Lord made the point that self-employment was high in a number of sectors and he mentioned in particular the construction industry, which is absolutely right. Of course the construction industry is very cyclical, and people literally move about if they are skilled workers in that sector. It is therefore not surprising that self-employment is somewhat higher there than in many other sectors—and the same applies to offshore workers. However, I completely agree with him that we need to keep a very close eye on that and see how it develops and how the measure is working.

HMRC is introducing a quarterly reporting requirement from 6 April 2015 in this area, with the first return due by 5 August next year. This will provide HMRC with almost real-time monitoring to ensure that the measure in the legislation is being used effectively. Obviously, the whole purpose of doing that is to keep the issue under review and, if necessary, to take action to rectify any further problems that apply.

The noble Lord pointed out that the Swiss tax deal had had a shortfall, which shows how difficult it is to estimate the amount of cash that such deals might generate. The reason for that is of course not too surprising: people deliberately secrete their money out of the gaze of the taxman, so when the taxman attempts to guess how much money there is, it is extremely tricky to get that right. The Swiss deal did indeed bring in a smaller amount of revenue than was expected—or it has to date—but I think it is fair to say that the Liechtenstein disclosure facility has brought in more than was originally thought and has proved exceptionally effective. All that one can expect HMRC and the Treasury to do in these circumstances, when specific areas are targeted to repatriate funds to the UK, is, first of all, to do it—which previous Governments have failed to do—and, secondly, to make their best estimate of how much money might be involved. There is a considerable degree of uncertainty at the point when that estimate is made. The important thing is to close the loophole.

The noble Lord also referred to the tax gap. All I would say to him is that in monetary terms the gap has risen by £1 billion over a period, but in real terms, and in relation to the size of the economy, I think it is fair to say that that is a fall. Although over a long period we might see the monetary value of the gap rising modestly, the key question is: is it falling as a proportion of the total amount of tax payable? The figures he quoted suggested that, if anything, on that basis the tax gap was falling rather than rising.

Perhaps I could have the indulgence of the Committee briefly, before we finish our Committee stage today, to say a little bit about the amendments to the Bill that the Government intend to introduce on Report. As noble Lords will be aware, in the Autumn Statement on 3 December the Chancellor announced that the Government will abolish employer class 1 NICs for apprentices under the age of 25 from April next year. As the Chancellor made clear, apprentices are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills valued by employers. This measure is intended to support employers who provide apprenticeships to young people by removing the requirement that they pay secondary class 1 NICs on earnings up to the upper earnings limit for those employees. The measure is also intended to support youth employment. It will provide a zero rate of employer class 1 NICs on earnings between the secondary threshold and the upper earnings limit in respect of apprentices under the age of 25 from 6 April 2016. It will provide the power to define “apprentice” in regulations, allowing the time discuss the definition with stakeholders. It will also contain powers to alter the age range to which the zero rate applies and introduce a threshold for apprentices. As with the other changes to which I am about to refer, the Government intend to table amendments to give effect to these measures in advance of Report.

Noble Lords will also be aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published its report on the delegated powers contained in the Bill on 27 November. It drew attention to the power in Clause 2 to amend primary and secondary legislation as a consequence of the reform of class 2 NICs. The power is currently subject to the negative procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has said that the justification given in HMRC’s delegated powers memorandum is not sufficient for the negative procedure to apply where the power allows for the amendment or repeal of primary legislation, and it has recommended that in this instance the power should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have considered the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and intend to table an amendment on Report so that, where regulations made under this power amend or repeal primary legislation, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Finally, we intend to amend Schedule 1 to the Bill to ensure that the relevant self-assessment penalties apply to class 2 contributions collected through self-assessment by adding a missing reference to the self-assessment underdeclaration penalty contained in Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007. It was always the Government’s intention to align penalties for class 2 contributions more closely with those for SA as part of the reform of class 2 so that the self-employed are not subjected to two different regimes, but this particular penalty was unintentionally omitted. This minor technical amendment will correct that omission.

I hope that noble Lords will have found that helpful. We will be tabling those amendments as soon as we possibly can.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Minister for indicating his response to the Delegated Powers Committee—that obviates the necessity of the Opposition chasing the Government on Report. We are very much in favour of the suggestion about the affirmative procedure, so we will be ensuring that the Report stage moves with maximum effect on that.

The only thing that I would add is that there is a certain justification for adding second thoughts and developments to a Bill as it proceeds. The Minister will recognise that it took the Delegated Powers Committee to bring this to the attention of the Government. We are only a couple of weeks from Christmas so I suppose we are bound to get a certain Christmas tree effect, but one of the consequences of this fixed-term Parliament is that, basically, since we came back in October we have had dangling bits of additional legislation added to Bills, whether they fit or not. In this respect I have no particular criticism, but I think for instance of the Infrastructure Bill, of which the first four parts were concluded before the Recess but then the minor issue of fracking was added to the Bill after it. The Government are not to take the fact that the Opposition very much approve of this initiative, which we will be supporting on Report, as in any way a feeling on our part that the Government are full of good conduct when it comes to adding bits to Bills whenever it suits them.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed.

Long title agreed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Special Bail-in Provision, etc.) Order 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:14

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Special Bail-in Provision, etc.) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, these four draft statutory instruments are intended to transpose the requirements of the European bank recovery and resolution directive, which I will refer to as the BRRD. As a package, they will significantly strengthen and enhance the UK’s special resolution regime, which puts in place arrangements to deal with the failure of banking institutions.

I will first set out the background to these provisions. In general, when a company fails, it will enter insolvency, and the company’s creditors will be paid out in accordance with the priority of their claim. However, the financial crisis demonstrated that it is sometimes not possible to allow banks which fail simply to enter insolvency. This is due to the need to protect the banks’ customers by ensuring they can continue to access essential services. It is also because of how interconnected the banking system is, with the failure of one bank having the potential to spread problems throughout the financial system.

Responding to the financial crisis, the Government of the day introduced the special resolution regime in the Banking Act 2009. This gave the Bank of England and the Treasury a set of tools that could be used to manage the failure of a bank and limit the negative consequences for the economy and the rest of the financial system. Many other Governments found themselves in similar situations and introduced their own resolution regimes.

As a result of that common experience, there has, since the crisis, been a concerted international effort to address the problems that led to the crisis, building on the first steps taken during the crisis and making sure that we have the tools available to address bank failures in the future. The UK has been at the forefront of these efforts. We have been an active participant in the Financial Stability Board, which, under the chairmanship of Mark Carney, has established a common resolution framework endorsed by G20 leaders. This framework is designed to ensure that banks are no longer considered “too big to fail”. It includes enhanced supervision, planning for the recovery and resolution of firms and co-operation between different jurisdictions.

The BRRD is part of this global push to make banks resolvable. It is designed to ensure that European member states have a harmonised set of resolution tools that can be used to manage the failure of a bank.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, a Division has been called in the Chamber. The Grand Committee stands adjourned, to resume if possible after 10 minutes. However, I understand that both participants are tellers and therefore it might take slightly longer than 10 minutes—as soon as possible.

16:17

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:15

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the participants having returned, the Grand Committee is resumed. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was cut off in his prime, for which I apologise.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as I was saying, the BRRD is part of this global push to make banks resolvable. It is designed to ensure that European member states have a harmonised set of resolution tools that can be used to manage the failure of a bank. It also puts in place mechanisms to facilitate co-operation between member states in planning for and managing failure. It covers banks, building societies, investment firms and banking group companies. The BRRD builds on the existing UK resolution regime in the Banking Act 2009, ensuring that many of the powers introduced in the UK will be replicated across the EU.

I now turn to each of the instruments in turn. First, the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order makes substantial amendments to the Banking Act 2009 to ensure that the UK special resolution regime is fully consistent with the BRRD. It inserts a new section into the Banking Act 2009 which gives the Bank of England a set of pre-resolution powers. They are designed to be used where, in the course of resolution planning, barriers to the effective resolution of the firm are identified.

These powers enable the Bank to require a firm to take action to ensure that the Bank could use its resolution powers effectively in the event that an institution fails. Where barriers have been identified, the Bank may, for example, direct a firm to dispose of certain assets or cease lines of business or change its legal or operational structure. To support these new powers for the Bank of England and its exercise of the stabilisation powers, the order gives the Bank new powers to gather information from firms. This includes a power to appoint an investigator to investigate a possible failure to comply with a direction. It also includes a power to apply for a warrant to enter premises in order to obtain documents that are required for the exercise of its functions.

Failure to comply with a requirement of the Bank of is an offence. This section replicates existing offences in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which relate to requirements imposed by the PRA or the FCA in their role as regulator. Here, however, it relates to requirements imposed by the Bank of England. The Bank of England may delegate its enforcement of these powers to the PRA or FCA.

The order makes some amendments to the special resolution objectives, set out in Section 7 of the Banking Act. These amendments are designed to ensure full compliance with the BRRD, providing clarity and certainty for firms. There is nothing which fundamentally changes the objectives, which include ensuring the continuity of banking services, protecting financial stability and public funds and protecting depositors covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The order adds a new section to the Banking Act 2009, which requires that relevant capital instruments of the firm—that is common equity, additional tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital—are either cancelled, reduced or converted into common equity at the point where a firm fails. This ensures that capital instruments do the job they are intended to do, which is to fully absorb losses at the point of failure. This write-down must occur before or at the same time as a stabilisation power is used. It may also happen in the absence of any resolution, either because the write-down is enough to restore the viability of the firm or because the firm is entering insolvency instead of being resolved.

The BRRD also introduces a new stabilisation option, the asset management vehicle. The Bank of England may transfer certain assets of the failing firm into an asset management vehicle, where they are then sold or wound down over time. This prevents destabilisation of the market through the immediate sale of the assets. It also prevents the assets being sold at an artificially low price.

The directive introduces a harmonised bail-in power across the EU. Bail-in is a tool which enables the Bank of England to cancel or modify contracts which create a liability for a failing bank. This allows the Bank of England to recapitalise the firm, stabilising it while the fundamental issues that have lead to its failure are addressed. The Government have had a policy to introduce bail-in powers for some time. Following significant progress on bail-in at an international level, and as part of the negotiations on the BRRD, the Government introduced bail-in powers via the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. This order amends those provisions to ensure full consistency with the BRRD. In order to ensure that the bail-in is effective, it is necessary to prevent counterparties of the firm in resolution from closing out their contracts in order to avoid being subject to bail-in. The order therefore specifies that a range of contractual termination rights do not arise solely by virtue of the fact that a stabilisation power has been exercised.

The Bank of England is also given a power to impose a temporary stay on contractual obligations and security interests to which the firm in resolution is a party. This allows a short period while the firm is being stabilised, during which those obligations need not be met. This stay is very strictly limited in time to avoid having a disproportionate effect on affected parties.

This order also gives the Bank of England powers enabling it to support a resolution carried out in a foreign country. Where the Bank is notified by a foreign jurisdiction’s resolution authority that it has taken action to resolve a firm, the Bank must make an instrument that either recognises that action or refuses to recognise it. Recognition of a foreign resolution action will confirm that it has effect in the UK. This provides legal certainty about the effectiveness of resolution actions in other jurisdictions, reducing the risk of challenge and making cross-border resolution more effective. The Bank of England may refuse to recognise a third country’s resolution action, or any part of it, where certain conditions are met. These include a determination that the recognition would have an adverse effect on financial stability in the UK or the rest of the EEA, or that UK or other EEA creditors would be treated less favourably than non-EEA creditors with similar legal rights. The Treasury must approve any refusal by the Bank of England to recognise a third-country resolution action.

I move on to the second order, which puts in place safeguards for certain liabilities that may be subject to the bail-in tool in the event of failure. It protects certain types of set-off and netting arrangements that are respected in the event of insolvency. The provisions here ensure that they are also respected in bail-in. The order requires that liabilities relating to derivatives or financial contracts or covered by certain master agreements must be converted into a net debt, claim or liability prior to bail-in. Other types of liability covered by the safeguard must be treated as if they had been converted into a net liability. The order also puts in place arrangements for dealing with any breach of the safeguard. Where there has been a breach, the affected party is entitled to have that breach remedied. The remedy aims to ensure that the affected party is returned to the position that they would have been in had the safeguard not been breached.

The third order requires compensation arrangements to be put in place following the use of the bail-in powers. They are designed to ensure that the shareholders and creditors of the firm do not receive less favourable treatment than they would have done had the institution simply failed, without the exercise of the stabilisation powers. This is commonly known as the “no shareholder or creditor worse off” safeguard.

The fourth order implements the requirements of the BRRD on depositor preference. The majority of deposits in the UK, including all deposits of individuals, are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme up to a value of £85,000 per depositor per institution. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 enhanced this protection by amending the Insolvency Act 1986 to add deposits covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to the list of preferential debts. These debts are paid out first in insolvency, and are entitled to be paid out in full before other creditors receive any payments. This means that the majority of depositors in UK banks already have their deposits preferred.

The depositor preference order creates a new category of preferential debts, called secondary preferential debts. These are paid out after ordinary preferential debts but before other debts. All existing preferential debts, including covered deposits, will be ordinary preferential debts. The order designates amounts in deposits eligible for protection from the FSCS but above the £85,000 compensation limit as secondary preferential debts. Only deposits of individuals, micro-businesses and SMEs are given this preference. This change further reduces any chance that these depositors will be exposed to loss if the firm fails and either enters insolvency or is resolved using the powers in the Banking Act. This furthers the objective of protecting depositors.

I apologise for speaking at such length, but as the orders make extensive revisions to existing legislation I felt that they merited a thorough run-through. Taken together, they significantly enhance the UK’s resolution regime. Along with the other reforms that have been implemented to date, they will equip us well to deal with future bank failures in a way that protects taxpayers and the financial stability of the UK.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I would just like to put on record some concerns about the bail-in arrangements and what they are broadcast as achieving.

My first point is that, as the CEO of the Association of Corporate Treasurers recently said to the Lords EU Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee, once there is any whiff of concern about a bank, any company will withdraw its deposits immediately. It is not going to hang around and wait for the bank to be subject to a bail-in. One thing that the bail-in arrangements do is actually accelerate the possibility of runs on banks. It will not be just corporate deposits; any form of lending to a bank will be subject to bail-in. If there is any whiff of trouble about that bank, that money will be withdrawn as soon as possible.

The second point, which perhaps has not been learnt from the recent banking crisis, is that the key thing that hugely accelerated the downturn in the economy in 2009 was allowing the money stock and the money supply to contract substantially, just as happened in America in the 1930s. If you are going to do a bail-in on a bank and its capital is going to get exhausted, it will have to contract its balance sheet dramatically, all other things being equal. While I note the comment that the Bank of England will come in and help, effectively it would have to be the state that came in and recapitalised banks or, again, the result would be a massive contraction of the money supply if any of the major banks were in trouble and thus required bail-in. Unless that happened, again, it would have the knock-on effect of a major economic contraction.

The bail-in arrangements make sense—we know what they want to achieve, which is to eliminate or at least reduce the extent to which the taxpayer has to bail out banks in a crisis—but people are kidding themselves if they believe that it is as simple as that. Fundamentally, even as a result of how the bail-in arrangements operate, unless the Government are there to replenish capital—whether they do so as the Bank of England or directly—you would have a huge monetary contraction, which would be damaging to the economy.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to be in Grand Committee again—and its packed rows—to address some affirmative orders. I thank the Minister for setting out the orders and indicate, as a generality, that the Official Opposition welcome the ideas behind the various Acts and the orders that make them operational. I will not make a contribution on the individual orders, but just a few comments about the concepts that are swept up in the orders, taken together.

I put on record my thanks to Catherine McCloskey, who was unfortunate enough to have her telephone number beside her name in the Explanatory Memorandum. Although I have sat through most of these banking debates and participated modestly in some of the amendments, I have to say that if you are not continuously involved with this, the whole shape of this legislation is impossible to retain in one’s mind. As a result of her tutelage, I think I have a reasonable view of the shape of the legislation and the orders and that I can claim that the Opposition have done their duty in probing the overall direction of the legislation and the effectiveness of the orders in bringing that legislation into effect.

However, I have some comments. As I understand them, the orders give effect to the BRRD and refine it for the UK environment—a sort of merging of our thinking and the thinking behind the directive. Everything becomes effective from 1 January next year, which strikes me as a good piece of clarity. As I recall, it was originally envisaged that there would be a period of British-only rules and then European rules, and so on. I commend the Government on meeting those timetables.

16:46

I have heard about most of the stuff in the orders before and understand that if I had been paying attention properly, I would have understood not only the bail-in but this very important concept of depositor preference, which seems to change the fundamental concerns of the general consumer about the bail-in concept. Now, whether the general consumer knows anything about the bail-in concept I am not sure, but certainly at the moment the consumer thinks that they have £85,000 protected per bank or institution, and the fact that this is now extended through the class 2 preference is important. I gather that it is probably in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, and I have to apologise for not noticing it at the time.

Together, the orders bring about the orderly introduction of both the directive and the banking legislation that we have been building up over time. However, the thing about bail-in is that it is an untested and unknown phenomenon. I am not sure that it will be as unsuccessful as the noble Lord has just said, but we have to recognise that it is a new phenomenon. One part of it that I am seized of is that, as I understand it, a failure that was sufficiently large to extinguish the equity would effectively hand ownership to the unsecured creditors, if that is the right term, or the unsecured bondholders, which would be a massive change of ownership. So we would have secured the first of the Government’s objectives, which is uninterrupted banking services, and, at least superficially, we would have secured the objective of not using public money, but we may well have changed the fundamental character of the bank and/or banks. We will not know what the effect of that ownership change will be on the provision of credit, particularly in the SME and private sector. I would like the noble Lord to say, if he is able, to what extent he feels, in the event of a bail-in, there will be concerns about the characteristic of the management because of the changed ownership of the banking sector, especially if there is more than a single failure.

The other side of the bail-in is the effect on the cost of borrowing. If there are difficulties and a hardening of the cost of borrowing, that is particularly likely to affect the SME sector. It seems that banks do not lend to the SME sector, first, because lending on property is so much more profitable—when you lend against property there is usually a considerable equity cushion for the lender—and, secondly, because lending to SMEs is complicated and requires more effort than modern banks, as far as I can see, put in. I wonder whether the Government have had any special thoughts about the SME sector, and how these new rules may in fact impact on that sector and whether they feel that they are going to have to consider bringing any relief or help for that particular sector.

Having worked my way through the Explanatory Memorandums, if not the orders themselves, I think that I largely understand the orders. However, I am dependent on my judgment, as a sort of jobbing politician, of what I am told. I put it to the Minister that it is pretty close to impossible, without a team of lawyers, to read the source material: the big order, which I seem to remember is 30-odd pages long; the lesser orders, in terms of their length; the Banking Act 2009, which you have to have a working knowledge of; FiSMA 2000; and the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. The dismissal of any conception of consolidation in the EM is, frankly, rather cavalier. The reference to the fact that, if you can afford it, you can buy consolidation from commercial sources is not really practical for most people.

We are not really able, in my view, to give the right consideration to these orders given the sheer complexity of understanding them. Because I have confidence in the Government and, particularly, the officials of Her Majesty’s Treasury, I feel comfortable to record our support for these orders, but when one goes that step further—from 1 January onwards, when they become live—how are people who are concerned going to understand how they work? It is not just six or eight big banks and it is not just tens of, or a hundred, little banks, it is anybody who is thinking of putting their money in the bank. These orders make a big difference to the security of depositors. This is, as has been pointed out, very pertinent to anybody who is thinking of depositing unsecured loans in a bank. The whole industry ought to understand what these orders and the various Acts that they effectively bring into force do. Can the Minister tell me what plans the Government have to present the totality of this legislation in a form that reasonable people might read and be well informed about? How do they plan to share this information with the appropriate audiences that should know about it?

Finally, I will just touch on the whole issue of resources. I have raised it before, but forgive me, I will raise it again. The thing that worries me about this whole recovery and resolution mechanism is the sheer challenge of approaching this situation. From going into the guidance material, the activity from officials during the recovery phase and the hyperactivity in the perhaps 36 hours following the failure and that point on the Friday night when suddenly everybody confesses all will require extremely high-quality, well trained people.

I would like the noble Lord to perhaps say a little more about the resources available to the Bank of England now, as I understand it, the Bank of England has a clearer and bigger part. What resources does it have to do this? Who are the people involved and what training and testing are they doing? The whole problem with a financial crisis is that most people do not see it coming. Even the people who were meant to see it, in many parts of the world, did not see the last one coming. The only way one can be sort of match-fit for the occasion is by having dedicated resources, with people constantly considering the issues and training and testing themselves so as to be ready to seize the challenges in these very difficult circumstances.

One hopes, in creating this package of orders and legislation, that we will not have another banking crisis. The more I understand about banking, the more I become convinced that we will. I fear that so many parts of the whole issue of money are not understood by so much of the community that is supposed to be responsible for it. There are new technological phenomena, with information moving around at different speeds, sudden movements in world commodities and, in particular, the collapse of individual markets. I fear that it will happen. I hope that what we have done today will work. However, one is not left entirely happy when one reads paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, entitled “Monitoring & review”. The last sentence says:

“A full assessment of the extent to which it delivers that objective may only be possible in the event that such a failure occurs, and the full set of powers is used”.

In other words, “We won’t know it works until we’ve used it and it has”.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on the debate on these orders. Their concerns fall into two parts. The first relates to whether this is a sensible way to do it, and what the negative consequences will be, and the second is a series of practical issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

The noble Lord, Lord Flight, said that these provisions could accelerate the possibility of runs on banks when it looks as though they are getting into difficulties but before we have got to resolution, and that if you get to resolution there will be a contraction of the money supply. If you have a banking crisis, whatever you do in advance, or even during the crisis, it will be extraordinarily difficult to deal with the crisis without there being costs somewhere. We are trying, with this regime, to ensure that the costs are minimised, for several reasons, and that the concept of “too big to fail”—that is, that the Government should be required to bail out banks if they get into difficulty—should no longer obtain.

First, we want the very fact that these provisions exist to have some impact on behaviour before we get to a crisis. We hope that well before you get to a crisis, shareholders and creditors will hold banks to account to a greater extent as regards their decisions. I hope that these provisions will give them an incentive to do that.

As regards the money supply, the Monetary Policy Committee monitors the money supply as part of its objectives and has a number of tools at its disposal to deal with that. Of course, resolution itself is intended to protect financial stability rather than the money supply, but the Bank has other tools in its locker to address the position as regards the money supply.

[Lord Flight]

If a bank loses its capital—and there are rules about how many multiples of its capital its expansion can be—it has to contract its expansion dramatically. That is the key problem: if you have a bail-out situation, it will most certainly remove all the bank’s capital, and that bank will have to contract dramatically. The question is: how will that be handled as regards the money supply?

[Lord Newby]

I accept that, my Lords, but if a bank gets into difficulties there are only two broad ways of dealing with it. One is for the Government to bail it out, and the other is for it to contract its capital in the way that the noble Lord describes. I think that there is a consensus internationally that we must get to the position that these orders will bring us to, where the primary responsibility will fall on the banks. As I say, it inevitably has an impact on the money supply—I do not deny that for a minute—but the simple point I was making is that the Bank of England has other tools in its locker to look at money supply.

17:00

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Forgive my enthusiasm for money but it is a fascinating subject. The Minister says that the Bank of England has a series of tools in its locker. It would be unfair to ask him about them now but I wonder if he could do a small illustrative note to myself and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, about what particular tools he has in mind for that situation. Creating money supply would be a real challenge in those circumstances, and for us—and indeed the market—to know that the Bank of England had considered this and felt that it had the adequate armoury to tackle such a situation would be very good for my happiness and perhaps the wider happiness of the money environment.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am very happy to write to the noble Lord in those terms. His happiness is always at the forefront of my mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the effect of the exercise of these powers on funding for SMEs. In the immediate term, SMEs’ deposits would be protected, but in the aftermath of 2008 we certainly saw a big squeeze on funding for SMEs, which is now at best being only partially reversed. Part of the answer is that we are keen to see a much more broadly based and competitive environment so that SMEs are not forced, as they have been, to go to one of the handful of banks if they want funding. That is why we are so keen to see the establishment of new challenger banks for SME lending and the growth of peer-to-peer lending, which means that over a period we envisage that the proportion of SMEs that will be at risk from the small number of large banks will be greatly reduced.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raised two broad questions about the way in which the orders will be implemented. The first related to the fact that it is virtually impossible to understand the orders because they amend other bits of legislation—how on earth is anyone to make any sense of them? We are in the worst possible position to make sense of them for the simple reason that, because the regulations are not yet in place, there is not readily available the kind of consolidated version of the Act, particularly the 2009 Act, that will rapidly be available via commercial databases—I was going to say “within seconds”, but more probably within a very small number of hours—after the orders have been approved. More generally, the National Archives is working on the production of amended versions of the primary legislation, which will be available to all, although I am not quite sure of the timing of that. If you are a depositor with a bank and you are worried about how this works, I would not actually direct you to the primary legislation in any event; even when it is consolidated, it is very difficult for the lay person to make any sense out of primary legislation all. People will need to look at the more general advice that will no doubt be available by googling “resolution”, “depositor protection” and the features of this scheme, because I am sure that many firms—banks and others—will have some commentary available on their websites as well. Of course, although I have not had a chance to look at it, I am sure that the Treasury will also have much relevant information available.

The noble Lord asked about contingency planning and resources. These are areas that he has, quite rightly, asked about in the past. In anticipation of him asking about them again, I have asked the Treasury the following questions. What is the name of the team in the Treasury and the Bank dealing with contingency planning? How many people are in it? Have they actually done any and, if so, what form did it take? The answer is that the financial stability group in the Treasury is responsible for identifying and analysing emerging risks to the financial stability of the UK and preparing and responding to them. In particular, it is responsible for the effective stewardship of government-supported banks; delivering structural reform in the UK banking system; developing the necessary legislation; and contingency planning for the possible failure of UK banks and putting those plans into action in the event of failure.

The group co-operates closely with the resolution directorate of the Bank of England. The resolution directorate co-ordinates the Bank of England’s resolution of failing UK banks. It also has responsibility for identifying the broad resolution strategy that outlines how a firm will be resolved, and for preparing the resolution plans that set out in detail how a firm will be resolved. The legislation introduced since the crisis requires banks to provide the authorities with information that will enable them to exercise their resolution powers and this includes detailed information about the firm and the identification of any substantial barriers to resolution that must then be addressed. This is an ongoing process, with the banks submitting information on an annual basis and the Bank of England updating its plans accordingly. The introduction of the recovery and resolution plans was a recommendation of the Turner review of the regulatory response to the financial crisis.

17:06

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:19

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I had just answered the first of four questions that I had asked myself and my officials in respect of contingency planning under these orders. The second question was how many people were involved in the teams that I described before the Division. Around 40 people work in the financial stability group in the Treasury. In addition, contingency plans are in place enabling the group to draw on additional resources in the event that that becomes necessary. The list of reservists was one of the recommendations of Sharon White’s review of the Treasury’s response to the financial crisis, published in March 2012. The Treasury’s capability in this area has been significantly enhanced as a response to the crisis. Around 50 people work in the Bank’s resolution directorate. The Bank also has in place contingency plans that would allow it to rapidly increase the size of the directorate when necessary. Of course, in addition to the staff in the directorate, there are many more staff in the Bank and the PRA who work on financial stability more broadly.

I asked whether the teams had actually done any contingency planning. The authorities regularly carry out contingency planning in relation to economic trends and events that could have an impact on financial stability; for example, contingency planning in relation to instability in the eurozone. Finally, I asked: if so, what form did this work take? Among many other things, earlier in the year the Chancellor and the governor and deputy governors of the Bank travelled to Washington to participate in an exercise designed to further understanding, communication and co-operation between the US and UK authorities in the event of the failure of a cross-border globally systemically important bank. The exercise furthered our understanding of the key aspects of resolution planning that would require co-operation and communication between the UK and US authorities and how this would be achieved.

That is one example of the work undertaken in this area and the Government remain committed to the agenda of financial sector reform, including ensuring that robust contingency plans are in place to deal with the possible failure of UK banks. I hope I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, at least in part.

Motion agreed.

Banks and Building Societies (Depositor Preference and Priorities) Order 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:23

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banks and Building Societies (Depositor Preference and Priorities) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Banking Act 2009 (Mandatory Compensation Arrangements Following Bail-in) Regulations 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:23

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banking Act 2009 (Mandatory Compensation Arrangements Following Bail-in) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:23

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:24

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords may find it helpful if I start by outlining the background to this regulation. The term “sale and rent back” refers to a type of transaction whereby homeowners agree to sell their property, usually at a discounted price, in exchange for tenancy rights. This product reached the peak of its popularity in 2008, when the Office of Fair Trading estimated that 50,000 of these transactions had taken place until that point. Its attraction was mainly to homeowners struggling to meet mortgage repayments but who wished to stay in their family home. However, a number of questions were raised over whether customers taking out these agreements were receiving fair treatment.

In 2008 the OFT investigated business practices in this market and published a report that confirmed the presence of significant consumer disadvantage, in two respects. The first was through the financial loss to the customer when the property was sold. The OFT found evidence to suggest that most sale and rent-back providers bought the properties at a significant discount, paying between 70% and 90% of the market value of the property. The second was a lack of security of tenure. Sale and rent-back agreements make a virtue of the homeowner’s ability to continue to live in their home. However, the OFT report showed that in many cases people were being relatively quickly evicted from their home, while they had been led to believe they would be able to stay there over the medium to long term.

The OFT identified a number of market failures that led to these poor outcomes. These included the asymmetry of information between vulnerable individuals with low levels of financial capability and professional salespeople offering these agreements. That was a particular problem in this market because transactions tended to be undertaken by people in difficult and stressful circumstances, who may not have been in a position to weigh up all their options carefully and objectively. However, another factor was that relatively few homeowners took out such agreements. That meant that these firms were not subject to reputational risks in the same way as many other types of firm, limiting the ability of an effective feedback mechanism to operate where customers were consistently receiving poor outcomes. In addition, the OFT found that these market failures were often compounded by the deliberately misleading high-pressure sales tactics used by many providers.

As a result of the OFT report, the then Government issued a consultation paper recommending the statutory regulation of the sale and rent-back market by the then Financial Services Authority. An interim system was introduced to regulate the market in 2009, but it was then replaced in June 2010 by full regulation, as the Government legislated to add sale and rent-back agreements to the list of financial services activities regulated by the FSA. This meant that the FSA was given the powers to make and apply appropriate regulatory rules. The regime developed by the FSA included a requirement for providers to offer a minimum tenancy length of five years, a requirement for independent property valuation and a ban on high-pressure sales tactics. However, even following the introduction of regulation, consumer groups and other housing market stakeholders continued to report the widespread occurrence of detriment caused by purchases failing to meet the standards set by the new regulatory regime.

In response to this, the FSA conducted a thematic review of the market in 2011. The review confirmed that new regulatory standards were not being met in a number of key areas. These areas included, but were by no means limited to, the requirements for tenancy agreements, the form of financial promotions and the disclosure that customers received. In the light of these findings, the FSA temporarily closed down the market to protect customers.

In addition, the report highlighted that many firms were using complex financial arrangements with private financial investors, which providers argued meant that they did not fall within the scope of the regulation as set out in the legislation. It was the private investors who actually entered into the agreements, often on a one-off basis, which allowed them to argue that they were not doing so in the course of business, and therefore they fell outside the scope of regulation and did not need to comply with the requirements intended to protect consumers.

In response to this latter point, the Treasury worked with the FSA to develop the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) (Amendment) Order 2011. That made it clear that all sale and rent-back agreements should be within the scope of regulation unless it was a transaction between two family members. It ensured that the FSA was able to regulate this market effectively, as was originally intended by both this Government and the previous one.

17:29

I will now deal specifically with the draft order before us today. The amendment I have just described, which ensured that all transactions that were not between family members were within scope of regulation, had a sunset clause attached in line with the Government’s Better Regulation principles. That means that it is due to expire at the end of this year unless it is renewed. The statutory instrument we are debating today is to renew this regulation. As such, it effectively maintains the existing regulatory arrangements. That is reflected in the impact assessment published alongside this statutory instrument, which confirms that there will be no new impacts on firms, consumers or wider society. This measure’s zero-net cost classification has been approved by the Regulatory Policy Committee and, as a result, it will have no impact on HM Treasury’s net position against the one-in, two-out requirements brought in by the Government to help reduce the overall level of regulation.

In line with the requirements set out in the original amending legislation, the Treasury also conducted a review of the amendment in 2012. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the amendment had been effective in addressing its objectives: to allow what is now the FCA to regulate the market effectively. It concluded that it was difficult to make that assessment, as there had been only a very limited number of transactions in the market following the introduction of the amendment. At that time the Government suggested that without this evidence it would be difficult to justify the extension of the amendment.

However, the Government have considered the case for regulation again. In the absence of market activity that the Government could analyse, this review focused on whether the original case for regulation was still valid. The Government concluded that the structural features of the sale and rent-back market, which I described earlier, had not changed. Customers engaging in such agreements would be vulnerable to significant detriment without some appropriate protections.

The analysis in our impact assessment, which has been validated by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, sets out our expectation that allowing this amendment to lapse under the sunset clause would result in a net cost of £35.8 million due to the customer disadvantage that would ensue. The case for the effective regulation of this market therefore remains strong, so the Government concluded that the amendment should remain in place and be renewed. However, the Government’s commitment to better regulation, including the use of sunset clauses, is ongoing, so the amendment under discussion today requires the Government to undertake a further review in 2017, and includes a provision for the legislation to expire in 2022. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a perfectly sensible order, which we support. It opens up the opportunity for a philosophical debate on sunset clauses—but because it is Christmas, I will not press the matter further.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.33 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 15 December 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Southwark

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

14:37

Christopher Thomas James, Lord Bishop of Southwark, was introduced and took the oath, supported by the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Lord Russell of Liverpool took the oath.

Death of a Member: Lord Knights

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:42

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, on 11 December. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

NHS: Medical Staff

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:42

Asked by

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many medical staff working in the National Health Service today, including doctors and nurses, were trained in Africa.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, in 2013, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 6,472 doctors working in the NHS—that is 4.4%—who gained their primary medical qualification in Africa and 13,969 nurses on the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register who trained in Africa. In that same year, 12,203 professional clinically qualified staff working in the NHS—that is 1.8%—held nationality with an African country.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the job that these people do for the National Health Service, but is not the lesson of the Ebola crisis that many of the health services in Africa are seriously underresourced? Can it be justified that not only Britain but other countries in Europe and the Middle East are taking much needed doctors and nurses away from Africa? Could we look at our own training policies to see how that position can be improved?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes a very important point. As he will know, the UK signed the World Health Organization code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel. My department worked together with the Department for International Development to produce a definitive list of developing countries—based on economic status and the availability of healthcare professionals—that should not be targeted for recruitment. He may like to know that the WHO is planning an assessment of the implementation of that code of practice and is due to report in 2016. However, we are mindful of the point made by my noble friend. Particularly with the Ebola crisis, it is important that we are sensitive to the serious issues that pertain in Sierra Leone in particular.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, given that, and given the Health Select Committee’s recommendation that although the contribution of overseas staff to the NHS should be celebrated, we should not be dependent on significant flows of trained staff from overseas, does the noble Earl still agree with the decision in 2012 to reduce the number of medical school training places by 2%? Does that not need reviewing?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, we rely on Health Education England to determine the number of training places that the NHS needs going forward, looking at not just the short term but also the medium to long term, informed by the work of the local education and training boards. That is as good a system as we believe we can get. Health Education England is properly funded to do that and we must rely on its expertise.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I understand that the NHS in recent years has made it harder to employ people coming from poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere to work here. However the NHS, as the Minister has already stated, has a large number of people working within it from those backgrounds. I have two questions. First, what are the Government doing to aid countries to train more people in their own countries? Secondly, what are the latest figures for the international medical graduate scheme for people coming from Africa training in this country?

[Earl Howe]

The international postgraduate medical training scheme is only just starting and we hope to launch it very soon with one particular Middle East country. As regards the noble Lord’s first question—he will have to remind me of it.

[Lord Crisp]

I hope I can remember it. It was very simply: what are we doing from the UK to support the training of people in their own countries, where they will often stay longer than if they come and train here?

[Earl Howe]

I beg your pardon, my Lords. DfID has a number of programmes designed to support the health economies of developing countries. They have been in place for many years. They can take the form of training, not just of doctors but of all healthcare professionals. I am aware that DfID is extremely supportive of those programmes.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, 10 years ago there were more Malawian doctors working in England than there were in Malawi and the Royal College of Surgeons, working with CBM UK, a disability charity, set up the College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa. In that time the number of African-trained surgeons has substantially increased through this joint practice. Are other royal colleges following their example in setting up similar projects?

[Earl Howe]

I am not aware of the answer to that question but I can tell my noble friend that the UK has been moving towards self-sufficiency for a number of years. For example, there was a 27% decrease in the number of registrations of non-European Economic Area nurses from April 2010 to March 2014, continuing a longer-term trend. The number of doctors in the NHS with a primary medical qualification from outside the EEA has remained relatively static over the last four years despite the full-time equivalent number of doctors increasing by more than 5% over the same period. I think we can take heart from those figures, mindful, of course, of the need to adhere to the World Health Organization code of practice.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about the tremendous work that these nurses and doctors do in our NHS. I declare an interest as chairman of Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. As I am sure the noble Earl is aware, many of the hospitals now are encouraging some of the African nurses to go back and have an opportunity to train the skilled and unskilled nurses who are already in their own countries. Despite the fact that things are obviously very challenging for us here, it is very important that they are able to do that.

[Earl Howe]

I agree with the noble Baroness. It is important to underline that the medical training initiative, which is the means by which we can present an offer to foreign doctors—that is, postgraduate medical specialists—to come to train here, is a fixed-term arrangement for up to two years. It seeks to promote circular migration so that participants in a scheme can return to their home country and apply the skills and knowledge developed during their time in the UK. That is very valuable for those individuals and those countries.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, during my career as a nurse, I had the privilege of working with nurses from all over the world, including the African continent. They showed enormous compassion and dedication to their work. Does my noble friend feel that it is important that, when these nurses come to England, they are given all the support and training possible so that they reach the high standards that our nurses reach in their training here?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I do. My noble friend will be aware that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has established standards which ensure that the quality of the nurses whom we get from overseas is absolutely up to that of home-trained nurses. Support for those nurses while they are in this country is of course an essential ingredient if we are to keep them here for a reasonable length of time.

Higher Education: Financial Sustainability

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the Higher Education Commission’s report Too Good to Fail: The Financial Sustainability of Higher Education in England.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome this contribution from the Higher Education Commission and are looking closely at its findings. In fact, the Chancellor, in his Autumn Statement, has already addressed the recommendation on postgraduate education. The UK enjoys a world-renowned reputation for the quality of its universities, and we have protected and enhanced that through our reforms. According to the OECD, we are one of the few nations to have introduced a sustainable system of higher education finance.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

The report notes that the overall number of students in higher education in England is actually declining due to very large falls in the numbers of part-time undergraduates, postgraduates and mature students. Does the Minister agree that this reduction in the diversity of our higher education system is a cause for concern, and can she tell the House what plans the Government have to address the situation, particularly when it comes to part-time undergraduates?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the figure for accepted entrants as of August 2014 was up by 4% and that for mature students was up by 6%. In terms of postgraduate funding, your Lordships will know that loans of up to £10,000 will be available from 2016-17. Indeed, in 2012 the Government introduced non-means-testing for loans for part-time students of 25% or more of the full-time equivalent.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that her original Answer sounded rather like someone sitting in the back of a canoe facing upstream just before going over a very large waterfall? Can she perhaps say something about financial sustainability, which she has not covered very fully? In particular, 45 modern languages schools in British universities closed in recent years on the grounds that they were not financially sustainable. Does that leave the Government calm or worried?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not recognise the words “canoe”, “upstream” or “waterfall” mentioned in that question. According to the OECD, we are one of the few nations to have introduced a system of sustainable higher education finance. Indeed, our numbers of students are up to record levels at nearly half a million.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a triple whammy? The Government are no longer funding higher education; they are funding the debts of students who are attending universities. Students are acquiring debts—the latest figures from the IFS show an average debt of £44,000 per student leaving university. In addition, as we have just heard, universities have lost funding for important courses such as languages. The Government say that there is no imminent pressure on the system. Which way is the Minister facing?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am facing firmly in the direction of the widely accepted view that both the student and the state should share the burden of higher education. In fact, graduates have higher earning potential than non-graduates.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, we need to bridge the social mobility gap. As the report states, universities will have to face huge cuts in the future. How will the Government ensure that spending on widening access to higher education is not the first place where savings will be found? I declare an interest as the chancellor of the University of Exeter.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the cap will be lifted in 2016, widening access as far as possible. In fact, disadvantaged students now make up 17% of the total, which is a record level.

[Lord Giddens (Lab)]

My Lords, as someone who has worked in higher education all my life, I was very surprised by the Minister’s response to this report, which is a devastating critique of government policy on higher education. The report shows that it is unsustainable and that commercialism is undermining academic values and it indicates quite clearly that a change of course is absolutely necessary. Can the Minister say what change of course this would be and not just go into defensive mode about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not think I am going into defensive mode. I reiterate the view of the OECD, which is a widely respected body, on the sustainability of higher education finance. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I have forgotten the second part of the question. I remember—since the report was published, as the Chancellor set out in the Autumn Statement, we have in fact announced that postgraduate loan-based funding would be available from 2016. We have addressed some of the concerns within the report.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend take comfort from the fact that when Mr Blair advanced the policy of “education, education, education”, he did so after the Conservatives had raised participation in higher education to a percentage in the middle 30s after inheriting a figure of 12% from the Labour Party in 1979?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I always take comfort in everything that my noble friend says.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how, in the light of this report, she hopes to mitigate the risks to financial sustainability? Those are very big risks. Can she tell us how she will mitigate them? Forget the canoes.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have asked HEFCE to monitor this situation, particularly in the light of the cap being lifted in 2016. That is a very important point.

Devolution: Arts and Culture

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of devolution on arts and culture within the United Kingdom.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, responsibility for arts and culture is devolved within the United Kingdom. Arts Council England works closely with its counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and together they share a collective aim of ensuring that arts and culture across the United Kingdom are available to all.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, does not the Minister believe that, for regions to fund the arts properly, a provision for arts and cultural production—as a major contributor to a region’s cultural identity—should form a significant aspect of devolutionary arrangements? A prime example of much that is now under threat is the Ulster Orchestra, whose future is of concern not only to Northern Ireland but to the UK as a whole.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, decisions regarding the Ulster Orchestra are, of course, matters for the Northern Ireland Executive. I know that meetings have been held with the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and, indeed, with Belfast City Council. I very much hope that those parties can work together to find solutions, but of course the UK Government have a role to play. That is absolutely why all the creative tax reliefs—there are now five and I hope there will be six, with orchestras under consultation—are going to play a very big part in helping creative industries.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the coming year, 2015, is one in which we in Wales are celebrating the cultural links arising from the establishment of the Welsh community in Patagonia?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Wigley]

I gather from that response that there may not be total awareness of that fact.

Will the UK Government give positive support to the celebrations, as indeed are the Government of Wales and the Government of Argentina? Does the Minister consider that the Government might look on these cultural links as an opportunity and a context in which to seek to improve the relationship between the United Kingdom and Argentina?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, culture plays a big part in our relationship with many countries around the world. I am not briefed on whether the UK Government themselves are helping with the Patagonian exchange, but if one goes to Patagonia, there are Welsh-speaking villages and communities there, so it is important that Patagonia is part of our cultural links. I very much support what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, in the days when local government was treated with respect and enjoyed large freedoms, accountable not to the Treasury but to its own ratepayers, cities thrived and many of them engaged in remarkable patronage of the arts? Unless the Government are willing to allow greater freedoms to cities across the United Kingdom and not just the ones that the Chancellor particularly favours, will not the prospects for funding for the arts outside London be pretty bleak?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, in fairness I do not think that the prospect for arts funding outside London is bleak. The increase in funding outside London is welcome. The noble Lord mentioned the Chancellor, but the Autumn Statement mentioned government support for £79 million of capital funding towards the construction of a new theatre and exhibition space, Factory, in Manchester, and the Great Exhibition, which is of course across all northern towns. The Government are also supporting the Glasgow School of Art, for example, following the devastating fire there. There are many examples of what is happening around the country.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

Following on from the question by my noble friend Lord Howarth, has the Minister read the article in today’s Guardian by Charlotte Higgins about what has happened in Newcastle over recent years as a result of the local authority there seeking to withdraw all its funding from its local arts organisations? Does he agree that with the inexorable move towards greater regional autonomy, it is absolutely essential that the arts and culture are built into the core provision that any local authority should be expected to make available to its citizens?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there are many good examples of cities and towns that realise that arts and culture are at the very heart of their opportunity for economic growth. I very much hope that Newcastle will take a different turn, because cities such as Derry/Londonderry, or Hull, which will soon be City of Culture, have recognised that there is an opportunity. I very much encourage Newcastle to think the same.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to broadcasting in Wales, will the Minister undertake that the Welsh broadcasting authority, S4C, will be given a special status and strength either by statute or in the new charter for the BBC, which comes into force on 31 December 2016? That would honour the solemn pledge given by the Prime Minister in the heady days following the Scottish independence referendum that Wales would be at the very heart of the devolution settlement.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I will reflect on what the noble Lord said. I would want to think about it, but the devolution arrangements that we want to have in place are so that there is local identity and national identity. Welsh language and culture are very important.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that the arts are a unifying force throughout the United Kingdom? Does he also accept that there is considerable unease at the withdrawing of funds from musical education? Nothing is more calculated to bring young people together than a common love of music. This is a cause of real concern.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I do not have the figures in front of me but I know that there are robust figures about what the DfE is undertaking in music education, the importance of music education and the opportunities it brings. When I have the figures in front of me I shall speak to my noble friend.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister failed to answer the question put by my noble friend Lady Nye on 20 November, which concerned National Lottery funding for the arts and the current unequal impact this has on the arts in the regions. Does the Minister agree with those who argue that National Lottery funding for the arts should be allocated on an equal per capita basis?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the funding for the lottery is on a capita basis but deprivation is part of its consideration.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Does my noble friend accept that an individual new development in the regions, such as the Lowry in Salford, can have a much wider regenerative effect when it is coupled with, say, the Imperial War Museum of the North and the BBC? The wider regenerative effect of a cluster can be much greater in the regions than in, say, our capital city.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, again, there are very good examples of where regeneration and the arts run hand in hand. In Northern Ireland, for instance, the creative industries are worth half a billion pounds a year, and there are areas around Belfast cathedral where creative industries are centred, which is very much part of the regeneration of that great city.

Child Sex Abuse Inquiry

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made towards the appointment of a chairman for the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary takes the appointment of the next chairman extremely seriously. Following the resignation of Fiona Woolf, the Home Secretary has sought the views of survivors’ groups to inform her on the appointment and she will update Parliament in due course.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government have approached the Lord Chief Justice to see whether a serving judge might be available to chair the inquiry—and, if so, with what result? Can he say what the Government’s position would be if a potential chair made acceptance of appointment conditional on having statutory powers to compel witnesses and disclosure of documents?

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. With regard to the Home Secretary’s Statement on this matter on 3 November, we have since had 130 applications, some of which have been from serving judges. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to be consulted on their availability to perform such a task if they were asked. With regard to the statutory footing, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that if the chairman requested that the inquiry should be put on a statutory footing, she would take that into consideration. However, it does not have to be a judge for it to be statutory, because the statutory powers come from the Inquiries Act 2005.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, given the catalogue of mishaps in the appointing of a chairman, does the Home Secretary personally see a person she is minded to appoint as chairman?

[Lord Bates]

Part of the issue here is that because of a series of announcements and revelations which brought about huge concern, there was a desire to move very quickly to establish the inquiry. The important thing, we recognise now, is to put survivors’ groups, and the confidence of those groups, at the heart of this, which is the reason the Home Secretary has met survivors’ groups three times—on 3, 20 and 25 November—and indeed is meeting them today.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, while we are discussing who is to be the chairperson for this inquiry—it is important that we get the right person—my concern is to support the victims in the mean time. What assurances can the Minister give about the support that will be provided, because it is not right through the bureaucratic processes to ask these victims what has gone on in their lives while they are being hit by barriers and not being given the right support and recognition of what they have gone through?

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I also pay tribute to her work as the Victims’ Commissioner, which she carries out assiduously. Of course more needs to be done to help the victims. We are consulting with the Department of Health to find out what additional help we can provide, and in the interim we will be announcing a further package of £2 million of support for victims’ groups in the ongoing discussions.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We seem to be getting nowhere fast on this one, which is in marked contrast to the successful work done by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey on campaigning to close the loopholes on soliciting sexual material from a child—an issue which the Government have at last decided to take on board. Frankly, that they have still failed to find a chairman suggests that suitably qualified candidates are perhaps now being put off by the inevitable trawling through their personal lives, backgrounds and families by the media which the Government’s ineptitude has ensured will now occur. Can the Minister tell us why the Home Office failed to carry out basic background checks on Fiona Woolf, having had the first appointee stand down? Further, while I think the Minister has said that the survivors and victims of abuse are being consulted on the issue of the new chairman, can he say whether the terms of reference and the format of the inquiry are also being discussed with them?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord’s latter point is of course central to the discussion with the survivors. They want to have confidence that individuals can be compelled to give evidence and that that evidence will actually be available to them. Perhaps I may say that it is a bit unfortunate for the noble Lord to take that tone in relation to the appointments. Both the people who were appointed to the role of chair are eminently qualified to do the work, but the question mark was over whether they would command the confidence of the survivors’ groups. It became apparent that that was not the case, and that is the reason the Home Secretary is going to the lengths that she is to listen to them now.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, when consulting with potential candidates for the chair, will the Home Secretary consider the length of time that that person will be available for the inquiry? We must bear in mind the fact that the very nature of the inquiry means that various new issues probably will arise during the course of the panel’s investigations, and they will need to be given proper consideration. She is going to need someone who can be available for really quite a long time.

[Lord Bates]

That was one of the reasons why the panel was set up in its current form for the initial period. It wanted to draw on the excellent work that had been done by Ann Coffey, Alexis Jay and the NSPCC, among others, who had produced literature and evidence. We did not want the panel to reinvent the wheel but rather to get on and make sure that our institutions are sound, that victims’ voices are heard, and that we take action to ensure that these things could not happen again. The emphasis is now on speed. We want to get this done, but obviously the work must be carried out with the confidence of the survivors’ groups.

Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Motions to Approve

15:13

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7 and 11 November be approved.

Relevant documents: 13th and 14th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motions agreed.

Single Source Contract Regulations 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:13

Moved by

[Baroness Jolly]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29 October be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:13

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 November be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:14

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 November be approved.

Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.

Motion agreed.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:14

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 39, Clauses 71 to 74, Schedule 2, Clauses 75 to 78, Schedule 3, Clauses 79 to 81, Schedule 4, Clauses 82 to 91, Schedule 5, Clauses 92 to 94, Schedule 6, Clauses 95 to 108, Schedule 7, Clause 109, Schedule 8, Clauses 110 to 123, Schedule 9, Clauses 124 to 130, Schedule 10, Clauses 131 to 141, Schedule 11, Clauses 142 to 151, Clause 40, Schedule 1, Clauses 41 to 70, Clauses 152 to 158.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, further to our Second Reading debate on 2 December, I now beg to move the commitment Motion for the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. This has been agreed through the usual channels. The Motion sets out that the Bill will be taken in Grand Committee. Furthermore, given that Clause 42 was added to the Bill only at Commons Report stage by way of a government defeat, the Order of Consideration Motion sets out that Part 4 on pubs will be taken after Part 11 on employment.

As I set out at Second Reading, the Government have accepted the principle that there should be a market rent-only option for tied pub tenants. However, the clause will require some amendments to ensure that it works correctly, is consistent and mitigates some potential unintended consequences. A later consideration in Committee will allow everyone more time to consider these important points. I welcome the commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, at Second Reading to work with the Government to ensure that the clause works effectively. I look forward to support for the commitment Motion.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the assurance she made at Second Reading that the Government accept the principle of the introduction of a market rent-only option for tenanted pubs. We understand the reasons for wishing to reorder consideration of the Bill and I confirm that we are very happy to work with the Government to ensure that this option is made workable.

Motion agreed.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Report

15:16

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Clause 2: Social action

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

1: Clause 2, leave out Clause 2

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, there are many reasons why Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, but to my mind the main objection is also the simplest: it serves no useful purpose. The mischief at which the clause is aimed is already covered by existing law. The mischief in question, as defined by the Lord Chancellor in the other place, is that volunteers are being deterred from volunteering by fear of being sued for negligence. That is the very same point specifically covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, passed less than eight years ago.

The whole purpose of that section was to encourage people to undertake what the section calls, “desirable activities”. The whole purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is to encourage people to act,

“for the benefit of society”.

Those are two ways of saying exactly the same thing. Nobody has yet been able to detect any difference between them. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor said that Clause 2 is not intended to change the existing law, so why do we need another piece of legislation covering exactly the same ground now?

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, accepted that:

“Clause 2 relates to broadly similar territory to that in Section 1 of the Compensation Act”,

but he added that,

“the approach that it takes is different”.—[Official Report, 4/11/2014; col. 1573.]

He did not explain exactly what he meant by the approach being different. When pressed, he said that the 2006 Act had been “ineffective”. However, the only evidence relied on for that assertion—literally the only evidence—was a survey carried out about eight years ago. All it showed was that 47% of a very modest sample, some 300 people at most, said that there was a risk of being sued and that that risk was an issue to be considered. That survey was carried out in 2006-07, before Section 1 of the Compensation Act could possibly have had any effect, so how can it be relied on as showing that Section 1 of the 2006 Act has been ineffective? At the time of that survey, it had not had time to take effect.

A recent report produced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the evidence in support of the Government’s case for fresh legislation in this field. It concluded that the only evidence was almost entirely anecdotal. It said that such evidence was not a sound basis for legislation, and that must surely be right. We now have before us a clause for which there is no evidence of any need covering exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the Compensation Act, which was passed less than eight years ago, and covering the ground already covered by the common law. In negligence cases, judges have always had regard to the matters referred to in Clause 2.

If that was not enough to condemn the clause—although I suggest that it is—the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has recently said that this clause, even if it is to form part of the Bill, will have very little, if any, effect. Indeed, that was the Government’s own case. Paragraph 23 of their impact assessment states that any reduction in claims for negligence will not be substantial.

If, as I suggest, these reasons are nothing like enough to justify the inclusion of this clause, one is driven to ask: what is the real reason the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward this unnecessary clause for our approval? There can be no doubt about the answer to that question, because the Lord Chancellor himself said it over and over again in the other place. The real reason is that the Lord Chancellor wants to send out, as he put it, a strong signal that if people are trying to do the right thing—he used that sort of phraseology over and over again—the law will be on their side. In other words, the justification for including this clause in the Bill is nothing other than a publicity exercise on the part of the Government. If that is the case, and I suggest that it is, it is a flagrant misuse of the legislative process. The purpose of legislation is to make new law or to change existing law so that it can be enforced in the courts. This clause does not purport to do either of those things. It could not be enforced by the court, which is why it will be treated with derision when it comes before the courts—a word that was used by a recent Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, speaking from the government Benches in the other place. The clause should be rejected on that ground, if none other.

Finally, I should mention points made during the debate in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who I am glad to see in his place, is in favour of Clause 2. He was chair of the task force which published in 2011 the report Unshackling Good Neighbours. His view is obviously, therefore, entitled to great weight on that ground. I hope, however, that he will forgive me for saying that he did not really answer the point that Clause 2 covers exactly the same ground as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006, which should be given much more time to take effect.

On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said that, while he was broadly in sympathy with the Government’s objective, this was, as he put it,

“frankly, a lousy way to do it”.—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 404.]

It was smoothing over all the difficulties with words that have very little meaning. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, went further. He was extremely critical of the drafting because of the use of the same word, “person”, in Clauses 2 and 4 to cover two entirely different persons. He said it was a great pity that the Government had not faced up to the real problems in this area. As a result, he said, he was deeply troubled by the clause as it stands.

For all these reasons, I hope the Government will think again before pressing ahead with this unnecessary clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to say some nice things about my report, and I reciprocate by saying that I have had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship of various committees, and he has always been a punctilious and perceptive chairman. He is particularly kind in being ready to listen to and appreciate the views of those of us who are not learned in the law.

I hope that he will forgive me, but, once again, I cannot support his proposal this afternoon, and I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench not to do so either. We had a pretty thorough discussion of this issue in Committee on 18 November, and I do not intend to repeat the remarks I made then. As I understand it, and as I understood then, the noble and learned Lord is concerned about interplay between this piece of legislation and the Compensation Act 2006. I understand his desire for legal clarity and legal purity, but I have another objective, and that is of legal connectivity.

The report that I produced for the Government, Unshackling Good Neighbours, to which he kindly referred, looked in some depth at what was inhibiting people from getting involved in society and acting as a trustee, and whether they feared potential legal consequences. We received examples in sufficient numbers, which cannot simply be dismissed as anecdotal—a term that I sometimes feel is somewhat patronising. The noble and learned Lord sought to reassure the House that, if a case came to court, the court would throw it out, would, in his phrase, “have regard for the circumstances”. With respect, he may have overlooked the effect on an individual of the agonising, expensive, lengthy and psychologically depressing process of preparing the case—this against the background that, in the event, the court may not throw the case out.

I continue, therefore, to believe that this legislation sends an important signal—there I agree with the noble and learned Lord. This signal may seem unnecessary in the cool, calm, reflective atmosphere of the Inns of Court, but it has a greater resonance at the coalface of our civil society.

At another level, I am particularly looking forward to hearing the final determination of the Opposition’s position on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is a witty speaker and a very practised politician. He has made some disobliging remarks about the contents of the Bill, but he has so far not moved beyond that point. I suspect that, as a practical politician, in his heart of hearts, he knows that this is an issue that, in the minds of the public, needs addressing, and which this Bill does so address.

Before I conclude, I reiterate one other point that I made in Committee. I do not argue for a single minute that the Bill is a silver bullet as regards encouraging volunteering or greater participation in our society. There is much else to be done besides. Better insurance arrangements are crucial, as is the need to debunk myths about the legal consequences of day-to-day actions, too often assiduously and repeatedly promulgated in the press. However, even if the Bill is not a silver bullet, it is a bullet, and one well worth firing. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will resist the noble and learned Lord this afternoon.

15:30

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we have had our fun on this Bill at Second Reading and in Committee. I, for my part, cannot remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision. We now come to the serious business. I have been studying and practising law for 40 years—not as long as many noble Lords, but a long time—and I cannot remember a more pointless, indeed fatuous, piece of legislation than Clause 2 of this Bill, with the possible exception of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has explained and as we have previously discussed—and as is not in dispute—Clause 2 will not change the law. Courts already have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members. I referred to the leading cases at Second Reading. The Minister has at no stage suggested that there are any cases in which courts have ignored such obviously relevant factors.

What then is the point of Clause 2? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has already explained, the Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, has been very clear. He wants Parliament to send a message. But if the object of the legislation is to encourage people to volunteer and to encourage heroism without people being concerned about possible litigation—the objective referred to a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—Mr Grayling should buy a half-page advertisement in the Sun or the Daily Mail or, if he wants to reach younger citizens, open a Facebook page or set up a Twitter account, and simply tell people the obvious truth, that the law is already on their side. That would be a much cheaper and more effective way in which to communicate a message than to take this sad Bill through all its stages in Parliament.

It is simply ridiculous for the Government to suggest that people who are currently inhibited from volunteering by a fear of litigation are somehow going to step forward when they hear—if they do—that we have approved Clause 2 of the Bill. Mr Grayling cannot seriously think that around the dinner table tonight, or in the Dog and Duck public house, or anywhere, people will say to themselves, “I see that Clause 2 has passed its latest stages in the House of Lords. I look forward to its speedy enactment next year because then I will be much more willing to volunteer and act like a hero, my concerns about litigation having been removed”.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It is not just people in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck who are influenced by this; it is also the professional advisers. In the example that we discussed in Committee, the problem was that many solicitors offering advice to people actually provide advice that might be changed by this legislation.

[Lord Pannick]

With great respect, there is even less justification if we are going to ask the question about professional advice from solicitors, because we are surely entitled to assume that solicitors are capable of understanding basic law. This is not complicated law: it is trite, obvious law that already protects those who volunteer and act as heroes.

It has been said at previous stages of the Bill that we often legislate in the hope of changing people’s behaviour. Reference has been made, for example, to the Race Relations Act. But what is different and what is exceptional about Clause 2 is that it does not purport to change the law one jot or iota. All that it will do is enable Mr Grayling to say that he is in favour of social action; and when we come to Clause 4, he will be able to say that he is in favour of heroism, as if the rest of us were not. I object to legislation being used by the Government to send what is no more than a political message.

In paragraph 125 of its excellent report, published last week, on the office of Lord Chancellor, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee stated that the Lord Chancellor should have,

“a clear understanding of his or her duties in relation to the rule of law and a willingness to speak up for that principle in dealings with ministerial colleagues, including the Prime Minister”.

The Lord Chancellor ought to understand that it is part—an important part—of the rule of law that the statute book has a role and a purpose: it is a purpose distinct from a party conference speech or a party election broadcast. Clause 2 simply debases the parliamentary currency and it therefore undermines the rule of law. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, decides to test the opinion of the House on Clause 2, he will certainly have my support.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke in Committee in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and I am not going to repeat what I said then. I might take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about this matter being discussed in the silent halls of the Middle Temple. If you give ordinary police officers, firemen and ambulance crews two sets of words about the same thing, you are going to cause a lot of confusion a long way before it gets to the Middle Temple.

In the gap since we spoke about this in Committee, this law has achieved something that I have not seen in this House before. I know I have not been here that long, but I have never heard of a particular statute being used as an example in another discussion altogether when it has not even been passed. In the debate put forward on 4 December by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, about the procedures and practices of the House, this Bill got not just one but two mentions. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is in his place next to me, and by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that,

“we might be saved from legislation such as the absurd Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill”.—[Official Report, 4/12/14; col. 1495.]

Later, the Bill was described as,

“a badly drafted, silly Bill that is all to do with ‘manifesto-itis’ rather than any deep legislative urge on behalf of the Executive”.—[Official Report, 4/12/14; col. 1499.]

I do not think we should proceed with this matter.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may return briefly to the point that I made in Committee, which is directed to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the solicitor advising—no doubt—an employer. The problem to which I drew attention was where somebody such as a fireman, police officer or some other person in the emergency services wanted to take the kind of action for the benefit of society that is talked about in Clause 2, but his superior officers said, “No, you can’t, because if you do that, my organisation is liable to be sued”.

My point is that Section 1 of the previous statute deals with outcomes and separates the outcome from the person who is being sued. The problem with this Bill is that it links irrevocably and inextricably the person who is being sued with the person who is acting. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I do not think that this clause and the section deal with precisely the same thing. I think that this is a much narrower clause, dealing with a particular part of the subject. Therefore, it just adds to confusion when we have an existing piece of legislation which covers all the aspects and is perfectly serviceable to then come along with something which covers only part of it.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will say why the Government have not taken the opportunity to broaden this clause so that it covers precisely the same ground as the existing legislation, because to have two pieces of legislation, one half-baked and one dealing with the whole thing, just adds to confusion. It is a great shame to be invited to pass a measure of that kind.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, with great force and fervour, invites the House to consider that a silver bullet from this place and the other place is perhaps not a bad thing at all. That may well be so, and both Houses are entitled to fire silver bullets by way of resolutions, debates and in a number of other ways, but not in their legislative capacity. That is really all that this issue is about.

There are only three areas of law—or at least there used to be when I was a law student a very long time ago—statute, common law and custom. If a statute is to have any purpose or meaning at all, it has to change to some extent one at least of those three areas. Custom can be left out of it; it is agreed universally that it does not change the content of a statute by one hair’s breadth. There was, I think, some dubiety in Committee about common law, but I honestly think that that is answered by a long-standing principle in our law—namely, that a statute to change the common law has to say so expressly on the face of it and to make it clear beyond peradventure or doubt that that is happening: otherwise, there is a presumption that the common law is not changed. I should have brought Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes along with me but I am sure that the Minister will accept that that is still a fundamental principle of our law. The right to legislate is a sovereign right and privilege to be used sparingly. It is not to be used for propaganda purposes.

[Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (CB)]

My Lords, in speaking in support of this amendment, I draw attention to a matter which I believe to be of general importance and relevance to all the contentious amendments before the House this afternoon, but which has not, I believe, been referred to at all in previous debates on this Bill either in this House or the other place—namely, that the Law Commission has had no input at all into the Bill. The subject matter of the Bill is not on the published programme of current work of the Law Commission: nor—I checked this point a couple of days ago with the press officer of the Law Commission—have there been any informal consultations or amendments concerned with the Bill. Neither the substance of the Bill nor its drafting has had any input at all from the Law Commission. Yet this is a Bill which is said to make significant changes in the common law.

Whether it does, indeed, make significant changes in the common law is highly contentious. Along with many of my noble and learned friends, I believe that it makes no significant change at all. However, on the hypothesis that it does make significant changes in the common law, it is eminently a matter of law reform which should be the subject of systematic and intense study by the Law Commission and a consultation with judges, the legal profession and the wider public, conducted by the commission. None of that has happened.

15:45

It is ironic that next year sees the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Law Commission by the Law Commissions Act 1965. “Law Commissions” is in the plural because there is the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission, which of course is now devolved. The Bill that became the Law Commissions Act 1965 was introduced by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, as the “jewel in the crown” of his programme of law reform. The Second Reading of that Bill, in your Lordships’ House, took place on 1 April 1965 and Hansard shows that it was a quite memorable debate. Lord Gardiner made a long and eloquent speech, towards the end of which he said:

“My Lords, our law will never be put into a proper state unless and until there is a body of men”—

I am sure the Lord Chancellor did not intend to exclude women—

“whose sole duty it is to submit the whole of our law to a systematic and continuous review—and that is the object of this Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/4/65; col. 1152.]

There was widespread support for the Bill on all sides of the House. Two former Lord Chancellors spoke: Viscount Dilhorne and Viscount Simonds, who was then 83 years of age, or thereabouts. Several Law Lords spoke, including three who were among the most distinguished judges in the second half of the 20th century: Lord Wilberforce, making his maiden speech, Lord Denning and Lord Reid. Lord Wilberforce drew a distinction between what he called “true law reform” and the amendment of taxing statutes—which is inevitably technical and in almost continuous process—and what he referred to as statutes concerned with social questions. He said these were,

“matters which are really those of social policy and not law reform at all—for example, questions dealing with the eviction of tenants from houses, or leasehold enfranchisement. These are matters of social policy which, once the policy is decided, can perfectly easily be dealt with by the lawyers”.—[Official Report, 1/4/65; col. 1173.]

Those are the sort of matters which may not necessarily call for intervention or participation by the Law Commission, but the reform of the common law is quite different. I must not put it too high, but it seems to me to come close to a constitutional issue if, nearly 50 years on from the setting up of the Law Commission, reform of the common law is a matter on which the commission is bypassed completely.

This is underlined by a further, much more modest, statute. The Law Commission Act 2009 made two changes, specifically directed to the relationship between the Law Commission and Parliament. On 25 March 2009, in another place, the Lord Chancellor, Mr Jack Straw, had said:

“Good law is imperative for accessible and modern constitutional arrangements. For 40 years the Law Commission has played a vital role in that respect, but I intend to strengthen its role by placing a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to report annually to Parliament on the Government’s intentions regarding outstanding Law Commission recommendations, and providing a statutory backing for the arrangements underpinning the way in which Government should work with the Law Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/09; col. 23.]

That measure had originally been two clauses in the draft Bill—which I think was originally called the Constitutional Renewal Bill but was changed to the Constitutional Reform Bill. However, it was decided—very sensibly, if I may say so—that those clauses should form the subject matter of a separate Bill, which was introduced, with the support of the Government, by none other than my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick. In this House, at Second Reading of the Bill that become the 2009 Act, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:

“It is a great privilege for my department to be associated with the Law Commission. The commission, as has been said on all sides, makes a significant contribution to law reform, which is greatly valued by the Government, those in the legal and judicial world and beyond”.—[Official Report, 24/4/09; col. 1737.]

It is a matter of great regret that on a Bill of this sort, which claims to be making significant changes to the common law, there has been no input or advice from the Law Commission, which is, in the words of Lord Gardiner, who was the Lord Chancellor in 1965, “a body of men”—and, of course, women,

“whose sole duty is to submit the whole of our law to a systematic and continuous review”.—[Official Report, 1/4/65; col. 1152.]

This Bill is not the right way to reform the common law. It will make it neither clearer nor better.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I do not wish to appear conspicuous by my silence on this Bench but will speak very briefly indeed. I just want to give the House two brief citations from authorities past. The first states that the,

“principle …enshrined in section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 … has always been part of the common law”.

That was Lord Justice Jackson in 2010. The following year, Lady Justice Smith—now Dame Janet Smith—in another case in the Court of Appeal quoth:

“Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006”,

does

“not add anything to the common law position”.

Do we really want our judges, next year or the year after, to have to add to those citations? Nor will Sections 2 and 4 of whatever Act this will become in 2014 or 2015 add anything. That is the position in regard to those clauses by concession. Unlike my noble and learned friend Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, I do not understand for a moment the Government suggest to that those clauses make the faintest change whatever to the existing law. Clause 3 conceivably raises other, but no less objectionable, considerations. However, Clauses 2 and 4 change nothing.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, less than a week ago we debated the Government’s amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, and inflicted defeats in relation to proposals affecting young offenders and, even more significantly in terms of their constitutional importance, two changes to the procedures for judicial review.

Today we return to this Bill, a piece of vanity legislation if ever there was one, which, except for Clause 3—as we have heard—adds nothing to the provisions of the Compensation Act 2006, which, by implication, it purports to amend. I concur entirely with the critique of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others of this muddled attempt to deal with a problem for whose very existence there is a complete lack of evidence—a Bill that is very badly drafted, in any case.

At Second Reading, I acknowledged that the House is properly cautious about declining to give a Second Reading to Bills emanating from the Commons, and there is a similar reluctance totally to destroy Bills in the way in which the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, would achieve if passed, which would leave the Bill consisting of only its title. However, if we were to go so far on a Bill as feeble as this, it would actually strengthen the hand of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the vastly more important and damaging provisions of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which we have sent back to the Commons with our amendments. I fear that he would not hesitate to cast this House as a recalcitrant and obstructive group, placing us alongside the left-wing pressure groups and campaigners which he conjured up as the phantom proponents of judicial review and opponents of his attempts to undermine it. It would, I suggest, make it more unlikely for the Lord Chancellor to exercise political responsibility in relation to the amendments on secure colleges and JR by accepting them, or, should he fail to do so, for MPs on the Government Benches to demonstrate political heroism in a just cause by voting for them.

For those reasons, I regret that I cannot advise opposition Members to support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment to Clause 2, nor his amendment to Clause 4—in any case, the Government have tabled an amendment to it that reflects one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee, to which I added my name. I do that with regret because I share entirely the noble and learned Lord’s criticisms of the vacuous nature of the Bill; but it seems to me, for the reasons that I have given, unwise for the House to join him in the Lobbies. I say that with the more trepidation as I understand that he is the chairman of the East Sussex Rifle Association; I fear that I may end up as a target—if not for the noble and learned Lord, then for some of the members of that association.

There is nevertheless a serious issue as to the role of the House in these strange circumstances. However, in relation to Clause 3, I will be asking the House to agree that it should not stand part of the Bill, essentially because that clause seeks to effect a change in the law that is unacceptable for reasons which I will adduce when we come to debate that amendment. However, I fear that I shall not be joining the noble and learned Lord in the Lobby—

[Lord Pannick]

Is the noble Lord saying that the Opposition are not going to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Berwick, because, although they think that Clause 2 is absolutely terrible, it is not the worst legislative proposal that Mr Grayling has brought forward in this Session?

[Lord Beecham]

There is a lot of competition in that respect. I merely say that on this Bill it is not worth the House taking a position that is a departure from its normal practice. I genuinely fear that the Lord Chancellor will use such a vote to muster support against the much more serious amendments that we have sent back for the Commons to consider. That will not help us in sticking to those amendments, should they come back to us. That is why I will not be in either Lobby this evening if the noble and learned Lord decides to test the opinion of the House.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking against Clause 2 in Committee and in the debate today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has maintained that the clause adds nothing useful to Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 or to the existing common law and is therefore unnecessary. I take this opportunity to explain why the Government believe that the clause has an important purpose, which merits the support of the House.

The clause stems from our wish to ensure that people can feel confident about participating in activities that benefit others without worrying about what might happen if something goes wrong and they find themselves defending a negligence claim. Clause 2 sets out to provide valuable reassurance that if that happens, the court will take careful and thorough account of the context of the defendant’s actions when reaching a decision on liability. Rather as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said when introducing the provisions of the Compensation Act, as I have quoted before:

“They will reassure people who are concerned about being sued that, if they adopt reasonable standards and procedures, they will not be found liable”.—[Official Report, 28/11/05; col. 81.]

So two separate Governments have identified a fear.

It is said that there is no solid evidence and that such evidence as there is is anecdotal. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson: it is rather hard to identify and amass solid evidence about this. However, I am not sure that many people would disagree with the proposition that we have a culture where litigation hovers over many activities like a shadow and can genuinely inhibit the sort of things that most people would consider to be desirable.

16:00

Although the primary concern underlying this clause is to ensure that voluntary activities are encouraged and supported, we see no reason to restrict its application to such cases. In common with other clauses in the Bill, Clause 2 is therefore broadly drafted so that it will apply in a wide range of situations where people act for the benefit of others, whether they do so on a voluntary basis or in a paid capacity. As I indicated in Committee, this could, for example, include organised charitable activities such as running a village fete, or informal individual activities such as helping an elderly neighbour with their shopping. It could also cover workers such as teachers, doctors, and emergency services who act for the benefit of society as part of their jobs.

The idea that this provision might somehow have—I quote what was alleged in earlier debates—“horrific unintended consequences”, is rather difficult to understand. As I have explained, the clause does not tell the court what conclusion it should reach and will not prevent a person engaged in socially beneficial action being found negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it. It will be for the court to determine whether a person was acting for the benefit of society and, if so, what weight it should give to that factor in all the circumstances of an individual case. This will give the courts the maximum flexibility to reach decisions that are fair and just, while sending a strong signal to reassure the public that they will consider, in all cases, the wider context of the defendant’s actions prior to reaching a conclusion on liability.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that the clause was not necessary because it covers identical ground to Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. In fact, Clause 2 takes a different and firmer approach. It requires the courts to consider, in every case, whether a person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members. It also adopts a different emphasis by focusing more firmly and precisely on the actions of the defendant in the particular case, rather than on the general effect that a finding of negligence might have on others participating in similar activities. For these reasons, we think Clause 2 will provide greater reassurance than Section 1 of the 2006 Act. The noble and learned Lord said that it was too soon to tell whether the Act was working, particularly having regard to the evidence that was relied on by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in earlier debates that the Compensation Act was working well. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that Homer had nodded and that the Labour Party, in identifying this particular problem, had made a mistake: there was no such thing as a compensation culture, whatever may have been the perception.

We say that the need for further measures has been amply evidenced by the support for the Bill from voluntary organisations, such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, St John Ambulance, and the British Red Cross, which have made clear that their concerns over liability remain a real issue for many of their members. The plans that such organisations have indicated they have for publicising the Bill and spreading awareness of its provisions will ensure that our core message is transmitted widely and effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested using Facebook or advertisements in newspapers. I am sure that those bodies are well experienced in knowing how best to convey the message to those they wish to receive it. He seemed to identify the more popular means of transmitting messages or information, presumably on the assumption that those who read the broadsheets or listen to the radio would not need any such reassurance. Perhaps he overestimates the bewilderment that many feel about the state of the law, particularly the state of the law of negligence. The principles are clear; their application to particular facts has often been a subject of uncertainty and criticism. During the debates, the noble Lord rightly referred to the fact that the basis of the Compensation Act was the House of Lords decision in Tomlinson, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, produced the seminal speech. That speech represented, he said, effectively—although couched in the most magnificent English—a statement of the obvious which then found its way into the statute book.

Of course, the House of Lords would have to consider it, meaning that someone had identified it as a difficult point. It had had to go from first instance to the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. In these difficult cases on the margin, very often where there is a seriously injured claimant, finding the answer in a negligence case is difficult and there is nothing unworthy about Parliament setting out and identifying guidelines that should be taken into account and to which judges should have regard while still allowing them to approach cases on their particular facts.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, quite rightly reminded us of the immensely important role that the Law Commission has played and plays in the development of the law.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Can the Minister help a non-lawyer? Is it the Government’s policy that they are prepared to use legislation to send signals or make declarations of policy? That seems to me what is at the heart of this matter, not whether the courts have found it important to interpret that law as it stands.

[Lord Faulks]

I think there is something of both, in the sense that very often in the law of negligence, although the principles are clear, when identifying the answer to a particular factual case—one very much on the margins—a great deal of judicial time is spent identifying what is a duty of care, whether there is a breach of the duty of care and whether there is foreseeability. Extracting the principles from the morass of common-law cases is not easy. This Bill sets out in statutory form principles to which a judge may have regard. That is a legal process. It is also not, I suggest, inappropriate for some form of message—I do not like the word “message” but I think everybody in your Lordships’ House knows what is meant by that—or for some sort of guidance and reassurance to be given to the general population, so that they can act in a way they would like to act without the fear of uncertainty that accompanies litigation.

I was addressing the point made the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, about the Law Commission. He is right about the immensely valuable role it plays in making the law and how desirable it often is to have a proper review. He would accept, I am sure, that it is not a prerequisite for the making of law that the Law Commission has examined a particular area. In fact, the Compensation Act 2006 followed an inquiry by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The committee had produced a report—I was a special adviser so I declare an interest—so it was not via the Law Commission. Valuable though that can be, there is a limit to the amount it can do in a particular timeframe because of the immense calls on its services. While not disagreeing with anything the noble and learned Lord has said, it does not, I suggest, prevent there being a change in the law, notwithstanding the fact that the Law Commission has not considered this matter specifically.

I suggest that this is an important, although not radical, declaration of the existing law. It sends an important note of reassurance. I accept that it may not be the most transformative Bill that has reached this House but that does not mean that it does not serve an important function. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, continued his attack, which I have sustained now for approximately 12 months, on every proposition that the Government have put forward. I normally follow his arguments, which are lucid and clear. On this occasion, I am unable to follow his argument. However, I do not wish to stretch my already stretched synapses even further in an attempt to do so; I will simply accept what he says.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I am puzzled. Will the noble Lord tell us whether it is ever worthy to use a statute as a means of giving assurance? I thought that a statute was to state the law, not to assure somebody somewhere. That would be okay. It would be an amazing way of—you know what I mean.

[Lord Faulks]

I think I know what the most reverend Primate means. With respect, as I said on a previous occasion, describing a statute as sending a message is too simplistic a way of explaining what we do in Parliament. We do not legislate in a vacuum. For example, we identify particular issues, whether they are modern slavery or revenge porn, which became part of an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. We pass laws which serve the purpose of clarifying the law but they also reflect what people in society think we ought to be doing in Parliament. I rely on what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said about the desire for neighbours to be unshackled. We need more volunteers; we need people to be unshackled. This law may make a modest contribution and I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Pannick]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether there is any precedent that he can cite for our legislating not to change the law but to provide reassurance.

[Lord Faulks]

I am not sure that off the top of my head I can think of a particular legislative provision that provides reassurance, but part of the function of much legislation is to provide reassurance and protection to the vulnerable. There is nothing novel about producing a piece of legislation which, in a difficult area, provides some clarity and a modest degree of reassurance in an area of considerable uncertainty.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I want to say a word about the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. He said that, as the Bill changes the common law, it ought to have been referred in the first instance to the Law Commission. I entirely agree that from time to time it has not been at all easy to discover what the government case has been, but their final position is that it does not change the common law in any way; it merely confirms what was already the common law and what was included as Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord’s difficulty.

So far as the rest is concerned, I shall say nothing more about the arguments put forward by the noble Lord in answer to the debate. They have already been dealt with very fully. However, I want to say a word about the attitude of the Opposition to the amendment. As I understood it until 2.15 pm this afternoon, the Opposition would be supporting the amendment. That was my clear understanding.

[Lord Beecham]

If the noble and learned Lord understood that, he misunderstood it, and if I have contributed to a misunderstanding, I apologise. It was never the Opposition’s position that we would support the noble and learned Lord. We were considering the position and I tried to contact him unsuccessfully over the weekend. Therefore, we have not resiled from the position that we previously adopted.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am quite happy to accept that there must have been a misunderstanding. However, that was certainly my understanding of the position, just as my understanding of the position at Second Reading was that they would be supporting my amendment. I was wrong about that and I am wrong again. However, that still leaves the question of why on earth the Opposition are not supporting the amendment. After all, on the whole, it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. If they found that they were against something—and I understood them to be against Clauses 2 and 4, just as they are against Clause 3—in the ordinary way they would oppose it.

However, I am wrong about that. The reason given for this seems to me to be entirely incomprehensible. The reason why the Opposition now do not want to oppose Clauses 2 and 4 is that if they did so while opposing Clause 3, that would then have some effect—which I really did not understand—on the attitude of the Lord Chancellor in relation to some other Bill; namely, the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. That is a wholly irrational ground for an Opposition to act on. I would have thought it their duty, if they are against Clauses 2 and 4, to oppose them. They say, however, that, for reasons which I do not understand, they do not intend to take that view officially. I hope that at least some members of the party which is represented by those on the Opposition Front Bench who take that view will think differently.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, surely my noble and learned friend, as I will call him on this occasion, has heard of the mugwumps, who sat on the fence with their mugs on one side and their wumps on the other.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am not sure that I fully understood. Perhaps I did not wholly hear what the noble Lord said. However, the arguments are now over, and there is really nothing left for it but to take the opinion of the House. I do not fancy for one moment that, in the absence of support from the Opposition on this clause, the amendment will be carried. However, in the interests of doing the right thing—those words which the Lord Chancellor kept on using—I ought to take the opinion of the House, which I now seek to do.

16:16

Division 1

Ayes: 77

---

Crossbench: 41
Labour: 23
Independent: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Conservative: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 222

---

Conservative: 141
Liberal Democrat: 70
Crossbench: 8
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

16:28

Clause 3: Responsibility

Amendment 1A

Moved by

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

1A: Page 1, line 12, leave out “generally” and insert “predominantly”

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, Amendment 1A may be less controversial than the matter that we have just finished discussing, although in matters of the law you never quite know. The amendment was originally tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, and I added my name to it. My noble friend has had to travel to northern England today on business, so is unable to be here in time to move this amendment. I am moving it on his behalf.

The amendment is very simple: a one-word change to Clause 3, the clause entitled “Responsibility”, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred earlier. It replaces “generally” with “predominantly”, so that the clause will read:

“The court must have regard to whether the person”,

demonstrated a “predominantly”,

“responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.

The question was whether the use of “generally” was sufficiently focused to achieve the appropriate balance in individual cases. The adverb “generally” has three definitions in the Collins English Dictionary. The first is “usually; as a rule”. The second is “commonly or widely”. The final one is,

“without reference to specific details or facts; broadly”.

I suspect that what your Lordships’ House will wish the courts to consider, if this Bill passes into law, is whether the defendant will first claim that he was demonstrating an approach which on that occasion was in the main responsible in protecting the safety of others as opposed to the approach which usually, but not necessarily on that occasion, was responsible. Replacing “generally” with “predominantly”—we return to the Collins English Dictionary definition, which is,

“for the most part mostly and mainly”—

should provide the courts with the power to examine the approach of the defendant at the material time and avoid them having to consider the approach demonstrated at other times or taking the matter even wider, enabling them to take into account the approach followed other than that at the material time.

This Bill has an important role to play in reassuring potential volunteers, but equally it should not encourage behaviour which is thoughtless or irresponsible and thus puts others at risk. This change of word may better balance the two aspects, and I hope that the amendment will find favour with my noble friend. I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Clause 3 is the one clause in the Bill which the Government acknowledge embodies a substantive change in the law. In Committee, I moved an amendment to remove “generally” from the requirement on the court to consider whether,

“the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty … demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.

Neither at Second Reading nor in Committee did the Minister define the meaning of “a generally responsible approach”, and in replying to the debate in Committee he acknowledged that the term was “unusual” in statutory terms. Indeed, he indicated that he would,

“consider carefully whether and to what extent it adds anything to what is in the clause at the moment and whether, on balance, it takes the matter any further”.—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 414.]

We await with bated breath the outcome of the Minister’s deliberations along with his response to the amendment tabled by his noble friend, who is seeking to ratchet up “generally” to “predominantly” in the proposed clause.

I have to say that neither term is satisfactory in terms of either definition, which is entirely lacking, or effect. Why should someone suffering damage through an act of negligence or breach of statutory duty be denied compensation on the grounds that the act or omission was in effect a first offence, or at any rate a rare offence? What, for that matter, constitutes a “responsible” approach? How does the Minister define those terms? Moreover, and crucially, the clause is not limited to social action, responsibility or heroism, terms which are in themselves undefined and undefinable, or to personal injury cases. We are dealing not just with safety but, in terms of the clause, with other interests. As I reported in Committee, the Minister in the House of Commons, Mr Vara, affirmed that the clause,

“could in principle be applicable in relation to other instances of negligence such as damage to property or economic loss where issues of safety may not necessarily be relevant”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 693.]

Why should a negligent builder, medical practitioner, accountant, surveyor or even solicitor—I declare my interest—escape liability for what might even be catastrophic damage because he has been hitherto “predominantly” responsible? Negligence can lead to large losses outside the realm of personal injury. Is not the reality that this badly drafted clause is yet another concession to the insurance lobby, which ordinarily would of course stand behind the defendant in such claims?

Many Members of your Lordships’ House will have received an e-mail today from one of those pressure groups which so exercise the Lord Chancellor in relation to judicial review. In this case, the pressure group is one which we can be confident he entirely approves of: it is the CBI. Its curiously worded communication supports Clause 3 on the grounds that it,

“provides better protection against accidents for those firms—particularly the small and medium sized companies that already have good health and safety processes in place”.

Of course, it does nothing of the sort. It provides “better protection” against claims for negligence arising from accidents and it extends, of course, to large employers as well as medium-sized and small employers.

The e-mail goes on to suggest that,

“this clause will encourage the courts to recognise that safety is a shared responsibility”,

as if the courts do not already do so, and do not make findings of contributory negligence when a claimant fails to take proper precautions, or dismiss a claim when he is wholly responsible. Of course, again, the CBI ignores the fact that the clause extends to all types of negligence, including by small and medium-sized businesses which might well find themselves a victim of negligence other than of the kind leading to personal injury.

As the CBI’s response eloquently exemplifies, this whole Bill has all the hallmarks of being drafted by the Lord Chancellor on the back of a small envelope. This clause, in particular, is deeply objectionable. Unless the Minister is prepared to abandon the clause, I shall invite the House to divide and consign the envelope to the parliamentary waste bin.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I add my support to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. Clause 3 is very troubling for two reasons. First, the defendant may have shown a partially irresponsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others, that partially irresponsible approach may be the cause of the accident and it may be entirely inexcusable. Why, then, is the generally responsible approach of the defendant in other respects of any relevance whatever? The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, would not cure this defect.

The second troubling aspect of Clause 3 is that it does not appear to be confined to the subject matter of the Bill, social action and heroism. I would be very grateful if the Minister would explain whether Clause 3 was intended to be confined to the subject matter of the Bill, or whether, as its wording suggests, it is to have a broader aspect. For these reasons, if the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, divides the House, he will have my support.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, I support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Beecham and by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As a practising lawyer, the idea of having to bring this into effect and applying it in the context of an actual case fills me with horror. I do not know how one would start to go about it. I do not see the benefit the clause brings and I see grave dangers in its application. I was particularly taken by the comment of my noble friend Lord Beecham that this does not even necessarily apply to cases of personal injury or injury of that sort—it can apply to economic loss and to many other sorts of cases. I do not see how this sort of drafting can conceivably be appropriate for such cases.

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

Will the Minister, when he comes to reply, assist me? I do not see how this clause will apply if there are two defendants, one of whom has shown a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others and the other who has not exercised that approach. It seems to me to be very worrying from that point of view. I always understood that it is not your general behaviour that the court has to look at in order to find whether you are negligent but your behaviour on the particular occasion when you are said to have committed a tort. If one is going to look at the person’s general behaviour in deciding actions for tort, these are going to take a lot longer to resolve than they have hitherto.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. The Bill as a whole is manifestly directed—all the earlier debates have indicated this—to encouraging people to volunteer and take part in generally beneficial activities. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made plain, this clause would apply if you have a claim against your accountant. Perhaps he is a wonderful accountant and has looked after everybody else enormously skilfully over the years, but on this particular occasion when he is looking after your affairs, Homer nods, falls fast asleep and costs you an enormous amount of money, for whatever reason—perhaps he was going through a messy divorce at the time. He is insured. Is it really to be suggested that what he has done for everybody else is relevant and can deprive you of your claim? It is absurd.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, another feature of this clause occurs to me: how one is supposed to apply it when the issue of contributory negligence comes up. This is one of the problems that the court must have regard to, but we are not told in this very brief provision to what purpose one is examining. I assume that it is whether the individual or body concerned is liable at all, but assuming it is liable, how does one apply it in the context of contributory negligence? I do not believe that that aspect has been thought through at all.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we have had the pleasure of a short but informative debate this afternoon. The criticism of Clause 2 was that it did not change the law and therefore was not desirable, but the criticism of Clause 3 is that it does change the law—so I will approach the Bill in a rather different way.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would remove Clause 3 from the Bill entirely. I would like to explain to the House why I believe that it is important for the clause to remain part of the Bill. It provides that a court, when considering a claim for negligence or breach of a relevant statutory duty, such as, for example, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, must have regard to whether the defendant, in carrying out the activity in which the alleged negligence or breach occurred, demonstrated a “generally”—I put that word for the moment in inverted commas—responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.

The core aim underlying this clause, and the Bill as a whole, is to provide reassurance to ordinary, hard-working people who have adopted such an approach towards the safety or other interests of others during the course of an activity, that the courts will always take this into account in the event that something goes wrong and they are sued. As well as providing that reassurance, we hope that this will also give them greater confidence in standing up to those who try to bring opportunistic and speculative claims by showing them that the law is on their side.

As I explained at Second Reading and in Committee, we believe that concerns that the clause might in some way undermine the rights of employees and others to bring a negligence claim are unfounded. There is nothing in Clause 3, or in the Bill more generally, which will prevent somebody who has been injured bringing a claim or which will prevent the court finding an employer or any other defendant negligent if the circumstances of the case warrant it.

In addition, the focus of the clause is on whether a generally responsible approach was adopted in the course of the activity—so that we are not looking, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, suggested, at the whole of the behaviour in other circumstances or in relation to some other activity—in which it is alleged that the negligence occurred. It will not therefore enable a body with a slipshod approach to safety to escape liability by pointing to its health and safety record over a longer period of time. If its actions during the course of the activity in question were so risky or careless as to be negligent, it can still be found liable.

The need for this measure is amply illustrated by the evidence that was provided in support of the Bill during its passage through the House of Commons. I have referred to evidence from voluntary organisations that concerns over liability continue to represent a real disincentive, preventing many people getting involved in socially worthwhile activities. Evidence provided by the emergency services also illustrated the propensity of some people involved in accidents to bring opportunistic and, frankly, spurious claims, such as the example we have previously discussed provided by the Cheshire Fire & Rescue Service.

16:45

The Federation of Small Businesses has also welcomed the Bill, as well as the CBI—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. The national chairman of the FSB, John Allan, said that he,

“hopes this proposed legislation will help protect hardworking business owners against irresponsible claims”.

The Government believe that it must be right to discourage such claims and, in the event that such a claim is brought, to require the courts to take into account the general approach of the defendant to safety during the course of the activity in question.

To those in your Lordships’ House who still have concerns about the possible effects of the clause, I emphasise that the provisions do not direct the courts as to the conclusion they should reach and will not prevent a finding of negligence or breach of statutory duty where this is justified. I am confident that the courts will continue to take a common-sense approach to these cases and will exercise the flexibility which this clause gives them to reach a just decision in all the circumstances of each individual case.

That is also my answer to the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about contributory negligence. The courts often have to go through an evaluative process when looking at a case of negligence and deciding the question of whether there is contributory negligence and, if so, what percentage. They, I suggest, will not be prevented from performing such an exercise by these provisions.

Likewise, in deciding, when there are two defendants, if one or both of them should be found liable, the courts will examine the circumstances in a way that they do with the law as it currently is. They will be invited to have regard to the matters in Clause 3, but that should not make it particularly difficult, I respectfully suggest, to come to a just decision on the facts.

[Lord Woolf]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I still, I am afraid, cannot understand whether, where there are two defendants, one who can rely on this Clause 3, and one who cannot rely on it, he is saying there could be a situation where it would be proper for a judge to say that one defendant walks out of court scot-free, even though he caused the accident, and the other is found guilty.

[Lord Faulks]

The answer is yes. There are lots of different circumstances in which two defendants may find themselves sued. They may be sued on the basis that one is much more likely to be liable than the other. The other defendant may be sued because his insurance arrangements may be considered more satisfactory. There will be circumstances in which one defendant is much more likely to be culpable than the other—in which case very often there will be, pursuant to the 1970 civil liability Act, a division of responsibility between those two defendants. A judge will have to perform that process.

By the same token, a particular defendant in a factual scenario, where an accident is caused, might have, on a particular day, been wholly reckless about the cause of the accident insofar as that particular defendant is concerned. Another defendant might have been predominantly or generally extremely careful for the welfare of that individual. I am not saying that that is necessarily a likely scenario, but it is certainly one within the realms of the many possibilities of claims that the noble and learned Lord and I have been involved in, where a judge has to pick his way through a number of different defendants and try to find a fair answer on the facts. My answer to him is that that particular process, difficult though it is, performed by skilful judges, will not be made significantly more difficult by these provisions.

As I explained earlier, the approach that we have taken does not rewrite the law in detail, but it represents a change to the law in that it does not currently oblige a court to consider whether a person took a generally responsible approach to safety during the activity in question. We wish to ensure that the courts take a slightly broader view of the defendants’ conduct in these circumstances, by looking at whether his approach to safety, taking into account all that he did or did not do, was generally a responsible one. I suggest that that would very much tally with what a number of members of the public might think was fair. If a defendant was really predominantly doing all that he or she could reasonably be expected to do to look after the safety of an individual, why should there not be some reflection of that fact in the determination of liability? Why should it be ignored altogether? The court would be obliged to weigh it in the balance—that is all—when considering the ultimate question of whether the defendant met the required standard of care.

[Lord Pannick]

Is there some time period over which the court is expected to assess the generally responsible approach of the defendant? How far does this go back? Has the department made any assessment of how much longer court cases are going to take and how much more expensive they will be if the judge has to assess all those matters?

[Lord Faulks]

With great respect to the noble Lord, considering the activity in question focuses the judge on the activity that is said to have caused the particular injury, or tort, which has eventuated.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords—

[Lord Faulks]

Perhaps I could finish answering this question before I answer the next one. That would necessitate a judge looking at the activity in question and deciding whether, in relation to the activity in question that is being examined by the court, a generally responsible approach was exhibited by the defendant. What that would not involve would be going through his or her safety record for the previous 10 years, if that is what is being suggested. In fact, as the noble Lord may or may not know from personal injuries claims, very often disclosure of the history of accidents in a factory or documents on previous injuries is done in conventional personal injury claims, as the law is now—there is nothing different about that. So with great respect I do not accept the noble Lord’s suggestion that there would be a lengthening of trial or a greater complication in those terms.

[Lord Beecham]

The Minister must forgive my impatience again. He has concentrated on personal injury claims, but he would concede that the clause does not restrict itself to such claims. Could he identify some of the other sorts of cases, as his ministerial colleague did in the House of Commons, the non-personal injury cases—contract cases and matters of that kind? Would he say that, if a defendant had demonstrated an approach towards protecting the safety of his staff, that suffices to let him escape from damage to other interests of others? What sort of other interests do the Government intend to be covered by the provisions of the clause?

[Lord Faulks]

The Bill is described in its preamble as being to make,

“provision as to matters to which a court must have regard in determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty”.

I do not see any reference to breach of contract there. But the noble Lord is right in the sense that Clause 3 refers to,

“a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others”.

That would open the door to the possibility of other interests being considered. Having regard to the general structure of the Bill, I would not wish to add anything to what was said in the House of Commons. I imagine that it is going to be focused primarily on conventional personal injury cases.

[Lord Goldsmith]

I am sorry, but I wonder how the noble Lord can make that observation. If a claim comes before the courts, where there is an allegation of breach of statutory duty or negligence, which as he would readily concede could be negligence arising from a contract, how is that clause to be avoided? For example, the accountant says, looking at the wording of Clause 3, “The activity that I carry out is doing people’s tax returns and advising them on that; I have done it for the last 10 years and I am now going to tell the court about my record”. How do the words in the clause prevent that from being done?

[Lord Faulks]

Let me deal with the hypothetically negligent accountant. As I said in answer to previous questions, the Bill is concerned with the activity in question, so it would be the particular tax return or the particular piece of advice, because that is what the Bill says.

[Lord Goldsmith]

It would not be this tax return, surely, but the activity of advising on tax returns generally.

[Lord Faulks]

I respectfully disagree with that interpretation because it is concerned with the activity in question,

“in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred”.

It would not, therefore, deal with the 99 years of accurate tax returns but would focus on the particular tax return that is the subject of the claim in negligence. That is the correct interpretation of the particular clause.

I will answer the question that I hear from a sedentary position: how do we deal with the question of “generally”? My answer to that is that the “generally responsible” approach is directed at the activity in question. It is difficult to see, frankly, that it would have much of an application on the hypothetically negligent accountant—

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords—

[Lord Faulks]

Perhaps I may finish answering this question before I answer the next one. The hypothetically negligent accountant—if he or she has made a negligent error—is going to be liable. This is not going to add anything to that position. It would be no good for them to say, “In the 99 other years in which I did this particular act, I did a good job”, because that just would not bite on this. It does not seem to me that it is very likely that, on the particular hypothesis that the noble and learned Lord put forward, it would have any application.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I wonder whether the Minister could be more precise. He talked about the activity in question, but surely Clause 3 has to be read in the light of Clause 1. The whole of this brief Bill is introduced by Clause 1, which tells us:

“This Act applies when a court … is determining the steps that the person was required to take to meet a standard of care”.

Surely one needs to be very precise if one is to understand Clause 3; it is talking about the steps that the person was required to take. It may be that the court is saying, “Well, I am not going to find that the defendant was bound to take that step because I am applying Clause 3”. It is either yes or no, I would have thought. Using the phrase, “activity in question” is far too general. If it is to mean anything, it has to be precisely focused on what Clause 1 is talking about, and the rest will then follow—rightly or wrongly.

[Lord Faulks]

Clause 1, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, is describing the scope of the Act, saying that it applies when a court,

“in considering a claim that a person was negligent or in breach of a statutory duty, is determining the steps that the person was required to take to meet a standard of care”.

It then gives, in the three clauses that we are considering this afternoon, three different factors that should be taken into account—or rather, it says that the court must “have regard” to them. Clause 1 is very much scene setting. However, to turn the argument on its head: if, for example, Clause 3 did not have the expression,

“in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred”,

the argument might be stronger, because it could be said that the court must have regard to a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety of others. Then it could be argued that this is invoking somebody saying “I am normally a conscientious surgeon”, or “I normally look after people in the factory”. However, the very fact that those words are inserted is focusing the court’s attention on the particular activity in question. With respect, therefore, that is my answer to that question.

I submit, of course, that this makes a modest and sensible change, but it is important to bear in mind that the court is only invited to “have regard” to it. If the court thinks that, frankly, notwithstanding a generally or predominantly responsible approach, this particular failure—if such there be—is not acceptable, it will decide on normal principles that there has been a breach.

16:59

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, prior to Committee would have removed the word “generally” from the clause without replacement, as he said earlier. This would have removed the obligation on the court to consider the organisation’s overall approach to safety in the course of an activity, which we believe should be a relevant factor. While we cannot therefore agree to a substantive shift in policy, I recognise that concerns have been expressed about whether the phrase “generally responsible” is sufficiently clear. As has been referred to, I said that I would consider the matter, following the debate in Committee.

The House has heard today from my noble friend Lord Hodgson and the views, in his absence, of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, about the use of the word “predominantly”. I think that that is a better adverb. I am never a great enthusiast for adverbs generally in legislation, but I think that “predominantly” is a better word. It is more focused and conveys with a little more clarity for the purposes of the judge what we intend by that expression.

Provided this clause survives the expected attack from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and others, I intend to bring back an amendment at Third Reading which, if not using the precise wording in the order that is proposed, would include the adverb “predominantly” as opposed to “generally”.

[Lord Beecham]

I have another question. The Minister’s colleague, Mr Vara, said:

“Narrowing the clause … would mean that … bodies such as voluntary organisations, religious groups or social clubs which demonstrate a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of their clients or members would not be able to benefit from its provisions. That cannot be right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/14; col. 693.]

That is the argument that he made in opposing an amendment which had been tabled. That seems to suggest that the Government were contemplating situations in which such organisations would be protected in the course of their general functions in the event of a claim arising—rather than, as the noble Lord implied, only in relation to a particular case in which they failed, as it were, to have sufficient regard to the safety or other interests of a client. Surely the noble Lord is in error in advancing the argument that we are looking only at the particular individual who might be involved in such a claim. That seems to me much too narrow an approach to the terms set out in the Bill.

[Lord Faulks]

I do not have the full context of what my ministerial colleague said in the House of Commons, but I do not believe that I am in error when I give the reasons for my answers to the various questions that have been posed. As I say, these words are not mere surplusage; they are put in to clarify and limit the extent to which “generally responsible” has an application.

I suggest that this provision is an important but modest reflection of what many people would say was a sensible encouragement of employers to adopt a predominantly or generally responsible attitude to the safety or other interests of others—but which, in appropriate circumstances and subject to the court’s overall discretion, allows these matters to be taken into consideration. That is as far as it goes. It is a modest but, I suggest, sensible addition to the law—and it is an addition to the law, as I think is accepted. Given the clarification I have attempted to give the noble Lord on the limit of the measure’s scope, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for returning to Amendment 1A. I thought for a moment that it had been forgotten in the heavy-duty exchange of legal artillery that was flying across the Chamber. I am also grateful for his reassuring remarks about the possibility of something further being introduced along the lines of “predominantly” if the Bill survives the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. In those circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1A withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

2: Clause 3, leave out Clause 3

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, on this occasion I will not follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. The Minister has not satisfactorily explained the real purpose or the workings of this clause, although the two things may not coincide in the minds of those who drafted it. It represents a substantive change and, in his noble efforts to minimise the extent of that change, I fear that he has failed to address the new concerns raised by several Members of this House who are much more learned in the law than I would ever profess to be. In these circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:06

Division 2

Ayes: 190

---

Labour: 141
Crossbench: 36
Independent: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 238

---

Conservative: 153
Liberal Democrat: 74
Crossbench: 7
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

17:20

Clause 4: Heroism

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

3: Clause 4, page 1, line 17, leave out from “danger” to end of line 18

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I turn now to Clause 4 and the amendment we have tabled relating to it. We noted the concerns raised in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Attlee that the current definition of “heroism” could be taken to exclude the actions of trained first aid volunteers. That is because the current clause says that a person acts heroically if he intervenes to help somebody in danger without regard to his own safety or other interests. Organisations such as St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross would always train their volunteers to have regard to the potential risks to themselves and others before intervening.

I had a very constructive meeting with representatives from those organisations after Committee to discuss these matters further, which culminated in the amendment that we are bringing forward today. We agreed that the simplest thing to do would be to remove the final 11 words of the clause. This will put beyond doubt that the clause applies to anybody who intervenes in an emergency to help somebody in danger, regardless of whether they acted entirely spontaneously or weighed up the risks before intervening. What is more, St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, as leading first aid organisations reaching hundreds of thousands of people a year, have said that if the amendment is agreed they will use the opportunity to encourage more people to come forward to act in emergencies. I am very grateful to them for their offer of assistance, which will help to reassure many new first aid volunteers that they can intervene in emergencies secure in the knowledge that the law will be on their side. I beg to move.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. It may be convenient if I say what I have to say now. In many ways, Clause 4, which we are now dealing with, is the oddest of these three clauses. As drafted, it was strongly criticised by the Fire Brigades Union, St John Ambulance and the Red Cross, among others. To take the instance of the Fire Brigades Union, the clause goes directly contrary to advice that it has given for many years to people involved in a fire: to get out of the way of the fire as quickly as they can and to stay out. If they intervene to try to rescue somebody, then they are only likely to put in greater danger the firemen, who will have to come to their rescue as well.

This was pointed out as a difficulty—indeed, as a serious objection—in the other place, but no notice was taken of that criticism until at a very late stage in this House, when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gave notice of his amendment to leave out the last 11 words of the clause. Leaving out the last 11 words of this clause is undoubtedly a great improvement, but leaving out half a clause to save the rest of a clause is an unusual thing to do. It only demonstrates that the clause, like the rest of the Bill, was never properly thought out in the first place. In Committee I suggested that it looked like a clause drafted on the back of an envelope. I now think that that may be going too far in its favour. It must surely have occurred to someone at some stage that a clause that protects someone who takes no thought for his own safety, but does not protect someone who takes some thought for his own safety—that, as it was put elegantly, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick,

“protects the instinctive hero but not the thoughtful hero”—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 416.]

—is surely inherently ridiculous. Be that as it may, the objection to Clause 4 is essentially the same as that to Clause 2. The substance of Clause 4, as it will stand if the noble Lord’s amendment is accepted, is already covered by Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006.

It is difficult to imagine a,

“person … acting heroically … to assist an individual in danger”,

who is not by that very act engaged in a “desirable activity” as envisaged by Section 1 of the Compensation Act. If so, this clause adds literally nothing to the existing law. If the noble Lord in his reply can think of a single example where the point I have made is not valid because something would be covered by this clause and not by Section 1 of the Compensation Act, I hope he will tell us. In the mean time, I submit that it adds nothing and should be rejected on that ground. In due course I will move my amendment too.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, there is a further reason why Clause 4 is pointless and that is, of course, because it adds nothing to Clause 2. It is very difficult to understand in what circumstances a person is acting heroically in an emergency when they are not also,

“acting for the benefit of society or any of its members”.

Perhaps the Minister can tell the House of a theoretical case that would not fall within Clause 2 that falls within Clause 4. There is no doubt that the removal of the final words of Clause 4 is a distinct improvement. We must be grateful for small mercies.

I have a further concern that when courts have to apply Clause 4 there is ample room for no doubt lengthy debate as to what is meant by “heroically” and “emergency”, neither of which is defined in the Bill.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for the same reasons as I indicated in respect of Clause 2. It adds nothing. If you ask a simple question whether there is a court in the land which would not, under the common law,

“have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger”,

the question answers itself—of course there is not. I ask the Minister to say what is added by the words “acting heroically by”. Why could it not just be, “when the person was intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger”?

Apart from ramping up the rhetoric—that is essentially what this whole business is—what actually is added by “acting heroically by”, except for another hour of the court’s time if eventually it has to apply this clause?

[Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe]

My Lords, I support the amendment which my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick has indicated that he is likely to withdraw. I wish to address briefly the amendment proposed by the Minister and draw attention to the use of language in both Clause 4 and throughout the Bill. I am genuinely shocked by the low standard of draftsmanship in the Bill—presumably it was prepared by government lawyers. It is an elementary principle of statutory drafting that one unit of meaning should be described by one word—that words should not be used interchangeably as the draftsman’s fancy takes him.

17:30

At present, the Bill contains the word “person” six times—or five if the government amendment is accepted. It contains the word “individual” once. That very strongly indicates that “person” is being used to describe either an individual or a body corporate. It will be said that when Parliament wants to refer to an individual, it uses the word “individual”. That is the sort of thing that judges say. They assume that statutes nowadays are carefully drafted.

Looking at Clause 4, it may be that,

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”—

words which we are now invited to omit—would be treated as a sufficient context to indicate that, contrary to all normal principles of statutory drafting, “individual” and “person” were being used interchangeably. However, if those words drop out, the person who is acting heroically—whatever that means—is either an individual or a body corporate. No doubt a body corporate charged with providing emergency services in a particular district is a person acting heroically. I suggest that at Third Reading serious thought should be given to the neglect of basic principles of statutory draftsmanship which the Bill reveals.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on leaving out the 11 words at the end of this clause. Particularly following our debate in Committee, it appeared to me that a “person’s own safety” is not necessarily a part of heroism, so it is a useful removal.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in speaking to his amendment to leave out the clause, said that his reasons for wishing to do that were broadly the same as his reasons for tabling Amendment 1, which concerned Clause 2. I understand that, and therefore draw the conclusion that I drew a couple of hours ago. I hope that my noble friend will resist that amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked what was added by the reference to heroism in the Bill. The answer is that it allows the Government to bestow an acronym on the Bill; otherwise, it would simply be the “Social Action Responsibility Bill”. Now, we have the words “and Heroism”, which make a convenient acronym. That is an interesting way of proceeding with the drafting of legislation and I concur with the noble and learned Lord’s criticisms of that process.

Having said that, the Minister has at least made a concession by, in effect, accepting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to which I subscribed, as I said before. It was of some comfort that St John Ambulance, which was certainly in touch with me and, I suspect, other noble Lords, welcomed that change. The clause does not substantially affect anything, as we have already heard. However, in so far as this modest change makes it marginally more palatable, I welcome the Minister’s concession. He has not been able to offer too many concessions, but I am glad that he has prevailed on the Lord Chancellor on this occasion to make a gesture of an unfamiliarly generous kind to this House. I support the amendment.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, for the most part the Government’s amendment has been supported. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, says that the fact that we had to remove nearly half the clause, because half of it was not worth while, indicates that the clause really was not worth while. That may not do entire justice to his argument, but we say that we responded to the burden of the argument. We listened to the debate and we consulted St John Ambulance. We certainly do not want to do anything that does not realise the main objective of the Bill, which is to encourage people to volunteer, to assist and to provide, if necessary, emergency assistance.

The Government will no doubt take very much to heart the criticism of the use of language made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker. I explicitly do not promise to make any changes before Third Reading but I undertake to revisit the issue in case any further clarity can be attained by the use of “person” or “individual”.

However, I would say to anyone who is not a lawyer that Clause 4 is pretty clear. It states:

“The court must have regard to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger”.

I am really not sure that that is a terribly difficult concept to understand. I think that men and women would understand what was meant to be conveyed by that, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask the court to pay regard to it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, may well be right that judges would take that into account. Certainly most judges would.

However, the outcome of any negligence case, as those of us who have laboured in that particular vineyard will tell the House, is never clear, particularly when there is a very badly injured claimant. Judges sometimes do not sufficiently bear these matters in mind. The court must now “have regard”—that is all we ask—to whether there is heroism as described. We do not believe that heroism needs further definition or examples. We think that judges should be able to recognise it when they see it.

I submit that, while taking on board the criticism of some aspects of the drafting, this very much maligned Bill and this clause serve a sensible, common-sense purpose, and I ask the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would just deal with the principal point made both by myself and by the noble Lord. In what respect does this clause add anything to Clause 2, as it will now stand part of the Bill, or to Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006? Will he please give us one single example?

[Lord Faulks]

I will give the same answer that I gave in relation to the distinction between the Compensation Act and this Bill, which is that the Bill says that the court “must have regard”. That is a distinction. I said in Committee that there may well be an overlap between Clauses 2 and 4. I do not say that they are wholly distinct; they convey an accumulation of concepts which are readily understood, and a judge may find it possible to bear in mind both Clause 2 and Clause 4. That fact does not mean that Clause 4 cannot, in appropriate circumstances, serve a useful purpose.

[Baroness Warnock (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the question raised by my noble and learned friend regarding what exactly the word “heroic” adds to Clause 4? Could it not be left out? Intervening for the sake of saving somebody is surely enough. Is there any reason for having “heroism” or “heroically” either in the Title of the Bill or in Clause 4?

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

Before the Minister answers that, the words that are completely surplus here are “acting heroically by”. Why can it not read, “was intervening in an emergency”? Can the Minister whet our appetite as to whether there is any scenario when you can intervene in an emergency and so on, within the meaning of this clause, without acting heroically? If not, for heaven’s sake get rid of it.

[Lord Faulks]

The answer is that the word is used in the clause to describe a particular circumstance which I think would convey to most people exactly what is intended by that clause. Yes, there may be some circumstances in which it is surplusage, and others when it is useful to describe what is said. I am afraid that the criticisms have now been made, and I have given answers to the questions. It is a matter for the House to decide whether they are satisfactory.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Amendment 4

Tabled by

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

4: Clause 4, leave out Clause 4

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

I am not sure whether I am entitled to say anything more. I do not intend to do so, except to draw attention to the fact that we have not been given any explanation of how Clause 4 adds anything of any utility. However, for reasons best known to themselves, the Official Opposition have decided not to support this amendment. In those circumstances, there is little chance of a result different from that which we had earlier this afternoon. I therefore do not intend to take the opinion of the House.

Amendment 4 not moved.

UK Armed Forces in Iraq

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

“My Lords, the UK is currently providing substantial support to the Government of Iraq through airstrikes, surveillance, gifting and transporting equipment and the training of Iraqi forces in specialist skills. There are currently around 50 UK personnel working with the Danes in Sulaymaniyah, in northern Iraq, carrying out combat infantry and sharpshooter training. We are coming to the end of the second of four three-week courses. We also have around 10 military personnel in Erbil looking at how we can assist the Government of Iraq in training and equipping other Kurdish forces.

The international coalition is developing its plan for building the capacity of Iraqi security forces. The US envisages a coalition effort across at least four sites in Iraq. Any future UK training contribution would be absorbed into this coalition plan. In early November, I announced our intention to provide further training to the Iraqi military. No decisions on troop numbers, units or locations have been made, although we expect to focus on providing expertise in countering explosive devices.

At Defence Orals on 24 November, I also announced our intention to advise and assist the Iraqi armed forces through the secondment of advisory personnel to command headquarters, and we are considering what contribution we can make. The details of any decision will be announced to Parliament in the usual way”.

17:42

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given to the Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The thrust of the Answer appears to be that the headlines in yesterday’s papers—in the Sunday Times, the Sunday Telegraph, the Mail on Sunday and the Sun, for example—which said that hundreds of British troops are going back to Iraq are wrong. Are the Government saying to us that these headlines, which appeared in a number of newspapers close to the Government, have just been made up, and have not come as a result of comments made by an inside source, whether injudiciously or otherwise?

The Secretary of State for Defence was quoted as confirming that our Armed Forces would be deployed to four separate sites in Iraq next month to train Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers, and that the training we are going to be offering in January will be in infantry skills and some of the basics, particularly on how to deal with IEDs. The Ministry of Defence has been quoted as saying that decisions on numbers, units or locations have not been made. How long will it be before decisions are made on this issue of providing further training? This will also show just how accurate or otherwise the apparently speculative leaks in yesterday’s newspaper reports were. Bearing in mind what the Government have said about not involving combat troops, what will be the size and composition of the force protection element of the training mission? What is the nature of the requests for further help that have come from the Iraqi Government?

We have supported steps taken by the Government, regional partners and the international coalition in combating ISIL. Do the Government not accept that rather greater clarity is now needed about the role of our Armed Forces in Iraq, the scale of their involvement, and the timeframe of training operations? Would they agree that the public, our Armed Forces and Parliament are entitled to be told about this directly by the Government, rather than via what appears to be a leak—from whatever source—to the media?

17:44

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we have no plans to send hundreds of soldiers to Iraq, and never did have such plans. The UK is already making the second largest contribution to air strikes and surveillance after the United States. Our training effort in Iraq will be small scale and niche, building on the UK’s strength in areas where we are best able to support the coalition. This will be a very limited mission. Our Prime Minister has made it very clear that we are not going to recommit ground combat forces to Iraq. As the Iraqi Prime Minister himself said on 17 September, the Iraqi Government do not want to see foreign troops fighting on the ground.

The noble Lord asked how many people we are sending. At the moment, I cannot tell the House very much. We have not set a number, but it will be very low. It will be mainly specialists with niche skills, such as counter-IED. That is something in which the British Army has excellent specialists. We will also be advising the Iraqi army on how to manage its headquarters. We have no plans to send in ground combat forces.

The noble Lord also asked what further help the Iraqi Government have asked for. We are in discussions with the Iraqi Government. It is the Iraqi Government who have requested help from us. The Secretary of State was in Iraq last month, and discussions are continuing to take place.

17:46

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. Could he say something about the effect of the assistance given so far to the Iraqi Government in deterring or curbing the activities of ISIS?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we are confident that it is working. We have a very active training programme, which I can tell the noble Lord about. We are carrying out training on heavy machine-guns and combat infantry training. We feel that any training of this sort will help the Iraqi security forces to train up to combat ISIL.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that the House will be grateful that he clarified the point that there is no intention to put in combat troops, because clearly misunderstandings arose over that? It is helpful to have that cleared up. In respect of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, what sort of numbers are going through this training programme, and what sort of length is it? Obviously, in some respects, getting greater expertise and skill within the Iraqi armed forces at this time is a matter of some urgency.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My noble friend makes a very good point. These training courses are very important. Following on from the noble Lord’s earlier question, we feel that it is very important that we build them up. We are still scoping these training courses. As I said, we have just completed several courses in the Erbil area in heavy machine-guns. We are currently doing combat infantry training and sharpshooter training with the Danes in the Sulaymaniyah area. Two more courses are being carried out.

Our soldiers have helped commercial contractors to train the Iraqis in counter-IED. As I said earlier, this is something in which we have a real niche speciality. I can assure my noble friend that the “advise and assist” recce team returned to this country on 7 December, and options are being considered to set up a logistics headquarters and a ninth armoured mechanical division. PJHQ is developing a business case for counter-IED training at two build-partner capacity sites.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Will my noble friend tell the House whether, across government departments, there has been an assessment of any further terrorism risks in the UK because of our further forays into Iraq? Could my noble friend also say whether the perceptions of what the UK forces are doing in Iraq has been consulted on with our ambassadors in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I can assure my noble friend that we are in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID. As my noble friend knows, General Sir Simon Mayall has been out to the Gulf. He has just returned from Egypt and has been discussing with the Egyptian Government the very point that my noble friend raised.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

What is the position of our troops if they come under attack or are put in danger as a result of being in Iraq and helping the Iraqi forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

The noble Lord raises an important point about rules of engagement. As we are still scoping the numbers to go out and they are very small numbers, it is too early to say anything about the rules of engagement. But we are confident that members of the Armed Forces who are being sent out will be there in a training role and they will be far from the combat zone. Once we have finished our scoping, this important issue will be looked at very carefully.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

Given the increasing instability in central Europe, are the Government not absolutely right to avoid mission creep in the Middle East?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I am sorry but I missed the last part of my noble friend’s question.

[Lord Spicer]

Are the Government not right to avoid mission creep in the Middle East because of the growing instability in central Europe?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

I agree with my noble friend. We have absolutely no plans for mission creep. We have previously announced our intention to support the Iraqis with training their forces and, as I said earlier, the Iraqi Prime Minister has been very clear that they do not want to see western ground combat forces.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

Can my noble friend tell the House whether the number of air strikes being carried out by Her Majesty’s forces in Iraq are at the moment increasing or decreasing?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I probably can tell my noble friend that, but I fear that I may get into trouble if I say too much. I do have some figures. They are official-sensitive and I am probably unable to tell my noble friend that.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, are we providing training on our own or are we co-operating with other states? Perhaps my noble friend could say which other states are providing training missions. Are we training Iraqi regular forces or irregular forces?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend who of course knows Iraq very well, having himself served on Telic 1. As for help from other coalition members, there have been significant offers of support in principle from coalition partners. For example, I understand that the Australians have offered up to 400, New Zealand up to 100, the Danes 120, the Germans around 100 and Italy 280. The US has authorised up to 3,100 personnel to be in Iraq.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

Will my noble friend kindly tell us whether there will be a component of the preventing sexual violence initiative in the training in Iraq?

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that from the Dispatch Box. I have written to her on this issue and I will give her my assurance that I will follow it up and write to her as soon as I possibly can.

Northern Ireland: Talks Process

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:53

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat as a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows.

“I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the cross-party talks which have been taking place in Stormont over the past nine weeks. In September, the Government concluded that the time was right for a fresh round of political discussions to be convened with the parties in the Northern Ireland Executive. The Irish Government reached the same conclusion.

The aim was to address some key issues which are hindering the effectiveness and credibility of devolution and the Stormont Executive. These included: welfare reform and the Executive’s budget; the so-called legacy issues of flags, parading and the past; and reform of the political institutions. The talks began at Stormont House on 16 October.

As a signatory to the Belfast agreement, the Irish Government have been fully involved in all those matters where they too have responsibilities, consistent with the three-stranded approach, which means that the internal arrangements for Northern Ireland are a matter for the UK Government and the parties.

I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks for the positive and constructive role played throughout by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charlie Flanagan TD, and his team of officials. In addition, I am very grateful for the support and wise counsel of my honourable friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office. The US Government have also been supportive and closely engaged with this process, in particular through Secretary of State Kerry’s representative, Senator Gary Hart. So far around 90 hours of formal talks have taken place.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, have been closely following the whole nine-week process, and on Thursday they joined the discussions directly. They conducted an intensive round of talks with the Executive parties and I would like to thank both of them for their support, perseverance and ongoing commitment to the process.

Despite their efforts, by early Friday they made a realistic assessment that there was still insufficient consensus across the parties for a broadly based agreement to be reached. Shortly afterwards, all five Executive parties declared their firm intention to continue to strive for a deal. They asked me and Minister Flanagan to take part in a resumption of discussions on Friday afternoon, which we duly did.

Let me briefly set out to the House the outline of a deal put on the table on Thursday. A draft heads of agreement was tabled including a fresh approach to the past which puts the needs of victims and survivors at its heart, devolved arrangements for adjudicating on parades that would see the Parades Commission replaced by a new authority and reforms to the institutions such as support for those parties that might want to form an opposition within the Assembly.

The draft also sought a commitment from the Executive to press ahead with welfare reform though with a number of flexibilities to reflect Northern Ireland’s circumstances and to implement a serious efficiency programme to make long-term savings in the costs of government. This draft was the result of the work of both the UK and Irish Governments respecting the three-stranded approach and we believe that it represents a balanced package and a sound basis for cross-party agreement.

During the evening, the Prime Minister also set out proposals to provide further financial assistance from the UK Government. This included flexibilities which would have given the Executive nearly £1 billion of extra spending power to help them through their current difficulties and support their most important priorities. It would also allow the devolution of corporation tax to go ahead—a change which just a few years ago seemed inconceivable and undeliverable is now within the grasp of Northern Ireland’s leaders, if they choose to take it.

The talks resume this week and the stakes are high. All parties agree that if there is no agreement before Christmas, we will not get this close again for months or even years. In particular, failure to agree a balanced final budget would leave the Executive increasingly unable to conduct even ordinary day-to-day business effectively, so this week is crucial.

All of us have a responsibility to do whatever we can in the few days left to us. The UK Government have shown that they can compromise, even over hugely sensitive and difficult issues regarding Northern Ireland’s past and even when resources are constrained by the need to deal with the deficit. We will continue to do all that we can to deliver agreement within the financial constraints in which we are operating.

However, the UK and Irish Governments can only do so much. Ultimately, whether an overall agreement is reached is down to Northern Ireland’s political leaders. They have a chance to show that, once again, they can move Northern Ireland forwards towards a better future, where politics works, the economy grows and society is stronger and more united. This is the prize on offer, and I know that all participants in the talks will have the support and good will of the House in our continuing efforts to seize it”.

18:00

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful—as I am sure the whole House is—to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement made first in the House of Commons.

There has always been a broad consensus among the parties, although we have expressed in minor and quite mild terms our concerns about the lack of proper engagement by the Government since 2010. Does the Minister understand the disappointment and surprise of the five Executive parties at the swift exit of the Prime Minister from the talks? That compounds what is perceived by the people of Northern Ireland as a lack of total engagement by the current Government on the issue of Northern Ireland. Non-agreement on the difficult issues of flags, parades and the past means that many communities in Northern Ireland remain divided. What progress does the Minister think has been made in helping to build a shared future for Northern Ireland? As we all know, failure to agree on contentious issues such as flags and parading has in the past led to violent protest. Is the Minister, therefore, concerned by the chief constable’s warning that cuts to the service’s budget will mean that it will have fewer resources to allocate to policing public events?

18:02

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I think it is absolutely unacceptable to suggest that the Secretary of State has been anything less than totally dedicated to these talks. The Secretary of State has personally worked on this very strongly every week since October and has made every effort to ensure that the talks are successful. The Prime Minister has remained very closely in touch.

I remind the House that there is a very strong imperative here to reach agreement. The prize, as was pointed out in the Statement, is the devolution of corporation tax. It is a fact of life that this Government are drawing to a close with the coming election. To get legislation through Parliament in time for the end of our business, with the election coming, it is essential that the agreement on corporation tax is made virtually immediately. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s efforts are concentrated in time to enable this agreement to take place in a way that enables devolution of corporation tax to be effective.

The noble Lord is very accurate in his comments on the impact on day-to-day services in Northern Ireland. He mentions the PSNI, but if there is no agreement on the budget it goes across the board. I urge the parties in Northern Ireland to redouble their efforts, because it is essential that they reach agreement so that day-to-day services can continue to be delivered.

18:04

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement, to which I listened carefully. However, given that the Statement says that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach judged that there was insufficient consensus for a broadly based agreement and that there is only one week in which to find any agreement, one is led to the conclusion that the best to be hoped for is for something to be cobbled together that could take us to the other side of the Westminster election, when the numbers of people elected, the balance of parties and coalitions and so on may be different.

However, I am struck by the fact that the Statement says:

“If there is no agreement before Christmas”—

a week away—

“we will not get this close”,

not for a few weeks but,

“for months or even years”.

One might take from that that there was an expectation on the part of the Government that we might be moving towards direct rule. Can the Minister confirm that before there could be any movement towards direct rule, there would have to be an election for a new Assembly in Northern Ireland, to give newly elected Members the opportunity to get into negotiations and to try to form a Government?

Secondly, can she confirm that if that were not achieved and there was direct rule, that there would be implementation—“press ahead” was the phrase used—of welfare reform, and, in the words of the Statement, the implementation of,

“a serious efficiency programme to make long-term savings”?

Can she confirm, too, that the Irish Government would have to be involved in all the cross-border bodies that are already in existence and—without doubt, given that the security situation would be likely to suffer—cross-border co-operation on security and justice issues as well?

It is important not just to pose these questions but to get an answer, because I have the sense that on both sides in Northern Ireland there is a failure to recognise the process that would ensue from lack of agreement, and the consequences for people from both sides in terms of welfare reform, efficiency savings and cross-border co-operation between the British and Irish Governments.

[Baroness Randerson]

My noble friend makes some important points about the process to be followed. I start by saying that the agreement needs to be genuine, and not something cobbled together, because that would fall apart. My noble friend is right to point out that the Statement clearly says that the window of opportunity will close in the new year. The realities of the time in the electoral cycle make it difficult. If the Executive were to collapse, the first and immediate result of that would be an election, and only if we were unable to re-establish an Executive would it be possible to think of direct rule. There is no legislation in place for the re-imposition of direct rule. If direct rule were, very regrettably, the eventual outcome, it would have to be in accordance with the terms of the Belfast agreement. My noble friend is right to point out that there is a role for the Irish Government in those terms.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Statement to the House. She hit the nail on the head when she talked about returning to the Belfast agreement. That was in 1998, and since then we have had little more than tokenism as far as Westminster is concerned. Let me reiterate what the noble Lord said earlier. We have no hands-on direct involvement between Northern Ireland and the Palace of Westminster despite the fact that we are part of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister arriving without any consultation that I am aware of with anyone who went through the entire talks process from 1994 to 1998—in fact, it was even longer than that—and a Secretary of State who has been negligent in her liaison with those who have experience not only of the political problems but of the terrorist problems that we suffered in Northern Ireland for 28 years, is quite ridiculous. We cannot assume that a 24-hour or 48-hour visit will have the slightest impact on the problems we face or on building confidence between two sections of the community which are still sadly—

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, we have only 10 minutes. The Minister will not have time to respond.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I thought that the noble Baroness might say that. Thank you.

[Baroness Randerson]

The noble Lord refers to a lack of hands-on involvement by the UK Government. I would point out to noble Lords that that is what happens when you abide by the terms of the devolution agreement. If Northern Ireland is to recover from its past, it is essential that the politicians and the structures of Northern Ireland be allowed to bed in, to develop and grow, and to work. It is important to bear in mind that we have now had the longest period of devolution in Northern Ireland since the 1960s, and the success of that period should be acknowledged.

National Parliaments (EUC Report)

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

18:11

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union (9th Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 151).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is not just a debate about a Select Committee report, or about internal parliamentary processes. It is also by extension a debate about the future of the European Union and the United Kingdom’s relationship with it, so I am delighted that so many noble Lords are here to debate this vital issue.

Today, Europe faces huge, almost existential problems, and the economic crisis has thrown the deficiencies of the Treaty of Lisbon into stark relief. Growing disenchantment and disillusionment with the EU is evident in the continuing fall in participation in elections to the European Parliament, the rise in extremist parties across Europe, and the lack of trust between elected officials and their electorate. The question of democratic legitimacy now needs serious public debate so that the people of Europe can contribute to finding an answer. This is not just a crisis of public confidence in the Union, it is also a crisis of public confidence in politics more generally. Not every vote for UKIP is in my view necessarily a vote to leave the European Union—often it may simply be a protest vote, a vote for “none of the above”. However, we will never succeed in overcoming the Europe-wide democratic deficit unless we also look at and address our own shortcomings. It is not “their” problem over in Brussels, it is also our problem here in Westminster.

Giving national parliaments a more positive and active role in European affairs is not a panacea, but it is a key component in addressing the European democratic deficit. That view is widely shared across Europe, and I pay particular tribute here to the work of our colleagues in the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the Danish Folketinget, which is highly consonant with our report. The European Commission and the United Kingdom Government have also given their support. The Commission has expressed enthusiasm for better engagement with national parliaments as a natural extension of the existing political dialogue. The new Commission First Vice-President, Frans Timmermans, is particularly supportive, and his enhanced role within the new Commission overseeing relations with national parliaments and the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality, is very much to be welcomed.

The problem is in moving beyond easy generalities and warm words. Underlying the general agreement that national parliaments should have a greater role, there are many different political perspectives. Some in the European Commission may see strengthening national parliaments as a way to increase democratic control of the actions of national Governments in the Council of Ministers. In statements by Her Majesty’s Government, their emphasis on national parliaments sometimes acquires a tinge of slightly Eurosceptic flavour, while at the other end of the spectrum, some in the European Parliament fear that proposals to increase the role of national parliaments may simply undermine their own authority. There are also significant practical organisational problems in mobilising national parliaments to action. Against that backdrop, perhaps it is not surprising that whenever it comes to taking specific and concrete action, everything suddenly seems too difficult.

We on the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House are acutely aware of these problems as we battle to make progress on several fronts at once. On the domestic front, we confront growing deficiencies in Her Majesty’s Government’s handling of parliamentary scrutiny. There is no point in the Government professing to support an enhanced role for national parliaments if they have neither the will nor the capacity to submit their own actions in Europe to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Last week, the committee took evidence from the Minister for Europe, David Lidington, and I listed a series of failures by various departments over recent months. I will not repeat myself now, but instead and I hope for the last time, I will touch briefly on parliamentary scrutiny of the United Kingdom’s justice and home affairs opt-out. I described this sorry saga at length during our last debate on 17 November. All that I will add tonight is that the Home Office, having consistently failed to abide by its obligations under the scrutiny process, capped it off last week by refusing our request for an oral Statement explaining the scrutiny overrides that took place on 1 December, and then failing even to publish a proper Written Statement. Instead, the department tried to sneak its explanation in under the radar as an annexe to a Statement on the unrelated Justice and Home Affairs Council on 4 December.

I trust that the Minister, as a former chairman of our Home Affairs Sub-Committee, will understand my concern over those events. Will he confirm in his reply that the first essential step towards strengthening the United Kingdom Parliament’s role in the EU is for the Government to do everything in their power to support effective domestic parliamentary scrutiny of European Union matters? I hope also that he will set out for the House some practical steps that the Cabinet Office, which he represents in this House, is taking to address its own shortcomings, and which have been the subject of further correspondence. Put simply, the Government must get their own house in order first of all.

However, this is not just a government problem. The onus is also on us as a national legislature to make a more effective contribution to developments in Europe. We need to elevate the debate on the European Union, speaking with equal honesty about its benefits and its shortcomings. If we fail to do that, the risks are clear. I suspect that the leaders of the two main parties in this country may now be regretting their refusal to engage in a proper debate about United Kingdom membership of the European Union in the run-up to the European parliamentary elections earlier this year, as by so doing they effectively gifted control of the political agenda to UKIP. I might mention at this point that Her Majesty’s Government still refuse to acknowledge in print the democratic mandate of the European Parliament, even though meetings with individual Ministers suggest that the views of the Government are more nuanced than they are willing to admit publicly.

So much for the political background to tonight’s debate. For the remainder of my time, I shall touch on the efforts we are making in the European Union Committee to make progress in a few specific, targeted areas. The first of these is the reasoned opinion procedure. This is the only formal role in scrutinising European legislation given to national parliaments by the treaties, and as such it has an important symbolic value, but it can work only if there is good will on all sides, particularly within the European Commission. Hitherto, frankly, that good will has been lacking, and the Commission’s recent hasty, legalistic dismissal of the yellow card issued in respect of the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office was frankly and simply unacceptable.

We suggest in our report various ways in which the reasoned opinion procedure could be improved, without, we believe, the need for treaty change. These could include, for example, extending the deadline or reducing the threshold necessary for a yellow card to be issued. The essential point is that a yellow card should have a real impact, and be seen to have that impact. If a quarter of national parliaments feel strongly enough about a proposal to lodge reasoned opinions, then the Commission must sit up and take notice. It must undertake, if not formally to withdraw the proposal, then at least to amend it substantially. More generally, the Commission needs to be more open to dialogue with national parliaments. It must be prepared to argue its case and, on occasion, change its mind. The new Commission has publicly undertaken to be more receptive to reasoned opinions, which is good news, but the real test, in practice, has yet to come.

A bigger challenge for national parliaments is to engage upstream, in the early stages of policy development, when there is the greatest potential to exercise influence. That is especially difficult in our system of parliamentary scrutiny as it is predicated on reviewing legislative proposals only after they have been formally adopted by the Commission. In effect, we are stuck in reverse, when what we really want is a forward gear.

The so-called green card, described in paragraphs 55 to 59 of our report, could offer us that forward gear. The idea is straightforward: a group of national parliaments should be able to come together to propose legislation to the Commission, and the Commission should undertake to consider and respond to such proposals.

I emphasise that a green card procedure would not necessarily mean more legislation, or yet more Euro-initiatives. It could mean the amendment or repeal of existing legislation. Indeed, my sense is that the current Commission would be much more likely to respond positively to proposals from national parliaments which supported, for example, its own REFIT programme to simplify European law and reduce regulatory burdens. That is also very much our Committee’s approach. The response to the green card idea has so far been positive. At the COSAC conference—that is, the conference of chairs of committees such as the one I represent in your Lordships’ House—in Rome earlier this month, there was widespread support for the concept.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

If there was repeal of legislation, could that include the repeal of something in the treaty?

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

A treaty—I would be subject to advice—is, of course, concluded between member states and, although it is part of the constitution, it is not, by itself, part of the legislation. I think that if there were a widespread demand for a change in the treaty for good reason, that could certainly be taken forward as part of the political dialogue.

To return to COSAC, we met in Rome earlier this month and there was widespread support for a green card and a very positive attitude. More meetings are planned in the new year, at which we will explore in detail how a green card procedure might work in practice. We are also looking at other ways to encourage upstream dialogue between national parliaments and European policymakers. In particular, we need to focus more on scrutinising the Commission’s work programme. We know that President Juncker has promised a more politically responsive work programme, focusing on growth and jobs. We need to be engaged in developing and realising this. That means we need to be more agile, talking to the Commission, responding to consultations, building up alliances with colleagues in other national parliaments and the European Parliament, keeping in touch with our own Government, of course, and undertaking forward-looking inquiries.

Reconnecting the European Union with its citizens is not going to be easy. Nor is it going to be easy, over coming months, to defend the United Kingdom’s continuing role in the European Union. I believe passionately that finding practical ways to enhance the role of national parliaments—which are, by definition, close to their citizens—is an important component in our response to both these challenges. We need a new approach and a new way of working jointly with our partners. I and my colleagues on the European Union Committee will do our part, but I also look to Her Majesty’s Government to lead by example. They must show, by diligently respecting the scrutiny process as it affects the two Houses of this Parliament, that they genuinely embrace the involvement of Parliament in European Union law-making. This is now less a time for words and more a time for effective action. I beg to move.

18:16

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate, both as a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the EU and as the chair of the EU sub-committee dealing with justice, institutions and consumer affairs. Having only recently become chair of the sub-committee, I begin by paying warm tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Corston. I know from my own experience and also from other members of the committee how much her wise, calm and friendly chairing of the committee was appreciated. Under her guidance the scrutiny work of the sub-committee was thorough and detailed. This was particularly true in the case of the role of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, referred to a minute ago by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, where the committee’s report leading to a reasoned opinion being approved by your Lordships’ House raised issues which are relevant to this report and to our debate this evening.

I very much welcome the report that we are discussing today and the way it has been presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. The conclusions of the report contain many worthwhile recommendations which I hope will be acted upon. Indeed, noble Lords will know that our reasoned opinion on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office was one of a number approved in national parliaments across the EU, leading to the yellow card threshold being reached. Yet, as the noble Lord said, when a yellow card is issued, in theory the European Commission should engage seriously in a discussion with national parliaments about it, but in this case it failed to do so.

We very much hope that the new Commission, the words of which have so far been very encouraging in terms of relations with national parliaments, will take much more seriously any yellow cards issued in future. Certainly, the appointment of Frans Timmermans as a senior vice-president with specific responsibility for relations with national parliaments is something we should build on in order to try to get a much more effective system than we have had up to now. I also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said about the desirability of national parliaments being able to influence the process around a green card at a much earlier stage than is normally the case at present.

Some of our recommendations are, of course, directed to the Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that they will deal with the European Union Select Committee and the sub-committees in a timely and responsible way. On the whole, the Government engage with the work of the committees, but none the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said, there have been a number of examples of where the Government have not replied to committees in good time. There certainly needs to be consistency across government and government departments. It would be good to hear in which ways the necessary co-ordination is going to be achieved in future.

In considering these issues, on a personal note, I am influenced not only by being a Member of your Lordships’ House but by having been a member of the scrutiny committee in the House of Commons in the early days of that committee, by having been Europe Minister and by the fact that I began my elected political life as a Member of the European Parliament in the first directly elected Parliament way back in 1979. Perhaps because of that, I am particularly keen to endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, who is on the record as saying that the relationship between national parliaments and the European Parliament should not be a zero-sum game.

Indeed, I somewhat bridled at part of the Government’s response to our report. While it said, quite rightly, that national parliaments seek to be, and in many cases are, close to their citizens, the subtext seemed to denigrate the European Parliament and its representative role, which would be unfortunate. While I yield to no one in my admiration for the thorough work this House does in scrutinising European legislation, it has to be said that we are not elected and we do not have constituencies or geographical areas to relate to or to represent in that formal way. Furthermore, given that Members of the European Parliament represent political parties, they do not campaign just in European elections but take part in general and local elections and presumably have plenty of contact with voters in doing so. I was an MEP in the days of Euro constituencies, which I have to say I rather approve of in comparison with the large regions that are represented today. In that role, I had regular contact with people affected by European rules, whether in the fishing industry, which was a very controversial issue at the time in terms of European legislation, or in the shipbuilding industry, which was big in my European constituency at the time, or in companies, local authorities, charities and others seeking to access European funds or simply requesting information about European single market rules which might affect them.

I am concerned not to promote competition between national parliaments and the European Parliament but to look at ways in which the joint working of the two can be improved. It seems to me sad and somewhat ironic that in these days when the European Parliament has much more power than it had when I was an MEP, contact in many ways seems less frequent and less productive than it was then. I therefore think it is an urgent matter for us and others to consider.

There are practical problems in that the timetables of MEPs, MPs and Members of your Lordships’ House mean that physical contact and joint meetings are challenging, at the very least. None the less, with modern technology that could be overcome, and at least some of the recommendations in the report in front of us today about how committees in both Houses of Parliament could link with rapporteurs and spokespeople in the European Parliament committees need to be acted on and would be a practical way forward to encourage the kind of joint working we would like.

I believe that a more effective role for national parliaments, as well as better co-operation between national parliaments and the European Parliament, can mean better scrutiny and much more accountability and transparency in the European decision-making process. This must improve democracy and help address the democratic deficit. That has to be in the interests of all the citizens whom we seek to serve.

18:29

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said in his introduction, this report and debate are particularly important because they are about democratic accountability within the European Union—something that all of us, whether we are anti-Europe, pro-Europe or trying to reform Europe, are aware of, and something that needs to change.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, mentioned the 1979 election. I, too, was an MEP, but I did not enter the European Parliament until 1994. Before 1979, we had a European Assembly made up of national parliaments—and, basically, it did not work. That is why it needed to change at that time. I am glad to see that the report does not look back to that sort of model. It is good news that we are not trying to work back in that way.

It is useful to say how the system is supposed to work. National parliaments have a very specific role within the European architecture. They always have done. It is clearly to call national Governments to account. That is the fundamental element of European liberal democracies. Parliaments are there to control their Executives and their Ministers. It is Ministers who go to the Council of Ministers and make decisions. Whether before or after those decisions, national parliaments have a fundamental role in the way that Europe works through the Council of Ministers.

The European Parliament has its direct democratic role in terms of representing citizens, however well that does or does not work, and what you have, although few people outside this architecture understand it, is effectively a bicameral European Parliament. You have a house that represents citizens, which is the European Parliament at the moment, and you have a house that represents nation states and Governments, which is the Council of Ministers. Between them, they make decisions.

They do not initiate legislation under normal circumstances, but of course in the UK the Houses of Parliament do not on the whole initiate legislation, either; it is done by the Executive. Successful Private Members’ Bills are few and far between. That is how the system should work: national parliaments tie down their Ministers and their Governments in terms of accountability, and you have a European Parliament that should be fully respected by its citizens and represents direct democratic accountability.

Of course, that does not work perfectly. In fact, it does not necessarily work very well at all, because for that system to work there needs to be full confidence in the European Parliament and parliaments have to call Ministers to account effectively. It needs national Members of Parliament to understand how European institutions actually work, and that is a huge challenge. Certainly, when I was an MEP, I was quite astounded by how national parliamentarians had no clue about how the European Union worked. That is key, and I find it quite strange.

It also needs subsidiarity to work. Subsidiarity means that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers do only things that are appropriate to the legislation they are undertaking, but that requires a common understanding of what levels of subsidiarity might be, and there is quite a north/south divide on that.

The first route in terms of getting institutions to work to more democratically is to get that system to work. Certainly, in terms of European Union reform and the European Parliament, that requires getting rid of the double seat of Strasbourg and Brussels, the European Parliament stopping its penchant for turf wars with the other institutions, and better representation. I entirely agree that regional representation is much better because of proportional representation, but it is more difficult in terms of single-Member accountability. Ironically, I was the Liberal Democrat who suffered from proportional representation in 1999. In certain nations, such as France, there is the national responsibility of deputies. I do not think that is a very good system, but clearly national Governments should be able to decide. The size of the European Parliament should perhaps be controlled, but who are we, as the House of Lords, to preach on that matter?

When it comes to national Parliaments, I think that the most important thing, in terms of national architecture, is that we do not start setting up further institutions that do not have the power to do anything. The Economic and Social Committee—and I would even say the Committee of Regions—are bodies that were set up at particular times. They are there for consultation, they can give their opinion, but, other than that, they have no ability to influence what goes on. I think that that is a major lesson. In my view, they should be abolished because of that.

I think the yellow card system is a good one, but we have seen, perhaps because it is in its infancy, the difficulty of getting it to work. The green card system that the committee has described is very positive and could be set up, I am sure, without a treaty change in terms of having an institutional agreement, which happens a lot within European institutions. Certainly my experience when I had the honour to chair the EU External Affairs Sub-Committee, when I went to one of the newly established Defence and Security Conferences that happen every six months in the capital of the presidency at that time, was very mixed. It was to a degree a talking shop. Some of the nations felt that it should be able to give recommendations and vote, which it could do on certain issues. Others felt that we should keep well away from that area. It was very limited in what it was able to do.

As far as the commission is concerned—we have, of course, 28 commissioners from 28 member states—I wonder whether each commissioner should be allocated not their own nationality but a country, an EU member state with which they particularly liaise. That may be a way in which accountability to national Parliaments could work. It is particularly important in the second-pillar areas, justice and home affairs and foreign affairs, where there is not exclusive European Union competency.

For instance, the High Representative issued an annual report on the External Affairs Committee’s success or otherwise during the year. That would have been something that we wanted to talk to the external affairs service about, and I am sure that other national Parliaments would have wanted to as well. Clearly the external affairs High Representative is not someone who can go around to 28 member states, but there are other ways of doing that. I think also—and I do not think the report gets fully into this—that with regard to the President of the Council, Donald Tusk, there is a need for direct parliamentary accountability to a degree.

Here in Westminster I agree entirely that there should be pre-Council scrutiny. I think our own sub-committees should scrutinise legislation openly. We have closed sessions at the moment; I do not understand that. They should be open. We should show the transparency in this House that we are asking for elsewhere. There should be greater liaison between House of Commons committees and the House of Lords. The EU Committee has tried to bring together MEPs, MPs and Members of this House in a triumvirate of discussions. That has been of limited success, but I think it should work hard on that.

I think that the biggest gap, though—and the report emphasises this—is in the area of economic and monetary affairs. That does not affect the United Kingdom quite as much as others, but there is definitely a deficit there. In other reports that I have read, there has been almost an opt-out by national parliamentarians to get involved with those issues at a European level—except for the Republic of Ireland. That is quite strange, because it is an area that clearly needs to be filled in terms of democratic accountability. I was interested in Graham Bishop’s evidence in the report that it was only the ECON committee that had any chance of calling the ECB to account. I think that that is absolutely correct.

I very much welcome this report. I am very pleased that the Minister replying, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has a long history in European issues. I look forward to his reply to the many questions that there will be. Certainly, democratic accountability is wanting. The European Parliament is an excellent institution that needs to improve itself. This is an area that we need to make work as it is supposed to by making the improvements suggested by this report.

18:44

[Lord Wilson of Tillyorn (CB)]

My Lords, I count myself very much a new boy on the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House, although I have served on sub-committees, which do such valuable work in monitoring what goes on. It was particularly instructive for me to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on this particular report on the relationship with the European Parliament.

We are all very familiar—much too familiar, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said—with the general disenchantment in this country with political institutions. It is true that the disenchantment with European Union institutions goes even deeper than that. It is striking to compare that with the atmosphere in Scotland during the referendum earlier this year. There was enormous enthusiasm, voter turnout of 85% and deep, long discussions for weeks before the referendum took place. This was completely different from the attitude towards the overall national institutions and, indeed, towards Europe.

It may be that absence makes the heart grows fonder, but in political terms we see no evidence that political distance from the institution to which you belong makes the heart grow any fonder at all—rather, the contrary. That is why, surely, the role of national parliaments in the European Union is so important and why the recommendations of this report can be so useful in dealing with the problem.

National parliaments, after all, if seen to be taking an active role in European Union affairs and not just holding our own Ministers to account—which I think we do very well—can make people feel that their own views and their own interests are being properly brought to bear on European institutions. It does not solve the whole problem of mistrust of European institutions, but it can and it should help. I am sure that other noble Lords are much more capable and experienced than I am to deal with the detailed recommendations of the report. I should like to touch in general terms on two aspects. One of them is the relationship with the Commission; the other is the relationship with the European Parliament.

When the committee visited Brussels to hold talks, I was struck by how responsive and how willing to discuss matters some commissioners and some of the very well informed officials there were. That was not true of all commissioners, or of all officials, but it was quite marked how much it helped to go and talk to the people there. The use of the reasoned opinion—the so-called yellow card procedure—has already been dealt with in detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, but one cannot help but be struck by this institution’s being a very good way of involving national parliaments. Very seldom is it possible for the national parliaments to get together and produce enough votes to convince the Commission that it needs to think again. On that one recent occasion to which the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, referred, what did that particular bit of the Commission do but simply, brusquely brush it aside and pay no attention whatever to what was said? That cannot be right and one hopes that it will never be repeated.

Fortunately, it seems that the new Commission is more conscious of the need to be responsive to the views of national parliaments. Let us hope that the new Commission will also be more flexible in the ways that could broaden the grounds for objection by national parliaments; for instance, the idea of a test of proportionality—the sledgehammer-to-nut type problem. Although that is not covered by the treaties, it should surely be possible, with the right will, to find informal ways in which that, too, could be taken into account by the Commission. Of course, attempting reforms on small matters such as this would not possibly justify treaty change, but if there is the will, then on a number of these things one gets the impression that it should be possible to find informal ways in which they could be carried forward.

It is right that we should press for a greater role for national parliaments, but it is right, too, that we should not just talk about the greater legitimacy that it would give to European institutions if our national Parliaments were involved, but also recognise the legitimacy of the European Parliament and take account of that, particularly since the Lisbon treaty.

I shall just make one point on the question of having greater contact with our own MEPs. This falls by the wayside all too often, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said, often because of timetabling issues, with MEPs rushing back to their enormous constituencies when there is no time for them to stop here in Westminster. It would be helpful if we could have greater contact with our own MEPs, here in Westminster if possible, but otherwise with us going to Brussels, or to Strasbourg if the Strasbourg institution is still operating. That would be a great advantage.

In all these things, we need to somehow get through the problem that the European institutions look like some huge and impenetrable bureaucratic machine, and the further away we are from it the more impenetrable it seems. If we can enhance the amount of personal contact that we have with our MEPs, commissioners and people who work in the Commission, I am sure that this would help. In many ways, it could be much more effective than reams of official papers.

It is encouraging that the Government took a generally positive attitude towards the recommendations of the committee, and encouraging that the new Commission seems responsive to the idea of greater involvement by national parliaments. However, much needs to be done to increase the role played by national parliaments, and we will need all these favourable winds to see the necessary and practical recommendations in the committee’s report put into practice.

18:51

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have been a member of the committee that produced this report. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on the way in which he chaired the committee and brought it to a successful conclusion. The report deals with two subjects crucial to the future of the European Union. One is its insufficient democratic roots and the other is the lack of an EU-wide demos. Just as we on our committee have drawn from ideas and practices of other parliaments—the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, rightly paid tribute to the Dutch and the Danes—so I hope that other parliaments will look at the ideas that we have put forward and draw on them.

My reference to insufficient democratic roots and the lack of an EU-wide demos does not mean that I fail to recognise the enormous progress made by the European Parliament in recent years. I will not pretend that I am happy with all that it does or has done, but that its power and influence in European Union affairs and over both the Council and the Commission has increased very considerably cannot be denied. The recent initiative of Spitzenkandidaten is an example of that. None the less, the European Parliament’s debates, decisions and personalities still fail to resonate within the member states. We see that in terms of electoral turnout and media coverage. For the vast majority of people throughout the European Union, the fulcrum of political debate and decision remains their national parliaments. Therefore, if we are to strengthen the European Union’s democratic accountability and framework and create an EU-wide demos, national parliaments must be more closely involved in European Union affairs.

The European Parliament and national parliaments must not be seen as opposing or even as rival forces; rather, they should be seen as complementary forms of democratic legitimacy, each with its own role in the European Union framework. In large, decentralised and democratic countries such as the United States and Germany, one of the two Houses in their bicameral legislatures represents the component states. This is the principle, suitably adapted for a vast Union of 28 sovereign states, with more than 500 million inhabitants, that I wish to see carried forward in the European Union. The specific proposals in this report go some way towards doing that and I fully support them. However, in addition, I should like to make three additional points of my own.

My first point is directed to the Commission. I recognise the practical problems of responding to the demands of 28 parliaments, many of which have two Chambers. I welcome the responsibility for inter-institutional relations accorded to Mr Frans Timmermans in his role as first vice-president, but he is a very busy man and he has a great many responsibilities. This particular responsibility does not feature very high on the list. I noticed that when I looked at the website. Therefore, more is needed.

Many years ago, in the late 1970s, when I was a member of the Jenkins Commission, Mr Jenkins signalled a change in the relationship between the Commission and the European Parliament and the enhanced role of the latter by appointing a commissioner for European affairs, the senior commissioner at that time, Lorenzo Natali, an Italian vice-president. These days, there are not enough proper jobs to go around for 28 commissioners. In those days, some of us had three or four directorates-general, while some people now have less than one directorate-general. So I do not hesitate to suggest setting up a new body in the Commission to provide work for a commissioner. I think that the Commission should consider setting up a department for parliamentary affairs with a commissioner responsible for dealing with both national parliaments and the European Parliament as his main responsibility. By dealing with both the national parliaments and the European Parliament, it would emphasise the fact that these are two complementary forms of democratic legitimacy and not rival forms. Were there to be such a body within the European Commission, it would facilitate the Commission’s dealings with the national parliaments and make it less difficult for national parliaments to make their voice and opinion heard in Brussels. That is my first suggestion.

My second suggestion is to Her Majesty's Government, or at least to the Conservative element in it—the element that I support. I am delighted that the Government have explicitly welcomed the committee’s suggestion for greater co-operation between national parliaments and the European Union Parliament and also welcomed a greater engagement between the national parliaments. However, I wonder whether the Government—or the Conservative element in it—have fully thought through the likely consequences of such a development. As we all know, parliaments work through political parties, so this closer co-operation and engagement will be conducted by and through political parties, which in turn is likely to enhance the existing links between parties in the European Parliament and parties in the national parliaments and to foster new combinations of parties. That in turn will strengthen the influence of the big political families, left, right and centre. This will, I am afraid, leave those parties, such as the Conservative Party, which are not part of a big political family, at a very considerable disadvantage. I strongly recommend to the Conservative element in the Government that it should seek to end this self-imposed isolation. In doing so, it would be able significantly to increase its influence and, perhaps, avoid débâcles of the sort that occurred not so long ago over the appointment of the Commission President.

In this respect, I would draw a parallel with what happened over enlargement. As noble Lords will recall, the United Kingdom, under Conservative as well as Labour Governments, was one of the strongest advocates of bringing into the European Union the countries of central and eastern Europe. Somehow, it did not seem to foresee what this would mean in terms of free movement of labour, and it is now faced with the consequences. I would not like a similar lack of foresight to lead to a disadvantage for my party in terms of the European Parliament and the greater engagement of national parliaments.

My third point is addressed to the House of Commons. At present, EU matters are largely seen as the preserve of the admirable European Scrutiny Committee, under its very energetic chairman. However, just as national parliaments can reinforce the European Parliament in promoting democratic accountability and strengthening the democratic framework of the European Union, so other Commons committees could reinforce the role of the European Scrutiny Committee. I should like to see the subject-specific committees in the House of Commons become more engaged in considering the impact of existing EU legislation, and possible changes to it, whether by addition, amendment, or the return of powers to the member states. I should also like to see the subject-specific committees in the House of Commons do much more to hold British Ministers to account for what they do and say and advocate in the various Councils of Ministers. I should like to see this done both before Ministers go to Brussels and when they return. In that way, a very considerable strengthening in democratic accountability would occur.

I strongly support the proposals in the report, but I should also like consideration to be given to the three that I have added.

19:01

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already made the important point that bringing national parliaments closer to the institutions of the EU, and particularly to the Commission, so as to improve familiarity of national parliaments with the issues and to enhance the influence of national parliaments on decisions being taken in Brussels is a cause that unites all three major parties in our democracy. It unites Eurosceptics and Europhiles. All those categories are well represented here this evening. Not surprisingly, UKIP is not represented here. Their representatives do not turn up much when they get elected to the European Parliament: they have the worst record for attendance there, a quite disgraceful one. They have not turned up tonight and they have demonstrated once again that they belong to a party that is very interested in demagogy, but not in doing an honest day’s work or even an honest evening’s work on European policy.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on this report, which he has produced with his colleagues. I also commend him on the great energy and engagement that he has brought to his considerable responsibilities and the robustness with which he is prepared to talk—we had an example of that earlier this evening—both to our own Government here and to the European Commission, or to anybody else who might be relevant when that is required, in order to make clear the strong, serious position of this House and its committees on European-related subjects.

I agree with an enormous amount of what has been said this evening. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, on the latter part of his remarks, about the desirability of involving the departmental Select Committees in the scrutiny work much more systematically than happens now. I take this opportunity to add to the proposals made in this very interesting document with tuppenny-ha’penny-worth of my own suggestions, and I will make three proposals.

We are really confronting three broad issues this evening. One is how to bring national parliaments closer to the Commission and to have more influence with the Commission. There I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, to whom I always listen not just with great respect but with great interest. He suggested that it would be a good idea to appoint a Commissioner responsible for relations with national parliaments and with the European Parliament. That would have unfortunate and counterproductive consequences: such a Commissioner would act as an insulating barrier between the two. It would be rather like dealing with the director of public affairs of a company instead of the chief executive. If you want to influence anything that a company does, that is not a sensible way forward. It is important to have much greater direct contact. I also disagree with the committee’s report in one respect—desirable as it would be—which is the proposal in paragraph 54:

“The Commission which will be appointed in 2014 should make a commitment that its Commissioners and senior officials will be willing to meet committees of national parliaments as a core part of their duties”.

That is very desirable, but idealistic and unrealistic as well. If a Commissioner spent half a day of his time with each of 28 different national parliaments or their representatives or their scrutiny committees, then he would be spending 14 working days—something like two and half weeks of his time—on that subject. That is not likely to happen. We have situations when we are able, in Select Committees of the House of Commons and in European sub-committees here, to meet Commissioners or senior officials of the Commission; I have been a beneficiary of that myself in various roles over time. However, sadly, I do not think it is realistic to expect that there should be some kind of statutory—or if not statutory, at least formal—commitment of the kind suggested in this document.

A much more promising proposal is that it should be a general rule that—and this can be agreed with the courts without any kind of constitutional change; it could be a rule decided by the Commission itself—once or possibly twice a year, every Commissioner would invite to a seminar in Brussels the departmental or specialised committees covering his particular responsibilities. They are called Select Committees in the House of Commons, but a lot of continental parliaments call them commissions. That would be an opportunity for the Commissioner to make a direct presentation to them of his agenda, and have perhaps some working groups getting into the detail of these proposals or other proposals that the national parliaments might want to advance, and to have some serious discussions from both sides, bringing the two bodies directly together without any kind of intermediary organisation or individual. I would be grateful if that proposal could be considered by our own committee. I myself sit on the Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee.

The second thing that needs to be done is to bring national parliaments more closely together in the context of European scrutiny. Quite clearly, no national parliament is going to have much effect if it is isolated. If we want a yellow card—or not necessarily a yellow card, but some influence—it is necessary to combine with others, as is a normal rule in any sensible and functioning democracy. There is not much opportunity for that. The COSAC works well, but it brings together just the chairmen of scrutiny committees: that is a very narrow group of people. There should be an occasion once a year for, let us say, a two-day conference, bringing together those responsible for scrutiny in the national parliaments from all 28 member states. At the conference, it should be possible to have some detailed working sessions on particularly important or controversial issues, or on matters where there is a question of a yellow-card procedure being initiated—or having been initiated—by one or more parliaments. That would be an opportunity for anybody wanting a yellow card to make a case for that, and attempt to get other national parliaments to second that initiative. Human contact is absolutely indispensible; I have never believed in any context—in ordinary commercial marketing, advocacy or anything else—that electronics or digital communications can replace human contact. It is very important to be able to look at people in the face, hear the emphasis they put in their communications with you and make an assessment as to how reliable or serious they are and how much they have gone into the question that they are talking about. It is therefore central that there should be more human contact between the parliamentarians involved. That is the spirit in which I make these two proposals.

My third proposal relates to an area that has already been mentioned several times in this debate, and we are very conscious of it. We are not very good at scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the fundamental role of national parliaments as far as the EU is concerned is to make sure that we properly control our Ministers when they go to the Council of Ministers, because they go there as our delegates. In actual fact, with the exception of Denmark, no member state has really succeeded in making a reality of this theory, that democratic legitimacy stems directly from the national parliaments, because the Council of Ministers—one of the two legislative bodies in the European Union—is directly responsible to national parliaments. If we are going to make a reality of that, we need to change immediately the way we do business here. In my view, we need to make sure that we talk to Ministers before they go to the Council of Ministers. We should not take a decision to lift the scrutiny reserve merely on the basis of an Explanatory Memorandum and then, perhaps a month or two later, have an opportunity to talk to the Minister in retrospect about why he or she did or did not do whatever it was that is of concern to us. It is essential that Ministers appear before the relevant scrutiny committee or better still—here I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat—the relevant departmental Select Committee before they go to the Council of Ministers meeting, so that they are forced to disclose their brief and agenda, hear the comments of parliamentarians, take them into account, and, if they wish to disagree with them, to do so openly and to try to persuade them or not, as the case may be. It is up to Parliament to decide whether or not to lift the scrutiny reserve when it has heard what the Minister has to say.

Those are three suggestions. They are not modest suggestions because they are quite far reaching, but I hope that they will make a modest contribution to the debate.

19:10

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this very constructive and instructive report from your Lordships’ EU Select Committee, and particularly the comments of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposite. We will probably have cross-party agreement on many of the recommendations and the additional comments that have been made.

I do not propose to make any additional recommendations but have one or two interests to declare: a formal one that ought to be noted and a slightly less formal one. My formal interest is that for three years I was the principal investigator for an ESRC-funded project on national parliaments and the European Union. My department in Cambridge received money to study very similar topics to those that your Lordships’ Select Committee looked at. The slightly more trivial interest is that, on the basis of that, I was asked to give oral evidence to the Select Committee and sent in written evidence, so I appear as a small footnote in the report. However, I am one of the very few people speaking this evening who is not a member of the Select Committee or one of its sub-committees. Not being part of the committee process here in many ways puts me very much on the back foot but also raises the issue of who becomes involved in decision-making and scrutiny. One of the recommendations is very much about mainstreaming European policy. I and my colleagues from the OPAL project told the Select Committee and the scrutiny committee in the other place that mainstreaming is important. The Dutch Parliament has done it and it has worked very effectively. The report suggests that that is important here—to get more people involved.

We see that the usual suspects are here to talk about Europe, but it is worse in the other place. The Members who are willing to talk about, or engage with, Europe are usually sceptic. They have a particular interest in Europe, but not one that is necessarily informed or engaged. They think that if they stand up and opine about Europe in a way that grabs the headlines, that will be effective with my electorate. That rather misses the point. If you simply make grandiose statements which do not relate to the detail of Europe, you do your constituents a disservice. There is a real problem with the way that some chambers of national parliaments engage with the European Union. It is a particular problem in the other place in the United Kingdom, but it reflects a wider problem among national parliamentarians.

Noble Lords have the luxury of being very unusual. By dint of not having constituents and not having to go home every weekend to talk to constituents and focus on detailed constituency casework, there is the opportunity to take more time to scrutinise legislation. There is also the opportunity to do many of the things that have been mentioned this evening and which were recommended in the Select Committee report—to engage with colleagues in other parliaments. If you are expected to be here during the week and back in your constituency at the weekend, when do you go to Brussels, Berlin or Paris to talk to your opposite numbers? That is extremely difficult. We at this end of the building have the opportunity to talk to our colleagues, but we definitely need to find ways to engage more with other parliaments. Interparliamentary co-operation is vital.

One thing that is worth bearing in mind, but which very few national parliamentarians have been willing to bear in mind, is that for decades national parliaments have lost power under the European integration process. There has been a degree of deparliamentarisation. In most elected chambers, nobody wanted to talk about it. Who is willing to say, “Actually, we are less important than we used to be. The European Parliament has gained powers and has oversight but is also a democratic body representing the citizens of Europe”? That is not a terribly popular thing to say. If you are out trying to get votes in a domestic election, reminding people of the role of the European Parliament and of your own denuded role might not be the best way. Therefore, for many reasons, national parliaments have not been willing to talk about shifts in powers or the increased role of the European Parliament. In any case, the role of the European Parliament and giving it more powers does not in itself deal with some of the questions of deparliamentarisation. It does not bring Europe closer to citizens. The Lisbon treaty was supposed to do that by re-empowering national parliaments.

Here again, we have a slight difficulty of language. Many members of national parliaments would ask, “What do you mean by saying that the Lisbon treaty has given us new powers or given us powers back”? They are very reluctant to accept that powers have shifted and, in some cases, suggest that the Lisbon treaty and the yellow card was little more than a sop. There are questions about whether national parliaments feel that they have powers and are willing and able to use them. That issue is hugely important. We do not necessarily need treaty change; we need national parliaments to use the powers that they have. That was made very clear in the appendix to the report, where other members of COSAC said that they needed not more powers but for national parliaments to step up to the plate and say, “There are things we can do. We can, and should, hold Ministers to account, but we are not very good at doing it”.

It is not just about Westminster. Indeed, your Lordships’ House is one of the Chambers that is deemed to be a paragon in many ways and which scrutinises European legislation very well, but holding Ministers to account is something which nobody but the Danish Folketing does particularly well. However, this is not about giving more powers but using the powers that we have in more imaginative ways and using them collaboratively and collectively.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, suggested, the roles of the European Parliament and of national parliaments are not part of a zero-sum game, they are about working together and ensuring that legislation at the European level is dealt with effectively. Each has different roles but we work through those roles most effectively if we co-operate, co-ordinate, exchange information, share ideas and stop the sort of turf wars that we saw at the start of the interparliamentary co-operation on common, foreign and security policy and prior to the deliberations of the Article 13 committee. It is important that parliaments co-operate vertically—national parliaments with the European Parliament—and horizontally with other national parliaments. As noble Lords have suggested, we need to do that on the basis of personal co-operation, interparty co-operation and within our parties in the other place and your Lordships’ House and our party families in the European Parliament, but also through working across parties at transnational level.

I can only say that I warmly endorse the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. I am not sure it is appropriate that I do so, but if the Conservative Party was part of the European People’s Party it would be able to engage more effectively in the work of the European Parliament and that would only be of benefit to the United Kingdom. Co-operation, co-ordination and exchange of information among personnel, parties and parliaments is one way in which national parliaments can become much more effective. Many of the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report would ensure that those things come about.

19:20

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it is customary in these debates to applaud their timeliness. I am afraid, unfortunately, that this debate is not timely. It is behind time by quite a long way. It should not have taken the Government three months, as opposed to the regulation two months, to reply to the report, although clearly the imminence of a parliamentary recess has acted as a magnetic pull. It should not have taken this House nine months to organise a debate on a report that can legitimately be described as one of the most significant and potentially consequential to be issued in recent years. It owed much to the skill and persuasiveness of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, whose admirable introduction to the debate we have just heard and whose leadership I particularly appreciated when I served on the committee as this report was being prepared.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, set out some of the main recommendations of our report, which represent a wide-ranging menu of reforms to the role of national parliaments in holding their Governments to account and in shaping EU legislation. Those are the two broad thrusts of the role of national parliaments and there is no need to repeat what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested that asking the new Commission to take it as part of its duty to deal with national parliaments was nugatory and impossible to fulfil. In fact, with video conferencing and other such techniques, it is possible to do that with reasonable economy of time.

In the previous Commission, there were still commissioners who would openly say, in a quite aggressive way, that they had no responsibility at all to national parliaments: their sole responsibility was towards the European Parliament. That is not a correct interpretation of the Lisbon treaty, which gives them a distinct role. People who held those views would say: “National parliaments, you look after your own Governments; you do not have any control or influence over the Commission”. We have to break down those barriers. The recommendation, which was contained in the report and which I suspect the new Commission, with Vice-President Timmermans, is going to honour very considerably, was worth making.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that he will recall that I said that if you can get this particular proposal, which was made in the report, so much the better. I personally thought that it was slightly unrealistic. However, my proposal of a rule that each commissioner should meet on a regular basis, at least once a year, with the members of the departmental select committees or commissions in the national parliaments on his subject of responsibility, would directly address the point just made by the noble Lord. It is important that commissioners should formally recognise a role for national parliaments and make sure that they take them seriously.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

If I may say so, that is an addition to but not a substitute for the recommendation we made. It is important, when one of the sub-committees of your Lordships’ House is preparing a report on a particular issue, that it takes evidence from the commissioner responsible at that time, not just once a year. It is normally possible to do this and co-operation is pretty good, on the whole. However, there have been occasions when it has not been and we suggested that it should never be that way again.

Suffice it to say that we did not need to go back to first principles when we started to write this report, because the Lisbon treaty settled once and for all that national parliaments have a role to play in shaping European legislation. They have a collective role to play through such procedures as the yellow card. We did not really have to argue that case: we just took it from there.

However, the evidence we took established that that role—which has existed since the Lisbon treaty came into force in 2009—was not being exercised very effectively, so far, and that reforms were needed if it was to be so exercised. That is not some British Eurosceptic fad; it is the view of many other national parliaments which we consulted when we were compiling our report. In the years to come, strengthening the role of national Parliaments needs to be one part of any positive reform agenda worthy of the name. I notice that both the Government, in their response to our report, and the European Council itself, in the strategic agenda for the next five years, refer to the need for that role to be developed.

I do not intend to dwell long on the Government's response to our report, which was broadly very satisfactory and supportive. However, one point requires comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, referred to it and I shall do likewise, but in slightly less polite terms. In their response to paragraph 15 of our report, the Government stated flatly that national parliaments were,

“the main source of democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.

That is a pretty odd remark to make, 35 years after the European Parliament became directly elected and when it has wide-ranging powers of co-decision with the Council on EU legislation. Tactically, it was aberrant to say this, since nothing is more likely to frustrate any effort to reform the role of national parliaments than it becoming a food fight between them and the European Parliament. Yes, “a main source”—national parliaments are that—but not “the main source”, which is surely getting it a bit wrong. There is no good argument that cannot be spoiled by exaggeration.

The Commission’s response to our report is a good deal less satisfactory than that of the Government and falls far short of what is needed. Fortunately, that response was made by the outgoing Barroso Commission and not the Commission that is now in office. We can therefore hope that the first Vice-President of the new Commission—Frans Timmermans, whose name has been mentioned several times in the debate and who is responsible for relationships with national parliaments—will take a more enlightened and flexible view as matters move forward.

It simply is not good enough to say, flatly, as the Commission did, that it would require treaty change to allow national parliaments more than eight weeks to submit reasoned opinions under the yellow card procedure. It is not good enough to say that to allow those reasoned opinions to contain consideration of the proportionality of the Commission's proposals is not possible without treaty change. The Commission could perfectly well take political decisions to accommodate both those reforms. Let us hope that it can be persuaded to do so.

Nor is it good enough for the Commission to duck—as it did in its response—our recommendation that it should commit itself to withdrawing or substantially amending any proposal that actually triggered a yellow card. The outgoing Commission’s response to the yellow card triggered by its proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office has been referred to already in this debate. It was, frankly, scandalously inept, amounting simply to saying that 14 national parliaments had got it wrong and the Commission, as usual, had got it right. That sort of approach simply will not do.

When the Minister replies to this debate, I hope that he will concentrate not so much on the Government’s response to our report—after all, if we have taken the trouble to read Command 8913, we know what that is—but rather on what the Government are going to do about the many ideas in the report with which they say they are in agreement. What contacts have the Government had so far with other member states about the need for these reforms? What progress have they made towards building coalitions to carry them forward? What dealings have they had with the incoming Commission to persuade it to take a more flexible approach than that of its predecessors?

Anyone reading the recent speeches by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary could be forgiven for thinking that this part of the reform—the issue of powers for national parliaments—was as evanescent as the smile on the Cheshire Cat. If so, that would be a major error. If we are to make progress, we surely need a broad-based, positive reform agenda that takes account of the views of all member states—not one that is tailor-made to the pressures from the UK Independence Party, which, in any case, is not the slightest bit interested in anything that leaves the UK as a member of a reformed European Union—and a reformed EU is, after all, the Government’s proclaimed objective. I hope that the Minister can give us a feel for the answers to those questions.

19:31

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I join those who have paid a real tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for the leadership that he provides to the work of the committee and its sub-committees—and to the House as a whole for considering these matters. This report is profound and interesting; it raises major issues and deserves the close attention it is receiving in this debate.

There is a paradox, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made reference to it. We are all concerned about the accountability of the Commission but it should not become a ritual for us in this House to have an exchange with the Government about our frustrations about the too-many occasions when papers do not arrive in time for proper consideration and analysis. This is a major fault in the way in which we operate. I am getting rather tired of Ministers appearing opposite and saying how sorry they are, and how determined they are to work with officials in ensuring that the delays can be overcome. It never happens. It goes on and, in many ways, gets worse. There is a sort of arrogance in the machinery of government here that must be overcome, because the committee work can be only as good as the information on which it is operating—and this means excellent communication between departments and the committees.

In relation to that, if there is to be a future for the European Union—and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber on this occasion believes that the EU is indispensable and must have a future—it will be a healthy future only if there is a real sense that the member countries and their Governments belong to, are part of, and engage in that community. If too many countries and Governments—and I am afraid that the United Kingdom is a prime culprit in this context—are sort of on sufferance in the community and all the time wanting to tell their electorates and public how they are battling for the interests of their own people against this menacing and octopus-like operation in Brussels, we are not going to have a strong future. We have to belong. In the context of belonging, we must have the accountability about which we are speaking in this debate. Accountability’s muscle depends in the end on being aware of a widely based public opinion in member countries that this whole business is relevant to them—that they have an interest in it and want to ensure that those who claim to represent them are therefore playing the dynamic part that they should be playing.

Very often, the scrutiny that takes place goes on in spite of any feeling of public engagement. The public have come to see the European affair—the institutions of Europe; if they see them at all—as an elitist, closed community of those who are playing the European game. I am not sure that the public are totally wrong about that. Those institutions have become elitist, and those of us who have been involved in Europe in one way or another have become part of that reality. We have to re-engage with the public as a whole.

In that respect, I have a suggestion to make about our work in our sub-committees. We do not give the priority that we should give to ensuring that we get a social cross-section of witnesses coming to us when we are taking evidence. I have looked through the reports of one committee after another, and too often we are talking to members of our own political and social elite in Britain, with their views. It is important to talk to people who are in the front line of the reality of how society is or is not functioning, and about what the frustrations are. That means that a great deal more hard thinking has to go into considering: is this bunch of witnesses that we have assembled really representative of Britain and the people who are dealing with the consequences of the policies agreed in Europe? There is a real need for us to tackle that; and I cannot emphasise that too strongly.

I was particularly interested by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, which was refreshing and challenging. It raised certain issues, of course. Would it not be nice if we were not starting from where we are? Historians may well find it interesting to consider why we went for a directly elected European Parliament. When I was Minister of State at the Foreign Office, we were in the period of transition. I was uneasy about what was happening then because it seemed to me that among our own parliamentary body in Britain we were going to lose a degree of direct engagement in the affairs of the European Union. As happened then, people went from our Parliament to the European assembly and reported back to our Parliament. It was a broader basis of engagement. Parliament, through that process, was enabled and encouraged to see the relevance of what was going on in Europe to Parliament’s immediate affairs. Similarly, there are parliamentarians in the directly-elected European Parliament who are not as close to the reality of politics and frustrations of public policy, its implementation and contradictions as the people within the political system, whether British, French, German or whatever. That is an unfortunate divide. I do not see the clock being put back but we have to face up to it.

That takes us into another, much more profound, issue. As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, she provoked me into thinking about it again, and it is not the first time that I reflected upon it. Perhaps we would have had a stronger Europe if we had gone for a more confederal Europe, as distinct from a federal Europe. The reality that we are coming up to is one in which we want a Europe of nation states that co-operate; that is the implication of everything that we are discussing; we want agreement between nation states. That is a sensible reality. Unfortunately, institutions that were established were much more in the context of a federal Europe. We have to face that and debate that. Furthermore, we have to ensure that our Governments, of whatever persuasion, are taking that ongoing reality seriously, because we need perhaps to get back to the confederal approach. I say that as a passionate pro-European.

It has been a very interesting debate so far. What I am more convinced about than ever is that we have to work at accountability. It is not just a matter of finding arrangements for better communication; it is a matter of politicians in different countries being able to work together, seeing much more of each other and developing a common demand of Ministers and the rest. It is also a matter of making sure that British society—a cross-section of British society at all levels—is drawn into our own work and feels that our work is relevant and that they can have a say in what we are doing.

19:40

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

My Lords, I also begin by felicitating the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on his powerful speech. He has presided over the work of the Europe Union Committee with great distinction and great force. What he had to say at the beginning is, in principle, what the Minister has to reply to.

The public are largely unaware of the detail of what the European Union is doing. It seems to me that the Government have some responsibility for this and that we, as Members in Parliament, should engage more directly in giving indications of what is happening. If it were clear what was happening, I believe that the public would be much more supportive of the European Union than they are at present.

I was very proud to be a member of the committee that drafted the report. We have received a government response to it which is broadly sympathetic to the recommendations of the committee. However, I regret that the Government said, in their answer to the question about the scrutiny of what would happen at Council meetings:

“In practice a pre-European Council session would be of limited value given that the Minister would be unable to disclose the details of UK negotiating aims publicly and that the agendas, and certainly the details, of such meetings are often finalised at the last minute”.

If the Government respect the role of the national parliament in the European Union, it should—and it does now—disclose broadly what is to be discussed at the European Council meetings. It would provide an opportunity for Parliament to express its views, which the Government could take into account in their negotiations. I wholly accept that diplomacy may lead to bargaining or to changes of agenda at the last minute, but broadly it is known what European Councils are about to discuss, and it would be helpful if the advisers included the parliament itself.

However, the involvement of national parliaments in the business of the European Union is quite strongly supported by the Government. I particularly want to refer to the green card process. That seems to be an innovative suggestion, which could lead to a greater recognition of the national interests, particularly if it is backed by the requisite number of other national parliaments and Governments. It is preferable having to table reasoned opinions, which may lead to yellow cards, a process that has not so far been effective, as was mentioned earlier in the debate. It is vital that the national parliaments, reflecting the needs and opinions of the public, are engaged at a very early stage in the legislative process; I think that is really beyond dispute, certainly in this House. It is encouraging that the new Commission has indicated that it would be responsive to national parliamentary opinion.

What is most lacking at present is the procedure for bringing forward the recommendations of this committee. The Government have indicated that they approve, broadly, of what we have said. So far, however, they have not given us any indication of how they might render those innovations effective. That is something that cannot be left entirely to the national parliaments themselves, although we have the power to open up discussions with other national parliaments, and no doubt we will do that. But the Government have influence, through Council meetings, on this sort of development, and I would very much like to hear how the Government propose to exercise that influence. It is a complex business for a parliament to negotiate with 27 other parliaments and with the Commission. We do not have an institutional arrangement that can facilitate these matters, but, as has been said already, modern technology enables us to get our views across and to engage with individuals. I totally agree with the proposal that we should get much closer to individual serving Members of the European Parliament, the Commission and even other Governments.

It might be possible to invite COSAC to consider these proposals in a special session. The agenda would need proper predetermination, and I think that it would be responded to positively. The present agendas of COSAC, referred to in the report, are unsatisfactory in that too often Governments talk de haut en bas, and the Commission talks de haut en bas to the members, and they do not allow time for adequate consideration to be given to the reactions of national parliaments.

The issue of this Parliament’s resources has been raised in the report and there has been some uncertainty about the Government’s response. I do not think we have made a sufficiently strong declaration about how we can be informed about what is happening in the European Union, or on how to convey our opinions on what is happening to the other members. We have a very effective Member speaking for our national Parliament in Brussels; she is an extraordinarily capable person and helps very considerably. However, because there are so many functions in that job, it might be reasonable to have more than one person: to have someone who engages with other member countries and other Members of the European Parliament on what the Commission is doing, and who keeps in very close touch with those whom our representative seeks to assist.

One of the basic problems of our membership of the European Union is the lack of interest of our electors. I do not mean this Chamber’s electors, but the electors in this country. That is, in part, the fault of a defective press and an inadequate media response to what is going on. Too often the reports are negative; too often the positives are not even ventilated. I hope that the BBC might engage to a greater extent with Members of the European Parliament, with members of the committee and generally with the issues, so that voting does not generally decline.

I conclude by reporting that the Government have stated, in their response, that they are,

“keen to work with Parliament to strengthen the system further”.

I hope that when my noble friend the Minister comes to respond to the debate, he will indicate in what ways that can be done.

19:53

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, the idea of strengthening the role of national parliaments in the EU looks, on the surface, fairly obvious. The EU has gradually acquired additional competency and the Lisbon treaty, while giving more power to the European Parliament, has not led, as was intended—as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—to a parallel development between the Commission and the parliaments of member states. However, the more I read about subsidiarity and reasoned opinions—I have to acknowledge early training in the old Sub-Committee E under the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and our very patient legal adviser Mike Thomas—the more technical and legalistic are the arguments behind these Lisbon concepts and the related solutions. Today, for my own self-preservation among other things, I propose to step back to try to understand the view of the ordinary citizen.

To the UK public, Europe is still the continent: it is a vast bureaucratic union opposite our southern shores, which sends us regulations and with which we have to do business. People do not feel that they truly belong to it. It is a power bloc with which we need to trade and only an older minority—like most of us here—feel the emotion of solidarity since 1945, which bound the original founding fathers. The undoubted advantages of the single market and of political co-operation escape the ordinary citizen. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right that we can correct that in time, although I have my doubts.

The more visible agenda is the athletic political stance of our Prime Minister, for whom there has to be a degree of sympathy. He has quite rightly aligned himself with reform and a gradual repatriation of national sovereignty. However, being British, he is also a bit of a loner: he stands out at EU summits—not unlike Mrs Thatcher before him—as an independent but somewhat isolated figure defending the nation of shopkeepers, while for some he can even be a source of fun or irritation. With his left hand he has to hold on to his coalition partner; with the other, as we approach the election, he is making increasing overtures to the right wing of his party and to potential defectors.

We all know the Prime Minister to be a pro-European at heart, but does he have what has been called a “Lust für Europa”? Is the UK still enjoying the luxury of not having been invaded in the last war? Can we overcome our island mentality, which makes us permanently different, difficult and ready to criticise, or do we have to make a virtue of it? Some of us were in Berlin a fortnight ago. We heard German Members of Parliament from the two Bundestag committees imploring us to stay in the EU to support a strong EU line against Russia, which is desperately needed at the moment. But why should they think we would leave the EU? Are we so aloof that we must continue to keep them guessing?

Political manoeuvring with the referendum and treaty change explains some, but not all, of this. I recognise that reform has been too sluggish. There were tactical arguments, for example, behind the recent opt-outs and opt-back-ins. I acknowledge that the UK is, in practice, an equal partner in the legislative sense. We take a lead in EU scrutiny through a range of committees, as I can see at first hand. Since the recession, there has also been a lot of alarm about the eurozone and whether there will be a two-tier Europe, but because of our strong financial position we have remained in that discussion. That is all good. Nevertheless, despite all that, I look forward to the day that we can pass on the role of prima ballerina to someone else.

Turning to subsidiarity, I have studied the two very helpful reports by the University of Copenhagen and the Tweede Kamer. The Danish analysis is fascinating, showing how national parliaments have suffered from disempowerment since Lisbon. We should all be encouraged by the acceleration of decision-making and the rapid rise of genuine early agreements in the European Parliament, which accounted for two-thirds of adopted proposals in 2012. However, this means that, as national parliaments, we need to do much more pre-legislative scrutiny. As has been said, we need to question Ministers before Council meetings as well as after. The Commission’s response shares this view and says that,

“very few national parliaments make their views known”,

at an early stage. That is very surprising. The voice of concerted national parliaments surely must be heard on the most important issues—yellow and green cards have been mentioned. As a member of the Select Committee, I was equally amazed and frustrated that the legally required number of reasoned opinions on the EPPO was still not enough to jog the Commission into action.

This attitude will surely change under President Jean-Claude Juncker. After all, he has promised to raise the profile of national parliaments and we must keep him to his word—whatever the Prime Minister’s view of his method of election, he will certainly find allies in this House on that subject. Perhaps he will pick up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, for a new Commissioner for Parliaments. I hope that he will.

Apart from that, the Tweede Kamer report sensibly recommends a more active stance in interparliamentary co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, went into that, but I do not think we made enough of it in our report. It is not easy, as has been said, and it can only work on single issues that draw like-minded parliaments and connected Members of the European Parliament together. Our Select Committee has discussed how that might be done in relation to reasoned opinions. One obvious practical suggestion is that the two UK Houses should increase their present liaison staff in Brussels. Strengthening the Commons Select Committees has also been mentioned, as has mainstreaming. Another solution is, of course, improving COSAC, which is a very long-term project. That could become a less formal and more flexible institution, although that also has its limitations.

It is often said that this House operates a better system of scrutiny and reporting than, shall we say, most other EU chambers. Should we therefore reach out a little further into Europe and hold seminars on topical issues of subsidiarity that might attract MPs and MEPs from other nations? The imperative in the EU always seems to be aiming for uniformity, but we already have disunity. We have natural coalitions with the Dutch and Germans. We could, for example, work more closely with Poland and the more recent EU members in eastern Europe.

I have said enough, but I stand by the recommendations in our report and I hope that they attract a much wider readership throughout the EU. The Government already mainly agree with us and the Minister is bound to say that this is a matter for Parliament. All the same, I am sure that he will be more generous than that and I look forward to what he is going to tell us.

20:01

[Lord Inglewood (Con)]

My Lords, no one who has heard the debate this evening can be under any illusion that the topic we are discussing is not very important. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and his committee on the work they have done.

It was about 30 years ago when I began my involvement in political life when I stood as a candidate in the European elections in County Durham. It was not an especially glorious chapter as I got beaten by 55,000 votes, but it was a start. Nevertheless, even though I was inexperienced then I appreciated that the European Community, as it then was, was a sui generis type of institution that shared systems of government from both parliamentary and diplomatic traditions. It seemed to me that there were only two reasons for this. First, and we sometimes forget this when we are debating these things, different parliaments in different countries operate in really quite different ways. Secondly, the scale of what was involved was much smaller and seemed to be more aligned with what diplomacy traditionally did.

Of course, it is 30 years on now and the world has changed and the European Union with it. Economic integration, improved transport and communications and movement of people have changed the way people live and work not only in the Union but right round the globe. The role of the European Union has become functionally much more akin, it seems to me, to what states traditionally used to do than was the case then. At the same time, the diplomatic attributes of the EU’s modus operandi are much less prominent than they used to be. I am very glad that the member states are still the principal building blocks of this institution but we need to be clear that as the world changes the way in which nation states—and in the case of the European Union member states—work is going to have to evolve. One of the difficulties is that the role of national parliaments has not evolved in the same way as the European Economic Community became the European Community and then the European Union.

I should like to turn briefly to the report itself and break it down and focus on some of its themes. Scrutiny is perhaps the most prominent theme and is still probably the most important attribute of the engagement of national parliaments. I agree here very much with my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, who said a number of wise and sensible things. One of the most wise and sensible was that scrutiny of Ministers in the Council of Ministers should be enhanced. Certainly I had a brief spell when I was a departmental Minister of going to the Council of Ministers and nobody wanted an account from me about anything I was doing. From a purely personal point of view it was one of the most exhilarating parts of my political career. I think one brief discussion with my Secretary of State over a cup of coffee was the whole measure of it. I have wondered against this background whether Parliament as a whole might not be wise to revisit its general approach to European matters, which was put in place by Sir John Foster several decades ago.

I was also interested in the point made in the report about wider, less specific formal scrutiny, because in recent years most of the work I have done in this House has been with the Communications Committee and the Extradition Law Committee. That work has suggested to me that there may frequently be important European aspects that take a bit of digging out. I am particularly thinking of the significance of competition policy and regulatory policy in the context of media markets and communications—because I spent 10 years in the European Parliament I probably was more conscious of these aspects than many other Members.

I turn now to what might be described as the personal institutional engagement that could be enhanced between the Commission, Parliament, COSAC and so on. The idea is absolutely excellent but the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, is right that the problem is finding the time to do it because the laws of physics are still such that you cannot be in two places at once. I listened with very great interest to my Cumbrian neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but when I was in the European Parliament—and you could do it then—I had the dual mandate. Given the workloads that apply in each of the two places I simply do not think it is possible to revert to doing that in the old way. Therefore, it is dangerous and misleading to try to overplay and over-rely on the ability of individuals, whether MPs or Peers, to engage fully in very extensive ongoing dialogue, because of their other commitments—although I add the proviso that it would depend on whether the way Parliament works changes or not, and I will touch on that briefly in a moment.

Like a number of noble Lords, I think that the reasoned opinion provision is an interesting and radical development, because on a very small scale it gives national parliaments a place in the legislative process. That is very important and something that should be worked on. The report said that there was no interest in treaty change; we have touched on it this evening. However, despite protestations to the contrary, the kind of changes that are being called for across Europe are such that certainly in the old days I doubt they could have been put into effect without treaty change—although, speaking for myself, if clever lawyers can find ways round, good luck to them.

In recent years, much of the background to the discussion and focus on the role of national parliaments in the European political system has been based, as has been said, on concerns about the European Union’s democratic deficit and its lack of popular legitimacy. This was a point the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, raised. However, we in Parliament need to be very conscious of some of the criticisms that have been levelled against Westminster recently. An awful lot of the traditional criticism of the European Union we now hear levelled against us here. It may follow from that that, as time goes by, our own terms of reference change. It seems to me inevitable that the role of national parliaments, and indeed the part that member states can play in a globalising interdependent world, are inevitably going to change and we no longer here have a Parliament set in a world that would be familiar to a Bagehot or a Dicey. Therefore, when we look forward we must tailor our thinking to what we recognise as the likely shape of the world as it will become.

Finally, I cannot recall any House of Lords report so enthusiastically endorsed by the Government. I have to admit that that makes me a bit concerned. However, it suggests that they too are finding the wider world a very perplexing place at present. I suggest that they might endorse their general stance in these matters by prioritising the importance of scrutiny and Ministers making themselves available for scrutiny as their number one priority.

20:09

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the European Union Select Committee at the time of the preparation of this report, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, both for his comprehensive introduction of the report and for his guidance and chairmanship during the inquiry. It goes without saying that I support the conclusions and recommendations in the report. I want to emphasise one particular aspect of the report, express a concern and put two matters on the record, not so much to Ministers as to the usual channels and parliamentary authorities.

The aspect that I wish to emphasise is the need for enhanced contact and working with the European Parliament and its members. If our scrutiny is to be effective and we wish to try to ensure that our views are reflected in the final version of European Union legislation, it is vital that we build relationships with the chairmen of committees, the rapporteurs and, indeed, the spokesmen and spokeswomen of the important political groups in the Parliament. It is important, too, to remember that the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees are there not just to scrutinise the draft EU legislation but, as many Members have said today, to hold Her Majesty’s Government to account in the way that they approach these matters.

Co-decision presents us with significant challenges in knowing what may happen at various stages—particularly the first reading deals, referred to in the report. We need robust systems which will enable us further to scrutinise measures when substantial changes have been made to the proposal originally scrutinised. Agreements as to working practices between the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and other national parliaments are what are required, not treaty changes, and these will, I believe, be easier to achieve when personal relationships are established.

The concern that I have is this: a national parliament’s view of a greater role for national parliaments may be rather different from that of a national Government, which may espouse the cause of greater power for national parliaments. I believe that we have to be careful to ensure that national Governments, including our own, do not seek a greater role for parliament if the motivation for that greater role is to use a whipped majority to support a government view as a way of circumventing the decision-making processes of the treaties. To do that in the extreme will lead to a slower and less efficient decision-making process in the European Union and undermine the position of the European Parliament.

The so-called democratic deficit will not be solved just by national parliaments and national Governments proclaiming themselves to be the only keepers of the democratic flame in the European Union. There is a real role for the European Parliament, and I am pleased to say that the report recognises this. We in the United Kingdom do not always help to dispel that deficit. There has in recent months been much questioning of the candidacy of Mr Juncker as Commission President, with it being said that we in the UK knew nothing about the campaign during the European elections and that therefore the positions adopted by the parties in the European Parliament were somehow irrelevant and not justified. But, quite simply, we did not engage in the way of the other member states. There was election literature in all the languages of the European Union and there were televised debates. Of course, I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the United Kingdom Government could have had an input into the choice of right-of-centre candidate had the Conservative Party still been associated with the European People’s Party.

My last points I address to the parliamentary authorities and the usual channels, and perhaps, in their absence, to Treasury Ministers, as there are not many pies in which they do not have a finger. Relationships with the European Parliament, the Commission and national parliaments are important, and many of the proposals in this report require resources in terms of staff and Members’ time. I do not believe that those relationships can be built initially just with video links. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, said, people need to meet people—at least initially. So, although I am not advocating a merry dance around the capitals and parliaments of the European Union, I believe in those personal contacts.

Likewise, the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees cannot carry out the work of scrutiny and holding the Government to account without the necessary support. We have very great support through the committee and its sub-committees but it would be a brave individual who suggested that in some way there was any element of slack in that support.

My last point will, I fear, not be heeded because it would involve a change of a decision already made by the House and is likely to be dismissed as special pleading, but I put it nevertheless. The proposal which has been agreed regarding length of service on a committee, and particularly the decision to treat the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees as one—and the retrospective nature of that decision—will, I understand, mean that some two-thirds of the existing members will no longer be able to serve for at least two Sessions of the next Parliament. Of course, I accept what my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, said—that there is a need to involve as many Members in EU matters as possible, and that it be seen to be a part of mainstream politics and not a specialist interest. It is regrettable perhaps that today, as the noble Baroness described it, only the usual suspects are present.

Nevertheless, having said all that, I believe that the Select Committee, under both its current chairman and his distinguished predecessors, has built an enviable reputation across the European Union. That is at least in part due to the fact that a body of knowledge of issues and people has been built up over the years and members have acquired experience in a wide variety of different areas of EU activity. There is a corporate memory which may well be lost with the rapid turnover which is now to become the norm. I hope that someone may think again on that issue.

20:17

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, my first point, which others have made before me this evening, is that the role of national parliaments and the role of the European Parliament do not constitute a zero-sum game. An increase in the powers of one does not imply a decrease in the powers of the other. The EU is a highly complex set of institutions, with shifting relations between them. The European Parliament has a key role, as is evidenced by the amount of time and money that lobbyists—including lobbyists in this country—spend seeking to influence it. On some issues, such as the environment, NGOs see it as a powerful force for good. Perhaps I may say in parentheses that I was delighted to hear on the “Today” programme this morning a representative of the RSPB—of which I am delighted to be a member, along with more than 1 million of my countrymen—paying tribute to the wild birds directive for helping the great bittern to boom and flourish in the wetlands of our country.

Yet, despite the booming bittern, there is no doubt that for many—indeed, I suspect, for most—citizens of the EU, national parliaments are seen, and in my view will continue to be seen, as the fundamental guarantor of the democratic process, despite the shifting views of our national parliaments, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I think I am right in saying that in every single European Union country, national elections count for more than European elections. Given the recent quite dramatic growth through much of the EU in disenchantment with the EU and its institutions, as shown in the last European Parliament elections, it is of very great importance for the continued democratic legitimacy of the EU as a whole that the role of national parliaments should be clear, should be well understood and should be increased.

It follows that the British Government are surely absolutely right to emphasise the need to increase the role of national parliaments as part of the reforms they would like to see to the EU and its institutions. As others before me tonight have said, there is much that can be done in that regard without treaty change.

Equally, the Government’s hand will be greatly strengthened in their negotiations with other member states if they are seen by their EU colleagues to be taking their own EU scrutiny responsibilities seriously. Of course, very often they do—but, to take just one example and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the Home Office’s rather cavalier approach to its scrutiny obligations in respect of police and judicial co-operation seems not only to be wrong in itself but to prejudice the Government’s broader objective of winning their partners’ support for a stronger role for national parliaments within the EU structures. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance that this was only an aberration.

That does not mean that there is no scope for streamlining the scrutiny process, for example over the depositing of documents. This should be reviewed jointly by both Houses and by the Government—but, in the mean time, it is hugely important that the Government take their own scrutiny obligation seriously.

I agree with one point that was stressed by the Government: the need for a more systematic approach to scrutiny during the recess. EU business, particularly the foreign affairs issues considered by Sub-Committee C, does not stop between August and October, and should still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Some way needs to be found to ensure that this happens, perhaps by means of an ad-hoc committee drawn from the Select Committee itself and the different EU sub-committees, which could meet from time to time during the recess.

I will make only two other points, one of which is procedural and the other substantive. The procedural point is to endorse the idea that the National Parliament Office in Brussels should be strengthened. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on that, and I echo his point that it is in no way at all a reflection on the quality of the present incumbent. The point is simply that if the role of national parliaments among the Brussels institutions is to be strengthened, we do need to find some way to have a stronger link between national parliaments and the institutions in Brussels and Strasbourg. I very much hope that that can be pursued.

Finally, I strongly support the strengthening of the reasoned opinion procedure, in particular the extension of the scope of the procedure to include proportionality. There is a need to ensure that the Commission takes seriously its duty to review a proposal when a yellow card is issued—again, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. This should not be seen as giving way in an institutional battle between the Commission and national parliaments, to the detriment in some way of the European Parliament. It should surely be seen as a way of assuring national parliaments—and, through them, those who vote for them—that the concerns of citizens really are being taken into account and listened to, thereby strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the EU as a whole. That is surely what we all agree is needed.

20:23

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell in particular, for the excellent work that they have done in this report. It has been an urgent and necessary task to look at, and to try to do something about bridging, the gap between the legislatures and the public. That is certainly true in terms of EU legislation and the citizens of the European Union. The distance between elected representatives and the public is certainly a problem. It is a problem for the European Parliament. It is probably fair to say that, in general, people relate more readily to national parliaments, so how national parliaments relate to EU law is absolutely critical. It is worth taking note of the wise words of my noble friend Lord Judd in terms of how we engage people beyond the usual suspects and try to go beyond the elite when we are taking evidence. That may go some way to bridging that gap.

I served 15 years as a Member of the European Parliament. I can tell noble Lords that during that time, the Lords European Union Committee was the best example that we had of how national parliaments interacted with the process of EU legislation. Yes, there were some good examples in Holland and Denmark as well, but the fact that this House took that responsibility seriously was noted. It therefore makes sense that your Lordships’ committee is the group that comes up with practical reasons for why national parliaments perhaps find difficulty in influencing EU debates and provides some constructive suggestions about how some of those problems can be overcome.

The report recognises that national parliaments have a dual responsibility in relation to EU law, not just in scrutinising their own Government’s positions on EU policy, but in influencing more directly EU institutions and proposed laws. The authors have correctly identified that a national parliament holding its own Government to account for its EU policy positions can be done now. It is a matter of the will of parliamentarians and of their Governments to effect that will. As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said, the UK has to put its own house in order when it comes to this.

It is worth noting that the House of Commons Library reported that the number of laws influenced or based on EU law varies between 15% and 50%, depending on the definition. Knowing that, does Parliament have the balance correct in terms of the time and resources set aside to scrutinise these laws, given the number and quantity of laws emanating or being influenced by Brussels? Let us be clear. These laws are not decided by Brussels: they are proposed by Brussels. No EU law is passed without the UK Government having been involved in detailed discussions in terms of the outcomes. But the Government need to be held to account by Parliament on their position in relation to EU law.

A point not picked up in the report is the fact that it would be extremely difficult for some Parliaments, including the UK Parliament, to keep up with legislative scrutiny of EU laws, as we sit for only 30 weeks a year, compared with the 45 weeks a year that the European Parliament sits. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Judd. We need therefore to take seriously this point of prioritising the laws on which to focus.

Some of the major decisions that are made in the EU, which set the political direction and tone for various debates and forthcoming EU laws, are made, as has been pointed out, in the European Council meetings. The suggestion by the committee of holding pre-Council scrutiny meetings to feed into government preparations, rather than holding them afterwards, makes eminent sense. However, due to the fact that the Government are by definition entering into a negotiation, we understand the need to be sensitive to the view that requiring the Government to disclose their negotiating plan in public would not necessarily be in the interests of the UK. But that does not mean that they cannot listen, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, suggested.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is not the simple solution to this problem that these pre-decision scrutiny sessions should, where necessary or when the Government so desire, be held in private? I understand that that works in Denmark. There is no problem with leaks and the system works perfectly well as a result.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

That makes a lot of sense. As long as there is an understanding that sessions are held in camera, I see no problem. But accountability pre-scrutiny and pre-Council makes sense. It is something that we should perhaps take up.

In terms of influencing EU institutions more directly during the process of elaborating legislation, the process becomes more complicated. For me, one of the problems when reading the House of Lords European Committee reports as an MEP was that, despite their brilliance, they would almost invariably be published after the law had been passed. Although there were some gems in there, in terms of critiques of EU directives, they were too late to influence the debate—which is why that pre-legislative scrutiny by national parliaments would be invaluable.

Analysing the Commission’s work programme would be an obvious way of ensuring a degree of pre-scrutiny, and it should become a core task—as has been suggested—of the whole Parliament and all the relevant Select Committees, rather than the preserve of EU committees. Furthermore, will the Minister comment on how we get a degree of consistency, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Quin? How do we ensure that there is a systematic approach to thorough, ongoing analysis by subject committees?

It is also essential that policymakers have a thorough understanding of the legislative processes of the EU institutions. In my experience, that was not obvious, even—dare I say it?—when dealing with some of the UK Ministers involved. So, mainstreaming, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, is critical.

The committee’s suggestions for tightening up the reasoned opinion procedure make sense, and the fact that only two yellow cards have been given since the introduction of that system suggests that the hurdles may be too high. I note, however, that the expectation that the Commission should respond within a set timeframe is possible only if resources are provided. Imagine the resources involved in giving a comprehensive response to the 2,000 written contributions made since the Barroso initiative was introduced. There were 33,000 members of staff in the Commission last year. Let us compare that with the number of staff employed in the Department for Work and Pensions: 90,000. Just imagine the extra burden on the administration in answering 28 member state parliaments within a tight timeframe. Something would have to give; something would have to be prioritised. We need to be sensitive to that when we are asking for these things.

National parliaments, however, need to learn how, and when best, to influence the EU legislative process. It is worth considering the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of an annual get-together, but more relevant is a real understanding of how influential individual MEPs can be, particularly those who lead and formally shadow debates and who navigate the directives through the legislative process—that is, the rapporteurs. They are extremely influential, so identifying who they are and communicating with them at the appropriate time would be as impactful as trying to convince 28 different EU member states to take up an alternative position. There is no inconsistency in saying that national parliaments, as well as the European Parliament, should be involved in developing EU laws. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I must say that I am disappointed to read that the real source of democratic legitimacy in the EU lies with national parliaments, according to the Government’s response to the report.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, suggested, it is worth thinking about some of the ideas put forward. I fully endorse the point that the Conservatives have cut off their own influence in the EU by ceasing to be a member of the largest political group. It is worth considering the idea of a commissioner for national parliaments and European parliaments, but I warn that there is a danger that the job might be seen to have been done, and therefore the departmental commissioners might not take their responsibilities seriously in relating to national parliaments.

With such turmoil in the eurozone, the reality is that the public across the whole of Europe have learnt that financial and economic policy emanating from the EU is impacting on us all both directly and indirectly, whether through the massive austerity measures that have caused such savage cuts in our public services, or through reduced demand for our export goods. Therefore, national parliaments should take a more systematic approach to the surveillance of this policy area in particular.

On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the European Union Committee for its work on this report. It is essential that it is disseminated not just in our Parliament, but in parliaments throughout the European Union.

20:34

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a rich debate which has ranged widely from the lack of a European demos to the future of Britain’s role in the European Union, to the popular disenchantment with the European institutions across much of the EU to the role of COSAC. Having read the report and having listened to the first two or three speeches, I must say that I was beginning to think that COSAC had improved enormously since I was last a member. Then I heard the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, almost say that it might take another generation before COSAC becomes an effective body. I remember eating very well when I went to COSAC and some of the discussions were useful. However, all that was a long time ago, and I am sure that it has improved a great deal.

The British Government do accept that the European Parliament, the British Parliament and other national parliaments have complementary roles. We absolutely insist as part of our proposal for European reform that national parliaments need to be more actively engaged and that relying on the European institutions alone to provide legitimacy is no longer acceptable, possible or publicly achievable. We all know about the negative image of the European Union—the image that UKIP puts out that the EU is attempting to accumulate more and more powers in Brussels and has to be resisted so that power is pulled back. I am old enough to remember the old idea when I first went to meetings in Brussels and elsewhere when we were discussing joining the EU that it was there to replace national Governments. National Governments represented the old way and national parliaments were part of that. Jean Monnet, who hated the French National Assembly and was never himself a parliamentarian, believed that technocracy was much better and more efficient than democracy. There were those like Altiero Spinelli who had a passionate belief that the European demos was there, somehow, to be discovered, if only one worked hard enough for it.

We have discovered in the generations since then that it was not really there, that all politics remains local, and that the problems we are now facing are that while politics remains local, economics, finance and markets have become international and often global, security has become international and often global, and the gap is one that we are all struggling to fill. We also had a number of discussions about rivalry between the European Parliament and national parliaments, with the European Parliament sometimes claiming greater legitimacy because it represented the European demos. I recall one Member of the British Parliament attending the convention when the European Convention met and feeling from the start that she was being patronised by Members of the European Parliament. She became and she remains a rather sceptical Labour MP.

There is something of a Brussels bubble. We understand that Brussels does need a culture change, and I listened with interest to the optimism expressed about the new Commission, perhaps about the new European Parliament, and abort some of the new Commission officials. Again, I mark that we do not send enough British officials to the Commission for a whole range of reasons. I am glad that my own Government have reinstituted the European fast stream and are working to try to get more British officials to go through the concours and to come in as seconded national experts at all levels because that is part of the way we can change the culture of Brussels.

[Lord Spicer]

The Minister is making an extremely interesting point about the gap between the demos and the economics, as he put it. Is not the reason for that gap, which will always exist, that the Parliament will permanently be constrained by two things? The first is the European Court and the second is the treaty, which was the subject of a little discussion between me and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, I was making a slightly different point, which is about the global market and global manufacturing. The fact that, for example, when the French sell an Airbus a third of the value added to that Airbus comes from British manufacturers, and that every time the Germans sell a Mercedes, it contains a large number of British components, means that markets have gone beyond the nation state but legitimacy has not. That is a fundamental, structural problem of the world in which we now live. I will not touch on the migration dimensions of that, but the security dimensions are also extremely difficult. That leaves us with a set of dilemmas which are not solvable and which we have to cope with.

A number of noble Lords made the point about the resources and time required. Resources are needed for scrutiny, as the report suggests. If we are setting up for national parliaments to be more closely in touch with each other, that requires a good deal of travel and time. One noble Lord remarked—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—that, in some ways, a European Parliament that was drawn directly from national parliaments was more appropriate. However, it did not work before 1979, partly because national parliamentarians are elected to serve constituents in their national parliament and the more time we expect them to spend elsewhere, the less time they will have to do their primary job. So there is a set of real problems there.

I noticed, as a member of the Government talking to newly elected MPs—there was a very large turnover in the British Parliament last time—that a great many newly elected MPs coming from outside politics had very little idea of the complexities of international negotiations in which we are engaged with other European parliaments, or of the contacts one needs to have with members of other national parliaments or, indeed, members of the same political family as yours in other Governments. They have learnt, but it takes time. After all, more and more of our parliamentary candidates, I saw in one newspaper at the weekend, are now being drawn from people who have established roots within their local constituency. They are not elected to Parliament because of their international experience and they are unlikely to get re-elected if they spend too much time travelling around Europe and beyond. That is one of the obstacles with which we have to deal.

The new Commission has signalled that it is open to a much more positive dialogue with national Governments. New President Juncker has stated this on a number of occasions; Vice-President Timmermans, as has been remarked, has made it very clear that this is one of his priorities. As a Minister in the Dutch Government beforehand, he was already heavily committed. Closer co-operation among national parliaments was mentioned by many noble Lords. The offices which we now have in Brussels are to be strengthened. It is a very good way of using Brussels as a means of communication that enables you to find out earlier what is going on, examine proposals at an earlier stage and talk among national parliaments about how one might use yellow cards—lowering the threshold. The green card question is a very interesting one which the Government will wish to consider. We are not yet committed. We note the proposal that the coverage of these mechanisms should be extended to cover proportionality as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, talked about first reading deals. One of the problems that the Government have in responding to that is the sheer complexity of a multilateral negotiating process, with co-decision with the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers coming in. The points at which national parliaments insert themselves into that process and how national parliaments keep up with that process is, again, part of the problem with which we all have to deal. Over the past year, as I have struggled with the EU balance of competencies exercise—a fascinating exercise—I have changed my mind on whether it would be useful for this Chamber also to examine other international organisations through which the British Government work. Time and time again in the EU balance of competencies exercise we have had evidence which has said, “We work through the EU on this, and we also work with OECD or the World Health Organization”. Indeed, the EU operates in some respects as a regional member of the World Health Organization in specific areas. Explaining that to the national public, as far as we can, and examining how effective those other international organisations are—most of them are a great deal less effective than the European Union—is perhaps also something which this Government might be able to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked that perhaps it would be easier if we explicitly had a confederal Europe rather than a federal Europe. I thought the chapter in this report on economic governance was particularly interesting and difficult because the contradictions of where we have got to with international markets come in because you need some power to decide as soon as you have an integrated single market, let alone a common currency, and when you face a global economic crisis, the legitimacy to decide above the level of the nation state is not there. So we are again stuck with the problem that it is not possible to reconcile the principles of democratic accountability and legitimacy and the need to take these decisions among a range of different actors.

[Lord Judd]

Is it not highly relevant here to recognise that in what the Minister is saying about what has happened to international finance, the real discussions that influence policy are going on in the G7 and places such as that? In this sense, it gives us room to reconsider the structures that built up before this was of such manifest significance.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suspect that any incoming British Prime Minister does not begin to understand just how much of his time he will now have to spend out of the country dealing with other Governments and so on. One of my very small roles within government has been trying to say, “No, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot go to that international conference, in spite of the fact that he speaks the language”, or whatever it may be. The pressure on Ministers to travel, particularly those in the British Government who have much more pressure to spend time being accountable in Parliament and to parliamentary committees than many of our counterparts, is among the real strains that I see our senior Ministers facing.

On consulting the public, I shall briefly remark on the balance of competences exercise. The final report will be published this Thursday. The two-year exercise has consulted British stakeholders on the single market and a range of other areas. We have had more than 2,000 pieces of evidence from a very wide range of organisations—economic think tanks and others—and have attracted contributions and evidence from more than two-thirds of the other member states.

One of the most pleasing aspects of it has been to hear people in other Governments saying, “This is a very useful exercise. We should do something like it ourselves”. People within the French Government, the Dutch Government, the Finnish Government and others have said the same. One of the small achievements of this coalition Government has been to consult widely on how far the current arrangements under the Lisbon treaty suit British business, British interests, British trade unions and others. I cherish the evidence from easyJet, which began, “If it were not for the European single market, easyJet would not exist”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, touched on the exchange of information between national parliaments and Brussels. I welcome her as someone who has made the transition from being a witness before committees of the House of Lords to being a Member of the House of Lords—a route that I remember transiting myself rather too long ago.

The question of how far we co-operate with other national parliaments raises some difficulties. There are other national parliaments with which we are in very close touch. There are others which do not have quite the same style or tradition. Two years ago I had lunch with the chair of the European affairs committee of a particular national parliament, who did not seem to have the sense that he should ever criticise his own Government or should disagree with their approach to Brussels. It was a rather surreal experience.

Some, however, are very active. I note, incidentally, from the table in Appendix 6 of the report that second chambers in several countries are much more active than first chambers. We are not the only ones who are able, because of our second-chamber status, to do what we can.

The European Union is, of course, a political system. How it works depends on how actively different institutions engage with it. We wish, as far as possible, to encourage other European parliaments to engage with us. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about the government response and how this fits in with the Government’s reform agenda. I remind him that the Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Philip Hammond, is engaged in active conversations with other national Governments. He has so far visited 11 national capitals. The feedback he has been getting demonstrates very clearly that there is an achievable, broad-based reform agenda shared by many other Governments which does not require treaty change.

Indeed, other Governments are vigorously saying, “We can do this without treaty change”. It is achievable within the headroom provided by the Lisbon treaty, and it covers a stronger role for national parliaments, effective regulation, the budget, completion of the single market in areas such as services in which the obstacles come from Germany rather than from Britain and others, the digital single market and so on. We have an active reform agenda that we are pursuing.

Time is short, and I am sure that noble Lords would like their dinner before everything closes. I think that one has to stress the obstacles, such as travel requirements, yet again. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, suggested that one could spend more time visiting others. I am sure that the Daily Mail would take very careful note of the sort of hotels in which Members stayed. Again, all of these things require time and effort. If you do one thing, you cannot do another. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested that we need to get ordinary people involved, not always members of the elite. Unfortunately, politicians by definition are part of the elite. We are not ordinary people, otherwise we would now be at home watching television or doing something else. Part of the underlying problem of democracy that we now have is that it is easy to decry those engaged in national, let alone international, politics as part of an elite.

[Lord Judd]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I find what he says, as ever, very powerful, but I will give a practical illustration. When under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we were doing a report on drugs in the European context, the noble Lord was at pains to make sure that we were hearing from people working with drug addicts on the front line. That is what I am talking about. It seemed to me that the remarks I was making were being addressed to us in the committees as distinct from the Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lord, I understand that, and I take that as read. Time is very short. I will therefore turn to government engagement with our Parliament and our committees which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, mentioned in his opening. He made a number of strong remarks about the Home Office in particular and also about the Cabinet Office, which I will take back and to which we will respond in time.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that Ministers are delegates, as I think he said at one point. We all understand that we ask our Ministers to engage in a series of complicated negotiations. The importance there is to have a constant dialogue with Parliament and with parliamentary committees as to how far we can go.

This has been an extremely valuable debate. We all understand how vital is the question of restoring a sense of the electorate’s own membership of the European Union, and how difficult that is—as well as how much we hope that what we do in this Chamber and what is done in the other place and other national parliaments can help to rebuild a sense of legitimacy and accountability for the very necessary tasks that we ask the European Union to fulfil.

20:55

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, this has indeed been a full and excellent debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords’ for both their personal generosity to me and for their contributions which, without exception, would repay further reflection and study. I am also grateful to the Minister for his response, which was characteristically thoughtful. I was encouraged by two points. The first was at the end of his remarks, when he in a sense acknowledged that all was not quite well with the Cabinet Office or the Home Office. I might say in parenthesis that that is not always confined to those two departments, and I would be grateful if he would take an active interest in making sure that that practice improves. The second point was that a number of us, either explicitly or implicitly, had expressed concern about the status of national parliaments vis-à-vis the European Parliament. It is very good to get from a Minister on the record in this place that they both have a democratic legitimacy and a role to play. That is a very good start.

I do not want to speak at length but just to pick out brief points from the discussion. In how I cast my remarks, I was anxious that we should open our eyes to the situation in Europe. By “we” I mean not only ourselves as a national parliament chamber here but the European institutions as well. It is incumbent on us all to avoid being baffled or bamboozled by technical complexity. That is inevitable in an institution of 28 member states dealing with some complex and often outward-looking technical issues. However, we need to look at the real situation that is going on. In terms of the references that have been made to relevance to the real world, I would report to the House that the most interesting conversation that I have had in the past year was with a young lawyer in Athens representing the Green Syriza opposition, who was entirely balanced in comment but whose eloquence and sense of anger and resentment was powerful—and you take that kind of thing home.

That leads me to my second point, which is the business of co-operation between national parliaments. Almost all of us who are elected—although we are not in this Chamber—or who in any case have a sense of democratic or legislative responsibility, should naturally want to work together. That could be in a whole variety of flexible configurations, sometimes between the usual suspects—the larger countries—and sometimes in geographic, regional groupings, interest rate groupings, maritime states and states large and small. There are plenty of configurations in which that can be done. It does not require treaty change to bring it about; it is a matter of just learning the habit of co-operation, as we say in our report.

My final point is that we need to change gear in relation to the European debate. Whether people come to this from a Eurosceptic viewpoint or from a more positive viewpoint, as I think that most of us do in this House, it must be in everybody’s interests to have a serious debate. Some of the concerns, and some of the reasons why I have been critical of the Government, have been that I fear some of the motivation in these debates has been driven by an element of fear or even cynicism, hoping that some of the problems would go away, rather than a readiness to move, as we will have to in the forthcoming and unfolding political context, into constructive and positive engagement with the issues. That must surely be in the interests of all of us and the citizens who we claim and have a duty to represent.

The hour is late and I will not test your Lordships’ patience longer by prolonging my remarks. This is a very serious issue, on which we need to move from words to action. In that spirit, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Insurance Bill [HL]

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Reported from Committee

The Bill was reported from the Special Public Bill Committee with amendments.

House adjourned at 9 pm.