House of Commons

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 2 February 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department has taken to freeze council tax charges since 2010-11.

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

Under the previous Administration, household budgets were severely squeezed as council tax more than doubled. By contrast, this Government have worked to freeze council tax. Across England, bills have fallen by 11% in real terms since 2010 thanks to our freeze.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he reassure the House that he will do everything he can to help councils keep taxes low, and will he confirm that he will reject Labour’s call for a tax on family homes in England that would fill Scotland’s coffers?

[Mr Pickles]

I am very happy to confirm that we have no plans to introduce a family homes tax. The principal problem with the proposal is that, were it to be introduced, the amount raised from those in the top band would be inadequate, so people living in an ordinary home would wake up the day after the election and find themselves in a mansion.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State congratulate Hammersmith and Fulham council on cutting council tax while at the same time abolishing home care charges, cutting the price of meals on wheels by a third and employing more neighbourhood police officers? Does that not make it his favourite council—perhaps even the apple of his eye?

[Mr Pickles]

I am pleased that the new administration in Hammersmith and Fulham is building on the fine work of the previous Conservative administration, which did more than just freeze council tax; it cut it by 3% each year, from appalling record levels. The new Labour administration has been able to take full advantage of those efficiencies.

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

Will the Secretary of State congratulate Ribble Valley council, which has frozen its council tax for the past five years without reducing the level of services? If Ribble Valley council can do it, anybody can. The only thing missing in some councils is the political will.

[Mr Pickles]

I congratulate Ribble Valley council, which is clearly the apple of my eye. I know it to be very efficient. Income levels in the Ribble valley are better because local councillors are dedicated to keeping council tax down.

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

Council tax rates and council tax bands are closely linked. I try not to believe everything I read in the newspapers, but a few years ago The Daily Telegraph reported:

“Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, who oversees local government, has also opposed any move to change council tax bands. He has ordered officials to destroy data collected by previous governments that could allow a widespread rebanding of properties.”

Is that so? If not, what data are available?

[Mr Pickles]

There was an attempt by the previous Administration to operate a spy system whereby people would be taxed if they had a good view, or if they did not have a good view; if they were close to a bus station, or if they were further away. Frankly, I do not think that it is right for councils to go into people’s homes to measure their bathrooms and look at their views. I regard that as a fundamental intrusion into the British way of life.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effect of real-terms cumulative changes in local authority spending power on services in communities with the greatest needs since 2010-11.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the effect of real-terms cumulative changes in local authority spending power on services in communities with the greatest needs since 2010-11.

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

Since 2010, we have delivered fair local government finance settlements to every part of the country. All councils have balanced their budgets, and most have reduced council tax in real terms and maintained public satisfaction with services. Councils facing the highest demand for services continue to receive more funding and have higher spending than less deprived authorities.

[Mike Kane]

According to the BBC, Greater Manchester councils are preparing for another cut of £250 million this year, which is in addition to the £1.2 billion taken out of their budgets since 2010. Given the Public Accounts Committee’s conclusion that the Department for Communities and Local Government had limited understanding of the impact of the cuts on services, are Ministers not out of touch?

[Kris Hopkins]

Every part of Government has had to respond to the challenges left by the previous Administration. It should be noted that now each authority does not have to rely just on its grant; it has the ability to raise money itself. Manchester has been very successful at that, securing many millions of pounds through its business tax retention and the new homes bonus. Manchester has also been very successful in securing a multi-million-pound growth deal.

[Toby Perkins]

The PAC report made it clear that councils with the greatest spending needs—the most deprived authorities—receive the largest reductions. The Minister talks about the challenges facing them. He will know that the challenges facing the local authority in Chesterfield are twice those facing the local authority that the Secretary of State is responsible for.

Is it not true that the reason why the areas with the greatest deprivation are facing the biggest cuts is that Tory Governments always redistribute money from the poorest people to the richest? If the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable in my constituency want to do something about the situation, they should not complain to this Government—they should chuck them out in May.

[Kris Hopkins]

The most deprived authorities receive 40% more than the least deprived. The PAC and the NAO recognised that, on the whole, local authorities have responded well to the cuts and that every single authority has managed to balance its budgets. It should be noted that local authorities have significantly increased their reserves during this period. The reason why each part of Government is having to respond to these financial challenges is the economic incompetence of the previous Government. I am sure that the public out there will not want to give the Labour party the reins of power again.

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

For decades, my local authority in Leicestershire has been one of the lowest-funded county councils. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in reaching a figure in the local government settlement, account will be taken of how efficient a council already is?

[Kris Hopkins]

I have received representations from my hon. Friend’s council, and I do recognise the enormous amount of work that is going on. Given the economic circumstances, we try to show a direction of travel regarding councils with significant rural coverage, and we have increased the moneys by some £15.5 million this time.

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

I represent a constituency in the north of England, where we see huge variations in the spending power of local councils, but also huge variations in how councils are dealing with the situation. My own Conservative Cheshire West and Chester council has redesigned services, sharing them and making them more efficient to protect the taxpayer, whereas neighbouring councils are looking at cutting services, closing libraries and making the taxpayer pay for their mistakes. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Kris Hopkins]

The track record shows that Conservative-led administrations are facing up to the issues that we all face. I have seen everything that my hon. Friend’s council has done, including the excellent homeless support services that it offers. Even the most difficult and vulnerable people out there are being protected by well-thought-out responses to the economic challenges we face.

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

The National Audit Office says that local government has faced 37% cuts on average, and hon. Members have highlighted just how unfair those cuts are. Why is the Department refusing to publish figures that show the real-terms, year-on-year changes by local authority, as the NAO and now the Public Accounts Committee have urged? Are the Government frightened to lay bare just how grotesquely unfair their policies are to the poorest communities?

[Kris Hopkins]

Every year we have published all our figures. We go out there and consult councils on the figures that we offer. This time we gave indicative figures for not only last year but this year, and there have been plenty of opportunities for people to scrutinise those figures. I should point out that the NAO figures do not include the better care fund or the public health grant.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

3. What estimate he has made of the number of local authorities who are planning to raise council tax by more than 1.99% in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.

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

Councils have yet to set their budgets. I encourage every local council to take up this year’s offer of additional funding to freeze council tax. If they want to hike up council tax, they should put that to the people in a referendum.

[Henry Smith]

A recent TaxPayers Alliance study identified that the chief executive of Pembrokeshire council had a Porsche funded at a cost of some £90,000 and that, in Camden, £3.25 million had been spent on so-called gagging orders for employees who were leaving. What more can be done to bear down on these unnecessary costs that burden the taxpayer?

[Mr Pickles]

Transparency is the order of the day. It is sad that the kind of information available to English taxpayers is not available to their Welsh counterparts. With regard to Mr Bryn Parry Jones’s Porsche, if any chief executive puts in a Porsche as part of their terms of contract, I think that is a cry for help. The chap is obviously suffering from a mid-life crisis, and the council would have been better spending money on getting him some professional help.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Kettering borough council, of which I am privileged to be a member, has frozen its council tax throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and now proposes to cut car parking charges. Will those practical and popular policies help local people tackle the cost of living?

[Mr Pickles]

I do not know which I like best—my hon. Friend’s council or Ribble Valley council—but that is my kind of council. This is about bringing in jobs and work, making it easy for people to shop, and showing some respect to the electorate. My hon. Friend’s electorate are singularly fortunate in their council and in their representative.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

4. What steps the Government plan to take to ensure that high accessibility standards are incorporated into local plans.

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

Our planning policy is clear that authorities should plan for accessible communities, and guidance further promotes accessible and inclusive design. We are also reviewing housing standards so that they provide for more accessible homes, and all public bodies are bound by the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010, which promotes inclusion.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Government estimate that a three-bedroom home built to the proposed category 2 costs just £521 more than the less accessible equivalent—about one week’s bill for residential care. Do the Government accept that that shows an urgent need for higher access standards, and for more homes to be built to those standards?

[Stephen Williams]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to part M of the building regulations, which has a baseline requirement for accessibility. The housing standards review proposes to allow local authorities to adopt higher standards where they judge that to be applicable. Demography obviously varies between authorities, and Bolton will be quite different from Christchurch. I am a localist and believe that that is the right way forward.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Residents in North East Lincolnshire would welcome a local plan with high accessibility standards—indeed, they would welcome any local plan, but the Labour-controlled council will not produce one until 2017. In the meantime, villages are having many unnecessary planning applications. What advice can the Minister offer my local residents?

[Stephen Williams]

The Government strongly exhort all local authorities to have an up-to-date local plan in place, and 80% of authorities now have a published plan and 62% an adopted plan. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s authority in Lincolnshire is not following suit.

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

Habinteg, Age UK, Aspire, Care and Repair, Disability Rights UK, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Mencap all supported Labour’s push to amend the Infrastructure Bill to ensure high standards of accessibility in new housing. Why did the Government oppose those efforts?

[Stephen Williams]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). Every local authority is different and demography varies from area to area. Part M of the building regulations has a baseline requirement for accessibility to be built into new homes, and the housing standards review provides two upper tiers—equivalent to the lifetime homes standard—for local authorities to adopt. On top of that there is also a wheelchair housing standard for accommodation that caters for particular specialist needs.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce translation costs in the delivery of local services.

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

My Department has issued crystal clear guidance to councils that they should cease translating into foreign languages. Translation is a waste of taxpayers’ money and encourages segregation and division. Promoting English is the best way to ensure integration.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and welcome the progress made by his Department. Does he agree that the enormous translation costs for public services that grew up under the previous Government were not just a huge waste of taxpayers’ money, but sent a message that if someone moves here from abroad, they do not need to speak English or to integrate, and that has proved a major policy mistake?

[Mr Pickles]

Yes; the cost worked out at something like £140 million a year. It is not good enough to say, “Don’t translate”; we must make a real effort to ensure that people can speak English. That is why my Department has invested £6 million in six programmes to deliver courses for more than 24,000 adults with the lowest levels of English. Those people are the most isolated because they are unable to speak English. The courses have been targeted principally towards Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Somali women.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I recently met the profoundly deaf communities in my constituency through Deaflink, and they highlighted how isolated they felt because of the lack of British sign language translation services available when accessing services. What will the Secretary of State do to support them?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point: sign languages in English should be available. I shall look into the matter very carefully and, because she has made a reasonable point, respond to her.

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

6. What progress his Department has made in promoting longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

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

8. What progress his Department has made in promoting longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

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

19. What progress his Department has made in promoting longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

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

We are progressing longer tenancies by promoting a model tenancy agreement with bodies representing landlords, tenants, letting agents, mortgage lenders and local authorities. Recent figures show that tenancy lengths have increased to an average of just under four years.

[Mr Reed]

A survey conducted in Croydon North showed some letting agents charging registration fees as high as £500, and hundreds more in finder’s fees and for simply handling the deposit. Of course, short tenancies make this rip-off even worse. Why are the Government not standing up for hard-pressed renters against rip-off letting agents?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, we are. The new provisions in the Consumer Rights Bill will require all letting agents to publish their full tariff of fees, both on their websites and prominently in their offices, regardless of whether they are a member of a protection scheme and of which redress scheme they have signed. This will protect tenants from the small minority of agents who charge unreasonable hidden fees and will raise awareness of safe agents and the right of redress.

[Mike Gapes]

Nine million people, including 1 million families with children, are in private rented accommodation, which, as thousands in my constituency know, leads to uncertainty and fear about people’s long-term future and stability. When will this Conservative Government and their Lib Dem accomplices take the issue seriously? Will they do something now, rather than engage in spurious consultations that take months and years?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am not sure exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do. As I said, we have published a model tenancy agreement to encourage longer tenancies. It is worth noting that, according to Savills, a majority of people, particularly younger people, do not want longer tenancies and that 81% of private renters who have moved in the last three years ended their last tenancy because they wished to move, predominantly for work reasons.

[Karl Turner]

Thousands of families in Hull are subjected to unfair, unsecured tenancies. Why can the Government not accept Labour’s plan for three-year secure tenancy agreements? What is wrong with it?

[Brandon Lewis]

Given that average tenancies have increased to almost four years, I think that we have already achieved what we needed to achieve and that the hon. Gentleman should be saying, “Well done!”

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Despite what we have just heard, the evidence from abroad is that the best way to create a more professional private rented sector is actively to encourage pension funds and the long-term institutions to invest for the long term. Given that, may I strongly encourage the Minister to ensure that all our policies—taxation and otherwise—now encourage that long-term investment, not short-term capital gains?

[Brandon Lewis]

As the House will know, my hon. Friend has a wealth of experience in this matter, and he is absolutely right. We have worked hard to expand the private rented sector, and we want it to grow further and not be threatened by the risk of Labour’s rent control. That is why we have £10 billion of housing guarantee schemes and have allowed the industry to unlock borrowing at the lowest rate in its history. We also recently announced a further £3.5 billion package to promote long-term institutional investment, which holds prices well and brings better and well-managed properties into the market.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I was delighted that the Minister supported the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on preventing retaliatory evictions. Given that the Bill can no longer proceed, will he support the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by my colleague Baroness Bakewell and others to introduce these measures into the Deregulation Bill?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is in fact a Government amendment that is being taken through the Lords. The principle of ensuring that retaliatory evictions cannot happen is one that we would all wholeheartedly support.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that evidence from abroad also shows that the last way to get the long-term investment that the private sector needs is through the distorting effect of rent controls, which damaged the quality of the private rental sector in places such as New York when they were tried there?

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. History—both in this country and in a number of countries overseas—has shown us that all rent controls do is put prices up for tenants and reduce supply, which is the opposite of what we want in this country. We want a good, thriving and growing rental sector.

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

In relation to the private rented sector and all other housing, the English housing survey

“is used extensively across government and beyond and is a public good of national importance.”

Those are not my words but those of the national statistician in reaction to the Minister’s plans to stop the survey next year and then do it only every other year subsequently. In the light of the national statistician’s concerns in urging a rethink, will the Minister confirm that he will take that advice and not scrap next year’s survey?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we still have to deal with the record deficit and debt left by the last Labour Government, so we have to be sensible with public sector money, and look to see how we can do things more efficiently and more effectively. We are in consultation at the moment, and I shall make my response to the House when the consultation ends.

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

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on what the Government have achieved through the model agreement? There will be appeals, so will he say a little more about how the approved redress scheme is coping with those appeals?

[Brandon Lewis]

No issues have been reported at this time, but if my hon. Friend has any particular concerns, I would be happy to meet her and any concerned residents.

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

The Minister keeps peddling the myth, but we are not proposing rent controls. The Government have taken no meaningful action to promote longer-term tenancies. Both the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), and the current housing Minister told us last year that rent levels were falling, with the Under-Secretary saying that rents were falling even in London. But now the Office for National Statistics has confirmed what everybody else knew all along—that rents are rising faster than wages and rising in real terms. Will the Minister now admit that he was wrong and that millions of private renters are facing insecurity and rising rents?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid to say to the hon. Lady that real-term rents have been lower than the changes in inflation, so rent costs have fallen in real terms. We need to continue to see supply come through and get that institutional investment that was mentioned a few minutes ago so that we continue to see good-quality housing available at good prices.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department has taken to protect green-belt land from inappropriate development.

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

The Government have safeguarded national green-belt protection in contrast to Labour’s top-down strategies of the past that wanted to concrete over it. In October last year, we published new planning guidance, which reaffirmed green-belt protection, and we have been consulting on changes to Traveller policy which, if taken forward, will further strengthen green-belt protection.

[Chris Skidmore]

Over the past five years, the Kingswood green belt has been protected. Now, hundreds of local people have signed a petition against a proposed right to grow set out in the Opposition’s Lyons review that would allow Bristol to expand at the expense of our local green belt and local communities. Does the Minister agree that we need to continue to protect the Kingswood green belt against this dangerous right-to-grow policy?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When I visited him not too long ago, he showed me Labour plans for places to have the ability to grow outwards. The review says that some places illustrate these issues to a greater or lesser extent, and that

“not all green belt land is of high environmental or amenity value”.

I suspect my hon. Friend’s residents would disagree with that. I know he has campaigned hard on this issue. It is vital to ensure that we continue these strong green-belt protections. Ultimately, these matters must be locally decided by local people for their local area.

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

The Minister will be aware that paragraphs 17 and 111 of the national planning policy framework contain a commitment to “brownfield first”. When the Select Committee did its recent inquiry into the operation of the NPPF, it received more complaints about one issue than any other—concerns about inappropriate speculative applications, not just in the green belt but in green fields in general. Will he agree to look very carefully at the Select Committee’s recommendations to speed up the process of local plan adoption and to ensure that those local plans have a higher percentage of brownfield within them? There is real concern about this issue on both sides of the Chamber.

[Brandon Lewis]

The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point: it is important to protect both green-belt and greenfield land. Some interesting cases have arisen, particularly one in the last couple of weeks, in which green-wedge land was protected by inspectors. However, it is also important for local authorities to deliver local plans, and it would be even better to see some more neighbourhood plans.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Following the question from my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), may I ask whether my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that 70% of Bath and North East Somerset is green belt? It is some of the most beautiful countryside in the world, and allowing Bristol to spill over into it would essentially mean the recreation of that most unloved county of Avon. The Government’s commitment to preserving the green belt is therefore of crucial importance.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend has lobbied me on this issue, along with colleagues in the area. There is indeed some beautiful scenery there, and the green belt is indeed important. The local authority, working with local people, has the right to make decisions that will protect its green belt, as is specified in the national planning policy framework.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

In Cramlington, in my constituency, an urban sprawl of housing has developed over the years since it became a new town. There is a small green patch there, but it is currently the subject of an application for planning permission to build more housing. Should not the townships that were built during the 1960s have a bit of green space in the middle?

[Brandon Lewis]

We all like to keep our green spaces, and the NPPF is very clear about the need to protect green belt, but, ultimately, the decision should be made locally. It is for the local authority to outline its local plan, but I urge the community in the area to consider proceeding with a local neighbourhood plan, in order to give themselves absolute local control and, if they want it, local protection.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

In my constituency, Eastleigh borough council is working hard to meet the desperate need for more housing while also protecting the precious green gaps between our towns and villages. Are the Secretary of State and the Minister aware that the inspectorate has overruled the borough council’s local plan, which was based on all the evidence available, while refusing to give an adequate explanation of its reasons for insisting on the building of thousands more houses than the evidence has shown to be necessary?

[Brandon Lewis]

Obviously I cannot comment on a particular local plan, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to contact me and provide some of the details. The inspectors would generally look at the evidence, and I think it unlikely that they would make a specific comment about numbers. It is more probable that they challenged the local authority’s evidence. It is important for the authority to put together a strong evidence base to back up what it wants to do.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

9. What discussions he has had with local authorities on the frequency of the collection of black bins.

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

DCLG Ministers often discuss the frequency of waste collection with local authorities, and our £250 million weekly collection support scheme has helped more than 80 councils to provide weekly collections. About 40 innovative recycling reward schemes are making life easier for 6 million households.

[Jenny Willott]

I am sure the Minister is aware that Labour-run Cardiff council is currently consulting on the possibility of collecting black bins and bags just once a month. Of all people, Jeremy Clarkson has said:

“There will be so much litter in the streets that rats and plague are sure to follow.”

Notwithstanding the hyperbole, does the Minister share my concern that monthly collections will cause Cardiff to become dirty and full of rubbish, with a growing problem of fly-tipping, rats and seagulls?

[Kris Hopkins]

Those sound like more wise words from Jeremy Clarkson.

Last year the council was presented with a significant petition against the proposal. Only 27% of residents believe that they can manage with a monthly rubbish collection. The hon. Lady is right: we have poor Labour leadership in Wales nationally, and we clearly have very poor Labour leadership locally in Cardiff.

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

What advice would my hon. Friend give residents in Bury, where, without any consultation and despite overwhelming opposition, the Labour-run council has already reduced the frequency of the black bin collection not from weekly to fortnightly, but from fortnightly to three-weekly?

[Kris Hopkins]

My clear advice would be to vote Conservative in the forthcoming elections.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department has taken to help first-time buyers.

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

We have already helped over 58,000 first-time buyers to purchase a home with as little as 5% deposit through Help to Buy. We are also consulting on the starter homes scheme. Starter homes will be available for 100,000 first-time buyers under 40 years of age, at a minimum of 20% below open market value.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the Minister for that important answer. Stafford and Rural Homes in my constituency is investing in many high-quality, well-designed new homes for social rent. What steps is he taking to ensure that the proposed new starter homes are of equally high quality and good design?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have said at a number of points that it is important that, in building the quantity of homes we want, we ensure that the quality of build and design is there, too, so that communities can be proud of the homes that are being built. That is why I brought together a design panel of various organisations, which is looking at that work to ensure that we are using the best-quality design and build.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

One way that the Minister can help first-time buyers in my constituency is to tackle high rents and insecurity in the private rented sector. Increasingly, there are reports of people who are not couples being forced to share a bedroom because they cannot afford the high rents in London, yet the Minister is being complacent. Is it not time that the Government acted?

[Brandon Lewis]

I think that, in asking for rent controls again, the hon. Lady may have just contradicted her colleague, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds). We have introduced the rent to buy scheme, which was announced towards the end of last year, to enable people who are renting and want to own a home to have another option to do that. I also encourage the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) to support our starter homes programme, which will make 100,000 extra homes available at a 20% discount.

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to call Mr Love, but he is not standing, so I won’t. But if he does, I might.

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

I did not think that you would call two Opposition Members in a row, Mr Speaker.

The level of home ownership has fallen to its lowest level for 30 years. Will the Government now admit that their failure to build homes is pricing home ownership out of the reach of ordinary families?

[Brandon Lewis]

I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that in 2010 we inherited the lowest level of building since 1923. We have been rebuilding that market, which is now back at the 2007 level. We have started building affordable homes at the fastest rate in 20 years. The latest figures we have show that, in 2013, we had the highest level of first-time buyers in the market—almost 230,000—for many years.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

11. What comparative assessment he has made of the number of housing completions and demand for housing since 2010.

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

Since autumn 2009, 700,000 more homes have been created across England. The Government’s action to get Britain building again has played a vital role in supporting the growth of housing across the country, which has led to a sustained economic recovery.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but he will be aware that demand for genuinely affordable homes massively outstrips supply. In the light of that, how does he justify the Government’s latest policy wheeze, which allows developers to offset vacant buildings on a site against the requirement to provide affordable housing? Is that not another example of his Government watering down the rules for private developers, at the expense of those on the housing waiting list?

[Stephen Williams]

I am actually quite proud of the Government’s record on affordable homes. In the 2011-15 spending review period, we will have put £19.5 billion of public and private money into the affordable homes programme, delivering 170,000 new affordable homes by March this year, the biggest programme of house building for about 20 years. As for the policy that the hon. Lady referred to, it has been in place for a month. We will have to review its effect and no doubt we will respond accordingly.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The policy of permitted development has been in operation for much longer. Will the Minister kindly look into that? Developers are able to convert office or industrial premises into residential housing with no social obligation whatsoever. In constituencies such as mine in central London, where there is a massive housing waiting list, that is not helping the situation; it is making it worse and forcing more families to leave the borough.

[Stephen Williams]

Introducing flexibilities into the planning system has played an important part in getting new homes in some places where there have been redundant office blocks. I know that there is a particular issue in London, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have just consulted on those proposals and we will respond shortly.

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

13. What steps he is taking to encourage local communities to use crowdfunding for social and community enterprises.

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

The Government see great potential in the use of crowdfunding as a means of engaging communities and providing alternative access to finance for community-led enterprises. My Department established the community shares unit in October 2012, with £640,000 of funding. Since then, communities have raised over £50 million from 141 share offer launches.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is the Minister aware that, because there is such an unfair funding formula, councils such as Kirklees have been cut to the bone and many of the services we have grown to expect to be provided by the council will now have to be provided in other ways? Will he do even more to help the social enterprise sector to provide those services that many of us think should still be delivered by local councils?

[Stephen Williams]

The hon. Gentleman and I have agreed on many things over the years, and I share his enthusiasm for social enterprise. I think it should be a growing part of the economy. I also share his enthusiasm for crowdfunding. I held a round-table in the Department to look at how we can encourage more communities to use crowdfunding, and I think it has enormous potential, in particular to replace the system whereby the Department or local authorities give grants for community groups but do not require them to raise money for themselves. That is something I am trying to alter, and I think it will lead to real community empowerment.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

14. What steps he has taken to encourage the development of brownfield sites in Pendle.

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

We are working with the Lancashire local enterprise partnership and Pendle council to support development of the iconic Brierfield mill site. We have provided £2.5 million to help bring over 600 empty properties back into use in Pendle. Brownfield sites in the Burnley-Pendle corridor have also been shortlisted for housing zone status.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I welcome the news that east Lancashire has been shortlisted as a possible housing brownfield zone. However, more needs to be done to unlock previously developed sites and take pressure off greenfield areas like the Rough and the Meadows in Colne, which are currently subject to planning applications. What more reassurance can the Minister give me that the Government will support councils like Pendle to prioritise brownfield?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has spoken to me extensively about the excellent work going on in Pendle to make sure that brownfield sites are being developed, and I am pleased that that is part of the housing zone programme. We are in the process of encouraging further development on brownfield land. We want to develop 200,000 new homes by 2020 on brownfield land, and just last week we launched a £4.4 million incentive fund to support the preparation of local development orders on brownfield sites.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

In the absence of a milometer I cannot say with any accuracy how close the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is to Pendle, but his question needs to be.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker. Last year the planning Minister told me that green-belt protection throughout the ancient county of Lancashire, which incorporates my constituency as well as Pendle, meant that development would not be permitted unless there was extensive consultation with the local population through an amendment to the development plan, and only then in exceptional circumstances. What would the Minister’s view be of a local authority that did not consult extensively with the local community and then approved a development in the green belt, as Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council has now done?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you will excuse me for saying “Nicely done” to the hon. Gentleman for keeping that question in order.

The hon. Gentleman is right: rearranging, reorganising or relooking at green belt within a local plan needs to be done in full consultation with people. The local authority needs to go through that, and it has to go through an independent examination with an inspector, but, obviously, with regard to individual planning applications, ultimately we believe in localism. I believe it is right for local people, through their local authorities, to have that power, through democracy, to make local decisions. It is very much a matter for the local authority.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to support local communities with neighbourhood planning and community rights.

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

Since April 2012, we have provided £48.5 million to help communities understand and access community rights and associated initiatives. This has funded a helpline, online tools and resources, and specialist support and grants. From next year we are investing a further £32 million to help communities take up the rights.

[Stuart Andrew]

Neighbourhood forums in my constituency are engaging with the planning process and developing considered and well-researched neighbourhood plans, but their complaint is that they are not statutory consultees on planning applications that affect their area. Will the Department look at this?

[Stephen Williams]

Our guidance is clear. Where there is an emerging neighbourhood plan and the local authority—Leeds in the hon. Gentleman’s case—does not have a local plan, it should take account of the emerging issues in the neighbourhood plan in designated areas, such as Aireborough in his constituency.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Developers Gladman have won, on appeal, the right to build 250 houses on a greenfield site at Middleton St George in my constituency, at a time when the local residents are developing a neighbourhood plan. The development is against the wishes of local people and Darlington borough council. Local people feel that their views are being ignored and have called into question the Department’s commitment to localism. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the consequences of the housing development and Middleton St George’s neighbourhood plan?

[Stephen Williams]

I obviously will not comment on the individual application, but both the planning Minister and I often meet neighbourhood planning groups that are frustrated by the behaviour of some housing companies where there is an emerging neighbourhood plan. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss his issues too.

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

Does my hon. Friend recognise that one of the difficulties in persuading local communities to engage with neighbourhood planning is the huge amount of effort invested in the past in producing parish plans and village design statements that were then completely ignored by both local planners and the planning inspectorate? Will he reassure me that neighbourhood planning now really means something?

[Stephen Williams]

I visit many of the neighbourhood plans around the country, and I actually think that they have been an excellent innovation by the Government. They get people involved in planning at a neighbourhood plan level, and they now have weight within the planning system, which is the difference from before. The plans are also endorsed by a referendum of the public, which shows real enthusiasm for involvement in shaping their communities.

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

18. What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters’ pensions.

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

Firefighter pension regulations were fully debated in the House, and come into force on 1 April. Firefighters will continue to receive one of the best pensions in the public sector and we have added statutory fitness protections. These matters are now settled, and the current dispute should end.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On 15 December, the fire Minister gave hon. Members assurances that firefighters who failed a fitness test would receive unreduced pensions, and that was confirmed by the Secretary of State the following day. Subsequently, fire authorities, in response to a survey by the Fire Brigades Union, have said that they cannot provide a guarantee of an unreduced pension. Can the Minister confirm that the guarantee is 100%, or is it not a guarantee when it is given by a Tory Minister?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The national service framework has been changed and it came into effect on 12 January—that was the fitness protections. Fire and rescue authorities have to follow the national service framework: it is not an option. We have been very clear that if a firefighter loses fitness through no fault of their own, they should get an alternative role or a full unreduced pension. These are new protections, despite the fact that firefighters have been required to work to 60 since 2006.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I was one of the Members who backed the Government given the assurances from the Minister, but the documentation from the employers indicates something else. What clarification can she give about what the employers are saying?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Clearly, we can change the law. If fire and rescue authorities decide that they will not follow the law, we will spot that because we have also undertaken to audit this process and their adoption of new fitness principles. The Secretary of State also has powers to intervene. I have no indication that fire and rescue authorities will not adhere to the national service framework. If hon. Members know differently, they should let me know.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

On 15 December, the Minister said that if someone fails a fitness test

“through no fault of their own”—

and they do not qualify for an ill-health retirement, they will get

“an alternative role or an unreduced pension.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1153.]

The Minister further confirmed that that would be put on a statutory footing in the national framework. Will she confirm that the national framework does not guarantee a full pension or redeployed role? It merely requests fire authorities to consider options for redeployment or a full pension. It is a sham guarantee—it is no guarantee. How does the Minister square what she told the House with the ministerial code?

[Penny Mordaunt]

This is about protecting the firefighters whom the hon. Lady—who was in the Department when the changes were made in 2006—is asking to work until the age of 60. This is an improvement on the previous situation. There are two reasons why we have introduced the new measures: first, those older workers should have those protections; secondly, we recognise that the fear of being in that situation may have an impact on recruitment and retention. This scaremongering by the Opposition is shameful, and I would ask them to put the well-being of firefighters ahead of pandering to the militant wing of the Fire Brigades Union.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. Will the Minister confirm that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It will not be long before we hear the hon. Gentleman’s dulcet tones. We can hold on just a moment. Let us hear Secretary Pickles, adorned in his waistcoat, first.

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

I can hardly wait, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission published its recommendations to ensure that the memory of the holocaust is preserved. The Government will commit £50 million to the creation of the national memorial, the learning centre and the endowment fund. My Department will sponsor the new Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which will take forward those recommendations. Its first task will be to undertake an urgent programme to record and preserve the testimony of British holocaust survivors and liberators. It is our collective responsibility to educate future generations about the horrors of the holocaust and never to forget why we need to challenge and combat the forces of hate.

[Barry Gardiner]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks on the holocaust memorial, which is fundamentally important? Will he confirm that, in 2015-16, Brent’s core funding will be cut by 14% and its revenue support grant by 28%? Will he also confirm that the reason why his Department curiously refers to Brent’s spending power is that it includes £23 million of money that Brent council does not receive and has no power over, and that doing so gives him the singular advantage of allowing him falsely to claim that Brent is being cut by only 1.8%?

[Mr Pickles]

We moved over to looking at the spending power of authorities at the urging of the Local Government Association, the Labour party and the local government unit. They considered it to be a fairer way of measuring, and I think that they were right. It is fairer, because it is frankly pointless just to measure the amount of money coming from the Government. It is better to get a rounded position. That is why we have been able to ensure that services have been protected, that the level of satisfaction with local government has never been higher, and that reserves have never been higher.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T3. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) have both kindly visited the largest redundant mill complex in Lancashire, Brierfield mill in my constituency. Following the fantastic news of Government funding for the project in last week’s growth deal, will Ministers commit themselves to continuing to work with Pendle borough council and myself to move forward this massive regeneration project?

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

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I congratulate him on all he has done to be champion for his local area. I will be up there next week talking to his local enterprise partnership about how we can take things forward.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I want to return to the very serious matter of what the House was told in December about firefighters’ pensions. As we have just heard, firefighters are clear that the Minister gave them a guarantee that if they could not meet the fitness standard and could not be found another job, they would go on an unreduced pension. The Secretary of State—my question is to him—told the Communities and Local Government Select Committee the following day that if firefighters

“cannot be redeployed, the effect of yesterday’s decision is that they will get a full pension.”

However, the statutory instrument makes it clear that the fire and rescue authorities only have to “have regard” to the guidance in carrying out their duties. If that is the case, can the Secretary of State please explain how on earth that constitutes a guarantee?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The national service framework is something that is within our gift. We have changed it and put the principles within it on a statutory footing. They are not optional. There is no wriggle room for fire and rescue authorities. Clearly, fire and rescue authorities are responsible for their own policies locally, but I have no indication that they will deviate from the national service framework. If they do so, and we find that they are doing so, we will act. The Secretary of State has powers in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to do that. I say to Opposition Members that this is a vast improvement on what they gave firefighters. It is a step in the right direction to protect older workers. If, as the work of the fitness group progresses, there are further things that we can do once good practice is agreed upon, we will of course consider them. This is doing firefighters a grave disservice and it is undermining confidence in the fact that all firefighters—men and women—can enjoy a full career in the service.

[Hilary Benn]

I note that the Secretary of State did not want to respond in respect of his own words. But I say to the hon. Lady that the reason there is no confidence is that she and the Secretary of State have failed to give effect to the promise that they made. If she is looking for proof of that, may I quote to her what the London Fire Brigade said in correspondence to the Fire Brigades Union? She says that she has seen no evidence so she should really keep up. The FBU had written to the London Fire Brigade after the debate in December and asked whether there would be a guarantee. The London Fire Brigade said that it had taken legal advice, which

“confirms the position previously notified to DCLG by the Authority, most recently on 9 December 2014, that if DCLG wished to offer such a guarantee then it would need to change the regulations to enable that to happen.”

It then went on to say that

“the Authority is unable to give any guarantee.”

Firefighters are understandably angry because it turns out that the guarantee that they were promised in December on the basis of that was not a guarantee. Will the Minister do what she promised and apologise?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will not apologise for improving the situation of firefighters. Firefighters had been asked to work until 60 without any protections. We have introduced those protections. I also have to say that I have no trouble keeping up with what the FBU wishes to tell us. Not only do I have its letters, but I have letters also from the Secretary of State. Those letters are not only in the FBU’s font but have even managed to get his job description wrong.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T5. One fire authority responding to queries from firefighters about how it was going to honour the Minister’s commitment wrote to them and said: “We are advised that the addendum to the National Framework…continues to provide discretion over the award of an unreduced pension…We are further advised that such discretion cannot be fettered, and that to provide the ‘guarantee’ you are seeking would be unlawful.”Will the Minister begin the audit to which she has committed and ensure that fire authorities honour the commitment that she has made?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Of course, if a firefighter loses fitness through their own fault—by neglecting to go to the gym, to train and to keep up to date with the requirements placed on them—fire authorities have the discretion not to award a pension, which is quite right. Where that is not the case, the authorities must award a pension. The audit will take place. There is work going on at the moment with the fitness group that was set up, and I am pleased to update the House that women in the fire service now have a permanent seat on that fitness group. The group will come up with good practice that I hope all fire authorities will follow.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

T8. Durham is ranked the fifth most deprived area in the country on the Government’s own index and is recognised as having much higher need than other wealthier areas. If we are all in this together, will the Minister explain why Durham unitary authority has lost £180 spending power for every man, woman and child in Durham, while Wokingham authority, one of the wealthiest areas in the country, has seen a gain in its spending power for every man, woman and child?

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

As I said earlier, the most deprived areas receive 40% more money than the least deprived areas. It is important for local authorities and local leaders to understand that the grant is not the only course for delivering services. They should also consider building their local economy, building houses and receiving the new homes bonus, which I understand that the Labour party will scrap. That is the route that delivers quality services. It should be noted that, despite all the challenges that local authorities have faced, every authority has managed to balance its books and public perception of local authorities has remained positive.

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

T7. What steps is the Department taking to support independent local newspapers such as the Coalville Times in my constituency?

[Kris Hopkins]

We have given clear guidance on our expectations regarding council-sponsored newspapers. At a time when every authority faces serious challenges in delivering core services to vulnerable people, we should not be wasting money on propaganda sheets, and our guidance makes sure that local authorities are aware of that. I note that my hon. Friend’s local council has taken significant measures to reduce the amount of money it spends on council newspapers.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

T9. Why does the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) think that the fire authorities are saying that this is not a guarantee?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The fire authorities cannot deviate from the national service framework unless they choose to break the law. The measure will not come into effect until 2022 and we have undertaken to carry out a full audit in three years’ time of how they are adopting the fitness principles. If we find that fire authorities are not following and honouring those principles, we have powers to intervene. I do not understand why the issue is causing difficulty for the hon. Lady.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Harlow has had more than 100 illegal Traveller encampments over the past 15 months, yet the chief constable of Essex says that he does not have the power to remove them and cites human rights legislation. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please have urgent discussions with the chief constable, set out what the powers are and tell them to stop hiding behind Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines?

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

I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard for his residents in Harlow and I have met him, the police and crime commissioner and Harlow council. The council and the local police should be using their powers to make sure that policy, the green belt and the good residents of Harlow are protected in the way my hon. Friend has fought so hard to do.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

T10. May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? This time last year, the Department published a consultation paper on the private rented sector that, among other items, proposed that the installation of working smoke alarms be mandatory. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly failed to meet their own—frequently deferred—deadlines for saying when the consultation will be published. Why are they dragging their feet on such a simple and popular measure that will save lives?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about how important working smoke alarms and CO₂ detectors can be in saving lives. We will respond to the consultation in due course.

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

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discuss with his Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Health the rules of ordinary residence for people in care homes? The London borough of Havering picks up financial responsibility for a large number of self-funding residents who come from out-borough. Would it not be fairer if the rule of ordinary residence relied on the address where that person last lived?

[Mr Pickles]

I am aware of that problem, which I think is most acute in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As we move into April, the better care fund—which is a mechanism not just for funding, but for better co-ordination—should help. Residence should be taken into consideration as a whole and a proper care package should be worked out individually for each person. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) not accept that for a promise and guarantee made to this House in December to be in tatters by January does nothing to help good industrial relations? Is not the general secretary of the FBU entirely right to say that firefighters have been utterly cheated?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The fitness principles came into effect on 12 January, and no amount of spin from Opposition Members can undo that. Firefighters will have a guarantee: if they are working beyond the age of 55 and lose fitness through no fault of their own they will get an alternative role or, if none is available, an unreduced pension. If fire authorities do not do that, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think we will finish with a dose of Davies. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have asked Bradford council to supply details of the amount of money it raises in council tax from each ward across the Bradford district. I would have thought that would have been readily available information for any local authority, but Bradford council keeps refusing to publish it, claiming that it does not even have it. We all know why: the council does not want to show how much is contributed in council tax from the Shipley constituency and how little goes back to that constituency. May I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether he will make it a statutory duty for local authorities to publish details of how much council tax they receive from each ward in their area?

[Kris Hopkins]

As a former leader on the front benches of Bradford council, I asked the same question and I was given that information. But of course that was under a Conservative-led administration, which wanted to be transparent and open about the amount of money that was raised. Bradford council has nothing to hide from publishing these figures and letting people who make a significant contribution to the economy of the district know where their money is raised and spent.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

15:36

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of child and adolescent mental health in-patient beds, and on child and adolescent mental health services more generally.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

Since April 2013, NHS England has been responsible for commissioning in-patient child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—often referred to as tier 4 CAMHS. In 2014, NHS England reviewed in-patient tier 4 CAMHS and found that the number of NHS-funded beds had increased from 844 in 1999 to 1,128 in 2006. That has now risen to more than 1,400 beds, the highest this has ever been. These data are now being collected nationally for the first time, but despite the overall increase, NHS England also found relative shortages in the south-west and areas such as Yorkshire and Humber.

In response, the Government provided £7 million of additional funding, allowing NHS England to provide 50 additional CAMHS specialised tier 4 beds for young patients in the areas with the least provision—46 of these beds have now opened. NHS England has also introduced new processes for referring to and discharging from services, to make better use of existing capacity. A key objective of these actions is to help prevent children and young people from being referred for treatment long distances from home, except in the most specialised cases.

National availability of in-patient CAMHS beds is reviewed each week by NHS England specialised area commissioning teams and the national lead for commissioning, identifying any issues and taking proactive steps to address them. On 30 January, it emerged that the number of general CAMHS beds available was lower than in recent weeks. In response, NHS England implemented contingency plans, including contacting existing CAMHS providers to seek additional capacity and increasing the use of intensive home support packages to allow children and young people to be treated at home or on a non-specialised ward. NHS England has also contacted mental health providers to alert them to the immediate capacity issues in CAMHS and establish what capacity existed in adult in-patient and community services to take cases on a temporary basis, should that option be required.

The Government are committed to improving CAMHS as part of our commitment to achieving parity of esteem between mental and physical health—this is not just for in-patient services, but for services in the community, and for services that seek to intervene early and prevent problems arising. That, ultimately, is where the focus must be to ensure that, as far as possible, we spot issues early and prevent them from worsening, reducing the need for in-patient treatment.

In August 2014, the Department of Health set up the child and adolescent mental health and well-being taskforce. The taskforce brings together a range of experts from across health, social care and education. It will consider how we can provide more joined-up and accessible services built around the needs of children, young people and their families. A Government report on the taskforce’s findings will be published in the spring.

The Government have also invested £54 million in the children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies programme and will invest £150 million over the next five years in improving services for those with eating disorders.

[Luciana Berger]

All over England, our child and adolescent mental health services are increasingly under pressure. Despite the best efforts of NHS staff, the system is now in crisis. Children are being sent hundreds of miles for treatment or detained in police cells because there is nowhere else for them to go. We are also hearing of young people getting no treatment at all. I was appalled to see the copy of the e-mail that NHS England commissioners sent on Friday night, warning mental health trusts of a national shortage of in-patient beds for children. It was almost one year ago that the chief executive of YoungMinds said that the increase in the number of children placed on adult wards was entirely predictable following cuts to mental health services. Why did the Minister not act on that warning and do something to prevent it from happening?

The e-mail from NHS England said that the shortage would make it likely that 16 to 18-year-olds would need to be admitted to adult wards. Senior inspectors at the Care Quality Commission say that under-18s should not be put on adult wards, so why is NHS England issuing guidance that contravenes that advice? Adult mental health wards are no place for young people, but how can the Minister be sure that even in emergencies adult wards can accommodate children and teenagers? Adult mental health wards are operating at well over their recommended capacity, and today the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that the lack of acute beds available to mental health patients has left the system at breaking point. If adult mental health wards are full, where will these children go? What assessment was used to determine how many beds were needed? Clearly, it is not working. Does the Minister now plan to reassess the situation?

Why are so many of our children and young people needing in-patient mental health care in the first place? Could it have anything to do with the £50 million of cuts to child and adolescent mental health services? The Minister talked about early intervention, but we have seen cuts to early intervention in psychosis services, cuts to crisis services in the community, and the decimation of the early intervention grant, putting a lot of pressure on in-patient services. Could the problem be the fragmentation of commissioning we have seen across the health service since the Government’s reorganisation of the NHS?

The Government have paid lip service to parity of esteem and brought cuts and crisis in reality. Our children deserve better, and that is why Labour is committed to working to reverse the damage done to child and adolescent mental health services by this Government and why we have pledged to end the scandal of the neglect of child mental health.

[Norman Lamb]

First, let me caution against sanctimony. This is not a new issue: under the previous Labour Government, children did at times end up in adult wards. That is highly undesirable—everyone recognises that—and we must do everything we can to prevent it, but please do not try to claim that this is an entirely new problem. It is not. The Government have significantly increased the number of beds available, so significantly more are available now than there were in the last decade. The hon. Lady says that she sees increasing numbers of children held in police cells, but let us have some honesty and accuracy in this debate. The number of children who end up in police cells is falling, not increasing. The crisis care concordat, published last February, set a commitment to end the practice of children going into police cells. Indeed, we intend to legislate to ban it, but the numbers are lower than they were so she should not suggest that it is a growing problem—[Interruption.] She did suggest that.

The hon. Lady asked about my acting on the warning. That is exactly what we did. NHS England carried out a review of clinical judgment on the capacity required to meet children’s needs. As a result, there was a proposal for an increase of 50 beds nationally, focusing on the areas of the country where there was a significant problem, and the Government provided £7 million of additional funding to ensure that those beds were opened. Forty-six beds have opened. There is a temporary problem in Woking, where beds that were available are no longer accepting new admissions. That is a CQC issue. One thing that we have been absolutely steadfast on is that if standards are not being met, we should not continue to admit children to those wards.

The hon. Lady mentioned psychosis services, but this Government, for the first time ever, introduced a waiting time standard for early intervention in psychosis, which was widely welcomed by everyone in the mental health world. From this April, we start the process of introducing a standard. To start with, 50% of all youngsters who suffer a first episode of psychosis will be seen within two weeks and start their treatment within two weeks. That is an incredibly important advance.

The hon. Lady lectures the Government on mental health services, but perhaps she will consider why the Labour Government left out mental health when they introduced access and waiting time standards for all other health services. That dictates where the money goes and means that mental health loses out. This Government are correcting that mistake.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the extra beds committed to south Devon. The Minister will know that one of the most frequent points raised with the Health Committee in our recent CAMHS inquiry was the complete absence of accurate prevalence data on children and adolescents’ mental health needs and the services required to meet them. He will know that the prevalence data collection that used to happen every five years was cancelled in 2004. The Committee warmly welcomed the commitment to restart that survey. Will he update the House on exactly when that survey will start, whether the funds have been identified, and whether the scope of the prevalence data collection has been identified?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Unless we understand the prevalence of the problem, it is impossible to plan services effectively. I am delighted that we have secured the funding for an updated prevalence survey in 2015-16. It will be an expanded survey compared with the previous one. We want to cover as wide an age range as possible, to cover early years. That will give us the data, information and evidence we need, but I would then want us to do regular repeats to ensure that we maintain an understanding of prevalence.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The excellent in-patient facility in Hull and East Yorkshire closed under this Government in 2013 with no consultation whatever. Despite an excellent report by the Health Committee, despite criticism by the CQC and despite NHS England identifying a problem, we have waited two years. Does the Minister believe that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has made him powerless to act in such cases? If not, why does he not do something?

[Norman Lamb]

Ultimately, it has to be down to clinical decisions. Indeed, the whole thrust of policy, which was very much started under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government and during the period that he was Secretary of State for Health, is to devolve decision making about the make-up of services to local areas. That approach has been maintained. Ultimately, he would probably agree that such issues cannot all be determined in a Whitehall office.

None the less, the right hon. Gentleman raises serious concerns. I have tried to engage with him on them and am happy to talk to him and meet him further. I share his concerns about the lack of sufficient response to the concerns he raises, but I will repeat one other point I have made: the emphasis of policy should be on building up crisis response services and better and stronger community support services to reduce the need for in-patient care as much as possible. It is not therapeutic to put children and young people on in-patient wards, and particularly not away from home.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I can recall many Labour Health Ministers telling us from the Dispatch Box that local decisions were made by primary care trusts and were not a matter for them. Will the Minister consider what he has told us about the CAMHS review? He has been frank about the fact that CAMHS are dysfunctional and broken. Surely the review is the opportunity to lay down a route map and set out how we can deliver the preventive early intervention services that prevent the crisis from occurring in the first place and the need for the admission. Do we not need that so that when there is a spending review after the general election, there is clarity about the investment needs for children’s mental health?

[Norman Lamb]

I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the children and young people’s taskforce that I established last summer. He is right that this provides us with an incredibly valuable opportunity to modernise the way in which we organise and commission children’s mental health services. There are many fantastic professionals working in children’s mental health services, but in my view they are let down by a dysfunctional system with horribly fragmented commissioning, which is a long-standing problem. Because we are involving experts and campaigners from outside and, critically, children and young people, we have a great opportunity to get services modernised and effective and focusing particularly on prevention.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to be arguing that the solution to the problem is further evidence. For all the years that I have been in this House—almost 23 now—the issue of underfunding for mental health has been constant. The underfunding of services for children and adults who are suffering from mental health problems is an issue I raised in this House less than six weeks ago. It is unacceptable to claim that if there had been more information, measures would have been put in place to prevent children being sent hundreds of miles from their homes or being placed in adult wards. The Minister’s contribution has clarified the total lack of co-ordinated services for these young people. What kind of care would be afforded to someone in their home when, as in my constituency, their home may well be bed and breakfast, a hostel or some form of temporary accommodation? This is an urgent question; it requires urgent action. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Somebody said that was very wrong. It was a Shakespearian performance. In fact, somebody once said to me, “That person could have been on the stage”!

[Norman Lamb]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady made the point not made by her Front-Bench spokesperson, which is that this is a long-standing problem. The disadvantage suffered by mental health has been there for a long time. Indeed, it was exacerbated, if I may say so, by the fact that access and waiting time standards were introduced for physical health, but the previous Government left out mental health. If that happens, it dictates where the money goes. That, combined with a funding system that sucks money into acute hospitals but which in mental health relies on a block contract, means that mental health always loses out. It is this Government who are determined to change that to ensure that mental health is finally treated equally.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Government can take credit for great progress in eliminating mixed-sex wards. The Home Secretary had some very encouraging things to say about children with mental health problems in police custody, and in the Department for Education great strides have been made in respect of kids in residential care homes not being placed well away from home. Many of us fought very hard during the passage of the Mental Health Act 2007 to get rid of the practice of children being placed in adult wards far from home. Will the Minister now, with the same urgency that led to those other successes, ensure that that is eliminated at last? In many cases it is not in the best interests of deeply troubled children.

[Norman Lamb]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he did in his campaigning on the Mental Health Act and more recently as a Children’s Minister in the Department for Education. I know his passion for the subject and I share his view that it is intolerable that children and young people should go to adult wards. It has been a long-standing issue—it is not new—but it should not happen, just as it should not be the case that children are still placed in police cells. That is why I take the view that we need to ban it in law so that it cannot happen, and there are consequences if it ever does happen.

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

I do not question the Minister’s commitment to mental health. He is a great champion of parity of esteem, but he is part of a Government who are cutting money for mental health services. For young people in 2015 to be put in police cells is totally unacceptable. To pick up the point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) about CAMHS, is it not time not only for a fundamental review but for a new system, including the abolition of the present CAMHS system?

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks—perhaps he ought to talk to his Front-Bench colleagues about my commitment. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that although there is quite a mixed picture across the country, in many areas there has been disinvestment in children’s mental health services. They are local decisions, and they are not decisions that I accept. That is why I made the serious point about the absolute importance of introducing waiting time and access standards, including in children’s mental health services. We need data so that we can monitor performance against those standards, and we need a payments system that does not disadvantage mental health. I also share his view that we need to change the way services are organised and commissioned so that we focus much more on prevention.

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

Does the Minister accept that this is a matter not only of funding but of philosophy? Does he agree that part of the problem is that certain primary care trusts have adopted a philosophy of cutting in-patient beds generally? For example, adult beds have been cut by 35% in areas as far apart as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). Does he detect any rowing back from that rather extreme philosophy in the near future?

[Norman Lamb]

We want to try to ensure that when there is a crisis, a bed is available locally. With regard to the philosophy of seeking to reduce the tendency to have long periods of in-patient care—institutionalising people—it is absolutely right that we move away from that and focus far more on early intervention, community support and recovery. That is the general trend in progressive views within mental health. However, there must be a bed available when a crisis occurs.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Minister generously attended the launch of the report by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, which showed that one third of local authorities have no suicide prevention plan. Has he found any correlation between the lack of such a plan, poor CAMHS provision and a high incidence of suicide, particularly among young men?

[Norman Lamb]

May I first pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her inspiring work on suicide? Not many people in the House focus on issues that are talked about so seldom, so I pay tribute to her for the brilliant leadership she has shown. The all-party group’s report provides some really interesting and important questions of the sort that she has put to me today. These are questions that we need to ask. We have not yet established that link, but I think that it enables us to start asking local areas those questions. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about the ambition of avoiding every suicide. We can improve services across the board by focusing much more on preventing conditions deteriorating to the point where someone becomes so desperate that they choose to take their own life.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement of an extra £7 million, although I do not know whether it will be enough. I am very pleased, on behalf of constituents in Devon and Cornwall, that we have a new facility opening in Torquay—it is not yet fully open—and hope that the Minister can visit it. I also welcome the fact that he is reviewing the place of safety designation, although I question whether that actually requires legislation. The case that occurred in my constituency raised something that he has not yet mentioned: the problem that a person trying to find an appropriate place has no central register to look at. If we want a hotel room, we can go online and find a vacancy, but finding a vacancy in an appropriate setting seems to take an enormous amount of time.

[Norman Lamb]

The case in my hon. Friend’s constituency highlighted an incredibly important issue. The lessons that are being learned as a result of that incident will result in improved co-ordination and reducing the risk of that sort of thing happening. It was completely intolerable that that young girl ended up in a police cell for that length of time, and we should all be completely clear about that. The crisis care concordat makes the objective clear. We asked every area to sign up—and every area did so by December—to committing to implement the standards in the concordat, one of which is to end the practice of under-18s going into police cells. I think we need to go further and ban it in law.

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

It is just over a year since 35 mental health beds at Medway Maritime hospital were closed. As those closures and the associated changes in Kent were referred to the Health Secretary, will the Minister review whether the changes promised to community care, particularly for some degree of residential provision in Medway, have taken place? Is he satisfied with current provision?

[Norman Lamb]

I am happy to look into that for the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he can come along to one of my Monday evening advice sessions and we can discuss it further. It is clearly important that the right provision is available in his area.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I welcome the new funding announced by the Minister. Surely one way of reducing pressure on in-patient beds is to expand mental health assessments within youth custody facilities and expand treatment within those facilities. What co-ordination is there between his Department and the Ministry of Justice on that issue?

[Norman Lamb]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. There is a lot of co-ordination between the two Departments. Indeed, he may be aware of a new taskforce set up by the Deputy Prime Minister to co-ordinate Departments’ work on mental health. There is a plan to roll out the liaison and diversion service nationally by 2017. No other country in the world is doing this on such an industrial scale, in order to ensure that someone who turns up at a police station or a court with an identifiable mental health problem gets referred for treatment. That is really exciting.

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

The Minister is right about this. In the 10 years for which I chaired the Education Committee, I knew that child mental health services were not as good as they could have been. We now have a crisis. In the past, we patched things together with a partnership among children’s services, the local authority, mental health services in hospitals, and GPs. That partnership has been broken, mainly by the reforms that the coalition Government have introduced in commissioning and the fragmentation of so much else. The earlier a child is diagnosed and treated with therapeutic help, the better. At the moment, that is not happening. This is not just about beds; it is also about early intervention.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree. However, I caution the Opposition about going around declaring a crisis every second day, because the picture is very varied around the country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about any unacceptable things that are happening. He makes a very good point about co-ordinating services much better. Indeed, a central focus of the children’s mental health taskforce is to try to ensure that we get much better, co-ordinated commissioning of care.

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

In my capacity as chair of the all-party group on mental health, I recently visited the Elms centre in Dudley, which is providing an excellent CAMHS service for the people of the borough. It is important to recognise that there are very high-quality CAMHS services in certain areas of the country, although we accept that there is variability. Does the Minister agree that the challenge is not just about the order of magnitude of resources but about ensuring that commissioners are prioritising CAMHS at a local level so that they make the right decisions about the sort of provision that is required in their area?

[Norman Lamb]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he does on mental health. He is another champion of mental health in this House. I also pay tribute to the people in the service in Dudley that he mentioned. I have visited a fantastic children and young people’s mental health service in Accrington in Lancashire—one of the six pilots on using psychological therapies for people with severe and enduring mental ill-health. He makes a very good point. We need to celebrate great care where we find it, and also ensure that commissioners, in local authorities and in clinical commissioning groups, take this seriously. The trouble is that when there are no standards at all in mental health, it is very easy for people quietly to cut back, thinking that they can get away with it. That is why I want to ensure that people suffering mental ill-health have exactly the same right to access treatment as anyone else.

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

It was interesting to hear the Minister say that he has learned lessons from the incident in Torbay, because there was exactly the same incident over a year ago in my constituency. A young person who had committed a violent offence found themselves in a police cell for 36 hours. I spent the best part of the day working with officers involved with mental health from the local authority and the health service, desperately trying to find an appropriate place for that person’s particular behavioural issue. They had not got a list. We looked at a place in Somerset that had closed, probably thanks to the 6% cuts. Will the Minister help Members of the House by placing in the Library a list of where the beds are and what the specialisms are? It would be enormously helpful to us, and certainly to those working in that field.

[Norman Lamb]

I would be happy to provide as much information as possible—I have no need to keep anything secret and I would like to assist as much as I can. Again, I caution that children and young people turning up in police cells has been happening, quietly and unnoticed, for a very long time, but the truth is that the numbers are coming down. That is good, but I want it to stop altogether.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The Minister has been supportive of my work to secure specialist adolescent mental health services in Cornwall. When he next comes to Cornwall, will he meet me and local commissioners to see how we can benefit from new money and plans that have been communicated today?

[Norman Lamb]

If the diary allows I am certainly up for that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work she has done in her county in trying to improve children’s mental health services. We must do that across the country, and there are many examples of real and significant improvements.

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

We are discussing young people, and Natalie Carmichael has e-mailed me. She is 17, lives in Hull and suffers from anorexia nervosa, yet she had to go to Manchester—more than two and a half hours away—to access 24-hour care. She states:

“The illness itself is distressing enough…but I feel it made it ten times more traumatic the fact that I was hundreds of miles away from home and I couldn’t reach to my family for comfort and support in the tough experience I was battling.”

What does the Minister say to Natalie?

[Norman Lamb]

I find it as intolerable as she does, and that is why we are investing to improve access to beds in the locality. Indeed, we identified the hon. Lady’s region as an area where there were shortages of beds for children and young people’s mental health, and we have taken action to increase that number.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Which is the best CAMHS service in the country, why can it do it when others cannot, and what is stopping its best practice from being copied?

[Norman Lamb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and there are many excellent mental health services, as the hon. Member for somewhere in Birmingham—[Interruption.]—for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), said earlier. If some areas can do things well with the available resources, then other areas can too. It is also true that some areas have chosen to cut funding for children’s mental health, in my view inappropriately.

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

Birmingham is one of the fastest growing younger cities in Europe—40% of its population is under 25, and 30% under 15. Combined with local authority cuts of £281 per head in the next financial year, and a totally dysfunctional commissioning system, does the Minister seriously think that even the good intentions of the children and young person’s taskforce will address the problems we already have, as well as those that we can see coming but have no means of remedying?

[Norman Lamb]

Again, I gently make the point that we all, on both sides of the House, have to recognise the need over the next five years to make better use of the resources available. The hon. Lady’s own party does not propose ring-fencing local authority funding for the provision of mental health services at the lower tier level. We all have to work on making more effective use of the money, and I genuinely think that the taskforce is an opportunity to modernise how we organise services, particularly commissioning—having four different commissioners does not create the best chance of co-ordinating services.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Like many in the House, I recognise the Minister’s commitment to this important issue. I speak to young people and teachers, and there is a growing recognition of the importance of mental health services for adolescent children. What research has the Minister undertaken to better understand the root courses of the mental health challenges facing young people today, particularly the impact of social media?

[Norman Lamb]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight an emerging and growing phenomenon causing increased distress for some young people. The prevalence survey, for which we now have the funding for 2015-16, is a massive opportunity to understand much better the scale of the problem we are seeking to deal with.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

In 2012, the Education Select Committee called CAMHS in this country a “national disgrace” and urged that the Department for Education and the Department of Health urgently get together to avoid the crisis we are seeing today. In the meantime, we have seen cuts in services, provision and funding, leading to the chaos today. I am incredibly unhappy with the complacency of the Minister’s answers. It is almost as if he is a spectator. He is the Minister with responsibility, and the answer is not a taskforce two years down the line or a prevalence survey five years down the line; it is to take action now.

[Norman Lamb]

I am left totally confused. The hon. Lady has just referred to my complacency, whereas the person who was just sitting next to her, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), paid tribute to my passion in fighting for mental health services. So which is it?

If there was any substance to the hon. Lady’s question, it concerned the importance of mental health services and education working more effectively together and, as was said earlier, the role of schools. As a result of the taskforce, I think we can achieve much better collaboration among schools and mental health services. I also point out, as have hon. Members on her own side, that this is a long-standing problem that goes back far beyond 2010.

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

The Minister might remember that I wrote to him about a local family who went through a living hell when a young girl was sent from East Northamptonshire to a hospital in Bury, where she was left for weeks; where there was conflicting advice about whether she should be there at all; and where the family felt she was getting worse not better. Will he look specifically at provision in Northamptonshire, particularly the provision of beds for teenagers, and reflect that, to be fair to CAMHS in Northamptonshire, ours is one of the worst-funded areas for health care in the whole country—way off the NHS England target?

[Norman Lamb]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is campaigning on this matter—he is right to do so—and I would be very happy to talk to him further about this case. The circumstances he describes are intolerable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said, the frustration is that, if some services and commissioners can avoid that, why does it happen in other areas of the country? However, I would be happy to discuss the matter with him.

Points of Order

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

16:13

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In written parliamentary question 221790, I sought information from the Home Office about funding allocated to the child abuse inquiry for the 2014-15 financial year and for future years. I received the answer:

“We will ensure appropriate funding”.

Given that we are nearly three quarters of the way through this financial year, I would expect the Home Office to have that information readily available. I also feel it is disrespectful to Parliament not to provide the detailed information requested in a parliamentary question. Can you offer me any guidance, Mr Speaker, on how to take the matter further?

[Mr Speaker]

Responses from Ministers to questions should be timely, and it is also widely expected that answers will be as forthcoming and copious as the circumstances require. As the hon. Lady will know, the content of answers is not a matter for the Chair. In my experience, the hon. Lady is both an extremely assiduous Chamber attender and a very dextrous parliamentarian. I rather imagine that she will be troubling—in the perfectly proper sense of the term—the Table Office on a regular basis with further inquiries. I have never been a Minister, but if I were one, and on the receiving end of a regular spate of inquiries from the hon. Lady, there would be a point at which I would think, “Well, it is probably better to give a full answer if such exists; otherwise, I shall just be chased to the end of the earth.” We will leave it there for now.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that, back on 22 June 2009, you spoke before Parliament about Speaker Onslow, who was in office for more than 30 years. You said that if elected, you had given your commitment to serve no longer than nine years in total. I just wondered—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. As has just been pointed out to me by the acting Clerk, whom I know the hon. Gentleman rightly respects, that is not a point of order. I have nothing to add and we will leave it there.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice. As a result of delays and confusion among Government Departments, my question, which would have addressed Government proposals to deny the people of Greater Manchester a vote on their mayor until 2019, was denied entry to the correct Department—the Department for Communities and Local Government—whose Question Time took place earlier today. Given that the people of Greater Manchester have not been given any opportunity to challenge these proposals, is there anything within your powers that you can do, Mr Speaker, to ensure that the Government cannot show the same sort of contempt that they have shown to the people to those who sit in this Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point of order. My understanding, from advice, is that an error was made by the Table Office, for which an apology has been made. I hope in the circumstances that that meets the needs of the case, but if the hon. Lady thinks otherwise, I dare say she will return to it.

[Lisa Nandy]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

If I have not got the point to which she wants a response, I will do my best to do so.

[Lisa Nandy]

My understanding from the Table Office is that there has been considerable confusion within Government about which Government Department is going to take responsibility for the proposals that are currently being rushed through the parliamentary process. Today’s Question Time was one of the very few opportunities before the general election for anybody to be able to shine a spotlight on what is happening. I understand that because of the delays and confusion, the question was incorrectly taken out of the shuffle by the Table Office.

[Mr Speaker]

My immediate response to the hon. Lady is that Ministers must take responsibility for the content of answers and, collectively, the Government have a judgment to make about which Minister will answer a particular question. I am happy further to reflect on the matter; and if, having done so, I have anything new that I can vouchsafe either to the hon. Lady or the House, I shall be happy to oblige.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, during questions to the Department for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made reference to the ancient county of Lancashire. As a patron and friend of the Real Lancashire society, I want to ensure that it is put on record that between 1168 and 1351, it would have been correct to refer to Lancashire. However, following an Act of 1351, the status of county palatine was granted to Lancashire because of its strategic importance in defending England from the Scots. This position was restated in correspondence by the Duchy of Lancaster in 1992 and 1996. It confirmed that the newly constituted councils such as Manchester and Merseyside did not affect the duchy and the county palatine of Lancashire or its boundaries, which remain the same as they were in the pre-1888 geographical county. Given that, Mr Speaker, I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and I will rejoice that both of our constituencies remain enclosed within the ancient county palatine of Lancashire.

[Mr Speaker]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I will carry the House with me when I say that that was not a point of order, but a point of political geography. It was certainly learned, and we are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

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

Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that there is much of a “further”, but having indulged the political-geography enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), it would seem churlish to deny a similar prerogative to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the history of the county palatine of Lancashire. However, I wish to place on record that not all my constituency is in the county palatine; in fact, Dukinfield is on the Cheshire side of the River Tame.

[Mr Speaker]

We are also obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is. It would be a remarkable state of affairs if we could now have a point of order.

[James Morris]

During the urgent question, Mr Speaker, the Care Minister—inadvertently, I think—referred to me as “the Member for somewhere in Birmingham”. I think it important to place on record that, as the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, I represent a black-country constituency in the west midlands.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point, and I am sure that people in his constituency will be as well. I remember visiting the area, and the distinction that the hon. Gentleman has made is extremely important.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Defence Committee on the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, HC 508, and the Government response, HC 900.]

Second Reading

16:21

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

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

Our armed forces risk their lives to safeguard our peace and prosperity, and their welfare must therefore be a priority for any Government. This Government have shown their determination to meet their obligations to our servicemen and women and their families by enshrining the armed forces covenant in law and taking real action to improve the support available to our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and women and, of course, marines.

We have given members of the armed forces priority in relation to health care, on the basis of clinical need, and we have supported their needs in relation to housing and school admissions. We have improved primary health care by integrating our single-service medical and dental centres. We have improved opportunities for service personnel to buy their own homes through our very successful Forces Help To Buy scheme. We have helped service children to find stability in schools by increasing funding for education to approximately £6 million a year, and we are helping service personnel to gain access to selected credit unions by providing payroll deduction.

We recognise, however, that the obligation to support our armed forces goes far beyond central Government, and I have been impressed by the willingness of others to play their part. Every local authority in Great Britain has now signed a community covenant pledging support for the armed forces communities in its area, and more than 360 companies—from big banks and supermarkets to small businesses—have signed the corporate covenant pledging their support. Together, they are providing employment assistance, guaranteed interview schemes, and backing for our reserves campaign.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all our local authorities. I wrote to each and every one, topping and tailing each letter. That seems to have paid off, because I have been inundated with responses from local authorities throughout Great Britain, of all political persuasions, describing in detail how seriously they take their commitment to the community covenant. I hope that all Members will now seize the opportunity to ensure that the covenant is delivered locally.

There is, however, no room for complacency. The Bill is intended to ensure that we continue to do the right thing by our armed forces personnel. It improves the system for the handling of complaints in the armed forces, and it ensures that we can provide funds for organisations that support the armed forces community, wherever they are based.

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

I am sure that the Minister will know that the people of Coventry and Warwickshire take particular pride in the welfare of their armed forces. Can she confirm the level of support she is getting from Coventry and Warwickshire?

[Anna Soubry]

I can. I cannot off the top of my head remember whether one of the many letters I received was from the two authorities, but I would not be surprised, if I can put it that way. I have genuinely been seriously impressed by the work that is happening in local authorities. I do not care what political party is running those authorities. I hope they sing this out, particularly if they are looking forward to elections.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister ensure that other Government Departments fully participate in enforcing the covenant? I have a case of a couple who have had to move twice recently to meet the husband’s requirements in the armed services. The wife is a nurse. She was on maternity leave. There was a delay in getting a job at a new hospital in the new place they were going to. The Government are now demanding all the maternity pay back because she was a few days out of time. That is not helpful and does not seem to be in the spirit of the covenant.

[Anna Soubry]

On the basis of what my right hon. Friend has just said, I would agree. I urge him, and any other hon. Member, to come to see me. I would have no difficulty in taking up whatever case it may be on behalf of a constituent or an hon. Member. I would be happy to do that. He makes a good point. It is imperative that we work across government. I am pleased that that includes working with local authorities.

Our armed forces do not have the same opportunities for redress on employment issues as civilians—they do not, for example, routinely have access to employment tribunals. We must therefore ensure that there is a robust system in place to deal with any complaints they may have in connection with their service. Such a system needs to be able to deal with grievances quickly and fairly. When it comes to speed, we know that there are some serious failings in the existing system.

That is not just right in principle but is essential for operational effectiveness. If a group of men and women are happy and content in their work, it goes without saying that they will work well, whatever the circumstances of their work may be. Having unresolved complaints breeds discontent, which can undermine morale and diminish our fighting capability.

I turn now to the specific proposals in the Bill. The existing complaints system was set up by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and covers all three services. Many complaints are dealt with promptly and successfully, but we accept that performance is still not good enough and that it can be significantly improved.

It is good to remind the House at this stage of some of the statistics. Fewer than 1% of our service personnel feel that they have any need to raise a grievance and use the complaints system. Of the complaints that are made, it is interesting to note that the majority are not about bullying, harassment and discrimination. It is fair and right to say that those are the most serious complaints, but I note that in the Navy, for example, 10%—I am not going to say only 10%, because 10% is too many —of complaints are about bullying, harassment and discrimination; the overwhelming majority relate to pay, conditions and allowances.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen the briefing from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? It says that

“there are compelling legal and practical arguments for removing the requirement in section 121 of the Equality Act 2010 for a service complaint to be raised before a discrimination claim is made to the employment tribunal.”

Does she agree that members of the armed forces facing discrimination should have greater rights to go to an employment tribunal?

[Anna Soubry]

I do not think it is as simple and as straightforward as that. As evidence emerges, one of the things we are finding is that more members of the armed forces—notably women—rightly feel more able to make clear allegations, which doubtless are well founded, of bullying, harassment and so on, and that often such grievances are settled privately. What I mean by that is not that they are settled in some cosy way, in a corridor, but that people do not necessarily have formally to go through the grievance system. I am open to making sure we get the right result, and I certainly want to make sure nobody in our armed forces suffers from any form of discrimination, bullying or harassment, but the way in which we achieve that is perhaps the debate to be had—we are all agreed absolutely on the aim.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) will, I know, have noticed that 10% of Royal Navy cases were for bullying, harassment or discrimination, and that the figure is 43% for our Army and 38% for the RAF. The figures show that, as we know, we have considerably more to do to make sure that it does not matter what anyone’s sex or sexual orientation is, and that they should be free within our armed forces, and indeed anywhere else, from any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination. I wanted to put on record the fact that the majority of cases are about pay, pensions and allowances.

In her annual report, published on 27 March last year, former Service Complaints Commissioner Dr Susan Atkins could not provide an assurance that the current system was operating efficiently, effectively or fairly. That is of concern not only to everyone in this House but, I assure Members, to all Ministers in the MOD, and rightly so.

It is only right and fair that at this stage I pay tribute to the great work that Dr Susan Atkins did in her time as commissioner. I found it a great pleasure to work with her. I think she started her job in a different place from where she ended it, and I think she made huge strides. I have no doubt that she faced many difficulties in her appointment, but she seized them robustly, she took no prisoners, and she undoubtedly improved the system. I hope that the members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who I know took a keen interest in her work, will agree with my assessment of the great work she did, and that we will sorely miss her.

I also think I speak on behalf of everybody—and if I do not, I will be intervened on, no doubt—when I say that we have an excellent replacement in Nicola Williams, who will be our first service complaints ombudsman. She, too, is an outstanding individual and, if I may say so, an outstanding woman.

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

As a member of the Committee when Nicola was interviewed, may I say that I was deeply impressed by the way she stood up, with good humour and resilience, to some tough questioning? Does my hon. Friend agree that what is particularly important about this Bill, given some people’s fears that the chain of command system could be subverted or clogged up, is that proposed new section 340I(1) to the Armed Forces Act 2006 states that the ombudsman has complete discretion

“to determine whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation”?

Does she agree that that is an important safeguard?

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely do, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible, common-sense words. I join him in paying tribute—again—to Nicola Williams, and I think he will agree with me about Dr Atkins, too.

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. I think—and hope—that there will be some debate and argument, and I was going to pay tribute to the Defence Committee for the great work it has done over a number of years in wanting to make huge changes to the role of the Service Complaints Commissioner.

I anticipate that we in this House will not necessarily agree on everything, although I would like to think we will be able to find a way of agreeing. The most important point, however, is that we agree on the principles of the Bill. We agree on what we are all seeking to achieve—apart from the thematic, which I know will separate us. We are all absolutely agreed in wanting to make sure we have an ombudsman who acts and works without fear or favour, who is rigorous in their investigation, and who puts the person—the individual—at the heart of all the work they do.

One of the great joys of the Bill is that it is not overly prescriptive, and that is very much right. We want our ombudsman to have free rein. I am told that Susan Atkins would visit units and, if she was concerned about incidents or that people felt they could not raise a grievance or a complaint, she did not hesitate in taking that up, not just with Ministers but with the chiefs of staff. She certainly had the sort of determination and brave, rigorous approach that we are all agreed on, and which we will see—I do not doubt—in Nicola Williams.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am delighted by what the Government are doing in the Bill—it is excellent news. How can we be sure that the ombudsman will act swiftly? May I also agree with the Minister entirely on employment tribunals? Thank goodness the Government have not gone down that road. As a former soldier, I think that would be a disaster and would seriously undermine the discipline of a unit and the Army as a whole.

[Anna Soubry]

It is always difficult when, on one side of the argument, some people are not quite convinced by the Bill and, on the other side, other people are also not convinced by it. We are in the middle, and I am convinced that we have got the balance right. The chain of command need not think that they have anything to fear or that they will be undermined by the creation of the ombudsman and the new system. Equally, we have satisfied those who want a more rigorous approach to ensure that genuine grievances, which cannot be raised in the normal way by virtue of service, will be properly dealt with, and that if they are not—when maladministration is alleged—they will be properly investigated.

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that the Bill is long overdue and most welcome. How wide is the remit of the ombudsman? Does it stick at maladministration, or can it go further? The Minister said she wanted people to have every opportunity to raise their concerns. How far is she prepared to see that go?

[Anna Soubry]

I could be rude to the hon. Gentleman and suggest that he read the Bill. It is clear that it provides for an ombudsman in the traditional sense of someone who investigates when a complaint of maladministration has made. The definition of maladministration is broad, but we are clear that we are putting in place a new complaints system. As a result, we now have an ombudsman. That is not another level of appeal: it means that someone whose grievance has been flawed through maladministration and not been dealt with properly can take their complaint to the ombudsman, who will see whether there has been maladministration. The ombudsman will have the breadth of remit to go into the detail of the allegation of administration, and then to report without fear or favour and with rigour. At any stage and at any time, the ombudsman can go to any of the chiefs of staff or any Minister—most importantly, of course, the Secretary of State—and has complete freedom, should he or she so wish, to go to any member of the press and say, “Something is happening here that I am not happy about”, or to the Chair of the Select Committee and say, “This is something that I have found out and I am concerned about.”

In many ways, those are the great freedoms, but it is clear in the Bill that the ombudsman is appointed to look at maladministration—never forgetting that it is the individual who has raised a grievance, sought redress, felt that they have not got it through the system and have exhausted their appeals who will go to the ombudsman on the basis of maladministration, like many of those who go to an ombudsman.

We have drafted regulations that deal with the new system of complaints. Hon. Members have rightly raised the criticism—Dr Susan Atkins also complained about it—that too often there is too much delay. That is wrong, and that is why it is imperative that we reform the system. When we have the ombudsman in place, he or she must be in a position to conclude that delay is part of maladministration. He or she will be able to look specifically at that and take their recommendations to the Defence Council if need be. I have confidence that action will be taken accordingly.

[Mr Redwood]

Given that so many complaints are about pay, allowances and other financial matters, is there more that Ministers can do to ensure that more armed service personnel can buy a property of their own before they leave the armed forces, so that they do not become homeless when they leave their contract?

[Anna Soubry]

We have set up the Help to Buy scheme. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think that the scheme has now received nearly 3,000 successful applications. It has been hugely successful. In my limited experience, if members of our armed forces think that something is good, it will spread like wildfire, and that seems to be happening. The attitude that the Government take is that people should have a choice. Not everyone wants to buy their own home—it does not suit everybody—but we must give every opportunity to those who want to do so, because we believe in a property-owning democracy.

I have mentioned the House of Commons Defence Committee, and I want to pay tribute to its work over many years in advancing the cause of putting in place a proper complaints system and a service complaints ombudsman. I look forward to the ensuing debate with members of the Committee. I am sure that we will agree on many things, and that we can work together on them.

Clause 1 creates a new service complaints ombudsman to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner. Clause 2 replaces the existing service complaints system with a new and improved framework. I believe that it should be the armed forces that are responsible for dealing with any complaints from service personnel. That is the right way to do it. It is for the services to ensure that complaints are dealt with fairly and that the appropriate redress is given when complaints are upheld. When something has gone wrong, it is for the services to put it right. It is their responsibility and no one else’s.

The role of the ombudsman should therefore be to ensure that the systems are working effectively and that complaints are properly dealt with. The ombudsman’s oversight of the system will also put them in a unique position to identify lessons for further improvement, which will benefit individuals and the services more widely. The service chiefs are content that the proposals set out in the Bill strike the right balance between creating strong and independent oversight and maintaining the authority of the chain of command. The former Service Complaints Commissioner was also fully involved in developing the reforms.

A central feature of the new system is that the service complaints ombudsman, unlike the current commissioner, will have a power to consider whether a service complaint has been handled properly. If the ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration, and potentially injustice, in the handling of a complaint, he or she will make recommendations to the Defence Council to put things right. This could include, for example, reconsidering the complaint or rerunning a particular part of the process. The Defence Council will remain responsible for any decisions arising from the ombudsman’s recommendations, but it would need to give rational reasons for rejecting any recommendation.

The Bill also makes other changes. It gives service personnel the right to apply to the ombudsman if they believe that the handling of their complaint has been subject to maladministration. It will reduce the number of appeal levels, which will speed up the process while remaining fair. It includes a new process of assigning a complaint to someone who has the authority to deal with it and give appropriate redress. It gives the ombudsman a new role at an early stage of the complaints procedure. When the chain of command has decided not to allow a complaint to be considered within the service complaints system because, for example, it is out of time or excluded on other grounds, a service person could ask the ombudsman to determine whether that decision was correct. A decision by the ombudsman will be final. The ombudsman will have a similar role in respect of appeals decided as out of time. The ombudsman will also retain the vital role of offering an alternative route for a serviceman or woman who does not wish, or is unable, to approach the chain of command directly, to have their concerns fed into the system. That is an important safeguard, especially where there are allegations of bullying or harassment.

Finally, the requirement to report annually on the operation of the system will remain, ensuring that there is proper accountability to Parliament. I just wish to re-emphasise that the ombudsman has access to any Minister and any member of any Committee in this place and also has the freedom to go to the media, should he or she wish to do so. So, over and above the annual report, they have an unshackled freedom to report without fear or favour their findings in relation to any particular grievance.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does that mean that there is a provision for whistleblowers in the armed forces?

[Anna Soubry]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a completely different issue. As members of the armed forces do not have the same access and rights as other workers, this Bill ensures that they have a rigorous complaints system, so that when they have a grievance, whether it is about an allowance or because someone is bullying or harassing them, they can make a complaint, which will be taken seriously and dealt with in an efficient and fair manner. If it is found that that complaint is right and it is upheld, there will then be efficient redress. So this is about individuals and their grievances. Whistleblowing is a different matter and does not sit within the service’s complaints, and I do not think that anybody would want it to do so.

May I now deal with the remainder of the Bill, which is, I am happy to say, uncontentious? I am talking about the financial assistance to organisations that support our armed forces community. The voluntary and community sector has a long history of supporting our services personnel, veterans and their families. Many of those groups are small and locally based and run by dedicated volunteers and they have the greatest understanding of the sort of caring and focused support that is needed. The Government need to work in partnership with those organisations and that includes providing financial assistance where appropriate.

Over the past four years, the Government have given £105 million to such groups to help them deliver the commitments of the covenant. That money has been used to deliver everything from veterans’ accommodation to short breaks for families with disabled children. The groups range from huge organisations—some of our greatest and biggest charities—right down to very small local charities delivering right at a local level.

We are also looking at how the future armed forces covenant grant fund, set at £10 million a year in future—it is set in perpetuity—will be managed. If we are to make the most of that money, we must ensure that it goes to the right places. Organisations working with the armed forces community are based throughout the United Kingdom and beyond, and we want them to be able to benefit from this money wherever they are located.

Under existing legislation, we can fund charities and make payments to local authorities that benefit serving personnel in Great Britain but not to veterans in Scotland. We have navigated those constraints on a temporary basis, but clause 4 enables us to deal with them in the long term by allowing payments to organisations anywhere in the world.

The Bill has already gone through detailed scrutiny in the House of Lords where there was widespread support for its aims. There was a clear consensus on the need for reform of the complaints system although there were, of course, different views on the detail of those reforms. In particular, there was extensive debate on whether the ombudsman should be able to investigate wider issues beyond those covered by individual complaints. I am sure that this will be discussed further as the Bill proceeds through the House. No doubt we will be hearing from Members on this matter. I am happy for them to intervene on me now. It is an important matter and I know that people feel very strongly about it. I do not have any fear about engaging in that debate, although I will not intervene on any speeches from Back-Bench Members if they make the points that I anticipate.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trailing her coat in such an attractive way. Might I ask why she is so set against thematic reports to be produced by the ombudsman, which was recommended by the wonderful Dr Susan Atkins?

[Anna Soubry]

I disagree with my right hon. Friend’s interpretation of Dr Atkins’s views. Obviously, I have seen the Select Committee’s excellent report. I may be wrong—I am quite happy to be corrected if I am—but I do not think she said that we should go as far as thematic reviews.

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

As a point of information, I spoke to Dr Susan Atkins this morning and she was very clear that she believes that thematic reviews should be conducted.

[Anna Soubry]

So that is her view now. With great respect to Dr Atkins, I do not agree with her and I will—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

Hang on—I’m going to make the argument before I get intervened on again. I have been very generous.

The ombudsman will look at service complaints and the Bill seeks to ensure that complaints by individuals with a grievance will be dealt with fairly and expeditiously and that justice will be done. In my view, the ombudsman should not look at any wider issues that may come up. I will give an example to support my argument.

Let us say that three people in a unit make a complaint about bullying and it is found that that complaint is justified. As a result, there is redress and the two individuals who have bullied them are punished by being removed from their posts or demoted. That is the end of the matter and it never gets to the ombudsman, who knows nothing about it because justice has been done.

What if, however, the three complainants feel that justice has not been done because their complaint has not been upheld and they believe that there has been maladministration in the way in which it has been handled? They would then go to the ombudsman, who would look at whether the complaint has been the subject of maladministration. The ombudsman might then say, “I have found that there has been maladministration and as a result of my findings I am making the following recommendations to the Defence Council.” If, at any stage of her investigation, she believes that there has been systemic, systematic bullying in that particular unit, she can go to the service chiefs, any Minister, media or Member of Parliament and say, “I think there’s a lot of bullying going on in this unit. This is outrageous and wrong and I want you to do something about it.”

It should not be the ombudsman’s job, however, to then conduct an inquiry into that bullying. That is the job of the armed forces or perhaps some other body. The ombudsman’s job is to make sure that we have a good, efficient and fair complaints system. With all due respect, that is what the ombudsman should be concentrating on where they should be using their resources. If they start to investigate a systemic or systematic form of bullying in a particular unit, it is my respectful submission that they would be way out of their remit and treading on to the territory of others. That does not mean that I am being by any means soft on the complaint, because the ombudsman is the person who will highlight it, but it is for others, not the service complaints ombudsman, to decide on a full inquiry and make sure that proper action is taken. That is my argument.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I accept that, but the hon. Lady is wrong. My understanding of Dr Atkins’s views is exactly the same as that of the Defence Committee Chair. Since her appointment she has pushed the boundaries. If the ombudsman is going to look just at maladministration, may I suggest that the Minister speaks to Lynn Farr from Daniel’s Trust and other families who have worked with Susan Atkins? The Minister might have great faith in the ability of some of the senior military to make major changes—cultural change and actual change—but that will not be done without an external body at least giving them a gentle push.

[Anna Soubry]

But the gentle push exactly is the service complaints ombudsman. If they find that there is bullying or harassment in a particular place—in a unit or whatever it may be—they have the ability to make sure everybody is aware of what is going on, but I do not believe it is then their job to investigate it. That would be a diminution of their work, which is to look at complaints, and make sure that individual grievances have full access to a system that works expeditiously and gets to the point of justice. She can raise these concerns—there is nothing to stop her—which is why I was such a great supporter of Nicola Williams, because she will absolutely be robust. However, such an investigation is not and should not be the ombudsman’s job, especially given the resources available to the ombudsman; their job is to look at the service complaints and deal with those individual grievances. I could be cheeky and say that if the hon. Gentleman thought this was such a great idea, why did he not do it in 13 years, but that might be a little underhand—

[Mr Jones]

I will tell you why I did not do it.

[Anna Soubry]

And I will hear the hon. Gentleman. But if such an investigation is what he wants, somebody else should do it. It should not be in this Bill and it is not for this ombudsman; this is about service complaints.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I was going to take the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if the two of them are going to fight, I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister asks why we did not do this in 13 years, but she just needs to look at my record, including my time on the last Defence Committee, and at the last Labour Government’s record, to know the answer. I argued for this, as did the Select Committee, back in 2004, but, as she knows, those in the chain of command do not like radical change. I see this as a process—we are getting to where we should have been 10 years ago—but I must say that the most vociferous arguments against bringing this in over 10 years ago came from the Conservative Front Benchers.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for the factual explanation that has been given.

[Mrs Moon]

The Minister has set out clearly that where complaints come to the commissioner and she begins to see thematic things happening, she can go to the chain of command. She can go the Secretary of State and she can highlight that, but during the entire time the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces has been in post, the Secretary of State, having had those reports, has had the power to ask for an investigation and has never done so. That is why we need the Secretary of State to pass those powers to the ombudsman, so that she can investigate.

[Anna Soubry]

I am struggling to have much sympathy with that argument, because it is certainly my experience that allegations are taken extremely seriously by the Secretary of State, and indeed by any other Minister in the Ministry of Defence. It is also my experience of the service chiefs, notably the new head of the Army—the new Chief of the General Staff—that on issues of bullying, harassment and the role of women and any discrimination against women, they are extremely rigorous. In every conversation and meeting I have ever had with the Chief of the General Staff, even when I might have wanted to talk about one or two matters as well as the role of women, he has insisted that we speak about that, such is his determination to eradicate harassment, bullying and sexual discrimination in the Army. We have seen a huge sea change, and it is to be welcomed, not criticised.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am grateful for the thorough way in which this matter is being put to the House tonight, but one issue has always hung over the way in which the MOD handles things. If someone makes a complaint of bullying and then, in one way or another, dies, the complaint dies with them. Under this Bill, will it be possible for the next of kin to pursue that complaint, using the ombudsman’s powers to do so?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. In the terrible circumstances in which someone dies when a complaint has started, there are many instances in which we would want that complaint to continue, most notably if it were about something that might affect somebody’s pension or allowances and would therefore be to the financial benefit of the family, or if there were a point of principle. The trouble is that when somebody makes a complaint about bullying, they make that complaint against somebody else and if that second person denies that they have bullied the first person, they are entitled to a fair hearing. In the terrible event that the first person has died, the second person cannot challenge the complaint and so the danger is that the person against whom the complaint is made is effectively denied a fair hearing because he or she cannot, in effect, query or challenge the complaint. I hope that that makes sense. It is a terribly important part of natural justice that if somebody makes a complaint against somebody else, the person being complained about should have the right to give their side of events so that whoever is determining the case can hear all the evidence on both sides and reach the right conclusion.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

What happens, though, in those circumstances, if the complainant is the one who dies but does so after they have given extensive interviews about their complaint?

[Anna Soubry]

I was talking about the fact that the person who is complained against should have the right to have their side heard, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his point. When somebody dies suddenly—especially if they have taken their own life, which is what we are talking about here, and if it is thought that there is some link between their doing so and an allegation they have made—that is serious stuff. That is why it is right that, first, there would be a service inquiry and secondly, and arguably even more importantly, there would be a full coroner’s inquest.

I do not know whether many Members have had the opportunity of attending a coroner’s inquest, but when there is a great coroner—I saw one in my county of Nottinghamshire, working on an important case with which I will not trouble the House—one can see their power. The coroner does not necessarily say that a certain person is responsible for a death, but they investigate all matters leading up to the unexpected death and have extensive powers, including being able to take evidence from people on oath. I am content that in the terrible event that somebody who has made a complaint has taken their own life, and in which it is thought that there is a link, there already exists an excellent and rigorous system that ensures that justice is done, and that is the coronial system.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am glad that the Minister has so much confidence in the coroners system. I accept that where it works well, it works well, but she also knows that there are some absolutely appalling coroners in this country. May I suggest that she looks at Mr Justice Blake’s report on Deepcut? It shows what happened to the families and how the MOD acted, and we hope that things have changed, but I would certainly argue against the idea that there is somehow a universal standard for the coroners service across the country.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sure that there are perhaps one or two bad coroners, but overwhelmingly the vast majority are outstanding and excellent and do an exceptionally good job. I might be wrong, and I will be corrected if I am, but I think that in the case of Deepcut none of the young people who died had made a complaint. Therefore, they would not have come into this system because they had not made a complaint. Although there might be a good argument that in those cases the coroner had not done a thorough job—I do not know that—we must remember that the Bill is about the complaints system. It starts with an individual making a complaint or raising a grievance on which they seek redress. We are in grave danger of not understanding what the system is and the huge distinction between the other existing processes that can ensure that we get to the root of the problem, find out what happened and make sure that justice is done.

The Bill is small and tightly focused and makes important and much-needed changes. The Select Committee on Defence published its report on the Bill on 23 October and it makes a number of recommendations on how the Bill might be amended. I am open and always have been—my door is always open, and anybody within reason can come and see me. It may be that some of those recommendations can be adopted in Committee. They will certainly be debated. With one or two of those proposals, we have identified the problem we seek to solve, but the method by which we solve it is the difficulty. I do not want overly prescriptive legislation. In defence matters, if we legislate for things and want to change them, it is difficult to get another Bill in Parliament to do so.

We have a duty to ensure that our servicemen and women know that their grievances are taken seriously and dealt with quickly, and that no complaint will be dismissed out of hand. We have a duty to ensure that we can fund those organisations that support our armed forces and their families wherever they are based. The Bill delivers the changes our brave servicemen and women deserve, and I commend it to the House.

17:05

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

The Opposition welcome the introduction of the armed forces ombudsman. The current Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces was introduced by the Labour Government as part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which came into effect in January 2008. I should tell the Minister that that was no easy task. Other hon. Members and I—a few in the Chamber served on the Defence Committee at the time—did a year-long comprehensive report on the armed forces duty of care. They know that some of the arguments put up against the further extension in the Bill were put up against the 2006 Act. It was said that somehow the earth would stop if we interfered with the chain of command and had external scrutiny of the armed forces.

We have been proved right in terms of how the Service Complaints Commissioner has worked. I pay tribute to Dr Susan Atkins, who has been so successful because she has pushed the boundaries effectively and ensured that her remit is listened to. The commissioner was introduced after the Deepcut tragedy and Lord Justice Blake’s report. The report was not only thorough but made some very good recommendations on armed forces discipline and dealing with complaints. In particular, it dealt with matters for the families of those who committed suicide. I put on record my thanks to Lynn Farr from Daniel’s Trust, who over many years, and in the tragic circumstance of her son’s death in service, not only campaigned to ensure that the system is more transparent and open but made real progress. I also pay tribute to Geoff Gray and Yvonne Collinson for their work on the deaths at Deepcut. I am on record as having said this before, but no matter what happens now we cannot bring those individuals back, and I doubt whether we can get to the truth of what happened at Deepcut. However, the work that those individuals have done has changed how the chain of command and the Government deal with young people in our armed services.

The Service Complaints Commissioner was a step forward. It was the first time that independent oversight was introduced to our armed forces. I remember at the time Conservative Opposition Members arguing that that would be the end of world, and that somehow the world would stop if there was independent oversight or if the chain of command was questioned. The world has not stopped. As the Minister rightly said, the chiefs have accepted that the commissioner has been a major step forward and has helped to increase and enhance the armed forces’ reputation, not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of those who serve. If the Bill is tightened up through some of the amendments that we will table in Committee, it can enhance that process. No one in the chain of command has anything to fear from the Bill.

The Service Complaints Commissioner drew attention to the efficiency with which complaints are dealt with and the fact that individuals can complain if they feel that something has gone wrong. There is a culture not of complaining for the sake of it, but of questioning behaviour that is not acceptable, no matter whose behaviour it is. In 2013 the armed forces attitudes survey reported that 10% of servicemen and women felt that they had been subject to discrimination, harassment or bullying in service environments in the previous 12 months. That would not be accepted in any other walk of life, and it should not be accepted for members of our armed forces.

[Richard Drax]

Having been in the armed forces myself, I know that there is always a concern about politicians getting too involved in a service in which ultimately people have to go and kill the enemy, so a different mentality is required from that in civilian life. A balance must be sought, and I hope the ombudsman will seek it and will not undermine the armed services’ discipline and readiness, in the worst situation, to kill somebody. That would undermine the unique brand that makes our armed services so special and respected around the world. It is a fine balance.

[Mr Jones]

I am glad to see that the dinosaur tendency of the Conservative party is still alive and kicking on the Back Benches. Exactly the same arguments were made against the introduction of the armed forces complaints commissioner. This is not about making the training or the discipline less rigorous; it is about behaviour that is totally unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman should read Lord Justice Blake’s report and the Select Committee report that went alongside it to see whether he can justify some of the things that went wrong then. I accept that, as the Minister says, things have moved a long way since then, but the type of behaviour that we saw was not acceptable then and is not acceptable now.

[Mrs Moon]

The argument that has just been articulated—that somehow the armed forces are different and separate—may be part of the reason why so few Members are present in the Chamber. There is a feeling that that is so. The reality is that the law is set by this House. This House sets the rules and the legislation under which the armed forces operate, and long may that last. That is how a democracy works. The service chain of command must accept that.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are making progress by changing the attitudes of some of the old and the bold in the Conservative party and changing the culture among the senior management of all three services, who accept as a fact of life that bullying, harassment and sexual discrimination are not acceptable in our armed forces and will not be tolerated. The Minister is right that the present chiefs, as I know them, take a zero-tolerance view of such behaviour, and this will support them in ensuring that it does not happen.

[Dr Lewis]

I pay tribute to the hard work of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has been a champion of the Bill. In order to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), I would share his concerns if I thought there was any danger of the system becoming clogged up with complaints that were designed to paralyse it. That is why I think that the provision in the Bill to which I referred in my intervention on the Minister is so important. The complaints commissioner has the right to investigate or not to investigate a given complaint, which avoids the danger that I think my hon. Friend would otherwise be rightly concerned about.

[Mr Jones]

All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should read the report of the debate we had when the Service Complaints Commissioner was introduced, because this is not about interfering in the chain of command. The present commissioner has done a very good job of highlighting the delays in the processes, particularly in the Army. Anyone who deals with complaints, whether in industry, local government or anywhere else, knows that it is better to resolve a matter quickly, rather than leaving it for a long period. The present commissioner has certainly been highly critical. When we look at some of the cases set out in the last report, we have to ask ourselves why on earth they took so long. They could have been resolved quite quickly, which would have not only improved the Army’s reputation for dealing with such matters but given the complainants satisfaction.

[Rory Stewart]

To address the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), and also the public, who are not necessarily focused on the details, perhaps it is worth clarifying that military discipline is exempt from the things that the Service Complaints Commissioner looks at. In other words, the commissioner is not set up to deal with questions of military discipline, which remain exempt. That is quite important for the operation of this law.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, the armed forces Act—I cannot remember which one, having dealt with so many over the years—helped by streamlining the three service Acts, because there had previously been a lot of inconsistency across the three services. I think things are now much clearer, especially as we now have joint operations, so the equal and correct interpretation of military law, rather than the silo system we had previously, with three different service Acts, has helped.

Ultimately, we are asking servicemen and women to do very dangerous things on our behalf—I am not suggesting for one minute that the Service Complaints Commissioner should be on the front line telling generals what they should and should not do—but that does not mean that the general things that we and the current service chiefs certainly accept should be best practice in the three services should not be scrutinised and that there should not be support for individuals who find that the high standards that we all expect are not being met.

[Richard Drax]

I have great respect for the shadow Minister and am sorry that he resorted to personal slights, which I think was totally unnecessary. For the record, I do not agree with harassment or bullying in the armed services—I never have and never would. Of course those in the armed services should be respected and their rights should be looked after, but ultimately they are being trained to kill. That is the point I was making. As I have said, I welcome the Bill, which I think is a good step forward, and am entirely behind it. I just wanted to put the record straight.

[Mr Jones]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been proud to be labelled a dinosaur in the present Tory party! I am not criticising him in any way; all I am saying is that some of the arguments made for not doing these things are the same as those that were made 10 years ago, and they have clearly been proved wrong.

Another important aspect is that this is not only about the scrutiny of complaints, but about how many people make complaints. Only 8% of cases involved a formal written complaint. I think that once the Bill is in place, it will ensure that people in the armed forces know how to complain and what redress that they can have. We need a system that encourages people to come forward, not with frivolous or vexatious cases but with cases of harassment, discrimination, bullying or malpractice, which can then be investigated properly by the chain of command. If not, there should be independent scrutiny to ensure that the highest systems and checks are in place—zero tolerance, as the Minister said.

We ask servicemen and women to do things that most of us would never be capable of, so there is a unique difference between them and the general public. However, there are some modern working practices and standards that we would expect in all walks of life, including in the armed forces, and that is why we support the Bill.

We will be calling for the Bill to be strengthened in a number of ways. I hope that in Committee we will be able to discuss some of its aspects in more detail, which will not only provide another opportunity to discuss the role of our armed forces and the pride that we rightly take in them, but ensures that men and women from all our constituencies who join the armed forces get the protection that they would expect in any other workplace.

I turn to the remit of the ombudsman and the range and scope of the powers that the Bill grants. Under the Bill, the ombudsman will not be able to look at the complaint itself but only at whether maladministration occurred in the handling of the complaint. Many in the House will agree that that is a very narrow scope. It leaves us in a rather perverse situation whereby the central piece of the system will be entirely removed from the issues that regularly affect members of the armed forces. The ombudsman will be powerless to deliver the protection and oversight that are needed in such circumstances.

The Minister will probably tell us that it would be going too far to give the ombudsman such a remit, but, as I said, the same arguments were made when we brought in the Service Complaints Commissioner. It is not unusual for an ombudsman to have such powers. The public services ombudsman, the local government ombudsman of England and the prisons ombudsman all have statutory powers to investigate service failures in addition to maladministration. There is no reason why such a principle cannot be applied with regard to serious complaints brought forward by men and women who serve in our armed forces.

Many Members have expressed the view—we will no doubt hear it again in their speeches—that we need to leave it to the chain of command alone to decide on these issues. I do not accept that. The system is one of partnership. One of the great things that Susan Atkins has done is to work very effectively with the chain of command, not only to educate but to change ways of doing things and move the agenda forward. It is important that the Service Complaints Commissioner does have these powers. The Defence Committee agrees that the ombudsman needs wider powers to investigate the substantial complaints.

Another feature missing from the Bill is an ability for the ombudsman to undertake thematic inquiries of their own. That ability would have been very important in, for example, the inquiry into the events at Deepcut. I am afraid that I do not share the Minister’s faith that these issues are just for the coroners. Certainly, the idea that one would have any faith in the Middlesbrough coroner to undertake a vigorous investigation of a service death—

[Anna Soubry]

It is not just a coronial system because there are also service inquiries. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those investigations are robust and thorough?

[Mr Jones]

They are. However, the important point about the ombudsman—this is what is great about the service complaints commissioner—is that it is outside the chain of command, independently looking inwards. That is not to say that it would always be critical. On some issues, Susan Atkins has not been critical and has supported changes that have taken place in our armed forces. I give credit to the service chiefs for bringing forward some of those changes. If, in a modern age, we want a system that is going to be robust and seen to be fair, it is very important to have that element of independence. That is especially true for bullying. We know that on occasion bullying is an isolated incident, but there have also been examples of where it is part of the chain of command and responsible for the culture that exists in some areas.

The Bill gives the ombudsman power to investigate where it sees fit, but we must understand what powers it would have and what it could do with what it finds. Yes, it can report to the Defence Council, but without any further powers or the ability to make changes, the onus in terms of the defence budget might be to ignore what the ombudsman says. We must clarify that point in the Bill.

As I have said, some recommendations can be made, but we need a method to ensure that reports and findings do not sit on a shelf, and that the Minister of the day, or the Defence Council, does not reject or simply note them. That would undermine not only the role of the service complaints ombudsman, but its independence. People who go to the ombudsman expect to get a fair hearing and to know that something will be done about their complaint.

It is vital that any new system works to the benefit of those who come to rely on it and that the Bill does not impose any unnecessary barriers on individuals and families making a complaint. The current Service Complaints Commissioner has been highly critical of the Army for the length of time it takes to deal with the complaints. Any system must obviously have robust time limits, but the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State will set time limits within which the individual must lodge a complaint. That time limit must not be less than six weeks after the date on which the individual receives their decision from their internal complaints system. In an ideal world that might be a simple system, but the nature of service life might lead to a situation where those time limits cannot be met. If that was the case, people would be time-bound when bringing forward a complaint. I think we need to consider that issue in Committee, and see whether we can allow some flexibility in the way that complaints are brought forward, so that someone does not miss taking a complaint forward because of the time limit.

The ombudsman service must be independent from the chain of command and the armed forces, and must be trusted by the people it is investigating. It must also be seen by servicemen and women lower down the chain of command as a process that is clearly independent.

This is a bit like déjà-vu, because I remember when the Service Complaints Commissioner was being appointed that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) was one of the—well, he could certainly be described as a dinosaur if not even worse—people who said that the end of the earth was going to come if the service ombudsman was not someone with a military background. It is clear that service personnel cannot hold that post, but I would also be reluctant to have anyone with a direct service background. Certainly the criticism levelled at Dr Atkins when she was first appointed was unfair and has—quite rightly—been proved wrong given the effective way that she got to know quickly how the armed forces work, and the way that she got the support and good will of people at all levels. It is important that the ombudsman is not seen as part of the old boys’ network—interestingly, the first two have been women.

On representation, occasionally those who lodge a complaint, or who speak of an injustice but never enter the complaints system, cannot see the complaint through—we have already heard about people who die before their complaint is heard. In these rare cases, it is sometimes important to family members that the complaint continues, and if someone makes a complaint against an individual, that individual will still have an opportunity to put forward a defence, albeit in the absence of the accuser. Also, many complaints relate to matters of service pay. In these cases, no one is required to make a defence, so it seems only fair that they be allowed to continue to conclusion. To stop such a case would be totally unfair. All cases should be pursued as a matter of due diligence to allow the ombudsman to oversee the entire system.

This touches on something else the Service Complaints Commissioner has done. A complaint might throw up inconsistencies in areas of policy that need addressing, and just because someone dies, it does not necessarily mean the wider implications do not need addressing either by the chain of command or more widely.

[Dr Lewis]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have only recently rejoined the Defence Select Committee after a long absence, so I am not as well sighted on the Bill as perhaps I ought to be. However, given that so much of the concern that led to this sort of legislation was about deaths, will he comment on the role of the ombudsman in relation to complaints brought by families of people who have died?

[Mr Jones]

That is a very important point. I was a member of the Defence Select Committee when it looked into Deepcut—as, too, was the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). We could not help but think that the way the families were dealt with was truly shocking, both in terms of basic human decency and because it meant that, unfortunately, the truth could never be arrived at. That was unfortunate for the families, obviously, and for members of the armed forces who were accused of things they clearly did not do.

We have made progress, however, thanks to the Service Complaints Commissioner and this new Bill. The important thing is independent oversight. Individuals are not going to continue with a course of action if they know it is leading to deaths in the armed forces. We know there will be tragedies in the armed forces, on the battlefield and in training, given the robust and difficult training regime, and when they happen, it is important, for the sake of the families, that we get all the information early on; that the matter be dealt with compassionately; and that things be put right early on, if mistakes were made.

I think there has been a change in this country—certainly in respect of local authorities and health boards, for example—and sometimes there is a culture of arguing why something should stay the same. However, if people say sorry early on and admit to mistakes, while it will always be difficult for families, at least they would know what happened. If so, lessons can be learned and measures put in place to militate against such things happening again, which will at least give some comfort to the families.

[Anna Soubry]

We do not disagree on what we want to achieve, and the hon. Gentleman has put it extremely well. I would not demur from anything he said about the need to ensure that the families feel that things have been properly looked at, lessons learned and so forth. Is that not a question of ensuring that we have rigorous investigations into deaths, which is different from the complaints system through which individuals’ grievances are rigorously looked at to get justice? I would suggest that the two are very different. Does he agree?

[Mr Jones]

No, I do not. I suggest the Minister go away and read Mr Justice Blake’s report. In these situations, the issues conflate. In the Deepcut case and that of Lynn Farr’s son, who died in a training exercise in Catterick, part of the problem was the individual instance and how the individuals died, but there were broader issues surrounding the duty of care in training. I am not saying that training should be downgraded—I know Mrs Farr was not for that—but if we look at Daniel Farr’s case and how he was dealt with, we see a needless death that could have been avoided. If issues about the training regime at Catterick had been raised earlier, we could have avoided certain deaths. The two aspects come together. I am all for rigorous investigations of deaths when they occur, but I also want to ensure that if it is possible to avoid getting to that stage in the first place, we actually achieve that.

Let me deal now with the armed forces charities, to which the Minister referred. The second part of the Bill relates to the financial assistance and benefits given to armed forces personnel. Let me put on record that we welcome this. As the Minister knows, I have worked with an array of armed forces charities over many years and they do a fantastic job on behalf of servicemen and women and their families and veterans. We must be sure that they are able to continue that work. The Bill covers two main points in this area, and it has been difficult to know how best to administer them. In fairness to the present Government, they have tried their best to get the funding out to those groups. Clause 4 attempts to put the provisions on some type of proper footing. Many charities, especially the smaller ones, rely on the grants and support they get from the Government.

We also want to ensure that there is robust scrutiny of how the money is spent. The Minister will have been exposed to the internal politics of the veteran community and doubtless has some of the scars from which I still suffer today. It is important to ensure that the system is transparent and fair and that we get not only good value for money, but effective value for money, so that the support goes to the right causes. Some of the smaller charities should be supported. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are some fantastic very small charities with very small capacities that nevertheless have a great effect in the support they provide to the armed forces.

In conclusion, we welcome the Bill. We will seek to improve it in Committee. The introduction of the Service Complaints Commissioner has, I think, seen a marked change in how the senior military and our armed services operate, and the system has protected those we ask to serve on our behalf. We will not oppose Second Reading, but, as I say, we will put forward amendments in Committee to try to improve and empower the role of the service complaints ombudsman. I see this as a journey. I have certainly dealt with this issue right through my parliamentary career. I thought I had escaped armed services legislation when I became a Minister, but lo and behold, it came back to bite me again. If we do this correctly, we can have a system of which we can be proud for not only protecting the individuals who serve in our armed forces, but upholding the highest levels of integrity and respect, which I know the service chiefs and the whole House would want to uphold.

17:39

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

This is probably the last defence debate in which I shall speak.

It is good that the subject is the introduction of a service complaints ombudsman, because the Defence Committee has been making points about that issue steadily since before I became a member in 2005. As far as I know, the only person who has been a member of the Committee since the beginning of the campaign for the establishment of a Service Complaints Commissioner —which was followed by the campaign for the appointment of an ombudsman—is the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), who, like me, will stand down as a Member of Parliament in a couple of months. He will leave a gaping hole in the Defence Committee and in the defence community, and I pay tribute to him.

I also pay tribute to the rest of the Committee, and to the amazingly dedicated and talented staff and advisers who support it. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart)—and I must say that I am delighted with my successor—it has continued to pursue the matter of the need for an ombudsman, and has produced a most thought-provoking and useful report on the Bill.

I agree with some of the Committee’s recommendations. I listened to the passionate and thorough argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister about the ombudsman’s ability to investigate thematic issues, and, on balance, I think that I still disagree with her, although she slightly destabilised my views. I think that she is wrong to rely too much on the idea that the ombudsman would be doing someone else’s job. Given all her expertise and access, the ombudsman might be able to add something helpful by producing a report. From time to time, such a report might be a cause of some discomfort in the Ministry of Defence, but an ombudsman is not there to be comfortable; an ombudsman is there to right injustice, and to be a catalyst for improvement.

However, I am not sure that I agree with all the Committee’s recommendations. I say that with complete diffidence, not having sat in on its evidence sessions. I do not entirely share its view that the ombudsman’s recommendations should be binding on the Defence Council. That position would differ from the position relating to the local government ombudsman, in an area that is even more sensitive because of concerns about the chain of command. On the whole, I agree with the Service Complaints Commissioner, who says that the Bill contains several “reasonable compromises”.

The big picture, I think, is this. For more than a decade, the Defence Committee has been pressing for the replacement of the commissioner by an ombudsman, and, over time, it has won both the argument and the battle. I congratulate it on that, but I also congratulate Ministers on listening to the Committee. I especially congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. Last year, she took the unusual step of delaying the appointment of a successor to the excellent Dr Atkins, because, among other things, she wanted to be sure that we were all getting the right person. She and other Ministers have taken the matter truly seriously. They have taken the Defence Committee seriously, and they have overcome resistance in the chain of command.

Talking of the chain of command, I well remember Dr Atkins telling the Committee:

“Some of the Service Chiefs said they didn’t quite understand what an ombudsman did, but they were sure they didn’t want one.”

It was because of the quality of Dr Atkins’s work that she was able to persuade the service chiefs that an ombudsman would in the long run be beneficial. All I can say about her replacement, whom I have not met, is that they have my sympathy because Dr Atkins will be a hard act to follow.

[Rory Stewart]

On a point of clarification, the courts have ruled that the findings of the ombudsman in a case of maladministration and particular injustice will be binding on the Defence Council. The disagreement is simply about whether that should be in the Bill. I am interested in whether my right hon. Friend is opposed to the idea that the findings be binding, or should that be in the Bill?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I spoke earlier of my diffidence. I think I should move into full retreat and just carry on with my speech because my hon. Friend already knows far more about that than I do, and I pay tribute to him again.

I want to change the subject slightly. I have only a page and a half left of my notes. I hope that I can have a little indulgence. Dr Susan Atkins stood up for the men and women of our armed forces as they came under real strain. They have fought overseas, in conflicts not really understood or supported by their countrymen back home, when warfare is changing, technology is evolving, stability is crumbling and new threats are arising on a monthly basis. Against that background, at the NATO summit, which the UK hosted, we set out to persuade other European countries of the imperative of doing what NATO agreed only in 2006—that each country should spend at least 2% of its GDP on defence. How right we were to argue that. How important it is that, as the world becomes less safe, we do what we can to increase our security and reduce our reliance on others, particularly the United States. So it comes as a real shock that this country appears to be drifting towards an election with not one single party committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence. As the economy recovers, defence must share in that recovery.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

My right hon. Friend, being as long in the tooth as I am, will recall that during the cold war years this country spent between 4% and 5% on defence. Therefore, is not 2% a pretty modest aim for us to have in the present international climate?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend is right, if ambitious, but who could argue that the world is a safer place now than in the cold war years? I think it is far less safe because we live in a multi-polar world. Mutually assured destruction brought us, curiously, some stability.

[Richard Drax]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reports in The Sunday Telegraph that after the election the Royal Marines will be next in line for the target is one step too far?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Out of enormous respect to the right hon. Gentleman and bearing in mind that he is standing down at the next election, I have been a little generous on those points, but I hope that his one and a half pages of notes do not stretch to engaging in a full discussion, tempted by his hon. Friend’s question.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

In order to reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say that it is one and a half sentences, and my one and a half sentences relate to the 0.7% statutory commitment that we seem to be moving towards on international development. I approve of international development—I think it does us good, as well as the countries that benefit from improved education—but to have a statutory percentage to be spent on aid and not even a manifesto commitment on defence beggars belief, and we must put that right.

17:50

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who made a calm, measured contribution, and who showed amazing leadership as Chair of the Select Committee on Defence. As a new member of the Committee, I certainly found he set the tone for our many deliberations, and he had, I must admit, a calming effect on some of my more vociferous opinions. The House will miss him for his dedication, his belief in public service and his belief in the defence of the United Kingdom.

This Bill, and this day, have been a long time in coming. A whole decade has passed since the Deepcut review by Nicholas Blake QC and the Defence Committee’s “Duty of Care” report, both of which recommended the establishment of a service complaints ombudsman. In that report, the Committee found that the resolution of complaints was slow and may not always be perceived as accessible and fair.

Much has been said and done during the decade of piecemeal reform, but the underlying inadequacy of the system remains unaltered. In 2008 the newly established Service Complaints Commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins—I will not add to the praise heaped on her for her work, because enough has been said, but I totally endorse every word that has been said—said in her first annual report that while progress had been made, “performance is generally poor”. In 2009 she said the system was not working “efficiently, effectively or fairly.” She reported the same thing in 2010, 2011, 2012 and in 2013. In that report she said:

“Since the role of Service Complaints Commissioner was established in 2008, she has not been able to report to the Secretary of State that the Service complaints system operates efficiently, effectively or fairly. This has been because of a lack of confidence in the system, unreasonable delays in the resolution of complaints and a lack of accurate data on how complaints are handled.”

If this Bill does not tackle those complaints, we are wasting our time. Dr Atkins’s seventh and final report is due in the next few weeks, and I think it is relatively safe to assume that the pattern is not going to be broken. This Bill must change that pattern.

The commissioner has pinpointed three main problems. First, there is a

“lack of confidence in the system”

from the very people it is designed to help. In the latest report, the commissioner points out:

“Service personnel have a low level of confidence in the current system which does not offer all complainants the assurance of an independent person overseeing their complaint outside the chain of command in any effective way.”

This low and decreasing level of confidence that personnel have in the system can be seen in the armed forces continuous attitudes survey, which shows dissatisfaction increasing in relation to the time taken, being kept informed, and support from assisting officers. For example, the survey asked those who said they did believe they had been the subject of discrimination, harassment or bullying in the last 12 months why they had not made a formal complaint. The reasons given included,

“I did not believe anything would be done if I did complain”—

54%—

“I believed it might adversely affect my career or workplace”—

53%—

“I was worried that there would be recriminations from the perpetrators”

—30%—and

“I did not want to go through the complaints procedure”—

23%.

The commissioner also points to a “lack of accurate data”. In last year’s report the commissioner found that the data provided by the Army and the RAF contained a number of serious gaps and inconsistencies. Only the naval service was able to provide her with confidence in the accuracy of the data it was providing. That is fairly shocking in the days of electronic data. The inaccuracy of the data coming from the Army was particularly alarming, with the commissioner drawing attention to the Army’s failure accurately to record allegations of indirect discrimination. For an organisation as committed to ensuring diversity and inclusion as the Army, the loss of this crucial data is distressing. As the commissioner points out, these elementary recording failures not only undermine confidence in the efficiency of the system but hamper the shared aim to use

“Service complaint data, together with data on discipline and administrative action, plus information from Service Inquiries, to identify areas and units which have problems and which may affect operational performance.”

Thirdly—this is by far most important point—the commissioner highlights the chronic delays that riddle this system from beginning to end. Delay is by far the biggest and most corrosive problem. It exacerbates, and in part helps explain, the two previous problems.

The evidence on the extent of delay in the system is damning. In 2013, aware that they had this problem of chronic delay, the MOD and the services agreed to meet a time limit of 24 weeks to resolve at least 90% of their complaints, and any complaint not dealt with in 24 weeks would be “red flagged”. So there was a recognition that there was a problem, and a solution, thanks to the work of Dr Atkins, was put in place.

In 2013, however, only 25% of cases

“were resolved within the 24-week target”,

and:

“Only 26% of complaints made in 2013 were closed during the year.”

In January 2013, 325 complaints had a “red flag”. By December 2013 this had swelled by over 50% to 500 complaints.

One need only look at the case of Parachuter Lance Corporal Tom Neathway to see the harm delay can do, and not only to the lives of our armed forces personnel. His story also stands as a textbook example of the structural flaws that any future system must avoid.

In July 2008, Corporal Neathway, while serving in Helmand, lost both his legs and an arm when a booby-trapped sandbag exploded beneath him. Over the next three years—not 24 weeks, but three years—through sheer guts and determination and with the support of the armed forces, Corporal Neathway rebuilt his life and his career, and I pay tribute to that because the work the armed forces have done with seriously injured personnel is amazing. His story became a case study of how injured personnel can recover and overcome their injuries: he took part in the Olympic torch relay in 2012 and starred in the BBC series “Wounded”, showing the fantastic work done with our injured personnel. Sadly, however, in 2011, while at the parachute training support unit at RAF Brize Norton, where he had been based since returning to work in 2009, he was subjected to increasingly serious bullying by Regimental Sergeant Major Alistair Hutcheson, who at one point told the triple amputee:

“You’re not much of a paratrooper any more”.

Corporal Neathway did the right thing: he lodged a complaint to seek redress against an instance of bullying. That the complaints system failed him is an understatement. He had to endure a three-year ordeal in the search for justice from the British Army, facing a series of unacceptable delays that held him up every step of the way. When Corporal Neathway finally secured justice at the service complaints panel in October last year, the verdict was damning. The panel found definitively that the initial investigation by his commanding officer, Major John Chetty, constituted a professional failing. His questioning of witnesses was wholly inappropriate, and a review, by Brigadier Greville Bibby, which held up Corporal Neathway’s search for redress, was also discredited, with the Brigadier leaving the Army. As Corporal Neathway has said, the Army

“had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an oral hearing. They had told so many lies and finally it all unfolded”.

I am unfortunately someone who is often contacted by people when the system fails, so the Minister knows—we have discussed this many times—that I perhaps have a jaundiced view. I tend to hear from the people who are failed by the system. I do not dispute that the system works for some people, but I regularly hear from people who face similar failures to the one that Corporal Neathway experienced. To hold someone in a complaints system for three years is shameful—

[Anna Soubry]

indicated assent.

[Mrs Moon]

I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people in situations like Corporal Neathway’s who have not been so lucky—

[Anna Soubry]

I know that it is not normal for a Minister to intervene, but I wanted to say that we are as one on this. The case of Corporal Neathway was shameful and disgraceful. I hope that the hon. Lady will take my word that at no time did I ever say that he was not being wholly honest in his complaint. I wrote to him in October offering to meet him, and I hope that he will take up that offer.

The hon. Lady and I both look forward to a speedy inquiry—an overarching inquiry—into what was a shameful incident.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the Minister for her intervention. I know that she said earlier that she would not intervene on Back Benchers, but I have no objection to her intervening. We have had many a robust exchange in the time we have worked together and I have always enjoyed them. I have no objection to robust exchanges because at bottom we have the same conviction—that the best system for the armed forces must and will be put in place. We might disagree about how we get there, but we agree that we have total commitment to ensuring that the men and women of the armed forces will be protected from bullying, harassment and discrimination, and that those involved in such behaviour will be sought out and punished.

Corporal Neathway was in some ways fortunate in that he had the attention of the media and he had contacts, but service personnel noted that it took that to get justice. They too feel the impact of the incredible lethargy in extreme cases such as Corporal Neathway’s, which can stretch far beyond 24 weeks into hundreds of weeks. The Minister knows that I have received complaints from several people who had given up on their service complaints and left the armed forces, because the delay compounded their punishment. They felt that the delay was used as a way to force them out, to make them and their complaint disappear. That compounds their distress. They had given their lives to their country, but when they were the victims, they were told that they were the problem and to get out. That is unacceptable and the system cannot allow that to continue.

In the 2012 armed forces continuous attitude survey, 46% of respondents reported dissatisfaction with the time taken to process a complaint, with only 39% satisfied. In 2013, that had worsened to 66% dissatisfied. The Minister knows of another area in which I have taken an extreme interest. In January 2013, an article in The Times revealed that some 1,400 soldiers in the British Army had been illegally disciplined over three years, between November 2008 and September 2011. That happened because in November 2008 a change in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 meant that police cautions were from then on to be considered spent the second they were issued. The Army thought it had an exemption from the Act and continued to punish personnel who received cautions. It only caught up with the change in the law in 2011. It stopped the practice, but that left unresolved the question of what to do with the 1,400 personnel who, over the course of the two years, had received some form of administrative action following a caution. One policy brief revealed that at least 58 personnel had been dismissed from the services as a result of this double jeopardy. They should have received no punishment at all, but at least 58 had been dismissed from the services.

After much presumed handwringing and discussion, the MOD came to the conclusion that it would do nothing. A British Army policy briefing from November 2011 suggested:

“The longer we take no action the fewer the ‘in time’ complaints about other sanctions there will be. MOD policy may be not to accept out of time complaints on this issue.”

It is now February 2015—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Moon]

If the Minister will tell me that we have finally reached a decision about what we will do about the injustice to those 1,400 people, I will happily give way.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Lady makes, as ever, a good point. I have decided that the right thing to do is to write to all those affected—about 1,500 people—so that they are aware of the position. They will be reminded of the service complaints process which is available to them if they believe that they have been wronged in any way. Notices will also be placed in all the usual places, such as websites and some magazines. I can only apologise for the fact that it has taken us so long to get to where we are today. It has been complex, but we have got it right now and we are committed to making sure that we move forward as quickly as possible. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way.

[Mrs Moon]

I will give way as many times as the Minister wants if she brings me such good news every time. I am absolutely delighted that justice will finally be done.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I cannot remember hearing a victory such as that announced in the Chamber, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) who has been pursuing this matter for many years. I should also point out the value of having a lawyer in a ministerial role.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his compliment: he is very kind, as always.

I am delighted by that change of heart. I was especially concerned because there had actually been service complaints on this issue, but they had been stayed so that people could not proceed with them. The complainants were told that until the Department decided what it would do, their complaints could not proceed. A service complaints process in which complaints can be stayed for four years is unacceptable. That is why one of the amendments that the Defence Committee was eager to ensure was in place was that a person’s knowledge that they had suffered an injustice was not a reason for saying that a complaint was out of time. The Committee also wanted to ensure that delays, such as the staying of complaints, would not be acceptable and could be seen as maladministration even during the process of the investigation. I am delighted to hear the statement that the Minister has just made.

I shall turn now to the changes proposed in the Bill. The introduction of the ombudsman is a landmark reform and it is most welcome, as are the powers to overturn the rejection of complaints applications and appeal applications. The rationalisation of the complaints process, including placing a limit on the number of appeals, is a common-sense approach.

The Bill has many positive aspects, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I think it could go further. The ombudsman’s new powers to investigate allegations of maladministration are welcome. These are significant new powers which, if implemented properly, could allow the ombudsman to root out bad practice, inefficiencies and injustice in the complaints process, to everyone’s benefit. However, during the Defence Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, we revealed possible confusion surrounding the extent and nature of the power, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that in her closing remarks, if not now.

There seems to be disagreement between what the Minister understood and what the commissioner felt was a real step-change for service personnel. The commissioner told the Committee that proposed new section 340H did not match the policy that had been agreed with the Ministry, and that it risked undermining what the Minister hoped to achieve from the provision. Proposed new section 340H(4) states:

“The purpose of an investigation is to decide…whether the alleged maladministration has occurred”.

The commissioner and the Defence Select Committee are concerned that the wording, “whether the alleged maladministration has occurred”, is too restrictive.

The commissioner suggested, and the Committee agrees, that the Bill should be amended to make it explicit that the ombudsman could investigate and report on any maladministration in the handling of a service complaint, and we have suggested amendments to that end, listed in amendment group D in the annex of our report. In their response to the Committee report the Government dismissed this on the ground that it:

“would require the Ombudsman to look for any maladministration in every case”.

I thought that that was the whole point. The Minister is looking at me quizzically. Are we on the same ground here, or is there disagreement?

[Anna Soubry]

This is a classic example of us both wanting the same outcome, but there is a question of how we should achieve it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee, because we have already discussed this matter with officials this afternoon. We believe that our changes to the regulations will achieve what we want—namely, that if the ombudsman feels that she has discovered further maladministration, she would nevertheless go back to the complainant to ensure that they were content for her to investigate it, rather than taking a blanket approach. The hon. Lady will understand that an individual might not want a particular matter to be pursued, for all manner of reasons. I am happy to discuss this with her after the debate, to see whether I can satisfy her. The point is that we want the same thing; there is just the question of whether we achieve it on the face of the Bill or in the regulations.

[Mrs Moon]

Again, we seem to have made progress and I hope that we can all agree on this point. I look forward to discussing it further with the Minister and getting clarification.

Anything that streamlines the process is to be welcomed, as is anything that opens up an opportunity for greater investigation of maladministration. The Minister and I agree that maladministration is unacceptable, no matter how or why it occurs. In cases of chronic delay, such as those of Corporal Neathway and of the four service personnel in the police cautions case mentioned earlier, the ombudsman must have the ability to intervene when the delay in handling the case has become egregious. For example, if a complaint has taken twice as long as the Ministry of Defence’s self-imposed time limit of 24 weeks, it seems reasonable that the ombudsman should be able to clarify why that delay is happening and intervene and declare it a case of maladministration.

This brings me to another amendment that the Defence Select Committee has proposed, to ensure that the powers of the ombudsman are sound, reasonable, and beneficial. Perhaps the Minister has already made some changes in this respect. The ombudsman should have the authority to undertake, at her own discretion, thematic reviews into the working of the complaints system. In our report, the Committee emphasised the positive benefit that this small but significant reform could bring, not only to individual complainants but to Ministers and the chain of command. Our report states:

“Rather than undermining it, the identification and resolution of these matters would increase confidence in the chain of command...and could contribute to identifying potential areas to be improved in the MOD’s and the chain of command’s responsibility of a duty of care towards Service personnel.”

That proposal has the backing of the Royal British Legion, with the Legion’s director general Dr Chris Simpkins powerfully pointing out:

“The problems at Deepcut could have been picked up much earlier if an Ombudsman had had the power to initiate their own inquiry. This is not an outlandish request, as the Canadian Armed Forces Ombudsman has long had the power to start thematic inquiries”.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission backs the idea, stating that it will

“support the Defence Committee’s view that the Bill should state expressly that the Ombudsman can undertake thematic reviews.”

Liberty also supports the amendment, as did Labour and Liberal Democrat peers during the Bill’s consideration in another place. The current complaints commissioner supports the principle, saying that there are benefits in the

“Ombudsmen using their broad view of the organisations that they oversee to do research and produce thematic reports so that lessons can be learned about the issues behind complaints within a particular area”.

The Government’s objections to the amendment, outlined by Lord Astor on Third Reading, seem to boil down to a concern that it could result in the ombudsman morphing into some kind of inspectorate or rapporteur for the armed forces, and that resources and time would be diverted from the ombudsman’s primary role. Affording the ombudsman the freedom to report to the Secretary of State on a matter of importance when the ombudsman considers it appropriate does not a revolution make. It is a common-sense, reasoned expansion of the powers with which the Ombudsman will be entrusted. The MOD’s fears that as a result of this minor power the ombudsman would become a vigilante investigator are simply unfounded, and stand in contrast to the amount of respect and responsibility with which the office has been entrusted in many other areas of the Bill.

Delay is the enemy. It is the root of the problems in the current system and it is a blight that needs to be eradicated. The amendments will help the ombudsman and the armed forces to build a better complaints system. Doing so will bolster confidence in the system and in the chain of command. It is hard to see why the Government, who are making so many pioneering reforms in the Bill, are unwilling to accept the Defence Committee’s major changes and recommendations.

The fight to establish a complaints system that is fit for purpose for our armed forces has been long and hard. We do not want to wait for a further crisis or tragedy before acting. To paraphrase Corporal Neathway, the Government and the chain of command have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards reform. The concerns of the heads of the armed forces are well known. The chain of command must remain pre-eminent and cannot be compromised, and their aversion to ceding too much control over the complaints process is obvious. However it is Parliament, the legislature, that manages and reforms the armed forces. It was Parliament that created the commissioner and is creating the ombudsman, and it is here in Parliament that those institutions should be held to account. The delays, the maladministration and the problems within the system must be resolved, and we must work together to ensure that the Bill does exactly that.

18:20

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

I will try to speak quite briefly. I pay a huge tribute to everyone involved for the way that this debate has been conducted. There has been a very good debate in the House of Lords, some very serious work by the Defence Committee since 2005 and the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). In particular, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) who has put an enormous amount of energy, thought and focus into getting these very specific amendments in place.

Broadly speaking, the Defence Committee is very positively disposed towards the Bill, as it reflects its work since 2005 and is a huge improvement even on where we were in 2008. The commissioner has gone from being a three-day-a-week job to a full-time job, and gone from having nine staff to 20 staff. The scope and the powers of the ombudsman will be massively expanded, and all of that is good. However, there is a “but”, and it is that “but” on which we want to focus for a brief moment.

We are not, I hope, being pedantic. It is an important point because this is an unbelievably complex area of legislation. It is easy for people to turn up and try to suggest that the way that the armed forces are treated should be the same as the way that civilians are treated. Clearly, the contexts are completely different. Military discipline is very different from civilian discipline. Many of the criminal Acts that apply to military personnel simply do not apply to civilian personnel. Military personnel live under completely different conditions from civilian personnel in terms of their housing, health, non-union status, 24/7 jobs, and risk to life and limb, all of which put an incredible onus on the Defence Committee and on the Government to get this kind of ombudsman right.

The problems that we have had from the start of this debate are twofold. First, there has been a very strong degree of abstraction. Understandably, people have been very reluctant to talk about concrete examples. When taking testimony in the Defence Committee, it was very striking that almost nobody mentioned the Deepcut case. Much of the conversation around this matter is taking place in a vacuum without people using individual examples. The second problem has been a very comfortable consensus. We have a strange situation in which, when we were taking testimony, there was very little push-back from the chain of command and from Ministers, but now we find that the Committee’s recommendations are not being accepted, and we have no clear sense of why that is. The oddity is that there is a basic disagreement between liberty and the chain of command, but that disagreement is not really brought out in public, which is another reason why this Chamber seems to be so empty.

When we have private conversations with people, we realise that the disagreement is really profound. In a private conversation, some human rights lawyers will say that they disapprove of the entire military system and that things that can happen to military personnel would not be acceptable for civilian personnel. Equally, outside this Chamber in private conversations, we might hear retired generals in the House of Lords rejecting the idea of the ombudsman completely. Curiously, in the case of the Committee testimony, there was very much a push towards consensus that papered over some fundamental principled disagreements.

The five principles that the Committee focused on are: independence, flexibility, the scope of the ombudsman, the power of the ombudsman and the transparency of the ombudsman’s findings. On independence, the Defence Committee suggested that nobody who had been a member of the armed forces within the previous five years would be suitable for appointment; that the term of appointment should be between five and seven years, as three years was too short for someone to get their feet under the desk and really understand the job; and that the job should not be liable for reappointment. That is standard practice for such a role around the world. If somebody is up for reappointment, the tendency would be for them to pull their punches in order to get their job back.

On flexibility, we put a big focus on ensuring that there was more flexibility around timelines and procedural control. On scope, we pushed to ensure that any maladministration, the substance of the complaint and thematic issues could be addressed. Power has been another important point. What is going to be the power and how binding will those recommendations be? We went back and forth on that matter with my distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire. Finally, there is the issue of transparency, confidentiality and whether or not the Government can use national security to make the findings of the ombudsman confidential.

The odd position that the Defence Committee finds itself in is that the Government have said to us that, basically, they agree with almost everything that we say. In line after line in response to our recommendations, the Ministry of Defence comes back and says, “We agree, we agree, we agree, but we do not believe that this should be in the Bill.” Looking through the eight amendments proposed by the Defence Committee, there seems to be only one with which the Government have any in-principle disagreement, and that is on the question of thematic investigation. Government seem to be comfortable with the other seven.

Why is it then that the Government seem to agree with seven out of eight recommendations, but are not prepared to put them in the Bill? The answer appears to be that the Government believe that putting these things in the Bill would be over-prescriptive. Indeed the Government are attempting to elevate to a grand point of principle the idea that legislation should not be over-prescriptive. The Defence Committee respectfully argues back that those grand points of principle about what should or should not be prescriptive in legislation are marginal, if not irrelevant, to the specific Bill under consideration. One role on which we should be explicit is that of an ombudsman. The Government should put in the Bill the basic terms of independence.

There is no time here to go through every one of those eight recommendations, but let us take as an example the question of independence. The Defence Committee has stipulated that we believe that the person should be appointed on a non-renewable term for five to seven years, and that they should not have served in the armed forces in the previous five years. The Government accept those recommendations but will not put them in the Bill. Why not? Apparently, because they think it would be over-prescriptive to do so. However, this should be an easy concession for the Government to make. To have the point clearly stated would reassure the public and reinforce the credibility and independence of the ombudsman. In fact, not putting it in the Bill seems to be based on a very abstract and theoretical notion.

Our eight recommendations should be taken seriously because, bluntly, the Defence Committee is an elected Committee of the House of Commons. It is disappointing that, out of eight recommendations made by the Committee, the Government have inserted in the Bill not seven or five of them but none. No amendments went through in the House of Lords and no amendments appear to be proposed at this stage. Given that we are moving into a world where we have elected Committees, where we want these Committees to play a more active role and where every member of those Committees is elected, we would expect the Government to respond, at least in part, to the Committee’s recommendations, if for no other reason—this relates to the Geneva processes on the setting up of an ombudsman—than that we should follow the proper process of inclusion of stakeholders. The first Geneva principle is the inclusion of Parliament in this process. Even if the Government seem to have deep theoretical objections to the independence of the ombudsman, we believe that in this case, purely for procedural reasons, they should listen to the Defence Committee.

In conclusion, Parliament has been deeply involved in setting the rules for the military from the very beginning. It tightened up the articles of war in the 1660s and again in the mid-18th century. It loosened those articles of war in 1776, and it did so again after the first world war and in the 1950s and 2006. That is exactly the sort of thing that Parliament should be doing.

To get this right—and this is a very good opportunity for Britain to do so—we must do it in a way that is honest to our history, confident about the conceptual disagreements, and clear and precise about resolving the reality of the military justice system with the concerns of the rights community. That sounds jargony, but what I mean is that we need to be really clear that the military is different from civilian institutions. Various military criminal offences—such as mutiny, desertion and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline—do not exist in civilian life. At the same time, however, the right not to be bullied or harassed, as well as other rights, must be protected. Finally, if the Government can find a way of incorporating the Defence Committee’s recommendations, Britain has an opportunity to set a model for the world.

This has been a good process for the House of Lords and the Committee and because of the inclusion of Dr Susan Atkins. It has been a particularly good process because of the amount of energy the hon. Member for Bridgend has devoted to it from the beginning. Let us finish the process with as much positive spirit as we began it. I ask the Government to show some flexibility in their response to the independence, flexibility, scope, power and transparency of the ombudsman, as set out by the Defence Committee.

18:31

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

I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I welcome and support the Bill so far as it goes, but, like others who have spoken, I believe it could go further.

I welcome the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces in recent years and applaud what she has done within the remit she has been given. I welcome the reports she has issued, and the Government are to be commended for listening to some of the points she has made and recognising, as the Defence Committee and others have said, that further progress needs to be made.

I recognise that a delicate balance has to be struck between the authority of the chain of command and the need for a light to be shone on the activities of the armed forces. We know from the sorts of cases that hon. and right hon. Members have referred to that that has not always happened. I agree with the characterisation of the evolution of the system given by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). When the idea of the commissioner was first mooted, it was claimed that the world would end because it was so revolutionary and it would drive a coach and horses through the traditional conceptions of military authority and discipline, but it has not. It has made some modest and worthwhile progress, but we now need to go further.

Ministers have been right to engage with other stakeholders and to recognise the need to amend the status quo, but their proposals err on the side of caution. I listened with interest to the Defence Committee Chairman describe the five characteristics of an ombudsman system, and my one particular misgiving is that we have not gone further in terms of scope. The Minister said that other ombudsmen restrict themselves to issues of maladministration. That is certainly true of some, but it is not by any means true of all. If one looks at the definitions of ombudsmen more generally, one will see that their purpose is to address the substance of a grievance or a complaint by an individual against an institution or bureaucracy. I do not believe that simply looking at the question of maladministration is an adequate way of doing that.

It is important that the new ombudsman should be able not simply to report on thematic issues to the Secretary of State, but to institute investigations and make reports and recommendations for everybody to see. They should also be able to get at the substance of a complaint. Of course, the chain of command should always get the first go at that. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has said, we cannot compare the relationship between an armed serviceman and the forces in any way to ordinary employment because of the depth of the relationship, which affects housing, families, welfare and service discipline. It is precisely because that relationship is so much more comprehensive that it is important that there should be external scrutiny and a light shone on it. The police, the health service and every other part of our public life has to accept external scrutiny, and I do not believe that the armed forces should be any different.

I shall follow with interest how the debate unfolds in Committee, but it is my belief that the Bill does not go as far as it might and that we are missing an opportunity to take more comprehensive action to improve the way in which complaints are dealt with in the armed forces.

18:36

[Mr Kevan Jones]

This has been an excellent debate and I think there is general consensus across the House that the proposed service complaints ombudsman is a good thing.

I served with the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—I would prefer to call him my right hon. Friend—on the Defence Committee, and as a Chairman he was not only very effective but tried to get consensus across the Committee. That made our debates far better and our reports more effective in persuading the Government to take them seriously. I shall certainly be sad to see him leave this place, but I do not think his retirement will be the last we hear of him.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on her tenacious pursuit of fairness for members of our armed forces. I was very sad when I heard about the case of Corporal Neathway. I met him a number of times when I was a Minister, and my hon. Friend is right to say that a braver, more courageous individual you could not meet. He has given service to this country, and despite the appalling injuries he suffered, he had the sense of purpose and character to overcome them. Frankly, they way in which he was treated was unacceptable and I agree with what the Minister said about that.

That case brings us to one of the issues at hand. The Army needs to wake up to the fact that the idea that cases can be allowed to go on for that long without redress is totally unacceptable. The ombudsman should be allowed to focus on that. As I said earlier, speedy resolution of some of the cases would lead not only to satisfaction for either the complainant or those who are being complained about, but to reform and action where needed. The armed forces should not be any different from any other public body with regard to how they react to such complaints.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

Oh, here we go.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point. I think it was also a failure of the chain of command that it did not push for an early resolution, because that would have sorted it out.

[Mr Jones]

I was going to label the hon. Gentleman a dinosaur, but he is obviously on the new progressive wing of the Conservative party.

[Anna Soubry]

You’re so tribal!

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I am—I wear that badge with honour.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is completely right. Without some external push, oversight or, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) said, light shone on the process, there will be no change. That is what the ombudsman will provide.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on an excellent report on the Bill. He raises a fair point: if there is disagreement, people should say so. The chain of command must say what, if anything, it objects to. It should not say it behind closed doors but should come out into the light.

I look forward to the Committee stage. We shall table amendments and I hope that we will get the ombudsman that not only this House needs but that the servicemen and women who serve our nation with pride and bravery need.

18:40

[Anna Soubry]

With the leave of the House, let me try to respond to some of the good points that have been made in this excellent debate. It would have been nice to have a bit more support for my arguments against the need for a thematic role for the ombudsman, but I have no doubt that we shall continue that debate in Committee and that it will go on and on. I have said why I think that it is not a good idea and I hope that Members on both sides of the House accept that I am not a Minister who stands at this Dispatch Box and says things that I do not believe in. I did not do that when I was on the Back Benches, either. I believe it would be wrong for the service complaints ombudsman to have an extra thematic role for the reasons I have given. I say that because I believe in it, not because I have been told to believe in it by anybody else.

I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). Sadly, I never served on the Defence Committee, which he chaired with huge integrity, great fairness and utter thoroughness. He will be hugely missed in this place. I congratulate him on his speech and I could not possibly comment on his comments about the funding and the next Government. All I can say is that it is generally accepted that I have gone somewhat native—he might be pleased to know that. He made the sort of sensible speech that we would expect and he showed great understanding and insight.

I also pay tribute to my friend—she is my friend today—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I think our relationship started over polycystic kidneys. You do not need to know why, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we once had a debate on the subject. We agree on so much, but let me deal briefly with the stuff on which we do not agree. I would not be over-prescriptive on the question of the delay, because in some cases the nature of the case will mean that it takes more than six months to reach a conclusion. Six months is an eminently admirable goal, but I do not want to be over-prescriptive. Sometimes a witness might be on operations abroad, or things might get complicated because they involve a pension or an allowance. In principle, however, that should absolutely be the goal. There is no excuse for the appalling delays not just in Corporal Neathway’s case but in many other examples. I think that the hon. Lady was saying that unfortunately, in too many parts of our armed forces, the attitude is that there is not a problem. That is why we have delays and such lackadaisical attitudes.

Too many have the attitude that there is not a problem and that such cases are just about some whining woman or difficult male. There is a problem. People have grievances and complaints and we need a system that addresses that fact and ensures that they get justice. When they do not, we will have the ombudsman, and I think that that is where there is a bit of confusion. There is a profound difference between the service complaints ombudsman that the Government want and an armed forces ombudsman who might or might not consider the broader matters. That might not be a long way down the line, but it is not covered by this role.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) made a very good speech. I did not agree with all of it, but nevertheless his point was well made. Finally, let me say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who chairs the Select Committee. I am sorry that this has not happened before and I do not know why it has not, but let us start now. I am more than happy to consider the amendments from the Defence Committee. Some are flawed—I am sorry, but some of them are—but let us meet and go through them. If we can find a way of sorting things out so that we do not fall out and so that we reach compromises, fair enough. He knows why I take the view I do about over-prescription in the Bill, but I do not want to fall out with people. I want this to happen because it is the right thing to do. Notwithstanding the money provisions, it is the right thing to do by our servicemen and women who deserve and need a proper system. That is what this Bill will deliver.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12 February 2015.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen's recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of–

(a) any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 July 2014 (Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 3

Responsibility

18:46

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 2.

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the return of the Bill to the House so that we can consider the amendments made in the Lords. I have listened carefully and with interest to the debates as the Bill has made progress and I must say that I have been amused by the position taken by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who have been vociferous in saying that the Bill is pointless and meaningless. When it arrived in the other place, however, they campaigned vigorously against the clause on responsibility. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if it is meaningless there is not much point in campaigning against it. The Bill is not at all meaningless. It has a purpose in protecting employers, particularly smaller employers, against the compensation culture and it will, I believe, make a significant difference. If it made no difference at all, why on earth did the Opposition try to strike out the clause? We know that the real reason the Opposition did not vote against the Bill is that they know that it addresses the genuine worries that ordinary people have about the growth of the compensation culture, which they talked about while in government and have conveniently forgotten about.

As hon. Members will recall, the Bill is designed to reassure hard-working individuals and organisations who have demonstrated a responsible approach to safety, who have been acting for the benefit of society or who have intervened in emergencies, that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account when determining whether they have been negligent. In spite of the negative comments about the Bill from the Opposition and in the other place, I am glad that the Bill returns to the House with only two modest changes.

Let me turn to the detail of the changes. Both were Government amendments tabled in response to concerns raised about specific aspects of the drafting and I ask the House to agree with them. Amendment 1 is to clause 3, on responsibility, and amendment 2 is to clause 4, on heroism.

On amendment 1, when clause 3 left this House it provided that the court should consider whether a person had demonstrated a “generally responsible” approach towards safety during the course of an activity in which an act of negligence was alleged to have occurred. The Opposition said that that would erode the rights of workers to sue their employers following injuries suffered in the workplace. On report, for example, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said that the clause was designed to

“allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 689.]

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Kennedy of Southwark added that

“the legislation could worsen the position of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2014; Vol. 756, c. 1570.]

Those assertions are entirely without foundation.

I want to make it clear that the Bill will not stop irresponsible employers from being found negligent when the circumstances of the case warrant it or stop the courts considering all relevant factors when reaching a decision on the claim. It is simply about ensuring that the courts take a common-sense approach to considering claims brought against hard-working owners of small businesses and others by considering their overall approach to safety in the course of the activity in which an accident occurred.

Although amendments proposed in the other place that would have undermined the main policy objectives of clause 3 were not carried, we agreed to one amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause—namely the replacement of the word “generally” with the word “predominantly”. We made that amendment following concerns that were raised about possible uncertainty over the meaning of the term “generally responsible” arising from the fact that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a range of definitions.

Lords amendment 1 helps to provide greater clarity. The word “predominantly” is a stronger and clearer term than the word “generally” and, on reflection, better achieves our policy aims. It makes it clearer that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it makes it clear that, if a hard-working individual such as the owner of a small business is doing his best to keep people safe and something goes wrong in spite of his best efforts, the courts will always consider whether his approach to safety during the activity in question was a predominantly responsible one.

That is the key point. That is why we introduced the Bill and why clause 3 will make a difference. It will provide greater protection to an employer who seeks to do the right thing and to look after his or her employees, and something goes wrong that could not have been foreseen. Of course, the Labour party, in hock as it is to the trade unions, immediately assumes the worst and immediately wants to do down the small business person. That is a sign of the way the Labour party has gone in the past few years. It has moved away from being sympathetic to the interests of small business and instead is back to the days of union domination and saying, “Let’s back the workers.” This is a responsible, balanced measure that ensures that those people who are genuinely wronged retain their legal redress, but that the law is on the side of the responsible employer who seeks to do the right thing.

Lords amendment 2 relates to clause 4, on heroism. As hon. Members will recall, the clause requires the court to consider whether a person was intervening heroically in an emergency when the negligence is alleged to have occurred. We know from polls carried out by St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation that worries about liability can deter people from intervening to help others in emergencies. That is something we should all be concerned about, and the clause is designed to give people greater reassurance that the law will be on their side in those circumstances.

We debated a proposed amendment that emanated from St John Ambulance. I listened carefully to the arguments set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). After we passed the measure, I did as I undertook to do and went away and thought carefully about the measure. I listened to debates in the Lords and decided there was no reason not to accept the St John Ambulance recommendation and the recommendation made by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend. I hope they accept that we made the amendment in the good spirit of trying to get the measure absolutely right.

When clause 4 left this House, the meaning of “heroism” included a requirement that the defendant must have been acting

“without regard to his or her own safety or other interests”.

My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend questioned whether the drafting of the clause might inadvertently exempt some very brave people who intervened in emergencies only after considering the risk to themselves and others. Initially, we thought it would be unlikely for the courts to interpret the clause in that way. However, in the light of the concerns raised on that point by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, and after discussions with those organisations and after considering the comments made in debates in the House and the other place, we decided that, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the simplest solution would be to omit from the clause the reference to acting

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

That means that it will be absolutely clear that the clause applies in any case where a person intervenes in an emergency to assist somebody in danger, irrespective of whether he or she acted entirely spontaneously or after carefully weighing up the risks. The amendment has been greeted warmly by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, which have said that they will use the opportunity that the Bill provides to encourage and reassure new first aid volunteers that the law is on their side.

That is what the Bill is all about. It is about saying to three groups of people seeking to do the right thing in our society that the law is on their side—people acting heroically, people acting in the interest of others, and people acting responsibly, particularly employers taking a responsible approach to health and safety matters in their own workplace. For many years in this country, we have faced a compensation culture. The Government have sought to make a number of changes to combat that compensation culture. We have made changes to the way in which legal fees are paid, and we have made changes to the way in which the rules apply. The Bill will add to a positive step forward. [Interruption.]

The fact that Opposition Front Benchers are sitting chuntering is, to my mind, a sign that they really do not care about tackling the compensation culture in this country. They do not care about the interests of small employers, and they do not care about people who are seeking to do the right thing. They are interested only in looking after the vested interests that provide them with their finance and backing. It is a sign of what divides this Government from the Opposition. It is a sign that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and people who seek to do the right thing. Opposite we have a party that simply represents vested interests and does not care about such things. That is why Labour Members have sought to challenge the Bill all the way through. The argument that the Bill was meaningless followed by the attempt to strike out parts of it completely undermined what they said and showed how bankrupt their current thinking is.

The two amendments make a helpful improvement to the Bill. I hope that the House supports them, and that the Bill can pass into law. I hope we send the clear message to those people that this Parliament is on their side.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I do not often feel compassion for the Lord Chancellor, but even he must have approached the Chamber this afternoon with how sad steps. Today, on the heels of the dismissal of the chief inspector of prisons comes the resignation of the conflicted chief inspector of probation, and so, on the first full day of probation privatisation, we have no one in charge of standards in the service.

The Lord Chancellor is scattering confidential data around like confetti, he appears to have changed at whim the burden of proof in criminal cases, and this afternoon, one of his favourite private contractors, Capita, was fined £16,000 by the president of the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking to the Lords amendment. I normally give quite a lot of leeway for a general introduction, but he must speak to the amendment.

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, that is what I intend to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the point that, with all of that going on just in the past few days, here we are talking about the Lord Chancellor’s heroes Bill. He is fiddling while Rome burns: more Nero than hero.

We are all sick of the Bill. I suspect the Lord Chancellor is sick of the Bill. Like many of his projects, it began as an exercise in public relations and a nod towards the tabloids, and a coded attack on the rights of the individual to find redress through the law. Both the ridicule and the incredulity with which it has been met on both sides of both Houses, and from almost every expert commentator, has exposed its pointlessness and fragility.

The Bill will be locked away from public gaze, elided by the courts and ignored by everyone else until some future Government finds a space in the legislative timetable to repeal it. The noble Lord Pannick said that he could not

“remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 16.]

The chair of the Law Society policy board today wrote that there were two views of the Bill: that is was

“vague, meaningless and otiose”

or

“so ill-defined that it is dangerous to the point of mischievousness”.

Given that history, do the two minor amendments do anything to improve the Bill? They certainly do not make it any worse, if that is any comfort to the Lord Chancellor, so we have no reason to vote against them.

Amendment 2 has been urged on the Government since Second Reading on 21 July 2014, when the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out the unhelpful nature of the final words of clause 4. I moved to delete the offending words—

“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”—

in Committee, supported by a very strong argument from St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross. However, it was not until Report in the other place that the Government finally gave in, stating:

“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.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 44.]

I am not sure that that was the point of the objections; rather, it was concern that the Government were encouraging bystanders to intervene, even when it was not safe to do so, and when more lives might be placed at risk, including those of professional rescuers. The Government have at least removed one howler, whatever their motive or excuse for doing so, so we welcome amendment 2. It is just rather late in the day in coming.

19:00

As for amendment 1, to leave out “generally” and insert “predominantly”, who knows what that will mean? No doubt we will find out in further satellite litigation, but given the brevity of the Bill, it is surprisingly full of imprecise, unhelpful and novel drafting. One belated and half-hearted attempt at reform is of little practical help. What does “activity” mean? What does “heroically” mean? What does “interests of others” mean? None of those issues has been addressed, only that one point.

Lord Pannick summarised his view of the Bill by saying that it

“will stand as a monument to the jurisprudential and policy achievements of Lord Chancellor Grayling. It is a fitting testament to the Lord Chancellor”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 262.]

Similar sentiments in less elegant language were expressed last week by the former Member for Harlow, Jerry Hayes.

We are all enjoying “Wolf Hall”, but perhaps with a tinge of regret that the office of Lord Chancellor, in the 500 years since Thomas Cromwell held the title, has gone from the indomitable to the unflushable. Cromwell was the architect of the biggest social and religious changes in the country’s modern history. This Bill, this Lord Chancellor’s last Act, certainly in this Parliament, is literally meaningless, and it is therefore, as has been said, a fitting memorial.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I do not need to be as offensive or as rude as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not in the least bit helpful to indulge in such rather childish and cheap personal remarks. The Lord Chancellor has a lot on his plate. I regret that the Bill was part of the menu, but none the less Parliament has discussed it and expressed its views on it and I, as a Member of Parliament, have done so as well.

I thank the Chancellor for the decision to agree with Lords amendment 2 and to remove from clause 4 the words

“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

That makes clause 4 marginally better, although I have nothing to resile from in the views that I expressed about the Bill last summer. I thank the Government for that.

On clause 3, I do not particularly welcome the change of “generally” to “predominantly” because I do not think either adverb assists very much. Clause 3 would have been better had the Government moved a little towards what the former Law Lord, Lord Brown, said on Third Reading in the other place on 6 January at columns 253 to 255. I shall not rehearse all that he said, but I would move a little further than him and say that rather than talking about acts or omissions in line 10, the Bill would be better if, instead of

“in carrying out the activity in the course of which”

and so on, it said, “The court must have regard to whether the person responsible for the act or omission in the course of which the alleged negligence” and so on. That would have been a clearer set of words. If the Bill, when it is enacted, is to be of any use to any court, it would be a little more useful had those words been put into clause 3.

Finally, I agree with what Lord Pannick said when he paid tribute to my very good and noble Friend, Lord Faulks, the Minister of State in the Lords. Lord Pannick said:

“However, I pay genuine tribute—I emphasise ‘genuine tribute’—to the Minister, who has applied his formidable skills of reason and eloquence, and has done so with consummate courtesy”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 2015; Vol. 758, c. 262.]

I shall not finish the sentence because it is not necessary to do so. I wish that those of us in this House who remain deeply critical of the Bill will none the less remember the hard work put into its deliberations in the other place single-handedly by my noble Friend, who has, like the Lord Chancellor, a lot on his plate, much of which, I am sure, he might have wished was not there.

There we have it. The Bill will go on to the statute book. I suspect that this particular book will not be opened again, but no doubt we will have other things to think about for the remainder of our busy schedule between now and the general election.

Lords amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

Constitutional Law

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

19:07

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

On 18 September last year, the people of Scotland, including tens of thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds, voted in the Scottish independence referendum, and made the historic decision to remain a part of the United Kingdom. The participation of our young people in the vote was truly historic and inspirational to witness. We saw the young people who took part in the referendum in great numbers listen to the arguments, frequently ask the toughest questions, and make up their own minds in a mature and reasoned way. They showed that they were more than capable of being a part of Scottish democracy when they helped their country take the biggest decision we have faced for centuries.

Evidence suggests that, having listened to the arguments and participated in the debate, 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the same way as the population of Scotland as a whole—to maintain Scotland’s position in our family of nations. This is, of course, welcome in itself, but it also puts paid to the notion that those who are old enough to marry and have children are not old enough to weigh up the issues and decide how to cast a vote. It demonstrated the desire to be involved in an event that would shape the future of the country, and it demonstrated to us all that when people understand the issue before them, hear the arguments and know the facts, they want to use their democratic right to make a difference.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the motion. Does the Secretary of State think it strange that we are saying that it is all right for 16-year-olds to vote in the referendum, but not in the general election? Surely if they are old enough to vote in one election, they are old enough to vote in every election.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. We are dealing tonight, however, with the franchise for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authority elections. I was about to turn to that very point and say that there is no consensus in this Parliament at this time to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the UK general election. My view, however, is that there is every reason to believe that the tide has turned in favour of that outcome. When it comes to extending the franchise in this country, the liberal, progressive argument always wins in the end, and afterwards there is a consensus that it was the right thing to do.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. A few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister the same question about votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, and he said that although he was inclined to keep the voting age at 18, he was looking forward to a vote. Perhaps the Secretary of State should have a word with him so that we can have that vote.

[Mr Carmichael]

We may indeed have that vote in time—who knows what business will come before the House, or by what route? However, to all intents and purposes it will not be practically possible to extend the franchise for the UK general election before May, so I think that the House would do better to devote its attention to scrutinising the order before us tonight, whatever sympathy I might have for the proposition that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to advance.

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

The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way, which is very useful. Surely it is possible to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for the whole United Kingdom, even at this late stage, because in Scotland all the facts and figures are already on the register. Surely that could be replicated across the whole United Kingdom. Would not that be in all our favour?

[Mr Carmichael]

Well, not by means of this order. That is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman. The order before the House has been brought forward in advance of other recommendations from the Smith commission report and heads of agreement precisely because it will be very challenging, even at this point, to perform the necessary administrative functions to allow 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in May 2016 and, beyond that, 2017. Those are the practical considerations that he would do well to bear in mind, quite apart from questions about the availability of parliamentary time to get measures through this House and the other place.

In the run-up to the referendum, pledges were made to the people of Scotland. The three pro-Union parties—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour—all made a vow to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, ensuring that Scotland retains the best of both worlds. Keeping that vow, the Prime Minister announced the day after the referendum that Lord Smith of Kelvin had agreed to lead a commission to agree what those new powers should be. The commission would work with the five parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to make that determination.

The commission invited submissions from political parties, a wide range of business and civic organisations and the wider public to help guide its consideration of what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Following due consideration of all submissions and views garnered by the commission, on 27 November 2014 the report detailing the heads of agreement was published. The report was welcomed by this Government and, as the House is aware, almost two weeks ago we published the draft clauses that will make up the substance of the next Scotland Bill to implement the report’s recommendations.

However, one of the commission’s recommendations is being taken forward separately from that Bill, and it will be introduced to Parliament following the general election: the recommendation that the UK Parliament should devolve the relevant powers in sufficient time to allow the Scottish Parliament to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the 2016 Scottish parliamentary elections, should it wish to do so. That is exactly what this draft order seeks to achieve.

The order is made under sections 30 and 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, the Act that set out the original devolution settlement for Scotland and continues to demonstrate that devolution is a fluid entity. Several section 30 and section 63 orders have been made under that Act and we do not expect that to change, even with the upcoming Bill. Where a need for change is identified and agreed, those changes are made.

The 1998 Act specifies what is reserved to the UK Parliament, not what is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Section 30(2) of the 1998 Act provides a mechanism whereby schedule 4 or 5 to the 1998 Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. That allows the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament to be changed.

That mechanism will be used to give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 at elections to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections. The order achieves that by making several amendments to schedules 4 and 5 to the 1998 Act. That will include the power to legislate to make provision on the registration of young electors in order to give effect to any such reduction in the minimum voting age. Section 63(1)(b) of the 1998 Act allows for an Order in Council to provide for any functions, so long as they are exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in or with regard to Scotland to be exercisable by Scottish Ministers concurrently with the Minister of the Crown.

The order will also give Scottish Ministers the ability to exercise certain functions relating to the individual electoral registration digital service. Those functions will be exercisable by Scottish Ministers concurrently with UK Ministers, and subject to the agreement of UK Ministers.

The changes to the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence will provide an exception so that the reduction of the minimum voting age to 16 at elections to the Scottish Parliament and at Scottish local government elections, and the registration of electors in order to give effect to provisions reducing the minimum voting age at those elections, will no longer be reserved matters.

The order will also enable the Scottish Government to make provision for the use of the individual electoral registration digital service when giving effect to provisions reducing the minimum voting age. I would like to make it clear that Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise those functions—in relation to the individual electoral registration digital service—only with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown. Scottish Ministers will be able to exercise those functions concurrently with a Minister of the Crown in so far as these are exercisable in or with regard to Scotland.

[Mr Donohoe]

Could the Scottish Parliament decide in future to lower the voting age further, say to 15 or 14? Does this order make that possible?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, that is the whole point of devolution. If the Scottish Parliament chooses to make a further change, it will have the legislative competence to do so as a result of this order. Of course, the Scottish Parliament is accountable to the people of Scotland for any exercise of the powers it has.

Finally, the order also provides that in certain cases the requirement to consult the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, and to publish reports prepared by the Electoral Commission, will apply to Scottish Ministers if they exercise the functions given to them relating to the individual electoral registration digital service.

Members will realise that in one respect the order goes further than what the Smith commission recommended: rather than simply devolving the powers necessary to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to participate in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections and subsequent Scottish Parliament elections, the order devolves the power to enable the Scottish Parliament, if it so desires, to legislate to lower the voting age to 16 in time for the 2017 local government elections in Scotland.

That was felt to be beneficial for two reasons. First, there is an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament wished to take forward such legislation, the timing of the Scotland Bill would make it very challenging to devolve the necessary powers in sufficient time for the Scottish Parliament in turn to legislate in time for May 2017 without breaching normal electoral rules. Secondly, the franchise for the Scottish Parliament elections is set by reference to the local government franchise. Devolving only the legislative competence to reduce the minimum voting age for Scottish Parliament elections would have meant that the Scottish Parliament needed to separate the Scottish Parliament franchise from the local government franchise, which in our view would have risked unnecessary complication.

If the approval of this House, the other place and the Scottish Parliament is secured, the order will go forward for consideration by Her Majesty in Council. When the order comes into force, the Scottish Parliament will be able to bring forward the legislation necessary to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in all Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I understand that the Scottish Government intend to introduce this legislation as soon as possible once this order has been made by the Privy Council.

I have always been a firm believer in votes at 16. With the sheer number of young people participating and voting in last year’s referendum, I believe that that case has become undeniable. This was reflected in the Smith commission heads of agreement, with all the main political parties agreeing that the voting age for Scottish Parliament elections should be lowered to 16. The UK Government fast-tracked devolving the power for this as an exception from the rest of the Smith package so that it could be in place in time for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I commend the order to the House.

19:20

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

On the day that Scottish Labour has set out how we will enhance the vow in our home rule Bill if and when we are elected, it is fitting that we are debating, for the first time since the Smith agreement, powers to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.

It is worth reminding the House of how we have reached this stage. The result of the referendum on 18 September was emphatic. The call for change was equally significant, and it was a call that we heard. Labour promised people safer, faster, better change with a no vote in September, and that is exactly what we have delivered. The cross-party Smith agreement reached just 10 weeks after the referendum vote was the first time that all Scotland’s parties had reached that degree of consensus on new powers for Scotland. The Smith agreement gives Scotland modern home rule, with extensive new powers over jobs, tax and welfare, and that is what we will legislate for if we are in power after May. Today’s discussion and agreement of this order should be another demonstration to the people of Scotland that the vow has been delivered and that we are standing true to the word we gave during the referendum campaign. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has been met.

As the Secretary of State explained, the order deals specifically with the power that was promised in section 25 of the final report of the Smith commission—namely, that control of the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Last year, Labour Members called for these powers to be brought forward quickly, and we are pleased that the Government are now doing so. As the Secretary of State said, it is obviously for the Scottish Parliament then to determine what the franchise should be, but it is clear that all the parties at Holyrood will support the lowering of the voting age to 16. It is right that we are debating these powers today so that we can give a guarantee that 16-and-17 year olds will be able to vote in the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. I hope that the Scottish Government will move to ensure that those same young people are able to vote a year later in Scottish local government elections.

Too many people, too often, are cynical about our young people, but the referendum campaign in Scotland showed many of them at their very best, engaging with politics, getting involved in the campaign, and participating in record numbers in debates in schools and college across Scotland. I am sure that many hon. Members can pay tribute to the debates held in their constituencies during the referendum campaign. The young people in my constituency of Glasgow East were a great credit to the referendum campaign and, in particular, to their schools. They organised very balanced debates to inform themselves and encourage participation.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is obviously going to congratulate the Scottish Government on introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds; I am sure she is getting round to that. What I remember about the debate on giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds is a lot of whingeing and whining by Labour Members telling the Scottish Government that it could not be done and finding all sorts of reasons why it would not be possible. Does she not recall any of that?

[Margaret Curran]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who perhaps has the greatest expertise in whingeing, will join me in paying tribute to those involved in the Smith commission for bringing this forward. If we all agree on something, let us for once stress the fact and say, “Isn’t it good that we’re all agreed on this progress for Scotland?”

Research by the Electoral Commission has shown that about 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted in the referendum—a very high proportion considering that it was the first vote to which they were entitled. I hope that we can speak positively about those young people and be constructive in our comments as we welcome this landmark for 16 and 17-year-olds in our country. I recognise the positive energy and enthusiasm that those young people brought to the referendum and can now, I hope, bring to Scottish elections as well. It does not matter whether they voted yes or no; what matters is that they participated, and that is something we want to encourage. What matters is that with this order, and with the actions that the Scottish Parliament will take, we can strengthen our democracy and increase democratic participation.

The changes that we are discussing have very broad support in Scotland. They have been welcomed by a large body of pressure groups and organisations representing young people, including the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on children and young people, Young Scot, LGBT Youth Scotland, Children in Scotland, the Scottish Youth Parliament, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. As Young Scot said in its statement calling for votes at 16 in Scotland,

“Scotland will be viewed as a world leader by fully engaging and empowering its 16 and 17 year olds as fully franchised citizens active in the political life of the country.”

As has been the case in the past, Scotland can lead the way on this change and show that our young people have what it takes to engage in our democratic process. However, as was indicated earlier, Labour Members would go much further. The order meets the agreement made in the Smith commission on votes at 16 and 17 in Scotland, but we believe that there should not be two-tier voting across the country. As the Secretary of State said in response to questions from my hon. Friends, it is reasonable to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) did at Prime Minister’s questions, when we will get the opportunity to pursue this policy. If the Prime Minister indicated that there would be a vote, it is reasonable for the Government to say when it is likely to take place. If our young people in Scotland have what it takes to decide the future of their country in the referendum and, soon, the shape of the Scottish Government, they also have what it takes to decide the shape of the UK Government. That is why Labour would extend the franchise in all UK elections so that 16 and 17-year-olds can also vote in general elections. Taking a lead from Scotland, Labour would extend votes at 16 and 17 to the other devolved Administrations, English local government and the London Assembly, truly empowering young people across the United Kingdom. It is about time that our young people were given a voice, regardless of the type of election or where in this country they live. As I said, the Prime Minister was recently forced to concede that.

It is welcome that the Secretary of State has brought forward this order and that we are delivering these powers ahead of the general election, honouring the commitment given during the Smith agreement. I have raised with him several times the possibility of extending this principle to other areas of the Smith agreement, notably the devolution of employability support. I again push him to listen to Labour’s calls for immediate devolution in that regard and to bring an order to this House to achieve that. He has shown his competence in introducing this order; perhaps he could extend that to an order on employability support. Flattery does not seem to be having any impact on him, but it was worth a try, and I will keep trying. Devolving these powers should not wait until after the election. They are another step towards delivering the modern home rule that was at the heart of the Smith agreement. That is indeed the first step in delivering more powers for Scotland. Labour’s home rule Bill, which we intend to introduce in the first 100 days of the next Labour Government, will give Scotland the full powers it needs, as agreed during the Smith commission and announced today. We thank the Secretary of State for bringing this order before the House today, and give it our full support.

19:29

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

I welcome this order which will deliver on commitments made in the Smith commission. Its timeliness will allow it to be implemented effectively, efficiently, and in time for the Scottish election and future local government elections, and in particular it will allow us to get the register right.

I wish to reinforce the experience of having 16-year-olds involved in the political system. The referendum did that in a practical sense, but for years many Members of the House have been going into schools and recognising that 16-year-olds have an informed and enthused approach to the political system and engagement with politicians. An important aspect of engaging people at 16 is that they are in a stable environment such as school or college, and many are still in a home environment. There is therefore a chance of getting them registered and involved in the electoral system before they get into the flux and change of life that goes with the upheaval of moving on from school and towards the rest of their lives. If we can engage people at 16, they are more likely to stay engaged with the voting system throughout their lives.

Many of us criticise short-termism in electoral decision making, but 16-year-olds clearly have the most long-term future in decisions that are made about this country and what is happening. If we can engage with them and get them to think about the future and build on that, we can perhaps take a longer term approach to our voting system. I welcome the order and I hope that the House will see it come to fruition, honouring the Smith commission and delivering votes for 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland.

19:32

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important order, which if approved will ensure that the voices of our young people in Scotland are heard. More specifically, it will guarantee that the franchise is extended in time for elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2016, and the Scottish local government elections in 2017.

I welcome the publication of the Smith commission’s Command Paper, which includes provisions for the conduct of Scottish elections to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, I am proud that Scottish Labour’s calls for the change to be fast-tracked will become a reality this evening, and I urge the Scottish Parliament to take swift action to ensure that changes are in place ahead of those elections. It is vital that we build on the energy and momentum created by the participation of our young people in the independence referendum, and grant the Scottish Parliament power to lower the voting age to 16.

As I am sure all Members will acknowledge, the level of engagement witnessed among our young people during the referendum is a cause for celebration. More than 100,000 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote, and on the day itself many thousands of young Scots made their way to polling stations up and down the country to have their say on the future of their country. Young Scots had a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offered them a real chance of influence. Such levels of participation demonstrate that it is right to enfranchise our young people and lower the voting age to 16. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are more than capable of taking important political decisions. Our young people already contribute much to our society; they have other rights, and a number of obligations are placed on them. It is therefore correct that they should be able to participate in the selection of those who govern them.

I often visit local schools in my constituency, and I am always impressed by how engaged young people are. During the referendum it was evident that our young people were fully involved with the independence debate, carefully examining the implications of both sides of the argument. Young people are informed, politically interested, and fully aware of the world around them. It therefore makes perfect sense to approve the order and grant 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote.

The need to lower the voting age is supported by a number of organisations and groups including Barnardo’s, the National Union of Students and the Electoral Reform Society. Lowering the voting age brings with it a number of benefits and can serve to increase engagement—indeed, the Power Commission makes that point:

“Reducing the voting age to sixteen would obviously be one way of reducing the extent of exclusion for many thousands of young people, and of increasing the likelihood of…taking part in political and democratic debate.”

Evidence has shown that someone who votes when they first become eligible is more likely to keep voting for the rest of their life.

I am proud that a future Labour Government will legislate to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK are able to vote in general and local elections. As the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—hopefully soon to become the Secretary of State for Scotland—made clear, Labour will go further, and I am disappointed that the current Tory-led Government do not share that view. Just as it is important that 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have their say, it is equally important that other young people across the UK in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are afforded the same opportunity. Lowering the voting age to 16 would strengthen our democracy and open it up to a new generation. I urge all Members to support this order, and hope that it marks the first step in the enfranchisement of all 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK.

19:37

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to speak on a subject close to my heart. Lowering the voting age is one of the main reasons I became involved in politics in the first place. I joined the youth wing of the Scottish National party in 1985, at a time when the Young Scottish Nationalists updated the party’s policy. From then on and until the present day, SNP policy has been that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all democratic elections.

I felt so strongly about the issue that it was the subject of my maiden speech in 2001, and I hope the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) does not mind my reading some of it out:

“Speaking as the youngest Member of the House who represents a Scottish constituency”—

I think the hon. Lady has taken over that responsibility from me—

“I am convinced that one change might help to engender an interest in voting among young people: lowering the voting age to 16. That has the support of Members on both sides of the House and I make the suggestion in the non-partisan hope of boosting democracy.

Does it not strike hon. Members as ludicrous that we can raise and spend tax money levied on 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it not ludicrous that we can pass legislation that affects their working lives and economic well-being? Is it not obscene that we can send young service men and women into hazardous situations where they may give their lives for their country? It is obscene that 16 and 17-year-olds are judged old enough to pay tax, get married or die for their country, but are not granted the equality that enfranchisement brings. As Ministers in this place and in the Scottish Executive consider suggestions for boosting the teaching of civic life and modern studies, would it not help to show 16 and 17-year-olds the relevance of the democratic process if we gave them the vote?”—[Official Report, 3 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 192.]

That was in 2001.

I also reflected on the fact that the commitment of the SNP to lowering the voting age goes back much further. One of my predecessors who represented Moray, Winnie Ewing, was elected previously in Hamilton in 1967, and she made her maiden speech on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The commitment runs deep in Scotland’s largest party.

It is fantastic that Members on both sides have praised the independence referendum and the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds, although I have not yet heard Members from other parties acknowledge that they were able to vote because the SNP-led Scottish Government insisted on it. It behoves Members to recognise that as a significant reason why we are at this stage. Perhaps they will think it noteworthy to bring up in their contributions later.

The experience to which hon. Members have attested was reflected in my constituency and, I am sure, in every single part of Scotland. We were invited to take part in debates in schools and sit on panels with young people—I went to Speyside high school, Forres academy and the Elgin youth café. I am sure that Members on both sides could attest to these types of events, and as the referendum drew closer, the level of debate among younger Scots about what the referendum would mean for them, regardless of whether they had made up their minds, was fantastic.

The statistics thus far—there will many more, because several academic studies have yet to report—and early academic feedback are extremely encouraging. The Electoral Commission released a report in December 2014 suggesting that turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%—significantly higher than among some older age groups. Of all respondents, 60% said they would support a measure allowing everyone to vote from the age of 16; and 97% of the 16 and 17-year-olds who reported having voted said they would vote again in future elections and referendums. This is tremendously encouraging and should give great support to those arguing for a wider franchise.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

We should all applaud the turnout of young voters in the referendum, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty is in encouraging 18 to 25-year-olds to take part in the process?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although widening the franchise will make that much easier for future generations, through engagement in schools, through modern studies, and with political parties and local representatives. That will help to join up, in a much more tangible way, the political world with what happens in schools. However, he points out the challenge of those age cohorts who have not had that experience, and we all need to work hard to bridge that gap.

By enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds, we can encourage schools to hold political debate and involve democratically elected representatives. Some schools have concerns about managing the process fairly, but it is not beyond the wit of those schools to do so, and as we know—because we attended many of these events—it works. All of us, having gone through the referendum experience, will want to ensure it is not a one-off. That we can do it for Scottish Parliament elections is great; that it will happen for local government elections is fantastic; that it will not happen for Westminster elections is shameful.

I note that there are two Conservative Members in the Chamber. I observe that 58 of the 59 Members from Scotland belong to political parties that support lowering the voting age in Westminster elections, yet it is not happening. It is for Conservative Members to reflect on what message it sends to people in Scotland when yet again decisions are being made, or rather when progress is not being made because there is not a willingness to recognise the democratic wishes of people in Scotland.

It is unimaginable now that we might go back to a situation in which 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote. I shall spare the blushes of some people in Scottish politics, and not quote their words in the run-up to the referendum.

[Pete Wishart]

Tell them!

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend encourages me. I shall give one quote. The Scottish Secretary’s predecessor told the Press Association on 19 February:

“Sixteen and 17-year-olds should be barred from voting in a referendum on independence for Scotland.”

It was inexplicable—now it just sounds ridiculous. Why on earth would he say such a thing? I have no idea. Once we have lowered the voting age, nobody will argue that it was not the sensible thing to do. When this place finally gets round to lowering the voting age for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and the rest of the UK, I shall be all in favour of it. It will play a part in reconnecting younger people in society with the political process, which over time will lead to a reconnection with the whole of society.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sure my hon. Friend is doing all he can to spare the blushes of our Labour colleagues regarding some of their comments in advance of this order. Does he agree, however, that we now have to work together—it is great that the Labour party has embraced this measure—and ensure that our young people get to vote in all subsequent elections, whether for Holyrood or Westminster?

[Angus Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is up to all of us. What will be in the manifestos of the political parties? If the overwhelming majority of Members returned from Scotland are in favour of lowering the voting age, that is what should happen, as should be the case with every other major policy decision.

This is a rare event in the Chamber. Almost all Scotland’s parliamentarians in this place agree on Scotland’s constitutional progress, but we should reflect on the fact that it was not always that way. It is amazing how when one moves beyond the introduction of such a measure, everyone is suddenly in favour of it—even those who only a year or two before were opposed or highly sceptical. I am really pleased that the SNP and the Scottish Government, when given the chance to put their money where their mouth was, delivered on what was promised decades ago—that younger people in Scotland should be able to vote. That should happen in all subsequent elections, for the Scottish Parliament, for local government and for the Westminster Parliament.

19:47

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

It is a privilege to speak in this debate as the chair of the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, the organisation within the Labour movement that speaks and campaigns for political and constitutional reform. Labour can trace the origins of its commitment to these great causes back to Keir Hardie more than a century ago. It was he who first called for an elected second Chamber and for a powerful home rule Scottish Parliament through strong devolution. I regret we cannot honour the third of his commitments—his strong desire to see the cause of temperance furthered across the UK—but we will honour every element of his commitment to political reform in this modern Labour movement.

Rarely in this House do debates on statutory instruments range beyond the specific matters they address, but this debate signifies two wider forces shaping the future of these islands. First, devolution and good governance across these islands will be strengthened by the delivery, as promised, of the Smith agreement, of which this draft order is the first legislative stage. Secondly, the rights of citizens across the UK demand a new political and constitutional settlement, including: votes at 16; the replacement of the unelected other place by an elected second Chamber; substantial further devolution within England; and making devolution and human rights protection permanent within our constitutional arrangement. It is increasingly clear that the order must be the first stage in generating a codified constitution for the UK to put all these changes beyond the day-to-day conflict of partisan politics. I shall address each point in turn.

The strength of the devolution settlement, originating in the devolution referendum of 1997 and the original Scotland Act 1998, is clear in this evening’s debate. An agreement between five of Scotland’s political parties on transferring powers in connection with the franchise in Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, resulting in the devolution of those powers in law within a matter of weeks, will ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in next May’s Scottish Parliament elections and in the council elections in Scotland the year after. We are achieving together the progressive cause of extending the right to vote in these elections to tens of thousands of young people in Scotland. This stands as a further testament to the work of the late Donald Dewar in crafting a devolution settlement capable of evolving and meeting popular demand in Scotland, and we will see much more evidence of that in the weeks following the general election this May.

The incredible enthusiasm and level of engagement by 16 and 17-year-olds in last year’s referendum proved all the doubters wrong, so with this draft order today, the Scottish Parliament will have the power—the full powers—to make full post-16 voting rights a reality in devolved elections. I recall speaking to a young man on the doorstep in Riddrie in my constituency on referendum polling day. He expressed with remarkable insight and knowledge the evidence and beliefs that had motivated him to participate at the age of 17 in his first democratic election. How many more young people will become active in their communities and in wider society and stand for elected office themselves because of their experience in the referendum campaign last year?

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Many hon. Members, regardless of political party, have made much of continuing that engagement with young people and getting access to our schools in order to discuss with our young people who are about to be 16 the relevance of politics to their lives. We have seen an awakening among young people, so I encourage each and every Member to carry on with that. I am about to meet 100 young people from Inverclyde schools to discuss such matters on Friday.

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and he is a champion of engagement in his own constituency. I hope that will be remembered in Inverclyde in just a few weeks’ time.

All the evidence from Demos and the Electoral Reform Society demonstrates that the earlier young people participate in democracy, the more likely they are to remain voters in the future. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can pay taxes, get married, join the armed forces and act as company directors. It is an absurdity that they have been denied the right to be full members of our vital democratic processes for so long.

This debate reminds us that we have a duty to make it easier for young people to be able to vote, and it is a warning about the effects of the botched introduction of individual voter registration being presided over by this Government. In its present form, it could have the effect of removing the right to vote for thousands of young people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

This is indeed a good day for democracy, but not a perfect one. I hope that most right hon. and hon. Members will not rest until votes at 16 are introduced for elections to this House and for the elected Chamber that must replace the unelected other place. I hope leaders at EU level will show boldness in extending the franchise at European parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds too, offering hope to those currently suffering the most from low wages and high unemployment due to the problems in the eurozone economy.

The order demonstrates that grass-roots campaigns for political reform can bring change in this House and to our country as a whole. Just as the Chartists campaigned for democratic rights, trade unions campaigned for the enfranchisement of working class people and the suffragettes campaigned for the enfranchisement of women, so today’s order is the further realisation of their ambitions for a society where everyone can participate, and where government, at whatever level, is more responsive and accountable to all the people of this country as a result. The British Youth Council has campaigned tirelessly for votes at 16 for years, and today is the first recognition of the justice of its campaign in parliamentary and local government elections. It will not be the last.

The debate on this order shows that the governance of the British state is changing and that the pace of that change must increase in the coming years, so we must see a constitutional convention to produce a coherent plan for devolution in England, recommend proposals for an elected senate, consider how the role of human rights protection can be strengthened within our constitution and explore how all our governance arrangements can be made permanent in a single constitution, binding us all as citizens of the United Kingdom.

These are changes worth fighting for: a modern democratic constitutional settlement that can reflect our common links, but also our diversity across these islands. Today marks the first element of that change, but it also shows us the potential to see what can be if we have the boldness and courage to act early in the next Parliament.

19:56

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this momentous debate for the young people of Scotland. I am often referred to as a young person in debates such as this because I am the youngest MP in Parliament. I feel increasingly fraudulent about that claim, however, as I must be—now in my 30s—the oldest youngest MP for quite some time! I continue to appreciate being referred to as a young person. [Interruption.] I thank hon. Members for saying that I do not look my age—and I am glad that that will now be on the record for eternity.

Today’s order will devolve the control of the franchise of the Scottish Parliament to its rightful place—the Scottish Parliament. It seems ludicrous now that that was not done at its establishment. There appears to be a consensus among the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Even the Tory leader Ruth Davidson, who had previously said that she was opposed to this move has reportedly, like many others, changed her view. She said that her referendum experience of young voters had changed her mind. I look forward to her Westminster colleagues following suit. Many others previously unsure about the move to lower the voting age now concede that there is no going back after the referendum in Scotland, where we saw our young people thoughtfully and passionately engage in the debate on the future of their country.

As I say, there has been consensus, but I was disappointed by the tone adopted by the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and, in an intervention, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). They seemed to be trying to seek divisions in the debate when there is cross-party support for the devolution of the power and for votes at 16 in elections for the Scottish Parliament. At the time, some did not agree that young people of 16 or 17 in Scotland should have the vote in the referendum. There will be some examples of that, of course, but my overwhelming recollections of the debate and the conversations people were having at the time was that there was support for votes at 16. There was, however, strong scepticism—even from myself, a long-term supporter of votes at 16—about the SNP’s view that the power should be devolved for the purpose of the referendum when they had not called for the franchise to be devolved previously.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is, of course, right about the consensus: we all agree on all this. Surely, however, she could bring herself to acknowledge the fact that it was the Scottish Government who introduced this measure. No Labour Members have mentioned the role of the Scottish Government, and they seem reluctant to say that it was the SNP Scottish Government who introduced votes for 16 and 17-year-olds first.

[Pamela Nash]

I welcomed it at the time, and I congratulated the Scottish Government on it. I am happy to do so again tonight, but it was not done on their own—there was cross-party support for it at the time. I welcome the fact that they did it, but there is this overwhelming scepticism about why it had not happened in the past and that over the years of the SNP Government they had not once asked for the devolution of the franchise and the ability to lower the vote to 16. I was disappointed that it took them so long. However, I am happy that the franchise is to be devolved, and that it is the policy of my party to allow votes for 16-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom and not just in Scotland.

Let me say a little about my career before I entered the House. As some may know, I was a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that time, “Votes at 16” was a big campaign. I was very much a part of that campaign, along with the rest of the Youth Parliament, and I am still a keen campaigner today. I remember visiting for the first time, as a Member of the Youth Parliament, a class of 16 and 17-year-olds—who were not much younger than I was—at Calderhead school in Shotts, which is still my constituency. I clearly recall that, when I asked those young people whether they wanted the vote, most of them said that they did not. I have had the same experience several times since, as a Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament and also as a Member of this Parliament.

Those young people told me that they did not think they knew enough about politics and current affairs to make the decision, and also felt that many of their peers would not take it seriously. I pointed out to them that I knew people of every age who that might apply to, and that no one was suggesting that 40 and 50-year-olds should not be able to vote on political issues, or should be subjected to a competence test before being able to do so—and neither should we suggest that. People of all ages should be able to use their knowledge and experience of life to choose who they want to represent them, and in my view 16 and 17-year-olds are no less capable of doing that than those aged 18 and over.

Some people—and I have heard it in this place—use such anecdotes and polls that show that young people do not want the vote at 16 and 17 to say that they should not be given the vote. I would argue that the level of self-awareness among these young people, and their readiness to research, learn and take their votes seriously, suggests that they are more than ready to take on the responsibility of choosing their representatives—and it is a responsibility. We must remember that, and highlight it. We often discuss the right to vote, but it is not just a right; it is a responsibility as well. It is a shame that a third of people of all ages did not vote in the last general election, and I hope that that will change in the next election.

My main reason for campaigning for votes at 16 has already been mentioned by other Members in this debate. Lowering the voting age will ensure that many more young people will still be in full-time education as they prepare to cast their first votes. I hope that young people who are still at school or college will learn about the responsibility that they must take, and about the importance and impact of their votes. I hope that they will be more likely to vote because members of their peer groups will initiate conversations about the upcoming election and encourage them to participate. I agree with others that, in casting the first vote for which they are eligible, they will establish a habit for life.

We often hear about voter apathy, although the Scottish referendum was a recent exception to the rule. In fact, the turnout for the 2010 general election, especially among young people, was higher than the 2005 turnout: it rose from 38.2% to 51.8%. That represents a change in a trend that had lasted for decades. We must nurture the momentum, and encourage young people to participate fully in our electoral system.

I am delighted that we are taking this important step towards giving a vote in next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections to 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency and throughout Scotland, and I look forward to the day when that is replicated throughout the United Kingdom.

20:04

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a few more comments about the order. I am grateful to the official Opposition for their co-operation.

There has been a remarkable consensus in the House this evening, despite all the efforts of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who did his best to challenge that consensus by violently agreeing with everything that was said by everyone else. It takes a particular skill to sow division by agreeing with everyone else, and that is just one of the reasons for which I have always regarded the hon. Gentleman as very special.

I particularly welcome the support of the official Opposition in respect of the order, and, indeed, in respect of the extension of the franchise to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, as one who, like the hon. Member for Moray, has long been a supporter of the extension of the franchise to 16-year-olds—indeed, I have supported it throughout my political career—let me gently suggest to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) and her colleagues that, when challenging the rest of us about the current position, they may wish to reflect on the fact that they had 13 years to change it when they were in government and I was a Member of Parliament here, but did not do so.

[Mr Donohoe]

rose—

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman intervened during my opening speech to ask about an extension to those under 16. The order restricts the power to the age of 16, which is an honouring of the Smith commitment. Once the draft clauses have become law, however, full devolution will follow, and the position will be as I described it to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he still wishes to intervene.

[Mr Donohoe]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way. One matter concerns me greatly. We are approaching a general election in May, and the same youngsters who were enabled to vote in the referendum will then be disfranchised. What effect will that have on their future involvement in politics? The point was not made this evening, although I expected it to be.

[Mr Carmichael]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. If I had had my way, we would have made the change many years ago throughout the United Kingdom. However, I can only deal with the situation at hand. As I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman and others, the practicalities and the administrative issues are complex and involved. As a consequence, the purpose of the order is restricted, but it allows us to honour the commitments that we have made. I think it is clear from what has been said from Members in all parts of the House that, throughout the United Kingdom, we are on a journey. On a personal level, let me say to the hon. Gentleman and others that, while it is clear that there will be no change before 7 May for all sorts of practical reasons, it is, in my view, unthinkable that franchise for the 2020 election will not include 16 and 17-year-olds. I think that the move in that direction is now irresistible, but it will, of course, be for the House to make the decision on another day.

All Members who spoke described the positive engagement that they had experienced in their constituencies and elsewhere throughout the referendum campaign as a result of the participation of 16 and 17-year-old voters, and that was certainly my experience at the time, in all parts of Scotland and especially in my own constituency. One of the more positive memories that I will take from that campaign is of a packed meeting in Kirkwall town hall, which was addressed by me, by my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Crosby, and by a 15-year-old Orcadian school pupil, Jack Norquoy, who was not even old enough to vote in the referendum. It was both humbling and inspirational to observe that level of engagement and participation. It is, indeed, that level of engagement and participation that has brought us to this point, and it is for that reason that I am immensely proud to invite the House to agree to the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.

Business without Debate

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

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

Road Traffic

That the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014, dated 30 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 December 2014, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)

20:10

Division 145

Ayes: 263

---

Conservative: 219
Liberal Democrat: 43
UK Independence Party: 1

Noes: 62

---

Labour: 55
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Liberal Democrat: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

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

Constitutional Law

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 December 2014, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)

Question agreed to.

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

Pensions

That the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2014, be approved. —(Damian Hinds.)

20:22

Division 146

Ayes: 261

---

Conservative: 222
Liberal Democrat: 38
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 56

---

Labour: 51
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10, 11 and 12 together.

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

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Penalty as Alternative to Prosecution) (Maximum Amount) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 8 December 2014, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Fines on Summary Conviction) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.

Sea Fisheries

That the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 3363), dated 18 December 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 January, be approved.—(Damian Hinds.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and EU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Illegal Annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13519/14, a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, as regards Title III (with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party) and Titles IV, V, VI and VII thereof, as well as the related Annexes and Protocols, No. 1351/2014, Council Regulation (EU) of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No. 692/2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and No. 2014/933/CFSP, Council Decision of 18 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol; supports the Government’s aim of demonstrating flexibility on timing of the provisional application of parts of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, as part of an intense wider effort to deescalate tensions on the ground in Ukraine; encourages the use of the Association Agreement between the EU, its Member States and Ukraine to embed sustainable reform, security and prosperity in Ukraine and the eastern neighbourhood; and supports the Government’s aim of fully implementing its policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol.—(Damian Hinds.)

Question agreed to.

Birmingham Airport (Flight Path Changes)

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Damian Hinds.)

20:33

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

It is amazing what an Adjournment debate in Parliament can achieve. On Friday, I had a call from the chief executive of Birmingham airport telling me about some significant changes to the plans for new flight paths, but I shall say more on that in due course. The extension of the runway at the airport has necessitated changes to the flight paths under the airspace change proposal.

Birmingham airport has been trialling options for two new flight paths, known as option 5 and option 6, since May last year. On Friday, the airport announced that when the trial concludes on 13 February, a modified version of option 6 will be implemented, to include features of the original noise preferential route. I am glad that the airport has come up with an option that risks the least noise nuisance, although we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route, along with continuous work to improve further the airport services, taking into consideration the nearby communities. I was particularly pleased that the chief executive stated that the airport wished to mimic as closely as possible “the old Hampton turn”, referring to a manoeuvre that minimised the impact of air traffic on the nearby village of Hampton-in-Arden.

However, the overall process of undertaking the flight path trials has been poor, with long-running problems. Back in July last year, I presented a petition here on the Floor of the House that raised my constituents’ concerns about the trials, which I asked the Department to review. There have been many inadequacies in the trials, including aircraft failing to stick to routes correctly and the repeated postponing of the option 6 trial. The local community feels it has not been listened to, particularly in the rejection of its proposal for an option 6a, an alternative flight path that would have minimised noise nuisance. It made detailed submissions to Birmingham airport, highlighting how a departure route that included a turn at altitude could closely replicate the existing noise preferential route and accommodate the extended runway. That option gained a great deal of community support but was rejected by Birmingham airport without any meaningful qualification.

The Civil Aviation Authority was aware of the alternative option that the community came up with but could not force the airport to trial it. After the initial consultation, options 5 and 6 were scheduled for trialling on alternative months beginning in May 2014. The trials were initially intended to last around seven months.

Under option 5, the aircraft would have continued straight ahead on take-off, but that would have affected the residents of Balsall common quite badly. Under option 6, the aircraft were to make a 20 degree turn to the right, once 2.2 nautical miles from the end of the extended runway, but that option directly overflies the village of Barston, with obvious negative consequences for residents there.

Until Friday’s announcement, option 5 had been Birmingham airport’s preferred option. Before the changes to the flight path, aircraft used to turn away from Hampton-in-Arden at a specific distance from the end of the runway on the noise preferential route—the so-called Hampton turn. Since the runway extension of 450 metres, the airport has said that the Hampton turn could not be replicated; that a turn at a specified distance must be further than 2.2 nautical miles away from the runway because of so-called obstacles. However, when I asked the airport what those obstacles were, it provided me with a list of incomprehensible co-ordinates, and I was none the clearer.

In the initial planning application stage for the runway extension, local councillors probed very heavily whether the Hampton turn could be maintained if the extension took place. They were assured that it would form part of the evaluation of options under the separate consultation process for the trials.

The airport's latest announcement of a modified version of option 6 should replicate the Hampton turn more closely, and I welcome this indication that the airport is listening to the concerns of the community and hope that progress will continue to be made.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and defending the quality of life for her constituents who are affected by Birmingham airport. Many of us agree that expansion of Birmingham airport could benefit the area, so it is vital that the airport has a better working relationship with the community to ensure that its views are heard. We welcome expansion of Birmingham airport, but it must be acceptable to her constituents and not impact on their quality of life.

[Mrs Spelman]

I could not have put the case better myself. My hon. Friend is quite right that the airport enjoyed previously a really good relationship with the surrounding community. It is landlocked on three sides by residential accommodation, and quite dense accommodation at the northerly end of the runway. It is so disappointing that the difficulty with these trials has damaged public trust. The most important thing now is to restore that trust.

I emphasise here that I am not asking the Minister to comment on the specifics of options 5 or 6, because, as ever, a balance needs to be struck—what is beneficial for one community may not be beneficial for another, and I have remained strictly neutral between the two. The aim of the flight path trials has been to measure the actual impact of aircraft noise on relative communities—in Barston and Balsall common—rather than relying on theoretical modelling. That information is being used in submissions to the Civil Aviation Authority and it has informed the airport’s decision.

I want to sketch briefly the timeline of the trials and to highlight some of the issues. The trial of option 5 commenced on 1 May 2014. For technical reasons, it proved very difficult for some aircraft to stick accurately to the initially proposed route for option 6, with accuracy as low as 49% on the northbound turn, so it had to be withdrawn in June. I wonder whether some of the difficulty with trialling the options could have been avoided with better simulation so that they got it right the first time round.

Once option 6 had been revised, the trials were rescheduled to 13 November, which was, of course, during the winter flight schedule, when fewer aircraft come in and out of the airport. Although the capacity of winter and summer should not affect the ability to check the range of noise from different types of aircraft, noise monitoring does not measure the effect of repeated disturbance or its cumulative effect.

There were further problems with the programming of area navigation aircraft, which meant that the trial of option 6 did not actually begin in November, as scheduled—or rescheduled. One of the flight coding companies, which airlines employ to keep them up to date with correct flight paths, had not provided airlines with the correct information for the revised option 6. The problem was subsequently corrected, but it was not until 11 December that the trial of option 6 commenced fully.

Although I accept that that may not have been the airport’s fault, the cumulative effect of repeated mistakes calls into question the validity of the trials, and it has been frustrating and damaging to public trust. If you will forgive the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, it rather feels like the airport has adopted a trial-and-error approach to the flight path trials. As I have said, following a meeting between the CAA and Birmingham airport last week, the airport intends to continue using a modified version of option 6 once the trials have finished.

Another issue is that the local communities feel they have not been adequately listened to. It did not help that the airport announced that it would review the membership of the airport consultative committee, which is made up of local representatives, just before the trial. The airport proposed to remove the residents associations, parish councils and civic societies from the main committee and place them in a sub-committee, with only the chair of the sub-committee remaining on the revised airport consultative committee to represent the views of the community. That sidelined the organisations that best served the community’s views. Indeed, as the elected Member of Parliament, I was allowed to attend only as an observer.

As a result of pressure from the council leader, however, the airport has agreed to maintain the groups on the airport consultative committee at least while the trials continue. The airport has also taken other steps to improve community dialogue, including by committing to producing community updates throughout the process.

The local community was supported throughout by Solihull council, which passed a motion in October stating:

“This Council supports fair flight paths for take-off and arrival of aircraft at Birmingham Airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on communities. We further welcome the involvement of community representatives both at the Airspace Change Forum while trials continue and through their continuing contribution to the work of the Airport Consultative Committee.”

It was clear that the council did not favour one option over the other.

The debate so far has centred on communities affected by changes to flight paths from runway 15, which is for southbound departures. However, runway 33 departures—which are to the north from Birmingham—have also changed, and they make up 60% of flights. Changes to runway 33 departures have affected a number of my constituents in areas including Castle Bromwich and Marston Green. Due to the extension to the runway, aircraft are rotating earlier and therefore homes in the village are suffering more noise as aircraft are above ground level earlier on take off and make a departure on a much lower angle. However, I was encouraged to hear the airport chief executive say on Friday that, there too, modifications have been made to option 6, which may help to alleviate that noise nuisance.

In summary, the process of trialling new routes has been poorly done. The impact of the flight path trials has been increased noise pollution and a breakdown in the previously positive relationship between the local community and the airport. I welcome the news that the airport has agreed to consider a modified option 6, but we must ensure that there is a trial period to test the modified route and continuous work further to improve airport services, with consideration given to nearby communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) said, the airport is an important attribute and asset of regional and indeed national significance to our country. However, the management of the airport and the adjustments to its expansion in future need to be carried out hand in hand with the community most directly affected by it, and it is important that the re-engagement with the community rebuilds public trust.

20:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great pleasure to rise to speak this evening, particularly as the House has just voted to increase the heavy goods vehicle limit to 50 mph, which is very good news for the environment, as trucks operate very efficiently at that speed, for the economy and logistics, and for road safety. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) on securing this debate about Birmingham airport’s flight paths. I understand and indeed sympathise with the concerns she has raised on behalf of her constituents, and I would like to thank her for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I had a meeting with her just before Christmas in which she explained to me this complex matter, about which I know she and many of her constituents feel very strongly.

Although this debate has rightly concentrated on the concerns of some of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, we should not ignore the vital contribution made by Birmingham airport to the regional and local economies. The aviation policy framework cited Birmingham airport as an example of an ambitious regional airport, with its ongoing programme to develop more long-haul services that would help boost the west midlands economy and help ease capacity constraints at south-east airports. I was in Birmingham today, alighting at Birmingham International airport, where I was struck by the number of passengers, many with luggage, who got off at the same time as me—obviously they were using that important regional airport.

I am sure that the House welcomed the announcement of a Birmingham service to New York in 2015 and increases to services to Delhi and Dubai. We should also not overlook the inaugural flights from Beijing to Birmingham airport in July and August last year. Those were very significant as the first direct flights from Beijing to a UK regional airport. Taken together, they increase the connectivity with important trading partners that a major city such as Birmingham, and the west midlands region, requires. But if we are to continue to benefit from a continuing thriving aviation industry in this country, we also need to have an efficient airspace fit for the 21st century. That is a key objective of the Civil Aviation Authority’s future airspace strategy—FAS—which is an ambitious project. Although its prime focus is on the airspace over the south-east, it is a national strategy. FAS is expected to deliver about £180 million a year in savings in respect of fuel, emissions and delays by 2020. I am sure the House will agree that that is a welcome boost to the UK aviation industry and its customers.

A key component of the strategy is the introduction of new performance-based navigation routes with the use of satellite-based navigation rather than ground-based conventional aids. It is a bit like using GPS in a car rather than relying entirely on physical maps and road signs. When introduced, these new performance-based navigation routes enable aircraft to fly more accurately. That can reduce fuel burn and emissions, and enable a significant modernisation of the UK’s controlled airspace network. However, I know from various meetings I have had in the past 12 months with Members of this House that the introduction of these new techniques can have an effect on flight paths. Indeed, flying more accurately can assist in avoiding centres of population but may mean that some smaller communities are overflown more regularly. Such changes are naturally of particular concern in those local communities. For example, the experience my right hon. Friend has described at Birmingham has similar parallels at Gatwick and Heathrow, but it is the situation at Birmingham we are discussing this evening, and I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on developments at that airport.

As a consequence of the runway extension, it was necessary for the airport to develop its proposals in keeping with the requirements from the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the CAA’s airspace change process, as well as the air navigation guidance my Department issued in January 2014. In developing its proposals, the key aim was to replicate, as far as is practicable, the existing departure routes. However, in view of the new departure point on the runway, and the need to comply with all requirements and guidance relating to airspace changes, it was not possible to completely replicate the tracks in this case.

The airport conducted an environmental evaluation of possible options and undertook a consultation with stakeholders, including community representatives, as required by the CAA’s airspace change process. As my right hon. Friend said, the consultation carried out between January and April 2013 saw a high level of community response. During the consultation period, it was clear that although there was some support for the proposals there was significant opposition from specific communities to aspects of them. The airport then took steps to determine whether alternative options could be developed to mitigate some of the concerns raised.

For northbound departures—Birmingham is unusual in not having an east-west runway—the airport favoured option 4, known locally as the Hampton turn, but it could not be consistently followed due to the operational requirements of performance-based navigation. I understand that no further realistic options are available for consideration for that specific flight path. Although there was an initial issue with the track-keeping of some aircraft as they made the first turn, the level of accuracy has improved significantly since the trials began.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that at a meeting between the CAA and the airport last week, the airport agreed to consider some further corrective design work. The airport hopes that that work will lead to a greater concentration of tracks within the noise preferential route that was consulted on. That should minimise the noise impact for many of her constituents.

For southbound departures, one of the key issues was the earliest point at which aircraft make their first turn. To answer that, the airport commissioned further design work and developed a new option that was subsequently called option 6. That and the previous southbound departure option, option 5, were consulted on in May 2013.

In light of those developments, the CAA took the decision to halt its processing of the airspace change proposal at Birmingham to allow time for trials of options 5 and 6. Unfortunately, as we have heard, a coding error by the airport’s procedure design organisation meant that the onboard codes used to fly option 6 were incorrect. Appreciating that difficulty, the airport decided to trial option 5 and the “wrong” option 6 on a monthly alternating basis for six months until the corrected version of option 6 could be trialled.

The trial started in spring 2014, but it was not until mid-December that all aircraft could fly the revised option 6. The trial of that option is scheduled to complete next week. It is my understanding that in light of the feedback from the trial, including complaint data that seem more favourable this time, the airport is discussing with the CAA the possibility of continuing to operate option 6 after next week. That option can be modified to mimic as far as possible the noise preferential route and, indeed, I have a copy of the letter to which my right hon. Friend referred. The airport would then seek to gain the CAA’s approval for the route to be made permanent.

The final decision will of course be made by the CAA, the UK’s independent airspace regulator, and that will probably happen this autumn. As the House will appreciate from the debate, the subject is pretty complex, but it is worth noting that Birmingham airport has tried to respond proactively to the views expressed by its local community. I was sorry to learn of the concerns about the airport’s consultative committee. It is clearly in the interests of the airport to establish and maintain good relations with those in its local communities, many of whom are also its customers. I appreciate that that is not always easy, but I hope that the airport will listen to the concerns raised tonight and will act on them.

I thank my right hon. Friend again for bringing these concerns to the House and I hope that the aviation industry has learned some lessons from the experience at Birmingham that will help communities at other airports that find themselves in similar circumstances. I applaud my right hon. Friend’s tenacity and commitment to her constituents’ concerns. I would not go so far as to say that she has been a thorn in my side, but she must take the lion’s share of the credit for this solution. If her constituents need a reason to support her in May, this is another example to add to the myriad reasons they already have.

Question put and agreed to.

20:54

House adjourned.

Petition

Monday 2nd February 2015 Petitions

Monday 2 February 2015

Free school transport from Fishburn to Sedgefield Community College

Monday 2nd February 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Fishburn,

Declares that there are plans for the free school transport from Fishburn to Sedgefield Community College to be withdrawn; further that Sedgefield Community College is the only catchment school for Fishburn; further that the withdrawal of free school transport will cost working families £285 per year, per child; and further that the Petitioners are opposed to the implementation of a charge for the school bus from Fishburn to Sedgefield Community College.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Sedgefield Community College to reconsider the school's plans to withdraw free school transport from Fishburn.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Phil Wilson, Official Report, 8 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 750.]

[P001403]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Department of Education:

Local Authorities (LAs) must provide free home to school transport for pupils of compulsory school age who are attending their nearest suitable school, provided that the school is beyond the statutory walking distance.

LAs must also make arrangements for those children who are unable to walk to school because of their Special Educational Needs (SEN), disability or mobility problems.

These arrangements also apply to children who cannot reasonably be expected to walk because the nature of the route is unsuitable to walk in reasonable safety.

Entitlement to free school travel is extended for pupils from low income families i.e. those that a) are entitled to free school meals or b) their parents are in receipt of maximum Working Tax Credit.

Outside the statutory duties, LAs have a discretionary power to provide free or assisted transport if they believe it is necessary and local funding is available.

Sedgefield Community College (SCC) has operated its own transport scheme for a number of years, for students who they believe live beyond a reasonable walking distance to the school but who are not eligible under Durham County Council’s (DCC) statutory home to school transport duties. This is discretionary transport provided by the school which has grown significantly over recent years and has become a substantial financial burden upon the school.

For this reason, SCC has changed its home to school transport policy and removed discretionary free transport for pupils from Fishburn to SCC, County Durham. However, to ensure school buses continue to be available for pupils who do not qualify for free travel, SCC has entered into a partnership with DCC to provide this transport at a concessionary rate, from January 2015, with the school underwriting the full costs of maintaining this transport service. SCC’s governing body has listened and responded to the concerns of some Fishburn residents who felt they could not cope with the additional financial burden and others who felt it was unfair that Fishburn children would initially be charged the same rate as pupils travelling from outside of the catchment area, by reducing the cost to £1 per day for pupils for whom SCC is the nearest school. Details of all charges can be found at Annex 3.

Good practice would suggest that the introduction of any changes should be phased-in so that children who start school under one set of transport arrangements continue to benefit from them. DCC are following this practice for year 7 students who started in September 2014, however, the charge will apply to students in other year groups from January 2015 and to all year groups, including new year 7 pupils, from September 2015.

The Minister for Schools has no role in the withdrawal of free discretionary transport or the setting of any concessionary charges applied to discretionary transport provided by schools or local authorities. These decisions must be made locally and the Government are unable to influence the outcome.

Annex

This provides information about Sedgefield Community College (SCC) Home to School Transport Seats Scheme for parents whose child is not entitled to provision of free travel to school by Durham County Council (DCC).

How much does a seat cost?

For pupils for whom SCC is the nearest school (this includes those children in Fishburn), governors have decided to charge £1.00 per day This is a recent decision following lengthy discussions with some parents from Fishburn.

The standard fare will be £285 per year, the equivalent of £1.50 per day. This covers travel to and from college. This can be paid in monthly instalments.

The single journey fare will be £190 per year, the equivalent of £1.00 per day. This is offered where parents would like their child travel only on school transport to OR from school. As with the standard fare, this can be paid in monthly instalments.

Additional Information:

Until July 2016, parents who have more than one child attending SCC will pay only one fare for all their children.

For only the 2014/2015 school year, students whilst in Year 7 (September 2014 intake) will not be charged for transport. However, the charge will apply to students in all year groups (including new year 7) from September 2015.

Any child registered for free school meals in 2014-15, who lives at an address beyond the scope of the DCC Extended Transport Scheme, will receive free transport under the school’s own scheme.

Fares for Year 11 pupils will be charged at a reduced rate as typically they attend school for fewer days in summer term.

Summary of Tariffs Fare Status	Daily Cost	Spring and Summer Terms 2014-2015 Cost	Equivalent Yearly
Standard Fare (Years 8-10)	£1.50	£172.50	£285
Single Journey Fare (Years 8-10)	£1.00 one way	£115.00	£190
Standard Fare (Year 11 only)	£1.50	£142.50	£255
Single Journey Fare (Year 11 only)	£1.00 one way	£95.00	£170
Siblings (until September 2016)	£0	£0	£0

Written Statements

Monday 2nd February 2015 Written Statements

Monday 2 February 2015

Criminal Justice

Monday 2nd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I am delighted to announce that I have now signed a commencement order that brought into force the remaining uncommenced provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (ORA) on 1 February 2015. This marks another significant step in implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms which will reduce the stubbornly high rate of reoffending which has been far too high for far too long.

For the first time we will be giving virtually all offenders a proper chance at rehabilitation. The most significant change the ORA makes is to extend statutory supervision to the 45,000 offenders a year who are released from short prison sentences of less than 12 months, the majority of whom currently receive no statutory supervision after completing a custodial sentence. This group of offenders have the highest reoffending rates of any group: almost 60% of adult offenders released from short prison sentences in the year to March 2013 went on to reoffend within the next 12 months.

The changes the ORA makes mean that any offender whose offence was committed on or after 1 February, and who is sentenced to a custodial term of more than one day, will in the future receive at least 12 months of supervision and support after release.

The ORA also makes a number of changes to the sentencing and release framework set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, including expanded drug testing powers for offenders released from custody and the creation of a new rehabilitation activity requirement that can be imposed on offenders serving sentences in the community.

Along with the provisions of the ORA coming in to force, on 1 February the new providers have also taken ownership of, and begun running, the 21 community rehabilitation companies which will manage low and medium risk offenders.

In addition, I have published revised national standards for the management of offenders and national training guidelines in line with the requirements of the Offender Management Act 2007. The standards and guidelines apply to all providers of probation services engaged in the management of offenders and delivering the sentence of the court.

The standards set out the minimum requirements for the effective management of offenders subject to community and suspended sentence orders, supervision on licence and or the new post-sentence supervision period. I have placed a copy of these standards in the House Libraries.

A competent workforce to transform rehabilitation provides a set of guidelines for the qualifications, training and experience of officers involved in delivering probation services and is available on line at: http://www.parliament. uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS242]

Probation

Monday 2nd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I wish to inform the House that Mr Paul McDowell has tendered his resignation from his post as chief inspector of probation.

As I discussed with the Justice Select Committee on 2 December and covered in subsequent correspondence with the Committee Chair, an issue arose about a potential perceived conflict of interest for Mr McDowell given his wife’s employment with Sodexo, and their role as a provider of probation services. I have considered carefully all of the potential mechanisms and systems that could be introduced and used to manage any actual or perceived conflict of interest. However Mr McDowell has decided that, in the circumstances, he will resign.

Throughout this process Mr McDowell has acted with utter transparency and professionalism. Indeed I must acknowledge Mr McDowell’s assured leadership and the grounded independence of his findings in relation to the inspectorate and the work he has done since his appointment.

I regret that circumstances have changed and are now such that we have reached this position. At time of his appointment Mr McDowell’s position was fully reasonable and the appropriate pre-appointment processes in place at that time were properly followed. The Justice Select Committee will be involved in the appointment of a permanent successor in the usual way.

[HCWS243]

Light Dues 2015-16

Monday 2nd February 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

On 26 July 2010, the Government announced their intention to take determined action in support of the UK shipping industry by addressing the increasing cost of the marine aids to navigation service and providing long-term stability for light dues payers so they could plan budgets effectively [Official Report, Columns 75-76WS.]

Following the penny reduction in the light dues rate to 40p per net registered tonne in April 2014,1 am pleased to announce that the rate will be cut by a further penny, to 39p, on 1 April 2015.

Since 2010, considerable progress has been made on three fronts. First, the three general lighthouse authorities for the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland have exceeded their RPI-X efficiency targets, through working assets harder, adopting new technologies, and procuring services together to reduce net costs.

Secondly, their pension liabilities have been addressed with the transfer of the general lighthouse authorities’ pension schemes to the principal civil service pension scheme on 1 April 2014[Official Report, 6 March 2014, Columns 64-65WS.] Thirdly, as I announced on 16 October 2014, the work of the commissioners of Irish lights in the Republic of Ireland will be met fully from Irish sources as from 1 April 2015 [Official Report, Columns 48-49WS.] Both of these measures further reduce costs and remove sources of volatility from the general lighthouse fund.

The formation in 2010 of a joint strategic board to co-ordinate and direct work,

“to achieve maximum efficiencies and improvements in the delivery of aids to navigation”

has proved invaluable to these successes and I have asked the board to identify the scope for further gains that can be secured over the next five years.

In partnership with the general lighthouse authorities and the shipping industry, the Government have successfully resolved the problems that faced the general lighthouse fund in 2010. This has opened the way to sustainable reductions in UK light dues. This further reduction, to support the shipping industry, means that there has been a 19% real terms reduction in light dues since 2010.

[HCWS241]

House of Lords

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Monday, 2 February 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Schools: Substance Abuse Education

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve teaching in schools about the dangers of substance abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, drugs education is a statutory part of the new national curriculum for science. Pupils should be taught about the effects of recreational drugs, including substance misuse, on behaviour, health and life processes. Provision in this area can be further strengthened through PSHE education. To support teachers, we have provided funding to the drug and alcohol information service Mentor-ADEPIS to produce resources and guidance.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that evidence was given to the Home Affairs Select Committee that most schools provide drug education on just one occasion in the school year, or even less? Is he aware that the charity Mentor said:

“We are spending the vast majority of the money we do spend on drug education on programmes that don’t work”?

Is he aware that his department told the committee that it did not monitor the programmes and resources that schools use to support their teaching in this very important area? What steps have been taken since the publication of the Select Committee’s report to improve this state of affairs, and does he agree that very much more needs to be done if Education Ministers are to fulfil their proper responsibility to help to protect young people against the dangers of substance abuse in general and the consumption of drugs in particular?

[Lord Nash]

Ofsted tells us that the drugs education in schools is good. There are a great many charities working with schools, not necessarily during formal curriculum time. Attendance is at an all-time high at schools. Absence has fallen substantially. We have strengthened the national curriculum to cater for more drugs education.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

Will the Minister support the constructive policies of many European countries, which have been shown to improve prevention; reduce the numbers of young people addicted to drugs; reduce the prison population, particularly of young people; and increase the numbers of young people and others receiving treatment, relative to the performance of this country on all those measures?

[Lord Nash]

We certainly look at what is effective in other countries; I know that ADEPIS has looked at this. We have supported a number of UN resolutions in this respect.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My noble friend may be aware that the Health and Social Care Information Centre found that drug abuse was more prevalent among those young people who had been excluded from school, at something like 12%, than among those in school. What plans do the Government have to reach those pupils so that this problem can be dealt with effectively?

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend makes a very good point. Attendance at school is, as I say, at an all-time high. However, this is one of the focuses of the troubled families programme, which has been so successful.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend’s original Answer, does he have any concern that talking about “recreational drugs” might have the effect of undermining the Government’s very strong desire to deal with substance abuse?

[Lord Nash]

I agree with my noble friend—it is very unfortunate terminology—but I do not think that our determination is any different.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, many young people in schools have parents who are already drug abusers. Is any special pastoral care—and, in particular, guidance—given in schools to children of these parents?

[Lord Nash]

I mentioned the troubled families programme. Families affected by substance misuse are at the heart of our drugs strategy, which commits to support those with the most complex needs. I think it is true that the troubled families programme has been extremely successful.

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

In 2013, the Office for National Statistics records a sharp increase of 21% in the number of deaths from drug misuse in England. Among men, deaths from heroin and morphine are up a staggering 32% on the previous year. Given the dangers of substance abuse and that those dangers are clearly growing according to the Government’s own statistics, does the Minister think that the Government should act with more urgency to find programmes that actually work?

[Lord Nash]

Among 11 to 15 year-olds drug use has continued to fall from a peak in 2013. It was down again last year. We are very concerned about “legal highs”, or new psychoactive substances, from which there have been a number of deaths. That is specifically why we have introduced the ADEPIS programme, which has produced a range of resources to support teachers when teaching about legal highs. We have already banned more than 500 new drugs and created the forensic early warning system.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree with me that schools cannot be expected to do everything on their own, and that it is vital that parents also play a part not only in monitoring what their children are doing when they are out in the evenings but in discussing these issues with them in an open and frank manner?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with my noble friend that parents have a role to play. We have our CANparent trials. One thing that is very important for parents to instil into their children is a sense of routine, particularly in the evenings and late at night.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord aware that, according to the latest figures, the number of young people presenting with alcohol problems at A&E has increased? Is he also aware—and this is hearsay—that people who do talks at schools say that when they make approaches to speak on drugs, alcohol and other mental health problems, they often get a warmer reception and greater welcome in the private sector than at state schools, where their approaches do not get a similar response?

[Lord Nash]

It is true that figures show that alcohol abuse among young people of school age is down, but that may not be the case for those in their late teens or early 20s. On the noble Lord’s point about the private sector, we are trying to make sure that all state schools have an active extracurricular programme so that these kinds of extracurricular courses are well attended.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that drugs education is on the syllabus of young offender establishments? Although there may be treatment, there is not much evidence of education, which is just as important.

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. That is not really my brief, but I agree that more education in prisons would be a very welcome thing.

Pregnancy: Discrimination at Work

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to address the findings of the Trades Union Congress report, The Pregnancy Test: Ending Discrimination at Work for New Mothers.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the TUC report as a useful contribution to our understanding of pregnancy and maternity discrimination, which is unacceptable and unlawful. The Government have commissioned new research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the attitudes of employers to pregnancy and maternity leave, as well as on the prevalence and causes of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The results of the interviews with 3,000 employers and 3,000 employees will be published later this year.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I am sure that he is aware that Maternity Action believes that as many as 60,000 pregnant women and new mothers were forced out of work in 2014. The excellent TUC report The Pregnancy Test confirms that 40 years after the anti-discrimination legislation was passed, women are still losing jobs and being harassed at work when they are pregnant or have just had a baby. This situation is exacerbated by the dramatic drop in tribunal cases for maternity discrimination by at least 25% due to the huge hike in tribunal fees. So the consultation is very welcome, but what action will the Government take to deal with the double whammy of lack of enforcement of the law and lack of redress for working women of childbearing age?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, tribunals should be the last resort. The company’s grievance procedures should be able to address that issue, and failing that we have ACAS, which normally looks into these cases. As regards fees for the tribunals, ACAS has been able to look into roughly 80% of the cases, although it now costs money to go to the tribunal. However, where people cannot afford it, there can be remission of the fees, and quite often the tribunal will award costs if a pregnant woman or mother-to-be wins the case.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, some mothers make a conscious decision to give up their successful careers to bring up their young children during the early stages of child development, which is so important. But often they find it difficult to re-enter the workplace and pick up where they left off. Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to encourage more employers to make sufficient provision—and there is evidence of some good practice—to help these women to bring back their skills and experiences into the job market?

[Lord Popat]

My Lords, yes, it is important for women who have taken maternity leave to go back to work. Quite often women leave employment with a view to returning to work; that is where the Equality and Human Rights Commission plays a very significant role with BIS in supporting employers to recruit these women back to work.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, should not the Government take more steps to ensure that the law that exists at the moment is fully carried out? It is not—lots of women are not aware and think that this is discretionary. It is not discretionary at all; it is an entitlement, which is not being kept without a struggle on the part of women concerned. Could not the Government do a great deal more, including what has already been recommended, to ensure that what is already the law is properly carried out by employers?

[Lord Popat]

The noble Baroness raises a very important question. We must get to the root cause of this employment discrimination and find out which groups of pregnant women are most at risk of discrimination and which types of employers—looking at size and sector, for example—are most likely to get complaints from female employees, so that we know where the issues to be addressed exist. That is why the Government have commissioned the largest ever study of pregnancy and maternity-related discrimination in Great Britain.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

Is it not the case that if we were to look at responsible business practice, and the return to the employer of acting responsibly, we would find that those women who are protected and whose jobs are secure after they come back into the workplace repay those companies more than twofold by their loyalty and commitment to the organisation? Could not the Government publicise this more?

[Lord Popat]

I agree with the noble Baroness, which is why we are carrying out in-depth research into the aspect of what more we can do. It is important that more women have the choice of family and work at the same time. I hope that the research will come up with a recommendation on what more the Government can do. But this is an area that we do take seriously. We have a larger number of women working at the moment than we had in 2010, and of course we want more of them to come back to work—hence the Government have come up with a number of different schemes, including the nursery allowance and all that, to encourage them to come back to work.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister made an observation about women having a choice between staying at home and looking after their children and going out to work. Would he not agree that, increasingly, it is a choice that few people have, because most families can no longer survive on one income? That is why it is extremely important that women are not discriminated against when they have children in getting back into work afterwards.

[Lord Popat]

That is correct—once again I agree with the noble Baroness. That is why the Government have introduced flexible working and are now encouraging, helping and supporting employers, through a number of different schemes, to make sure that they encourage ex-employees to come back to work.

Caste: Equality Act 2010

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:51

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the timetable for implementing the legislation to incorporate caste as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, we have no immediate plans to incorporate caste into legislation. We are aware of the recent Tirkey v Chandok Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment and are considering its implications for discrimination law. The judgment opens the possibility of a legal remedy for claims of caste-associated discrimination under existing legislation, in the ethnic origins element of Section 9 of the Equality Act 2010. We note this potential protection and have always stated that we completely oppose caste discrimination.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, can my noble friend give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that, if they are re-elected in May, they will pursue this matter to completion, as recommended by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination? As regards the tribunal case of Tirkey that she mentioned, have the Government considered the opinion of the EHRC that it is not binding on all future cases of caste discrimination and that an express provision in the Equality Act, which has already been decided by Parliament, is necessary for reasons of legal clarity?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I cannot make promises on behalf of a future Government not yet elected, but post-election, of course, the incoming Administration will need to consider how to discharge their legal obligations in respect of the outstanding duty to legislate. On my noble friend’s second question, we of course take note of what the EHRC says, but I should make it clear to the House that this view was expressed by the commission in its submission on the Tirkey case and not part of the judicial decision.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is almost two years since this House voted by a very large majority that caste should be considered for inclusion in the Equality Act 2010. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, the recent employment tribunal judgment reinforces the point that caste discrimination is an issue coming before the courts and that clarity of the law is required. This issue cannot be ignored or sidelined, so what exactly is the Government’s timetable for taking this forward after this terrible delay?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, we are conscious of the delay in this matter. During the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, when the need for explicit caste legislation was debated extensively, it was generally acknowledged that a full public consultation should be undertaken, not least because there was no general consensus on even basic concepts, such as a workable definition of caste itself. Because of a number of delays, there is no longer sufficient time before the election to put it through.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will remember that in those debates this House specifically refused to support the Government’s position and refused to accept the delay. We voted for a change in the law. We are now two years later and that change has not been implemented. The Government owe it to this House to say that they will implement it, and that any future Government made up of the two parties of this Government will also implement it.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I recognise the frustration around the Chamber over this matter. However, the debates during the final stages of the then Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill made clear that caste is a controversial and difficult issue, and that the Government would need to proceed carefully, involving public consultation. I believe that the Tirkey v Chandok case, which was unknown at the time those debates took place but which has potentially significant implications for the law in respect of caste and race discrimination, clearly illustrates the need for caution.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that it would be quite inadequate to leave issues of racial and gender equality to employment tribunals? What is different about caste discrimination, when the judge in the Tirkey v Chandok case said that his judgment applied only to the facts of that particular case, and did not make any ruling about caste in general?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

Indeed, my Lords, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal is an authoritative court and, for the time being at least, its judgment in that case is the law of the land. The EHRC intervened in the appeal and I imagine would wish to consider another intervention, if it thought that was necessary.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, all discrimination is difficult to deal with, but such procrastination is entirely unacceptable when more than 200 million people experience caste discrimination every single day. Therefore, will the Minister please report back the strength of feeling in this House that the procrastination is entirely unacceptable?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I will, indeed, report back the frustration of this House but I come back to one of the difficulties, which is that there is no agreed definition of caste. Many cases which are in the pipeline could be brought under the ethnic origins discrimination legislation.

Epilepsy: New Treatments

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:57

Asked by

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the availability and accessibility of new epilepsy medications and treatments.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, we want all patients with epilepsy to have access to high-quality, patient-centred services wherever they live. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published clinical guidance and quality standards to drive improvements in the treatment of epilepsy both for children and adults. NICE will assess the safety and efficacy of any new treatments that could be beneficial to improving the quality of life for patients with epilepsy.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. However, is she aware that the report by the Neurological Alliance The Invisible Patients highlighted a lack of care, planning and commissioning for people with neurological conditions and that for those living with epilepsy in particular there seems to be a marginalisation and a heavy reliance on parents researching new treatments, care and diets? What do the Government plan to do to improve this state of affairs and will my noble friend perhaps say something about the very promising new trials and the cannabis-based treatments that are being rolled out across the country for people with intractable epilepsy?

[Baroness Jolly]

The noble Baroness asked quite a few questions. I think that parents will always want to look on the internet, now that that is a fairly safe area for advice. Clinical commissioning groups are responsible for planning the majority of epilepsy care, apart from the critical care, which is handled by NHS England. Two trials of cannabidiol are taking place in the UK and plenty in the States. I am sure that NICE will be keen to approve anything that is proved to be safe and effective as soon as possible.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, in the course of my career in neurology I have treated many patients with epilepsy at all ages and in all its variants. There is no doubt that there has been a remarkable transformation in the management of all the types of this condition as a result of research in our universities and in the pharmaceutical industry. Nevertheless, there are still some patients in whom seizures are intractable and do not respond effectively even to the most modern drugs. Quite apart from what the Neurological Alliance has said, is the Minister aware that the Association of British Neurologists has identified a striking unevenness in the quality and availability of specialised neurological care throughout the country? What are the Government doing to make certain that these facilities, which are so necessary in treating this condition, are more properly and evenly distributed?

[Baroness Jolly]

There are four such facilities in the UK: one in Bristol, Alder Hey in Liverpool, one in London and, I am sorry, I have forgotten offhand the fourth. The Government certainly are on to this and are sympathetic to the comments that the noble Lord has made.

[Baroness Ford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what progress, if any, has been made to provide advice to pregnant women on the use of sodium valproate before and during pregnancy? I remind the Minister that I first raised this issue in the House in November 2010. I declare an interest as the honorary president of Epilepsy Action and a supporter of the campaign group InFact, which has done so much to highlight this issue.

[Baroness Jolly]

Yes, I have read the debate that the noble Baroness called in the past. Sodium valproate is a big issue for women of child-rearing age. It would have been prescribed in the first place by a consultant. I expect that she or he would advise the woman about that concern.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister be kind enough to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Walton? I do not think he was referring to just four centres for neurological disease around the United Kingdom. Neurological damage and brain damage are major problems, particularly stroke. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to improve these services, which are currently still below par?

[Baroness Jolly]

Certainly. As I said, clinical commissioning groups are looking at the majority of epilepsy services. On stroke, across the country there is a huge move to set up stroke care pathways. The noble Lord will know about that as well.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, are all CCGs required to commission therapeutic drug treatment programmes and to share the data nationally so that there can be shared learning on what works best for patients?

[Baroness Jolly]

This is a really big issue for epilepsy. As I said, CCGs commission the majority of services. NHS England commissions the specialised stuff. There needs to be a far more effective data-sharing programme to know where we stand on these issues.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has been very sympathetic in answering these questions. What does she think about companies that make huge profits out of selling these medicaments, such as Boots the chemist and its chairman who refuse to pay taxes in the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Jolly]

As the noble Lord would expect, I am very uncomfortable about any large corporations, or indeed very wealthy individuals, avoiding paying their tax.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, going back to the original Question on new treatments for epilepsy, does the Minister agree that the problem is that there is no single drug that is effective for the full spectrum of epilepsy? Therefore, many treatments are promoted, including cannabidiols, which have not been fully evaluated. Until a drug is accepted by the regulatory authorities in the EU and the USA, and has been evaluated by NICE, it should not be available to patients.

[Baroness Jolly]

The noble Lord is absolutely right.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, on commissioning, CCGs have a strategic influence and make key commissioning decisions that impact on the lives of nearly half a million people with epilepsy in England. Yet, last year’s Epilepsy Action report showed that only 10% of them had produced written needs assessments for people with epilepsy and that 70% reported that they did not have any plans to do so, either for this or for people with other neurological conditions. What are the Government doing to remedy this appalling situation?

[Baroness Jolly]

If the noble Baroness is referring to the joint strategic needs assessment, that is produced by the clinical commissioning groups working in conjunction with local authorities. It is up to them to make decisions about what they consider to be important.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is evidence that cannabidiol, and indeed cannabis itself, is efficacious in relation to epilepsy and other conditions, should not the Government accelerate the evaluation that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has just called for?

[Baroness Jolly]

I am certainly not including cannabis in this but cannabidiol is being trialled in two places—Edinburgh and Great Ormond Street—with a view to moving it through to NICE as soon as the evidence is there and then on to treatment if that is deemed sensible.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, when I asked my supplementary question, I mentioned that there was a heavy reliance on the parents of children with this condition researching new treatments. I meant to declare that a member of my family has this terrible condition—intractable epilepsy—and I have seen at first hand how parents try very hard to look for alternatives. One is the ketogenic diet, which was not offered or thought of until the parents pushed for it and then the child’s condition improved enormously. Some parents will not have that kind of access or know how to research it in the same way. Surely the onus is on the commissioning groups or the clinicians to suggest alternative treatments.

[Baroness Jolly]

Indeed. That particular diet has been approved by NICE and so there should be no problem. Neurologists should know that it is available and prescribe it.

[Lord Christopher (Lab)]

My Lords, I remember some years ago that a higher proportion of epileptics were in prison than in the population generally. Is that still the case and is anything being done about it? Otherwise, recidivism may be happening unnecessarily.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, that poses a very big question. I do not know what the statistics are but I am happy to drop the noble Lord a line.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

15:06

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 12, Schedules 3 and 4, Clauses 13 to 24, Schedule 5, Clause 25, Schedule 6, Clauses 26 to 36, Schedule 7, Clauses 37 to 41, Schedule 8, Clauses 42 to 49, Title.

Motion agreed.

Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Local Audit (Smaller Authorities) Regulations 2015

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Powers of Entry and Description of Relevant Persons) Order 2015

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Amendment) Order 2015

Motions to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 8, 10 and 17 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 27 January.

Motions agreed.

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Popat]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 27 January.

Motion agreed.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

15:07

Schedule 1: Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

1: Schedule 1, page 34, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) A constable or qualified officer must, in carrying out the duty in sub-paragraph (8), provide the person with a summary of the reasons for the suspicion.”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Schedule 1 to the Bill provides for the seizure of passports from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. Paragraph 2 deals with the seizure of passports at a port, and paragraph 2(8) sets out what the officer undertaking this exercise must tell the person. He must tell him that he is suspected of intending to leave Great Britain or the UK—there is a slightly different provision for Northern Ireland—

“for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity”,

and that the officer is entitled to exercise the power to seize. Reciting those statutory grounds does not seem to be enough. There is no provision on the face of the Bill for the person to be informed of at least the gist of the reasons for the suspicion.

The draft code of practice, which has been out for consultation, includes some notification requirements but it does not include this one. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the draft code provides that,

“where a senior police officer authorises retention”—

this is at a different stage—

“the individual must be given a written notice which should … inform the person that they may … request reasons for the retention of their travel documents … Elsewhere, the draft Code provides that a police constable exercising the power … must issue the person with reasons for its exercise … ‘if requested’ and if travel documents are returned within the”,

first period which is provided by the schedule,

“they are to be accompanied by a notice reminding the individual that they may formally request reasons as to why their travel documents were seized and retained”.

None of that addresses the need to tell the person straightaway.

I should like to see in the Bill the JCHR recommendation,

“that the Code should provide that a person subject to the exercise of the power should be informed of the reasons for its exercise at the earliest opportunity in every case, and not merely where the individual makes a request”.

That is very fundamental, not only to the exercise of the power but as to how it is perceived. We rightly spent a good deal of time in Committee—and will, I am sure, spend more time—on the difficulties of perception and perceived discrimination against certain groups, which perhaps is a different issue from actual discrimination but is a very real issue.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, supported my point. He said:

“No one would suggest that all detailed reasons must be given, but if someone is told that their passport is being taken away they should be told the essence of the reasons why if this power is to be acceptable and not criticised as obviously unfair”.—[Official Report, 20/1/15; col. 1236.]

It was building on that phrase “the essence of the reasons” that I have provided in my amendment for a summary of the reasons and not for the detail. I am aware that there may be security issues around that.

In Committee, the Minister gave a very long response to the group of amendments of which this was one—I think that there were 24 amendments—so it was quite an achievement to cover the ground. I fear that I did not manage to extract from the response a reply to this specific point. At the end of his reply, I asked him whether some comments he was making applied to gisting, and he said that they did not. Therefore, it seemed to me appropriate to bring the matter back at this stage in the hope that I will hear that we could include something like this in the Bill but certainly in the hope of hearing a detailed defence of the Government’s position. I beg to move.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I should like to say strongly that I do not support this amendment. There was a very good reason why we said that reasons should be given “at the earliest opportunity”. We absolutely accepted that there will be occasions on which it simply is not reasonable, either on security grounds or because of the speed with which the information is travelling in relation to the possible perpetrators from whom the passport is being taken, to expect the police to have reasons to hand. The phrase “at the earliest opportunity” leaves it sensibly open for the police to be able to respond in good time with some information as to why this has taken place. The committee discussed at great length that to expect a summary there and then on the spot—which is what the noble Baroness is asking for—would probably be too difficult in certain circumstances.

We have to accept that some of the information will probably arrive without much notice to those who have the difficult task of removing the passport. Given that the person will already be at a port or an authority in order to leave the country, surely it is right that in such cases we give trust and time to the security services and the police to do what they have to do in an emergency—that is, to remove the passport—and then, at the earliest opportunity, state the reasons.

15:15

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I meant to ask the noble Baroness a question before she sat down. My noble friend Lady Hamwee emphasised that this is about providing a summary of the reasons for the suspicion. That is not proof or anywhere near it—it is not even a great deal of detail—but a summary of the reasons for suspicion. The requirement has quite a low threshold and would at least provide a basis on which a person may comprehend why these powers were being exercised. It seems reasonable and not too high a threshold to expect of the security services and the police.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, this is the Report stage and in order for me to speak a second time it has to be accepted that the noble Baroness asked me the question before I sat down. The whole point of this is to allow for a reduced bar, in a sense, which is not sufficient for the power of arrest but is something less. It is wrong in any way to box in the security services and police in a difficult situation where, because of security reasons, they may not even know whether they can give the information.

I am trying to set the scene. We are talking about a different world from the one in which it is accepted that there would be a warrant for arrest and reasons given, where there would be understanding and matters would be beyond suspicion. All I am saying is: “Please can we give the security services and the police the freedom to act, sometimes with extreme speed, to stop someone leaving the country—someone who may want to do something on the mode of transport—without having to give such information?”. In any event, the summary probably would not satisfy—it is not meant to satisfy—the person from whom the passport is being taken.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and wish to address the comment made by my noble friend previously. It is quite a serious matter for a family, who may have spent a great deal of money purchasing tickets and planning a holiday, to arrive at a port or an airport to leave and then to have their passports, or one family member’s passport, seized. It seems to me quite reasonable to provide that person with a summary as to why their passport is being seized.

There is also the issue that there needs to be some accountability; otherwise, there is a danger of the whole system being seen as racially profiling people for whatever reason. We have learnt lessons from what happened with stop and search—there was not always sufficient intelligence or reasons given for people being stopped and searched. Further, a report published in 2013 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary documented the poor training of officers who are exercising the power. It seems eminently sensible to have an extra layer which provides a safeguard and a degree of accountability around what is a no small matter of a passport being seized.

Recently I was travelling back from Paris with my son, who happens to have a Muslim name. He was questioned when we got to immigration control and we almost missed our Eurostar back home. He was asked whether he had been to Turkey recently. He does have family in Turkey and it would be entirely reasonable for him to go there, but he was singled out because of his name; there was no other reason. As it happens, he has not travelled to Turkey in the past year, but we were detained for some time and it was a worrying thing. His passport was not seized or anything like that, but the incident indicated to me that because of my son’s name, and for no other reason that I could see, he was questioned. My son is not a frequent traveller to Turkey and we had been on a day trip to Paris. He was questioned very seriously and we were within a minute of missing our train back. That showed me that this can be done quite randomly and with no proper intelligence.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this would be a safeguard without substance. What is required here is that a person is given a summary of the reasons for suspicion. The noble Baronesses who have spoken in support of the amendment have said that the summary obviously could not include the full intelligence, and quite rightly so. Presumably, the summary of the reasons will be, “There may be intelligence which suggests that”, which is hardly a reason that will satisfy anyone and seems essentially to be pointless. Surely the fact that someone is told that this is being done under Schedule 1 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act is all the summary of reasons that will ever be given. Dressing it up by saying, “You are being provided with a summary of the reasons: namely, that you are thought to be a person to whom Schedule 1 to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act applies”, does not provide much of a safeguard. Is this not just gesture politics?

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this is not gesture politics. There are many areas of the law where an obligation to provide a gist of the reason is imposed precisely in order to try to achieve a compromise between the duty of fairness and the demands of security. In these areas of the law, providing a gist does give individuals the substance of the allegations against them. In this context, the constable can exercise the relevant power only if he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect. In general, the constable must be able to provide at the least a summary of the reasons why they have reasonable grounds.

I understand the point that there may be security reasons why the constable is either unable, or is concerned that he or she may be unable, to provide even a summary. I wonder whether the Minister might consider, prior to Third Reading next week, coming back with a revised amendment that would impose the obligation set out in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but subject to an exception—if the constable believes that there are or may be security reasons not to provide the summary. In the context of the exercise of a power as serious in its implications as this—that is, seizing someone’s passport—surely there ought to be an obligation, at the time when the power is exercised, to tell the individual why it is being exercised.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said, it may be possible to add to the amendment the words, “or in the case of emergency”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue again. It was part of a very large group of amendments in Committee, so I would like to put on the record some additional remarks which I hope will provide further reassurances about the circumstances in which the power may be exercised.

The Government are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of the power to seize travel documents. The impact of this amendment would be to reduce the effectiveness of the power and the speed at which it could be used. We should remember that the context for this is that we have up to 600 people suspected of travelling to Syria and engaging in terrorism-related activities. It is in that context that we are seeking to disrupt, if not stop, such actions. This gets to the heart of the purpose of this power, which is to disrupt immediately the travel of individuals who are reasonably suspected of travelling for terrorism-related activity and to give the police time to investigate them.

It may of course be, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe mentioned, that this happens in the context of a tip-off, which might be from a security source or from a family member who at that point has some fear of the individual. There could be reasons why it is not possible to give more detailed reasons. However, a police officer of superintendent rank would have had to have been satisfied that the reasonable suspicion grounds had been met. It would be inappropriate to reveal the source or content of that information. There would need to be a full consideration of what the individual could be told, and this is likely to involve gisting—which I will come back to in a second.

Given the immediacy of the power, it would be impractical to conduct this consideration at port, and it would potentially damage prosecution prospects to do so at this point. However, if the police apply to extend the retention period, they must give as much information as possible about the reasons the individual’s passport was retained, without prejudicing national security. The Bill contains robust authorisation and review processes to ensure that the power is appropriately and lawfully used.

I did not make the following remarks in Committee—I am trying to add to the reply which I gave then. First, the reasonable suspicion test must be met. The use of reasonable suspicion as an evidential standard is used in relation to many other police powers. What constitutes reasonable suspicion will depend on the circumstances in each individual case, but there must be an objective basis for the constable’s state of mind, based on the facts, and it must be specific to the individual. At the point of seizure, the individual will be informed that their travel documents were seized because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that they were intending to travel overseas for the purpose of involvement in terrorist-related activity outside the UK. The police are not detaining the individual, nor are they permanently removing the individual’s passport privileges.

Secondly, the police are under a statutory duty to return the travel documents as soon as possible if the test is no longer met and investigations do not substantiate grounds to support further action being taken in respect of the person. Thirdly, a senior police officer of at least superintendent level must authorise the decision to exercise the power. Fourthly, this senior police officer’s authorisation is further reviewed by a police officer of at least the rank of chief superintendent, and this review must be started within 72 hours of the seizure. Fifthly, the reviewer’s findings must be reported to the chief constable of the force which exercised the power and he or she must consider those findings and take appropriate action. Sixthly, unless a court agrees to extend the retention period, the police must return the travel documents after 14 days from the point at which the documents were seized.

The whole process is further governed by a statutory code of practice, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to in her introduction, which makes provision for how officers are to exercise the power and ensures proper use of it. The code also provides that a person who has had their passport seized may write to the police requesting that the reasons are provided for the exercise of the power. The police must respond, following detailed consideration of any sensitive information. Therefore, an individual can receive more detailed reasons as to why the power was used in their case, even when the passport is returned very promptly.

As the Bill stands, there is a clear threshold that must be met to justify the exercise of the power. The disclosure of any information relating to national security requires careful consideration on a case-by-case basis. This amendment would require such considerations to have taken place before the power could be exercised. A police officer at port would not be able to make this judgment. As I said, this would have the effect of preventing the power being used as intended as a disruptive measure. In the light of this and of the extensive and robust safeguards already in place to govern the exercise of this power, the Government believe that the change proposed in this amendment is not necessary and would have the consequence of inhibiting the use of this important power.

15:29

On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece, both stop and search and Schedule 7 examinations at port have lower thresholds than the travel document seizure power being discussed. Nor do those powers have the same stringent authorisation and review requirements as these measures do.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked whether gisting would be available in connection with this power. In relation to the judicial review element—because there is an ability to seek judicial review—the Justice and Security Act provides the basis on which closed material procedures could consider the evidence being made available to them.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked why the person could not be provided with a summary of the reasons. To provide a summary of the reasons would require consideration of what the individual can be told and is likely to involve gisting. It would be impractical to consider that at this stage.

Two noble Lords asked whether the power might be used as a kind of stop and search for profiling. It is important to say that the exercise of the power must be based on reasonable suspicion and will take place before the person presents at port. It will not be a border officer acting on their own judgment; it will happen ahead of time, with a police officer and a superintendent having agreed that there is sufficient reason for the power to be exercised. With those assurances, which I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having given me the opportunity to put on record, I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, quite reasonably asked us to imagine a situation. I understand what she described. But perhaps we should also imagine the reaction of the individual—so the whole of the scene.

My noble friend the Minister talked about the return of documents as soon as possible, senior authorisation, the 72-hour limit, the role of the chief constable and the court, and so on. None of those is likely to satisfy the individual at the point at which they have been stopped. Let us say that you are an outraged, innocent traveller. Everything that has been described by way of safeguard is after the event. On the point about profiling and discrimination, perception is so important. The safeguards will not answer that point.

My noble friend said that the amendment was not necessary. It may not be necessary in terms of reasonable suspicion—that is not my argument—but something is necessary, even if it is difficult. On giving reasons at the earliest opportunity, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the police may not know at this point. I can imagine that there might be an urgent phone call to the effect that so and so is likely to go through border control in 30 minutes’ time or on to such and such a flight, and the services will need time. However, that having been said, the code does not even provide for an explanation at the earliest opportunity. It talks about “requesting reasons”; it puts the onus back on the traveller. However, the officer may not know the reasons—so you can request them as much as you like but you will not be given them by somebody who has not been informed of them.

I take the point about security. I suspect that these situations might all be emergencies. To conclude, is there some way of encapsulating and dealing with this concern? If it is not in the Bill at Third Reading, could there be at the very least a change to the code to make the arrangement more human for the person affected? I would be very happy between now and next week to try and thrash out how this might be provided.

[Lord Bates]

On the latter point, of course the code is open to consultation. I certainly give an undertaking that my noble friend’s remarks will be fed into that consultation process.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 1A

Moved by

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

1A: Schedule 1, page 37, line 16, at end insert “(“a warrant of further retention”)”

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I return in this set of amendments to matters that I raised in Committee. I do so as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is concerned about the inadequacy of providing for the right to a fair hearing on these matters under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I say immediately that we recognise the availability of judicial review but the availability of JR alone is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the right to a fair hearing under Article 6.

I remind the House that this Bill gives a significant power to the authorities to remove a passport and prevent someone travelling. It provides for a judicial consideration only after 14 days, so you do not go immediately to a court unless you seek judicial review. However, after 14 days the judge is under a duty to extend the period of retention of the passport for a further 30 days so long as he or she is satisfied that the investigation into the person is being conducted “diligently and expeditiously”. That is the only test for the judge at that point. We can well imagine someone turning up to say, “We need to keep this passport longer because we are still making our inquiries and working as fast as we can”. All of us who know how the courts work know that it is very hard for a judge to go behind the simple statements presented to the court.

The Bill provides for a closed material procedure at that hearing but makes no provision for the interests of the excluded party to be represented by a special advocate. You can ask for an extension, and for the person whose passport has been removed and the counsel representing them to remove themselves from the court. While in other circumstances that would immediately give rise to the special advocate procedure, here it does not.

It was the view of the Joint Committee that the best way to ensure compatibility with Article 6 was to amend Schedule 1 to the Bill so that it provides a genuinely judicial system of what we called “warrants of further retention”, directly analogous to the system of warrants of further detention of terrorism suspects in Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000. In fact, that has been used as the model in these circumstances, except for this set of provisions. I know that in Committee the Minister said that detention warrants were of greater seriousness than removing someone’s passport, but we would remind the House that interfering with family and private life by seizing someone’s passport is rather important and a significant intrusion into one’s liberties. However, the standards that we would expect seem to be absent.

The amendments put forward in my name fall under a number of different headings. The length of the period of retention concerns us; it should be seven days, not 14. The grounds that must be satisfied for a judicial warrant of further retention should be gisted and a summary of the withheld information, at least, should be provided to the court. That is different from the position proposed in the previous amendment because although lawyers would be involved at that point, a constable at the scene, say, could not be expected somehow at short notice to provide a statement that did not in any way risk disclosure of sensitive information. In this case, lawyers would have already been involved and gisting would have been perfectly possible.

Therefore, my set of amendments deals with these matters and reflects the amendments proposed in Committee. They provide for proper judicial oversight, which should happen speedily—not within 14 days but seven. We would expect, as in any other procedures whereby liberty and citizens’ rights were seriously being interfered with, there to be opportunities for knowing, at that point and in gisted form, the reasons for retention. If there are going to be closed procedures, the special advocate procedure should be invoked. That is what this set of amendments seeks to do. Given the seriousness of this matter—because it is a great intrusion—I hope that, having had some time to reflect, this House, the Minister and the Government will decide that that is the proper way in which to deal with such a significant interference with citizens’ rights. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for again moving the amendment. At the outset, I should say that I recognise absolutely that we are talking about a serious matter here and that there should be safeguards. The issue between us—and the Joint Committee, for that matter—is on whether we believe that the safeguards are indeed adequate.

The noble Baroness is suggesting that taking a passport for up to 30 days is an infringement of liberty, and we accept that. However, for reasons that she pre-empted, we do not accept that that is equivalent to the pre-charge detention arrangements under Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act. This is very much a disruption technique. Of course we recognise that this is an infringement and it needs to be carefully monitored. Her amendment would name an extension of the seizure period a “warrant of further retention”, and seeks to draw an analogy with the Act to which I have just referred. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is not an appropriate analogy, for the following reasons.

Individuals subject to this power will remain at liberty. Their passport privileges are not removed permanently. During the period that the police hold that person’s passport, the police and others need to work diligently and expeditiously to investigate further the nature of the information. Due to the nature of the hearing envisaged in a number of the amendments in this group, the court would need to provide for closed material proceedings with the appointment of special advocates. As the House will know, closed material proceedings are resource intensive; it would be challenging, if not impossible, for such a hearing to take place within that initial seizure period. Indeed, by the time that it is heard, the travel documents might already have been returned, or alternative disruption action might have been taken. This power is already subject to considerable safeguards, which are proportionate to the level of interference.

Let me briefly reiterate the measures in place to ensure that this power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner. First, the reasonable suspicion test must be met. I will summarise the points because they also relate to the previous group. This is a clear threshold that is well understood by the police to justify the exercise of the power. At the point of seizure, the individual will be informed that his or her travel documents are to be seized because there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she is intending to travel overseas for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity outside the UK. The disclosure of any further information would require careful consideration on a case-by-case basis.

15:45

Secondly, the police are under a statutory duty to return the travel documents as soon as possible if the reasonable suspicion test is no longer met and investigations do not substantiate grounds to support further action being taken. Thirdly, a senior police officer of at least superintendent level must authorise the decision to exercise the power. Fourthly, this senior police officer’s authorisation will be further reviewed by a police officer of at least the rank of chief superintendent. This must take place at 72 hours after seizure.

Fifthly, the reviewer’s findings must be reported to the chief constable of the force that exercised the power and he or she must consider those findings and take appropriate action. Sixthly, unless a court agrees to extend the retention period, the police must return the travel documents after seizure. I should just clarify that the court can extend retention only up to 30 days in total: if the hearing is at day 14, the maximum number of days by which the retention period can be extended is 16. The information provided will enable a person to understand why they are under investigation and help the court to consider whether the case is being considered diligently and expeditiously. The 14-day period has been set deliberately, following consultation with the police. By this point, the investigation should have progressed to the extent that a court can meaningfully consider whether it is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and the evidence heard should be tailored to the case being considered.

The whole process is further governed by a statutory code of practice that makes provision for how officers are to exercise the power and ensures the proper use of this power. The code will be laid before Parliament following Royal Assent for consideration under the made affirmative procedure. The code provides that a person who has had their passport seized may write to the police requesting the reasons provided for the exercise of the power, and the police must respond, following detailed consideration of any sensitive information. An individual can therefore receive more detailed reasons as to why the power was utilised in their case, even in a case where the passport is returned promptly.

Your Lordships should also be aware that a person subject to this power is not prevented from making representations at any time, including at the point of seizure. Crucially, individuals can already challenge the exercise of this power, if they choose to do so, by seeking judicial review or taking other civil action.

The Government are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of the power to seize travel documents, but these amendments would reduce the effectiveness of the power and the speed at which it could be used. In the light of this, and the extensive and robust safeguards already in place to govern the exercise of this power, the Government believe that the changes proposed in these amendments are not necessary and would inhibit the power. Accordingly, I hope that having provided this additional layer of reassurance to your Lordships, the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I cannot pretend that the resistance to the argument that there should be proper judicial oversight is not disappointing. I know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights feels strongly that powers like these are very serious powers to take to the state. They also send out a message that is going to be received very negatively, because there will almost undoubtedly be occasions when people fail to travel to important family occasions and where the reasons for preventing that travel are based on information that is not satisfactory. There will be a real backlash, and we will find the communities affected feeling very alienated as a result. That is why having proper judicial oversight is so important. I am disappointed, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1A withdrawn.

Amendments 1B to 1G not moved.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

2: Schedule 1, page 39, line 27, leave out “is” and insert “and any accompanying persons is or are”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Amendments 3 and 4 are also in this group. In Committee, I raised the issue not only of “arrangements”—the term used in the schedule—for persons unable to leave the United Kingdom after the retention of travel documents, but arrangements for their travelling companions. The Secretary of State can make arrangements for the person concerned, but often people do not travel by themselves, and those who are with them will be affected as well, as the noble Baroness just said. My noble friend Lord Ashton said that the debate had,

“highlighted a potential gap in the current provisions”,

and said that,

“the Government are committed to considering this issue in greater detail”.—[Official Report, 20/1/15; col. 1257.]

My question is, of course, whether the Government have now had a chance to consider the situation. If we do not refer to other people in the Bill, and if it is a fair point that arrangements for companions of the traveller in question should be considered, is there some other basis on which the arrangements could be made without the provision being ultra vires? I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend Lord Ashton indeed undertook to go back to consider whether the intention was that those travelling companions would be covered. The brief answer is that I can confirm that parliamentary counsel’s view is that that is indeed the case under the current wording. I hope that that will provide assurance, but for the purpose of the record, I can confirm that paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 already gives the Secretary of State sufficient scope in appropriate circumstances to make arrangements for travel companions of a person whose travel documents are retained. That is because such arrangements will relate to the person subject to the exercise of the power. An amendment to the Bill to apply that provision to travelling companions is therefore in our view, and that of counsel, unnecessary.

Amendment 3 would widen the ability of Paragraph 14 to include where a person is,

“unable to make the journey to which the travel relates”.

The additional wording is unnecessary, as it is captured in the current drafting of,

“unable to leave the United Kingdom”.

For that reason, we are unable to accept the amendment; but I hope, having had the opportunity to clarify that important provision, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, that is good news. I had not thought that the words “in relation to” the person could extend to “in relation to relations”, as it were. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendments 3 and 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

5: Schedule 1, page 40, line 32, at end insert “including in identifying persons intending to leave Great Britain (or the United Kingdom in the case of a person at a port in Northern Ireland) for humanitarian purposes and not for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 6 and 7. In Committee I raised the issue of people who might be travelling for humanitarian reasons rather than simply—if that is the right term—because they are involved in terrorist-related activity. I recognised the difficulties in this, as an individual could assert that he is simply travelling to give humanitarian aid. It is hard to untangle what constitutes support, as envisaged by the Bill, which is more than humanitarian assistance. To put it another way, showing that humanitarian assistance is not so intractably bound up with the activity in whatever country it may be is very difficult.

I therefore chose to base my argument on the position of reputable organisations such as the Red Cross. I had not anticipated the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which extended the matter very usefully to issues that had come to his attention in his chairmanship of the Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities Bill. He drew the committee’s attention to examples where there had been deterrence to those organisations—I think it is fair to say organisations rather than individuals —that were seeking to go to the areas in question for all the right and good reasons, but feared that they might be prosecuted under the terrorism legislation.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I think I took it at the time, that this is actually quite difficult to find one’s way through as a matter of practice. Rather than adding it to the Bill, I have suggested—and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has added his name to Amendment 5—that the training to be provided and dealt with in the code of practice should include identifying people to whom this applies; that is, persons intending to leave for humanitarian purposes, not for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity. In other words, those who had exercised the immediate power should be assisted in this.

The other two amendments in the group take me back to the issue of equalities, discrimination and the perception of discrimination. At col. 145, my notes tell me, I dealt specifically with the Equality Act, which was mentioned in debate, as well as recording when the powers are exercised. There is a provision in the code about monitoring. I think that monitoring requires recording, and we are all only too aware, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece has referred to today, of the problems of profiling and inappropriately stereotyping—well, any stereotype is probably inappropriate—and inappropriately identifying individuals who may be the subject of suspicion. I beg to move.

15:59

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned my name in her speech in support of this amendment. I put my name down to support it for reasons which I shall go into very briefly. As I mentioned in Committee, my attention was drawn to this problem by evidence which we received in the Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities Bill. That evidence came in part from the independent reviewer, David Anderson QC, and in part from Muslim organisations which are interested in providing assistance to people who need humanitarian aid in places like Somalia which are difficult to penetrate without the assistance of the people who effectively run the country.

I shall make two particular points, without repeating what I said in Committee. First, David Anderson was critical of the definition in the legislation which he described as “monstrously” broad. It was broad for a particular reason, which one can see from looking at Section 1(5) of the 2001 Act, which contains the definition put into this Bill for its purposes. It states:

“In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation”.

It is that kind of scenario that may give rise to problems for a reason which was explained to us by one of the charitable groups. It said that when you go to these difficult countries, in order to get anywhere within those areas, you have to encounter and deal with the gate-keepers. The chairman of the Muslim Charities Forum asked:

“How can we go through the gatekeepers to reach the neediest people in Syria, Somalia or different parts of the world”,

if doing so would be caught by the Section 1(5) definition?

One can see how the thing might build up. The police might have information that the individual passing in front of them has previously gone to these areas and has provided money, as we were led to believe is necessary, in order to get through the gate. The proscribed organisation says, “All right. We’ll let you through, but you have to pay us a certain amount of money to do that”. It is a real trap. Of course, to give money to a proscribed organisation is prima facie assisting the purposes of the organisation, but the real reason for giving such money is to penetrate through the gate to provide the assistance which would otherwise not be available. These are my two points: first, the breadth of the definition and, secondly, what the evidence suggested to us is a very real problem in dealing with these areas.

Noble Lords will remember that in Committee we discussed an amendment to the primary legislation and, in particular in view of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I see that that is a very difficult thing to do at the moment without a good deal of further study and, no doubt, this is not the proper place for it anyway, although I suggest it may have to be dealt with sometime. What the noble Baroness is suggesting in her amendment is that there should be something in the code of guidance for officers so that they are alerted to this problem. Therefore, if they have that kind of intelligence, although what individuals say will not be conclusive, at least they will be aware that these people may have good reason for whatever they are said to have done which prima facie might seem to conflict with the definition in the statute.

On reflection, it would seem that the code is a better way of dealing with this without getting into the difficulties of amending primary legislation, which would go right across the board and might have rather deeper effects than we can contemplate at the moment. I suggest that the noble Baroness’s amendment is quite carefully crafted and there is real merit in the proposal that she has made.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who has identified and talked about an issue that potentially has problems for humanitarian organisations under certain circumstances. However, the amendment remains irrelevant to that. While it may be quite attractive to use a code of practice as a means to identify this issue and make sure that officials are more aware of the potential complications, this code of practice relates to circumstances in which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that person of the intention of leaving Great Britain for the purpose of,

“involvement in terrorism-related activity”.

It would be to stretch that definition to suggest that there is a suspicion that you are personally involved in terrorism-related activity because your organisation may have paid a sum of money to a gate-keeper in one of these circumstances, because this is about involvement in terrorism-related activity. I am therefore not sure that this is the right mechanism for addressing what I suspect is a real and valid problem that we need to find some way to address. Perhaps we can do that next time we revisit terrorism legislation, which will probably be in about four months’ time.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I urge the merit of these amendments very briefly. First, there has been a slight tendency in our discussions in the first part of this afternoon to assume that the actions by the officer at port would almost invariably be on the basis of intelligence that had been supplied before the person reached the port. However, the code stressed that there are two possible scenarios, which appear to be put on an equal footing. One is that information is provided to the police before or when a person arrives at port; or it can take place at port, on the basis of observation of behaviour,

“information obtained from any other source; or a combination of these”.

Therefore, there is fully in the code the scenario where observation of behaviour leads to the reasonable suspicion. That is the context in which these amendments play a part.

The draft code also stresses, in paragraph 24, the obligations under the Equality Act 2010 which police officers must bear in mind when exercising these powers. However, there is not really any reference to specific training on the use of these powers in this context as opposed to rather broad Equality Act obligations.

Finally, can the Minister consider strongly the need for the monitoring of the individual exercise of the powers—not just to monitor them broadly but to record? There is a difference between monitoring in a broad sense and recording when and in what circumstances these powers are exercised.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 5, which, if I have understood correctly, is to do with training under the code of conduct specifically with regard to humanitarian aid.

I am sure that no one in your Lordships’ House would want to deter those who wish to give such support or aid from doing so. We have a proud history in this country of people—whether as individuals, or through organisations, their churches or charities—who risk their own lives to help and support others. Therefore, we understand what we are seeking with the amendment. My concern is that I would assume that the training to be given to those who would exercise power under this schedule would want them to correctly identify those who are going for terrorism-related purposes. Part of that should include identifying those who are going for humanitarian reasons. That does not necessarily need to be in the Bill; I can think of other groups, for example. I was talking to a friend yesterday evening who some years ago went to Afghanistan as a photojournalist, and he asked whether we specified journalists in the legislation.

The assurance that we seek, which it may not be necessary to put in the Bill, is that, after undertaking the training, those who exercise powers under this legislation fully understand exactly what they are looking for. We want to ensure that those who are going overseas for legitimate reasons—because, even when there are travel advisories out, there are people who would risk their own lives to help others, or to report back to people at home and in other countries—are not excluded or caught under this legislation. I am not sure whether this amendment is the correct way in which to do that, or that it fully identifies all those whom we would not want to be caught under the legislation. My anticipation would be that the training would include the proper use of the powers. If the Minister could confirm that, that would be helpful.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

On the point that the noble Baroness has just made, I was just thinking how difficult it must be to distinguish those who are genuinely going abroad for humanitarian reasons to support people in desperate need. We do not want to deter people who want to do that—it would be a sorry state of affairs if we thought that they should not do that. Perhaps in the guidance for those who are engaged in that work and want to do it, it might be helpful to let them know or give out some information as to what sort of things would be required to demonstrate the purpose of their trip, rather than officers trying to ascertain it when they are at border control. Perhaps we could give advice to what would be predominantly Muslim charities —I can openly say that here—that would be affected by the legislation, to let them know what would be expected of them when leaving the country to engage in the work that they are doing. Perhaps we could give them more information, rather than leave it to an arbitrary officer at the point when they are leaving to ascertain whether this person is going for true humanitarian reasons or for other, terrorism-related instances.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling these amendments, which cover issues concerning the statutory code of practice that governs the exercise of the power to seize travel documents.

To take the last point first, my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece asked what was expected of charities, rather than just turning up at the airport and finding themselves victims, if you like, of these powers. I shall take that back and ask whether that is suitable, but at the moment I have no knowledge of a particular government draft for charities. But I shall take that back—and I take the point.

As your Lordships will be aware, a public consultation on the draft code of practice for officers exercising functions under Schedule 1 was launched on 18 December and closed last week, on 30 January. We continue to review and consider the consultation responses and any required amendments to the code. In summary, responses have been broadly positive concerning the extent to which, for example, the code appropriately describes who is subject to the new power, the test for exercising the power, how information is provided to people subject to the power and the safeguards against repeated use of the power. Respondents have commented on issues such as the need for an authorisation process and the time this might take, the availability of legal aid for individuals subject to the power and whether the specified police ranks for the authorisation and review functions are set too high. We have, of course, also considered the contributions of noble Lords and Members of the other place to debates on this chapter of the Bill throughout its consideration in the context of that consultation.

We agree with a number of respondents on issues such as the availability of legal aid and clarifying whether family members may access temporary support arrangements, if required. We will revise the code to reflect these points and other additional points that we consider appropriate. A summary of the consultation responses will be published in due course.

I recognise my noble friends’ intention, in tabling Amendment 5, to require the police to receive training so that they may distinguish between individuals travelling for humanitarian purposes and individuals travelling for involvement in terrorism-related activity. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

16:14

As previously outlined, there is a clear threshold which must be met before a police officer can exercise the power in Schedule 1. The police officer’s decision is subject to authorisation and review. The Government do not consider that this Bill introduces any new risk of prosecution for charities or non-governmental organisations operating in the humanitarian field. It is clear that the intention of the power is to disrupt the travel of those who support or assist individuals with acts of terror. The important point is that we would not wish to encourage potential foreign fighters to leave the UK under the pretence of providing humanitarian aid, and we do not believe that the police require specific training to identify and distinguish individuals travelling for humanitarian purposes.

We fully understand some charities’ concern that they or their staff may be liable for prosecution for a terrorist offence if, in the course of their humanitarian efforts, they pay money to a designated or proscribed group, as mentioned in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. However, we are not aware of any cases of genuine aid workers being prosecuted in the UK for involvement in terrorism-related activity. It is important to note that prosecution would take place only if there was sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed, and if the prosecuting authorities considered it in the public interest to do so.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, outlined the problems of the breadth of the definition of terrorism in respect of gate-keepers specifically. I accept that there are issues in those regards but I do not think that they are addressed by the amendment. As I said before, in respect of gate-keepers in various countries, we are very concerned that no aid should go to those gate-keepers if they are terrorist organisations. There is a danger that that could happen. I submit to your Lordships that this legislation is clearly directed at individuals involved with acts of terror, and not any other legitimate activity.

Amendments 6 and 7 would require the code of practice to deal with,

“other relevant legislation (including the Equality Act 2010)”,

and require officers exercising functions under Schedule 1 to “record the performance of” these functions. The code of practice already makes reference to other legislation where relevant, including the Equality Act 2010. Officers will already be familiar—this relates to the point made by my noble friend Lady Ludford—with their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the code reiterates the duty that officers are under,

“to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation; to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it; and to take steps to foster good relations between those persons”.

The code of practice requires the police to monitor the use of this power and,

“consider in particular whether there is any evidence that it is being exercised on the basis of stereotyped images or inappropriate generalisations”.

They must also review whether the records—so this is recorded—

“reveal any trends or patterns which give cause for concern, and if so take appropriate action to address this”.

The Government fully recognise the concern of the House about the need for appropriate oversight and reporting arrangements. This is why the Government have tabled an amendment to extend the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to cover the power to seize travel documents in Part 1 of the Bill. We will consider that amendment later this week. In addition, the Government have committed to publish an annual report on the use of disruptive and investigative powers, and we intend to cover the new travel document seizure power in future reports.

On the basis of this explanation, I hope that your Lordships will feel reassured about the exercise of these powers and, accordingly, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Could the noble Lord clarify one point? I may have done so incorrectly, but I took him to say that, if a humanitarian organisation paid money to a gate-keeper that happened to be a proscribed organisation, that would be taken as assisting that organisation. The humanitarian organisation would therefore be open to prosecution and to the seizure of passports, which the amendment deals with. It is important to be clear on this because there are people listening—those from the Muslim charities in particular —who are deeply concerned about whether they are at risk. That might not have been quite what the Minister meant to say, but I would be grateful if he could clarify that.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The Government’s position is that we do not want people to pay money to terrorists for any reason, so I think that what the noble and learned Lord said was correct.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, there were a few nuggets in that, for which I am grateful, so I shall not spend time on Amendments 6 and 7.

I absolutely take the point that there might be other entirely legitimate reasons for going to Syria or wherever, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested. It made me realise how important gisting is, or an explanation of the reasons for many powers being exercised, because the reasons may come out in an exchange at that early point—the noble Baroness is right about photojournalists and many other completely proper reasons.

The Minister said that the Government do not want people to use humanitarian reasons as a pretext. I did not use that term, but that was exactly what I meant. I think I said that someone could assert that they were going out for that purpose. I agree with that. As to whether officers need training, let me just say that I put question marks against that rather than ticks.

Not being aware of prosecutions does not entirely answer the point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked in Committee about the chilling effect. I fear I have not followed up his references, but he also pointed us to legislation in Australia and New Zealand, which, as I understood it, he felt dealt rather better with that point. The noble and learned Lord nods at that.

I had hoped that we might have been able to take the matter a little further today. On some points we have, but I think that this may remain a real issue. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

Clause 4: Temporary exclusion orders: supplementary provision

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

8: Clause 4, page 3, line 35, at end insert “and a summary of the reasons for the imposition”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Amendment 8 takes us back to the subject of gisting, but in the context of the imposition of a travel exclusion order. Clause 4 requires an explanation of the procedure for applying for a permit to return. I would extend that explanation to a summary, bearing in mind the security issue of the reasons for the imposition. I am not seeking a detailed explanation, but for reasons to be given that give an outline, so far as it can be given, for the individual to understand what is being imposed on him.

Amendment 9 would insert a reference to not having a reasonable excuse when failing to comply with a condition attached to the permit to return. In Committee, I referred to a “material failure to comply”. The Minister pointed to the provisions in Clause 10 dealing with the offence which would flow from breaching the condition—in particular, that an individual subject to a TEO would be guilty of an offence if he returned without reasonable excuse. I am seeking to align the provisions and to attach similar wording to the provision that deals with the invalidation of a permit. I beg to move.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add words of support for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Providing the “gist”, as it was referred to by the Joint Committee, would certainly dispel some of the concerns that could arise about the potential random use of these powers, even if they were not so used. Providing that little bit more information, with individuals having direct experience of the reasoning, rather than the oversight process that would follow, would have a useful purpose.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment and for giving me the opportunity to put further remarks on the record in relation to the imposition and operation of temporary exclusion orders. The amendments tabled by my noble friends seek to make provision for the Secretary of State to provide a temporary exclusion order subject with a summary of the reasons for the decision to impose the order on them. They also seek to ensure that a permit to return is not invalidated if the individual who fails to comply with a specified condition has a reasonable excuse.

My noble friend tabled an amendment similar to Amendment 8 during Committee. I responded at the time by providing the reasoning for the decision on the subject of the temporary exclusion order. In her previous amendment, she sought to oblige the Secretary of State to disclose the reasons behind her decision. In Amendment 8 she seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to disclose a summary of these reasons. However, the very nature of the information on which the Secretary of State is likely to base the decision to impose a temporary exclusion order means that its disclosure, whether in full or as a summary, could damage national security and might put lives at risk.

As I told the Committee when we discussed this matter previously, it is of course important that the individual is informed that they are subject to a temporary exclusion order, that that is done as soon as possible and that they are given an indication of why this is the case. However, again this must be balanced against the implications of the disclosure of such information. The Government take very seriously the decision to impose counterterrorism measures on individuals and the responsibility to provide those individuals with an indication of why the measure has been imposed. However, the Government also have a responsibility to protect the national security of this country and to ensure the safety of our citizens, which could be put at risk by the disclosure of such sensitive information.

I therefore trust that your Lordships will understand that it would not be appropriate for a temporary exclusion order subject to be provided with a summary of the reasoning behind the Secretary of State’s decision. Any notice given to the individual will state that the Secretary of State has reasonable suspicion that they have been involved in terrorism-related activity abroad. We believe that that is sufficient disclosure and that it informs the individual of the basis for the decision, while protecting sensitive information.

Amendment 9 would prevent the permit to return being invalidated where the individual had given a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the conditions of the permit. Again, this is similar to an amendment tabled by my noble friend in Committee, during which my noble friend Lord Ashton assured her that the amendment was unnecessary. If a temporary exclusion order subject fails to comply with the conditions of the permit to return due to circumstances outside his or her control, the individual would be able to show a reasonable excuse for returning other than in accordance with a permit to return. In those circumstances, the person would not be criminalised. The objective of the amendment is therefore already achieved by the current drafting relating to the offence.

In the event that the individual failed to comply with a condition of the permit to return before travelling back to the UK, the Government would apply discretion to issue a new permit without the condition in question. Any other failure to comply due to the actions or decisions of the individual would understandably result in the invalidation of the permit to return. The Secretary of State will only place conditions on the permit to return that she deems necessary to manage the safe return of the individual and minimise the threat that he or she poses to the UK. Failure to comply with any of these conditions is a serious matter and must be handled accordingly.

16:30

Most importantly, we consider that it is right that the reasonable excuse provision should relate to any possible prosecution rather than to the validity of the permit itself. This allows the court, and not the individual, to decide what would be a reasonable excuse. The approach adopted in this amendment would encourage the individual to decide whether or not to comply with particular conditions. The individual might feel that he or she had a reasonable excuse, or pretend to have a reasonable excuse, and thereby frustrate the purpose of the permit.

I appreciate the objective of this amendment and the points raised by my noble friend Lady Warsi—but, for the reasons I have set out, it is preferable that the objective should be achieved through the drafting relating to the offence rather than to the validity of the permit. We cannot risk these individuals feeling able to choose whether or not in their own mind they comply. Therefore, we cannot support this proposal and I urge my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I certainly had not envisaged putting any ideas into an individual’s mind as to what might be effective to explain his position. On a more general point in response to the comments on gisting, an individual who is subject to these processes is likely not to be wholly open-minded as to the reasonableness of the Secretary of State. Issues of transparency are important here as well. The Government rightly talk about a balance and I do not disagree with that. However, having in mind the need for a balance, I am sorry that the Government have not been able to produce a provision dealing with gisting at the various points at which it might—or to my mind should—arise. My attempts are very amateur. It is a shame that the Bill does not reflect the Government’s approach, which of course, on the issue of balance, I fully share. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn

Amendment 9 not moved.

Clause 20: TPIMs: miscellaneous amendments

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

10: Clause 20, page 13, line 36, leave out subsection (1)

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

In moving Amendment 10 and speaking to Amendment 11, I am returning to an unimplemented recommendation made in his March 2014 report by the independent reviewer about which I spoke at Second Reading and in Committee. These are the only amendments which relate to Part 2 on TPIMs. I want to make just five points.

First, the main and certainly the most contentious change in the TPIM regime brought about by Part 2 is the provision for internal relocation orders—internal exile, as it is being called. In short, it gives the Secretary of State power to require someone who is suspected of involvement in terrorism to move as far as 200 miles away from their present home. Not surprisingly, these highly disruptive kinds of order—which, in years past, used occasionally and contentiously to be made in control order cases—are deeply resented. Occasionally, however, I accept that they are a regrettable necessity.

Secondly, one of the conditions to be satisfied before any TPIM order can be made is that the individual in question is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity, which is known as condition A. Under the present legislation, the 2011 Act, that condition is met if the Secretary of State “reasonably believes” that that is the situation. Clause 20(1) of the Bill would substitute for the requirement of reasonable belief on the part of the Secretary of State the requirement that he be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person is involved in terrorism.

Thirdly, to my mind there is no practical difference between those two tests, hence the effect of Amendment 10 would simply be to leave out Clause 20(1), which substitutes one for the other. But far, far more important than Amendment 10 is Amendment 11, which is directed to the court’s oversight powers with regard to TPIM orders. Under the 2011 Act as it stands there is provision for initial review hearings of these orders and later for appeals by the High Court in each case. However, for reviews and appeals, the 2011 Act expressly provides that:

“The court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.

Amendment 11 would widen the court’s jurisdiction so that it would be for the court to decide for itself whether the person in question was probably involved in terrorism and not merely for the court, as now, to ask itself whether the Secretary of State’s conclusion about that was one that he could reasonably arrive at or whether it was, on the contrary, perverse.

Fourthly, this strengthening of the court’s oversight powers was specifically recommended by Mr David Anderson, the independent reviewer, in his report of last year. In his recent oral evidence that he gave in November and December respectively to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, he expressly regretted that his recommendation had not been implemented. In fact, Amendment 11 is more limited than Mr Anderson recommended. He recommended that in all TPIM cases the final decision on whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity should be one for the court rather than for the Secretary of State, subject only to judicial review. My amendment would secure that this is so only in those most troubling of cases that I have already mentioned where the suspect is to be relocated far away from his own home.

Fifthly and finally, I should note with gratitude that last Thursday, after the debate in Committee at which widespread support was shown for my amendment, the Minister was kind enough to see me to discuss this question. Essentially, as I understand it—he will correct me if I am wrong—the Government’s position is that this amendment is not necessary because case law shows that the court interprets and applies its review powers in such a way as to suggest that in effect the court already takes the final decision itself. If that remains the Government’s view, I would challenge it for these reasons.

First, it postulates, necessarily, that the court is disobeying the express statutory prohibition placed on it by the 2011 Act against exercising any fuller or wider jurisdiction than that of judicial review. Secondly, I must ask rhetorically why the independent reviewer would make this recommendation and, indeed, regret its rejection if in truth it is quite unnecessary. Thirdly, given that the Government accept that what they suggest is the court’s actual present approach to these cases—namely, that of deciding the question for itself— why on earth not write that into the statute and thereby, as Mr Anderson himself put it in his report,

“help reinforce the legitimacy of TPIMs”,

and reassure a sceptical public and a worried minority community that the court is indeed playing its full part in safeguarding those at risk of these orders against the inappropriate use of this draconian power?

Amendment 11 is the important one. Amendment 10, as I indicated in Committee, is really an optional extra. I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 11. I shall be brief, but I appreciate that what I am about to say runs the risk of disturbing the relative tranquillity of this afternoon’s proceedings. Amendment 11 seeks to transfer the responsibility for the making of a crucial decision in this process from the Secretary of State to the courts. It is but another skirmish in the turf war between some judges on the one hand and Ministers and Parliament on the other hand which has featured so extensively in recent debates in your Lordships’ House, not least in the context of judicial review. It is my contention that decisions as important as the one we are currently contemplating should be made by the Secretary of State and not by the courts, so I hope that the view which was ascribed by the noble and learned Lord to the Minister about who is to take the final decision is based on a misapprehension. That is because I am firmly of the view that it is the Secretary of State who should take the decision.

My reason is very simple. It is the Secretary of State who has the responsibility of protecting the people of our country from terrorism and terrorism-related activities, and it is the Secretary of State who is accountable to the people of our country for the exercise of that responsibility: accountable to the electorate both in their capacity as an individual Member of Parliament and in their capacity as a member of the Government of the day.

It is right, as the noble and learned Lord has acknowledged, that the decision of the Secretary of State should be subject to the normal processes of judicial review. That is a feature of the current proposals. But it is the Secretary of State whose decision it should be, not a decision of the courts.

16:44

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard. He is absolutely right, and I find myself becoming irritated today as I hear this dancing around pins on some of these amendments. What we have to remember are the rights of those who are at risk of being murdered. A number of noble Lords in this House have lost friends to terrorism. I have lost five friends in particular who were murdered by terrorists. Unlike the BBC I am not ashamed of calling them terrorists—that is what they were. Every time I go home, I look at my wife, who was almost savagely murdered by terrorists. I suffer not a little myself from the effects of terrorism. I get bored and irritated by those who do not seem to understand that the most important human right of all is the right not to be murdered.

I hope noble Lords will get on with it and get this Bill through as quickly and expeditiously as possible, and give the Government the powers with which to deal with those who wish to murder other people.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, we can all sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I apologise for daring to intervene—

[Lord Tebbit]

I do not ask for sympathy. I ask for action to prevent other people being murdered by terrorists.

[Lord Hylton]

The noble Lord might recall that this Bill is being dealt with under fast-track provision. I support Amendment 11, which was spoken to by my noble and learned friend. Before 2011, banishment or internal exile—sending someone to Siberia—was unknown as a penalty or punishment in this country. I believe that most of the general public trust judges rather more than they do Secretaries of State.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I just feel that phrases like “sending to Siberia” do not help very much. When I was a Minister, I used to send people occasionally to Gloucester from London, but it is hardly in the same category, I would suggest.

[Lord Hylton]

Gloucester is rather nearer to London than 200 miles, which is a possible distance. Having said that, I reaffirm my support for the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, at the last stage I supported the noble and learned Lord. I had not thought it would be appropriate to come in at this stage because I had to deal with something else while remaining in the Chamber, so I was not able completely to concentrate on what he said. However, as one of those who, I suppose, must be regarded as having danced the most during the earliest part of this afternoon, I reaffirm my support. I trust the courts to take a proper attitude to the issues which come before them, which is what this amendment is about.

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

Before the Minister rises, I will just say that, as I understand what is proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown, he is not saying that the courts’ powers should be in any way unusual. This is really giving them an ordinary responsibility within the scope of judicial review as I have always understood it.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving the amendment. I was conscious of disagreeing with only one element of what my noble friend Lord Howard said. He said that he was going to disturb the tranquillity of the proceedings. From the perspective of the Government Whips’ Office and of Ministers, tranquillity is quite a sublime quality in debate on these matters. These matters evoke strong feelings on all sides of the House. My noble friend Lord Tebbit brought home from his personal experience the point that we are dealing with real threats to real lives. That is the ultimate threat to liberty that we are seeking to legislate for in the Bill before us.

I said that I would reflect on the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, last week, as I took it as seeking clarification. I was grateful to him for the time which he gave me, my officials and the legal team from the department in reviewing this matter. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, put so succinctly, this is a matter of principle. It is a well observed principle that, in the realm of national security, the Executive have ultimate power, responsibility and accountability. That is the way that it has been, whether it is in relation to exercising royal prerogative over passports, temporary exclusion orders, interception of communications, excluding foreign nationals or deprivation of citizenship for those with dual nationality —I could go on. The principle is this: when it comes to national security, the Executive have to take the responsibility. That is an onerous responsibility to take. It is also entirely right, as the Bill provides for, that there should be an ability to challenge such a decision of the Secretary of State by way of judicial review and the courts.

I promised the noble and learned Lord that I would seek to put some additional words on the record which might give him some comfort. They are in relation to the technical legal point that he touched on, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, but they do not seek to move away from the fundamental grounds on which the Government are resisting this amendment, that of not wanting to sacrifice the principle that it is the Secretary of State who should decide.

As part of the review of the TPIMs imposed in the cases of CC and CF, their legal representatives argued that in TPIM cases the reasonable belief test,

“requires that at least the foundation of past facts upon which the belief is predicated must be proved on the balance of probabilities”.

As part of Lord Justice Lloyd Jones’s consideration, he applied Judge Collins’s judgment in the case of BM, who said that,

“to found a reasonable belief that a subject is or has been involved in TRA”—

that is, terrorist related activities—

“and that a TPIM is necessary does not involve the requirement to establish involvement in specific TRA to any higher standard than that which can properly give rise to such a belief. No doubt some facts which go to forming the belief will be clearly established, others may be based on an assessment of the various pieces of evidence available. But there is certainly no requirement that particular TRA needs to be established to the standard of at least more probable than not”.

Based on this precedent, we expect that the courts will see the balance of probabilities as a higher standard and that this will impact on their consideration.

As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the court will also seek to interpret the difference in wording, as it is entitled to do. His amendments seek to differentiate between the test which the Home Secretary is required to apply and that which the court is to apply. Given her remit in relation to a range of aspects of terrorism, the Home Secretary remains best placed to make a holistic decision to impose a TPIM notice in order to protect the public from terrorism. The Government hold firm to that principle, which has had cross-party support. I express my gratitude to my noble friends who have spoken against the amendment, I hope that, with that additional explanation, the noble and learned Lord will see why the Government take the position that they do and will not be able to support the amendment if it is pressed.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to this debate and to the Minister for the words which indeed provide a little comfort. Perhaps my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Tebbit, is slightly less pronounced than to others. I venture to suggest that the logic of their position would be that one should revert to the original test that the Secretary of State set for him or herself as to whether to make these orders: not one of reasonable belief but the lesser test of reasonable suspicion. The question in the present proposed Bill is simply, “Who ultimately should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity?”.

We are all against terrorism but we are also—I venture to believe and hope—all in favour of basic human rights and not making orders too readily against those who may well be as innocent as the day is long. In fact, Mr Anderson said in making this recommendation that it was in large part to give legitimacy to the process that we should make the court the final arbiter. He said that in fact he thought it would have made no difference to any of the earlier TPIM cases—but just think what assurance the public would have that only the right people were targeted.

As to the Minister’s point about it being invariably a matter of principle that the court’s powers did not go beyond those of judicial review, with respect—as I ventured to point out in Committee—that is not so. In the 2005 Act, Section 4(7)(a) provided in terms that the court could confirm a derogating control order only if,

“it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the controlled person is an individual who is or has been involved in terrorism related activity”.

However, there it is. Given what may be thought to be the somewhat inactive—I restrain myself from saying “pusillanimous”—stance adopted by the Opposition here, clearly I will not divide the House. However, I suggest that there remains time, with a week before Third Reading, where the Minister could still come to recognise that there is much to be said in favour and, on true analysis, very little to be said against this amendment.

[Lord Bates]

In terms of the Government’s position on this, it is a principle. We gave it a great deal of reflection and that is the position. I am afraid that I am not able to give any commitment that the government position will change between now and Third Reading. Therefore, should the noble and learned Lord wish to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I was not relying on any reconsideration as a basis for not dividing the House. I merely say that it still remains open to the Government if they suddenly see the light. In the mean time, I take such comfort as I can from the words uttered today by the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Amendment 11 not moved.

17:00

Amendment 11A

Moved by

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

11A: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause—
“Part 3AEnsuring or facilitating availability of dataEnsuring or facilitating availabilityPower to ensure or facilitate availability of data
(1) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) ensure that communications data is available to be obtained from telecommunications operators by relevant public authorities in accordance with Part 3B, or(b) otherwise facilitate the availability of communications data to be so obtained from telecommunications operators.(2) An order under this section may, in particular—
(a) provide for—(i) the obtaining (whether by collection, generation or otherwise) by telecommunications operators of communications data,(ii) the processing, retention or destruction by such operators of data so obtained or other data held by such operators,(iii) the entering into by such operators of arrangements with the Secretary of State or other persons under or by virtue of which the Secretary of State or other persons engage in activities on behalf of the operators on a commercial or other basis for the purpose of enabling the operators to comply with requirements imposed by virtue of this section,(b) impose requirements or restrictions on telecommunications operators or other persons or provide for the imposition of such requirements or restrictions by notice of the Secretary of State.(3) Requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, include—
(a) requirements (whether as to the form or manner in which the data is held or otherwise) which ensure that communications data can be disclosed without undue delay to relevant public authorities in accordance with Part 3B,(b) requirements for telecommunications operators—(i) to comply with specified standards,(ii) to acquire, use or maintain specified equipment or systems, or(iii) to use specified techniques,(c) requirements which—(i) are imposed on a telecommunications operator who controls or provides a telecommunication system, and(ii) are in respect of communications data relating to the use of telecommunications services provided by another telecommunications operator in relation to the telecommunication system concerned.(4) Nothing in this Part authorises any conduct consisting in the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by means of a telecommunication system.
(5) In this section—
“processing”, in relation to communications data, includes its reading, organisation, analysis, copying, correction, adaptation or retrieval and its integration with other data,
“relevant public authority” has the same meaning as in Part 3B.
(6) See—
(a) section (Application of Parts 3A and 3B to postal operators and postal services) for the way in which this Part applies to public postal operators and public postal services, and(b) section (Interpretation of Parts 3A, 3B and 3C) for the definitions of “communications data” and “telecommunications operator” and for other definitions relevant to this Part.”

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to the other amendments in the group, Amendments 11B to 11T, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Carlile and Lord Blair.

In Committee, we had a full debate on the subject of these amendments. It was then generally established that there was pretty widespread agreement among the majority in this House, with some caution and reservations from the Benches behind me about adequate safeguards, that there was an urgent need for proper access and improvements that have been loosely and generally described in the draft communications data Bill.

There has been adequate and clear evidence, and statements by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and the former director-general of MI5, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in a maiden speech in this House. Other previous directors-general of MI5, including the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, agreed on this, as did the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Armstrong, who also spoke in the debate. They all recognised the problem we face, which is that our legislation has failed to keep pace with the rapid growth of the new technologies around the internet and the complications in the whole field of social media communication. One should recognise—it is common ground—that the extraordinary speed of ISIL’s southwards advance across Syria and into Iraq was achieved on WhatsApp, which is able to communicate with thousands of people at the same time and get messages across much more efficiently than was possible with some of the old military communications systems, as anyone who has been a soldier will recognise.

It is against that background that we have heard the clearest warnings. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, in an impressive maiden speech said that in 2013, when he was director-general, he thought that the worst was over. He now admits that he was wrong, and anyone who looks at the current situation and the threat that we face in this country and more generally in the world from terrorism will realise what he meant. Chillingly, he also said that the threat was increasing but our capacity to meet it was diminishing. That gets to the whole purpose of what I and noble Lords who join me in this enterprise have sought to bring before this House. This Bill, by chance, deals with an aspect of data collection; and the opportunity therefore arose to take the steps that the previous Government sought to recognise. The noble Lord, Lord West, referred to his experience in that Government and recognised the need for this perhaps six years ago; it was certainly needed three, four or five years ago. This Government recognised it and published a draft Bill two and a half years ago that sought to address the issue, which was then the subject of examination by the Joint Committee of both Houses, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who is in his place today.

By the end of the Committee debate on this issue, we had provided an opportunity for this House to take a decision that would then give the other place the chance, if it wished, democratically to incorporate the essential provisions of the draft communications data Bill into this counterterrorism legislation in the recognition that they were an important part of the counterterrorism needs of this country at this time. The point was made absolutely fairly by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that his Joint Committee criticised a number of aspects of the draft Bill. We sought in our amendments to deal with a couple of the more specific and difficult aspects that had attracted particular criticism.

The first of those was that the draft Bill set out a whole range of purposes for which data could be collected. Given the urgency of the situation, we decided to delete all those that involved local authorities, the health service, the Inland Revenue and a number of very worthy bodies that might otherwise have been included and might have a case for collecting data. But in the short-term, stop-gap measure needed in the immediate months ahead, we limited our proposal simply to national security and serious crime. Moreover, we recognised that this was not perfect legislation and that it needed improvement—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said in a number of criticisms—so we put a sunset clause on it. In the mean time, to make sure that we deal with another concern, we have also asserted that it would be subject to affirmative-procedure orders of both Houses of Parliament, whenever the Secretary of State wished to make such an order under this legislation.

Against that background, we then learnt during the course of debate that the Government did a significant amount of work on the previous draft communications data Bill and the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, had the opportunity to see some of that. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—I do not think I am misquoting him—said that he was satisfied that 95% of the Joint Committee’s criticisms had been met. So we entered the Committee stage with the challenge to the Government to pick up our original, older amendments to the draft communications data Bill and either replace them with the present improved versions that are apparently sitting in the Home Office, or make them available to noble Lords for us to table to meet the criticisms that these amendments are not as good as they should be.

I think it is now common knowledge that the Government have not felt able to offer these improved versions—and I understand that there is a problem, because they feel that further work needs to be done—because it was decided not to proceed with the draft communications data Bill, so it has not been given the priority that others might have hoped it would be given in having further work done on it.

The position is further complicated because, I understand, both the Government and the Opposition reached an agreement through the usual channels that the Bill that we have before us would be fast-tracked, but the condition of agreeing to the fast-track arrangement was that no substantial additions would be made to the Bill. One understands why that was put in, against the background to agreeing the fast-tracking of legislation of this kind, but my point is simply that that was decided before Paris and before the events in Belgium, and before the almost certain knowledge that access to social media, which the French security authorities have but which we do not, was crucial in so quickly tracking down the people responsible for that outrage in Paris. The Home Secretary and the Minister were put on record as believing that that was almost certainly the case.

I understand that both the Government and the Opposition will oppose my amendments today, so I will just say this to the House. I start with quotations from the Home Secretary herself in a Statement that she made to the House three weeks ago:

“Let me be absolutely clear: every day that passes without the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill, the capabilities of the people who keep us safe diminish; and as those capabilities diminish, more people find themselves in danger and—yes—crimes will go unpunished and innocent lives will be put at risk … Quite simply, if we want the police and the security services to protect the public and save lives, they need this capability”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/15; col. 871.]

Noble Lords can find that Statement by the Home Secretary in Hansard and check it right through. It was echoed by two people on the Back Benches who know much about the subject, in the shape of Mr Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who both emphasised the importance of getting access to those communications data to handle the challenge of the new technologies, which at the moment is not adequately available to us.

We are now faced with a significant gap. A lot of days are going to pass. I understand that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made it clear—I think that the noble Baroness leading for the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary also made it clear on behalf of the Opposition—that this legislation would have a high priority in the next Government, whomever they may be. But look at the situation. We in this House have no idea who the next Government will be. We do not have much idea how long it may take to form that Government. I recall the days spent trying to form coalition agreements when this Government came to office.

I also remember that, many years ago, when I was more closely involved, we won an election. We had something called L Committee, which was the legislation committee. The Government arrived full of enthusiasm, full of manifesto pledges and guarantees that had been given at one stage or another from one department or another. Enthusiastic Secretaries of State went into their new department to be embraced by officials saying, “We are delighted that you have given the top priority to our legislation. L Committee will meet next Tuesday and you must ensure that you come out top of the list”. So those pledges made here that this or that will be the first priority, when we do not know which Government there will be, are obviously the most uncertain that we could face at this time.

We shall fail to take what I see as this exceptional opportunity presented to us, which could have gone to another place for its consideration, and the risk will continue for longer than it need to have done. Noble Lords who have been present in the past few minutes in this House will have heard the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the concerns that many have. As a fellow occupant of the Grand Hotel in Brighton on that night, I know exactly what he meant. We face a very serious threat from terrorism.

I understand that the Government and the Opposition feel honour-bound to hold to their position, but we will lose an opportunity to put in place a temporary, stop-gap measure which could have reduced the threat to our nation from terrorism at present. We just have to pray that we do not pay too high a price for that. I beg to move.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. Like others, I have been involved with national security for many years—longer, I suspect, than anyone else in this Chamber, except my noble friend Lord Armstrong. I worked with the Security Service when it did not even exist, so in my first report, I had to refer to the Security Service, SIS and GCHQ en bloc as “the agencies”. I continued to work closely with the Security Service until I gave up being chairman of the Security Commission in 1999. Others referred in Committee to their first contact with the Security Service. I remember an occasion long ago when I visited its premises in Gower Street. The door was opened by a young lady I knew and we said simultaneously, “Fancy seeing you here”. Her name was Elizabeth Manningham-Buller, and I think we all agree that she has done very well. I would very much like the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, to be aware of that but she is not in her place, and I am sorry that she is not here to hear me say it.

17:16

I support the amendment for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord King, both on the earlier occasion and today. However, there is a further reason that has not so far been mentioned. It involves looking more closely at other provisions in the Bill. There are currently 2.5 million Muslims in this country who are utterly loyal. In addition, there are 100,000 Muslims who sympathise with the terrorists. Every time we pass a piece of repressive legislation we alienate some of the 100,000, and we will be truly safe only when they have changed. That will probably take a generation or so—the same sort of time as it took to reach a solution in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Condon once said, in a speech that I shall never forget, that you do not change people for the better by putting others behind bars. Every bit of terrorist legislation that we have passed since 2001 has alienated an unknown number of sympathisers. This was clearly so in the case of control orders, which created much anger and did very little good, if any. It would certainly be the case if we reintroduced relocation.

In every piece of counterterrorism legislation there is a balance to be struck. I do not know whether the Government performed that operation when introducing the present Bill, but my guess is that it will do far more harm than good. Why do I say that? The justification put forward by the Government for the Bill concerns 500 would-be terrorists who are or have been fighting in Syria. Of these, 250 have already returned, so we are talking about the other 250 who are still there. Let us assume that 200 of those 250 decide to come back, of whom let us say 100 would have been stopped under the existing legislation. It is of course unlikely that all 100 would arrive on the same day, so they would be spread out over months or maybe years. Let us suppose that 25 of them arrive before next May; that number is obviously a guess, but it could be an estimate. They will join the 250 who are already here, as we know, and the 2,000 long-term suspects who are also already here, many of whom are known to have undergone weapons training in Pakistan; that figure has recently been confirmed. Yet, with one exception—the London bombing—we have been kept safe. Whether the current risk, as it is called, has been severe or substantial has made no difference because the Security Service has been unbelievably successful at its job.

We are now told by the Government that this Bill is needed badly and cannot wait until the spring. It must be forced through Parliament by the fast-track procedure. I cannot help wondering whether the Government consulted the Security Service to see whether the Bill could not wait until this spring. I feel sure that it would have answered that of course it could. The 25 additional suspects arriving before May would not make the slightest difference from its point of view.

At Second Reading, I said that I could think of no good reason for introducing this Bill now, still less for giving it the fast-track procedure. That remains my view. Another worrying feature is the timing. The threat level was raised from substantial to severe on 30 August. I have said that it has made no difference in the past, but what happened on this occasion? The Prime Minister announced that he would introduce this legislation on 2 September. How did that come about? The threat level has often been raised from substantial to severe without necessitating urgent legislation. I can remember only one occasion when there has been urgent legislation said to be like this, and that was in 2005. The 2001 Act was about to expire and the Belmarsh prisoners were about to be released. The Government thought up control orders, and we had five days in which to consider the legislation. Nobody suggests that the situation now is in any way comparable to that.

On 2 September the Prime Minister had two draft Bills before him: the present Bill and the draft communications data Bill, which my noble friend Lord Butler described as a “Bill in waiting”. We need to know why the Prime Minister chose this Bill rather than the communications data Bill. This Bill is not urgent and will save no lives. The other Bill will save lives and has been waiting for more than two years. In replying to the debate on 26 January, the Minister said that this Bill was more vital than the communications data Bill. I cannot agree with his view, but I do not for one minute criticise him. Through no fault on his part, he cannot have been in possession of the full facts. We need to know why the Prime Minister chose one Bill rather than the other. We need to know whether he preferred this Bill for political reasons.

We need to know, for example, whether the Prime Minister wanted the Conservative Party to be seen as the party that is tough on terrorism. I accept, of course, that that is pure speculation on my part. However, it seems to me that we must be satisfied one way or the other. If there is anything at all in my concerns then it seems to me that the present Bill is tainted, and no agreement between the two parties can prevent that being so. If that is so, the Government must surely defer further consideration of the Bill, and must do so before Third Reading.

I hope I have shown that deferment of the present Bill will cost no lives. It can be brought back after the general election, by which time the reviewer, David Anderson QC, will have completed the review on which he has already engaged, and which covers much of the same ground. There will then be room, in the mean time, for consideration of the communications data Bill, which we all look forward to.

It may be asked why, if all that is so, I did not take part in the debate last week. The reason is simply this. In my speech on Second Reading I said that I was against the Bill in principle. It did not seem likely that I would be able to take advantage of any of the amendments that would be put down. However, I came on 26 January to support an amendment put down by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown, and I happened to notice that the very next amendment was the one that we are now debating. That was the opportunity that I had been waiting for.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, sits down, perhaps I may say that I always listen immensely carefully to what he says, by dint of his experience, but I am not fully clear why he is adamantly against the Bill as a whole. I understand that it is largely due to its potential counterproductivity, as he sees it. However, I am not clear why he is in favour of this set of amendments.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

For the very reason that, as I have tried to explain, I can see no reason for the Bill to be brought forward now. I hope the noble Lord will understand that. Therefore we have, in any event, a gap. Much more important than that, however, is that the other Bill will save lives; this Bill will not.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make a few very brief comments in supporting my noble friend Lord King. It is not right that we should replay the whole of the debate in Committee.

The first is that, as I understand it, the Government acknowledge—and by that I mean the whole of the Government—that there is a gap in the facilities which are necessary for the proper prevention and detection of terrorism. I understand it to be acknowledged by the whole Government that that gap is recognised as being in the field of communications data. The issue is what should be used to fill that gap. I am very disappointed, if I may say so with great respect to my noble friend the Minister, in the response—or rather, the lack of response—that has been given to last week’s debate in Committee. I say that for this reason.

My understanding—following the committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—is that, following severe criticism by his committee of the communications data Bill, from which these amendments are derived, though not copied exactly, a further draft Bill was prepared. We were told last week that that further draft Bill was shown to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and to another member of his committee, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, whom I am delighted to see in his place. The judgment made by my noble friend and the noble Lord was that nobody could decently describe the draft amended Bill as a snoopers’ charter at all, and that it went 95% of the way towards meeting the need. One derives from that that it was recognised as a good Bill which met almost all the requirements set out in its criticism by my noble friend’s committee.

17:30

Last week, we asked the Government to provide us with a copy of that draft Bill, but that has been refused—not in the bluntest “we refuse” terms but in simply avoiding providing us with it. Had we been provided with that draft Bill, my noble friend Lord King and the noble Lord, Lord West, along with the noble Lord, Lord Blair, would have been at least 95% certain—the same percentage—of tabling an amendment that contained the provisions of that draft Bill.

The most engaging part of the speech by my noble friend Lord King was his unexpected plea of guilty to making promises, as a Minister in a Conservative Party manifesto, which were not kept. However, in saying that, he illustrated the uncertainty of waiting until after a general election, particularly one that has such an uncertain outcome, before setting off down the road of legislation on this issue. We could be waiting a very long time before this important gap is filled. So I respectfully ask the Minister to explain to the House why concerned Members who have identified an acknowledged gap have not been vouchsafed a copy of the good Bill, which we would have put down as an amendment. Logically, if we had been provided with that text, we would have expected all parties in this House to support it, unless there were some cheap political points to be made out of not doing so.

The amendment that we have tabled has distilled all the necessary elements from the previous communications data Bill, although we acknowledge that it could be improved—particularly if we were given the text to which I referred. We have added the sunset clause and the provisions relating to affirmative orders to which my noble friend Lord King referred earlier.

The Government should really reflect once again on this matter. The failure to fill this gap is a risk to national security—and national security is not an empty phrase. The meaning of national security to the people of this country is that it is the rolled-up rights of those 60 million people not to be the victims of terrorism in our streets. It is the duty of government to protect national security, as the Prime Minister has acknowledged on many occasions. So I say to my noble friend, please do not take a completely unnecessary risk with national security by failing to provide the text that ought to be acceptable to all parties.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I was brought up to believe that politics was the art of the possible. As a supporter of this amendment, it seems to me that we have reached a position whereby politics is the art of the preposterous. I exempt from that charge those noble Lords who object to this amendment on principle; they will mainly be Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers, but there will be other objections on principle. They and I disagree, but I suggest that both positions are perfectly respectable. It is not the same position as what I understand to have been happening in the case of the Conservative and Labour Front Benches.

Let us consider what we are all agreed on. I am not going to rehearse the arguments in detail. We are all agreed that jihadist terrorism is a real and present danger and that it is an increasing danger, indicated by a threat level of severe. We are all agreed that we have a degrading technological ability to monitor and intercept communications data, vital to the disruption of terrorist attacks. There is a gap, as the noble Lord, Lord King, has said.

What do I mean by preposterous? The provisions of this amendment, previously the stalled communications data Bill, go back in principle to the concerns of a Labour-controlled Home Office in 2007-08 about the degradation of our technological capability. So this had a Labour birth. The provisions were then adopted by a Conservative-led but not entirely controlled Home Office. In either 2010 or 2011, I was personally briefed in the most positive of terms about the communications data Bill by one of the Conservative noble Lords, who carried the Home Office ministerial brief in your Lordships’ House. I will not name him because he is not in his place. So it had a Labour birth and was a Conservative-supported Bill before the Paris attacks. Then, as we have heard, the current Conservative Home Secretary lamented the lack of progress on the Bill in a Statement to the House of Commons. And then in your Lordships’ House we discovered, in Committee, the existence of the Bill in the Home Office.

The noble Lord, Lord King, has made it clear to the House that we would table the amendment only once, and if it was sent to the other place we would not indulge in ping-pong. We just want the Commons to have the opportunity to consider this matter again. Despite this, the Conservative and Labour Parties are prepared to do precisely nothing at this stage about this gap. I do not understand fully the nature of the usual channels, but the next Government will be principally led by either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party —so they do not need to worry any more about letting each other down over a fast-track procedure. One of them will be responsible for doing that, and the other one would be agreed anyway. So why do we not put it forward?

In closing, I remind this House that elections and changes of Government are of great interest to jihadi terrorists. In 2004, they killed more than 190 people and injured a further 2,000 in bombs on trains in Madrid. They changed the course of the Spanish general election as a result. In 2007, they planted major car bombs in the Haymarket and bombed Glasgow airport to mark the day when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. Had the London bombs exploded, hundreds of young people would have died in a night club. We face an election now and, who knows, we may have another one shortly afterwards; we may have a multi-party coalition assembling with a whole range of views on the subject of this amendment. I am acutely disappointed by the decisions of both Front Benches to refuse to accept this amendment or, better still, propose a better one, on a matter of such national interest. I urge both Front Benches tonight publicly to commit to bringing forward legislation about communication data monitoring as an urgent priority for the next Government and, particularly, I assume, their L Committee.

Lastly, I hope with all my heart that today’s decision does not result in some utterly preventable disaster somewhere on the streets or in the skies above Britain. I was not present to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said about the Brighton bombing, but what one has to remember about it was that afterwards a spokesman for the provisional IRA said,

“we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always”.

The Minister said that this is about real threats to real lives, and it really is.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I support the amendment and make no apologies for reiterating some of the things that have been said. Why do I support the amendment? I do so because there is a clear and present danger to our people in this country. The threat level is severe, as has been said, and there is no doubt whatever that there will be more attempted plots and, I am afraid to say, there may well be a successful plot, so people will die. We have lost data. We knew that we would lose data and the ability to get intercepts on these people as far back as six or seven years ago. Intercept is absolutely crucial in these terrorist crimes. When I was a Minister, every single one of the plots that we unravelled was done initially through intercept information. I think I am correct in saying that has been the case with every major plot that we have unravelled.

As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the head of GCHQ and the head of the Security Service have all said that this Bill is urgent, and I do not think that one should take what they say on security lightly. The traitor Snowden has made us all less safe. Terrorists are now much cuter about using data in ways which mean that our law enforcement people cannot get hold of them. As an aside, it is rather amusing or ironic that Snowden is living in a country which is such a paragon in terms of ensuring that its people are not snooped at and looked at, but that is a different issue.

The fact that the fast-track Bill is very important does not mean that we should miss this opportunity to tackle this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put it very neatly when talking about the amendments drawn up for the Joint Committee. It is absolutely extraordinary that we have not been allowed to see those. We understand that there will be more amendments given that we had emergency legislation last summer. Why did we have that? It was because we did not have a communications data Bill. We have a fast-track Bill now which includes data provision. Why is that? It is because we do not have a communications data Bill. How much better the situation would be if we had had a proper communications data Bill.

There is a two-month period now. In two months we formed a task force, sailed to the Falklands, recaptured them and said that we had won. We have two months in which the other place is doing almost nothing at all. Perhaps it could stop working a two-day week, take this Bill seriously with all the amendments, do all the necessary amending, and give itself enough time to provide the necessary safeguards for our people—it is right that they should have privacy safeguards—but also make them safer. I doubt very much that there will be another two months in which to do this in the other place after the election, as has already been touched on by a number of speakers, as things will start to happen then and we have to have new legislation by December 2016. That sounds very far away but it is not; it is very close. Therefore, it is highly likely that there will be more fast-track and emergency legislation, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, because we are missing a trick in getting this done.

I hope that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party will put this issue in their manifestos and make it a manifesto commitment. If the Liberal Democrats did so I would be absolutely delighted, but I fear that at the moment they do not seem to know which way is up on this issue. Will the Minister give that commitment?

17:43

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am the first Peer to speak against the amendments. I am very sorry that I have to disagree with my noble friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead and Lord Blair of Boughton. They have tremendous operational and political experience of dealing with terrorism and of working the legislation. I deeply respect their motives and their integrity but I respectfully suggest that they are wrong.

I and five other noble Lords and six MPs spent six months going through these amendments before us today with a fine toothcomb, but, in those days, they were in the draft communications data Bill. I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew that they are largely the same amendments. There are some tiny changes, but they are largely, almost word for word, the same. When we started on the Joint Committee, we all had widely differing views. We had views at different ends of the spectrum, ranging from those who were totally committed to privacy at all costs to those who were committed to security at all costs. However, after six months of scrutiny, we produced a unanimous report.

I give noble Lords some examples of what we said about these clauses as they appeared in the draft communications data Bill and which are before us today as Amendment 11A and the other amendments in this group. We said that the 25% gap was misleading and unhelpful, part of the gap was due to a lack of ability of law enforcement agencies to use the data properly, and that there had been a failure to consult all the CSPs. We also said that there can be meaningful consultation only when there is clarity about the aims of the legislation and that no aims were specifically stated. We further said that Clause 1, or Amendment11A before us today, should be redrafted with a much narrower scope and that amendments to Clause 1 should be dealt with only by the super-affirmative procedure. We added that the Bill should be redrafted to enable Parliament to address web logs which are at the heart of this legislation, and they still are today. We suggested that the Home Office commitment that third party provisions would be invoked only after the original data holder has been approached should be given statutory force and that the operation of the request filter should be transferred to the National Crime Agency. We added that new safeguards should be introduced to guard against the request filter being used for fishing expeditions, and that—although I agree entirely with my noble friend—any public authorities which make a convincing case to get communications data should be listed in the Bill—that is, the important deserving ones such as the police, the security agencies, the FSA, the United Kingdom Border Agency, the NCA and HMRC. We said that any changes to this list should be made by super-affirmative procedure. We recommended that the Government should consult on all the permitted purposes for access to communications data and that the Bill must be redrafted with new definitions of communications data, especially subscriber data, which is a catch-all for everything and helped to give it the name the “snoopers’ charter”. We said that a new hierarchy of data types needed to be developed and that data needed to be divided into categories which reflect how intrusive each type of data is, and therefore the different agencies which could have access to different levels of it. We said that content was not even defined in the draft Bill and that it should be expressly excluded from all categories of communications data.

I will stop there. That is enough to be going on with, although we had another 20 criticisms of the Bill. However, we did not just criticise; we also made suggestions on how to make a better Bill.

[Lord West of Spithead]

Does the noble Lord agree that, in two months of working on this issue and on the amendment, one could come up with something that covers and makes up for those errors and get something that makes us safe and puts those things right?

[Lord Blencathra]

I take the noble Lord’s point but I want to make it clear to the House—I apologise if I gave a misleading impression earlier—that I did not see an all singing, all dancing final draft of a revised Bill. However, I saw some very important revised clauses which went to the heart of the matter we are discussing. I do not believe that the Home Office can legitimately hand over those clauses now because the Government and their coalition partner do not have full agreement on everything that needs to be in the Bill and we have not seen David Anderson’s report. David Anderson may have some key points to make which will require the Home Office to rewrite the measure again. Therefore, I do not think that we can take forward some new clauses, bash them into this Bill with two months to go and bounce them into the Commons.

About half the criticisms that I have just listed apply to the proposed new clauses before us today. Nothing has changed. Indeed, the Home Secretary has confirmed that we got it about right in our Joint Committee report and she wants to bring forward a new data Bill incorporating our recommendations. I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile that the Home Secretary did not say that she wanted the old draft data communications Bill with all its flaws, warts and all; she has made it constantly clear in her statements that she wants a new data communications Bill, but incorporating many of the amendments suggested in our report.

In those circumstances, I think that this House would be committing a grave error of judgment if it accepted these 18 proposed new clauses, which everyone agrees are thoroughly flawed. Of course, there is an imperative for new legislation in this area, but it has to be the best legislation which government and Parliament can invent. The risk of a terrorist attack is severe, but that is no justification for bad law, even if we had a sunset clause of just six months, or one month for that matter.

I am glad that my noble friend is not going to push this to a vote. I hope that other noble Lords will accept that. When we return to this matter in the new Parliament we will need a fully redrafted Bill that takes onboard Mr Anderson’s recommendations, which has had full consultation with the communication service providers that will have to implement it, and which has had a detailed Second Reading debate in the other place and in your Lordships’ House. The Home Secretary has made it clear that she wants new legislation but better than the clauses we have before us today. If we try to take any other shortcut, rather than new, properly worked out legislation, we will be seen to be acting in bad faith. That will make it infinitely more politically difficult for a new Government to bring in balanced measures that give the police and the security services the additional powers they need while protecting the fundamental privacy of the 60 million UK citizens who are not a terrorist threat. If it comes to a vote I reluctantly urge the House to vote against the amendments.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra, with whom I worked so closely and for so long in government. I am afraid that on this occasion I have to disagree with the contents of his speech. It seems to me that the answer to the points that he made was given by the noble Lord, Lord West, during his intervention. These amendments are not meant to be the last word on the provisions that the final Bill should contain; they are meant to give the other place an opportunity to reconsider these matters.

I am afraid that I was unable to be present at the debate in Committee, but I was able to listen to an exchange on the radio a few mornings ago between the noble Lord, Lord West, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I found the arguments put forward during that exchange by the noble Lord, Lord West, wholly persuasive. That is why I came along this afternoon ready to support the amendment in his name and in the names of his co-sponsors. I have to confess to your Lordships that my determination to do so was reinforced in some measure by the belief—it is still not clear to me to what extent it was well founded—that the Conservative limb of the coalition was anxious to proceed with these proposals but were being prevented from doing so only by the pesky Lib Dems—I am so sorry, by my noble friends who sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches. That remains not entirely clear.

It seems to me that the case made by the four noble Lords who have sponsored this amendment is very compelling. It is clear from what my noble friend Lord King has said that we cannot take the matter further today and that, sadly, this legislation will not be put on the statute book before the general election. However, I join with those who have urged the Government and both of the major parties that might form the Government after that election to proceed with these measures with all possible haste.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, to address the comments made by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater and other noble Lords, in my opinion there is no doubt that we all face a very serious threat of terrorism. There is also no doubt at all that, because of the way that technology has moved on, there is a gap that means that the police and the security services cannot now get the information on mobile phone communication that they used to, due to changes in the way that people communicate via the internet. The first issue is: where does the balance lie between measures that would close that gap and the freedoms and civil liberties that we all enjoy? The second is: how do we fill that gap technologically?

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I have done some homework over the weekend. Obviously, I am not a technology expert, but this is what I have been told by technology experts. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blair, for saying that he has no issue with people who argue on the basis of principle. One of the effects of these amendments, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra alluded to, would be to require communications service providers to store 12 months of web logs—the history of every website visited by everyone who uses the internet in the UK. The Joint Committee that my noble friend Lord Blencathra chaired said that this has considerable implications for the privacy of everybody who lives in this country and who uses the internet. I am sure that that is immediately obvious to noble Lords across the House.

What has not been mentioned is what I have learnt since we were in Committee. When people use web-based means of communication such as WhatsApp—according to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater, ISIL is one of the groups that uses this means of communicating —Facebook Messenger or any others, all these communications are encrypted. The vital data that the police and the security services need are held on servers that are mainly in the United States of America. Even if these amendments were agreed to, and even if these web logs were kept, there are serious doubts as to whether the American companies would comply with the UK legislation.

Another aspect of these amendments, and of the draft data communications Bill, would require United Kingdom communications service providers to skim off the encrypted data transmitted to and from the secure servers in the United States, in case the Americans decided that they were not going to play ball. This would cost in excess of £1 billion, and it is unlikely that the UK-based communications service providers would do so. Because of the levels of encryption, and because companies such as Facebook are constantly reviewing their encryption and making it more and more difficult to decipher, even if that data were captured there is serious doubt that the UK communications service providers would be able to make head or tail of it. Plus, they would not be able to decide what part of that encrypted data was the content of messages or Facebook pages and how much was simply who sent the message to whom, from where and at what time—that is what these amendments and what the draft data communications Bill was about. The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, talked at length about intercept evidence. These amendments and the draft data communications Bill have nothing to do with interception. They are about only what is on the envelope of the message, if you like, not its contents.

So what do we do? Obviously, something has to be done to try to get that data. That is why the coalition Government have appointed Sir Nigel Sheinwald as special envoy on international data sharing to sit down with the US Government and US companies to identify ways to overcome legal jurisdictions so that we can tackle crime and terrorism without compromising the privacy of the law-abiding majority. This is not a situation where these servers in the United States are beyond our reach. In 2013, US companies processed around 30,000 requests for “envelope” data from UK authorities. There is already consultation and collaboration and it is producing results.

These amendments are disproportionate, are likely to cost billions of pounds and certainly cannot be implemented immediately. Almost all communications service providers in the UK do not currently keep this data and have no storage capacity and capability to store it. That would be a long-term project; nothing of use would come out of it in the six months that my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater talked about as a stop-gap measure. These amendments are likely to jeopardise the collaboration that we already have with the Americans, which is serving the police and the security services reasonably well.

Mention has been made of a debate that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and I had on BBC Radio 4 at the weekend on “Week in Westminster”. During that programme, the noble Lord said that the amendments tabled last week were too broad and that, if it had come to a vote last week, he certainly would not have voted for them. As these amendments have been changed hardly at all since last week, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord West, will not vote for his own amendments.

[Lord West of Spithead]

Having shared that with only 11 million people, I am shocked that the noble Lord should do so in here.

17:59

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, at this stage there is no need for me to rehearse all the arguments in favour of this group of amendments. The terrorist threat has increased and is increasing, and those upon whom we rely to prevent and detect terrorist crime depend on access to the communications data of those intending and planning to commit terrorist crime. I will not go in detail into everything that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, although I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, or I could agree with all of it.

Those agencies have been increasingly conscious that the provisions in RIPA 2000, now nearly 15 years old, badly need updating to take account of technological changes. The agencies have enjoyed the voluntary co-operation of many of the service providers, but many of the companies concerned, as we heard in the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would like to see that voluntary co-operation underpinned by statutory provision. There are no doubt some who are reluctant to co-operate without there being statutory provision.

The Bill provides us with an opportunity to put in place some of the statutory provisions which would have been provided by a revised—“Blencathrated”, if I may call it so—communications data Bill, for the introduction of which we shall now have to wait until the next Parliament. These amendments are designed to take advantage of that opportunity. Their scope has been reduced since similar amendments were proposed in Committee. We have been denied the possibility of Blencathrating these amendments because the Home Office is not willing to produce a revised communications data Bill or the relevant parts of it. Therefore, these amendments are no more than a stop-gap, as the noble Lord, Lord King, described them, and they are no more than temporary to fill a stop-gap because there is a sunset clause which ensures that they will disappear in their present form in December 2016. Most of this limited stuff is taken up with safeguards, and more than three pages are taken up with an interpretation clause of definitions.

We know that the police and the intelligence and security agencies feel the need for these provisions and would welcome these amendments, limited and imperfect though they are. As has already been said, in passing these amendments your Lordships would not be deciding that they would be part of the Bill before us when enacted; we would be giving the other place the opportunity to take that decision. Surely that is where the final decision should lie.

If the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, were to decide to press these amendments, I would support them because I would not wish to have on my conscience any sense of shared responsibility for what might ensue if failure to include these provisions in the Bill resulted in failure to prevent a terrorist attack which might have been prevented, as well as all the consequences which might result from such an outrage, as was vividly and notably referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, this is something of a mess. I was certainly alerted—and I know that other noble Lords will have been alerted at the same sort of time—to the developing problem of a gap in terms of communications data eight or nine years ago. It was so long ago that I can no longer remember exactly when it was. The gap is occurring because of the nature of the way in which communications take place using the internet, and it is a gap which is worsening and getting bigger.

Communications data, as opposed to intercept, are used in virtually all major crime and terrorist cases. They are an essential component, concerning who was there, who was where and who was communicating with whom. That is nothing new; what has changed is the way in which those messages are transferred from one place to another. It is a fact that it is no longer easy, using conventional means and conventional mechanisms, to keep track of that information, and that is causing the problem. It is a problem and a gap which has been getting worse over the last few years.

Something urgently needs to be done to remedy that gap, but it has not happened. The previous Government and this Government have failed to do something about it. We are now moving inexorably towards a general election, which is a few weeks away, and it will be down to whichever Government are in place after that to deal with this. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord King, that, following the election, that may not be a rapid, simple or straightforward process.

What do we do now? The first thing is not to oversell the importance of either these amendments or the mythical Blencathra’d amendments that may or may not exist somewhere else. The amendments will not be a magic bullet. The mere passage of these proposed new clauses, or a version of them, does not mean that terrorism will be prevented or that serious crime will stop, but they would be an essential and necessary tool in trying to minimise the risk. Let us not pretend that the failure to include them will automatically mean that there will be a terrorist atrocity. However, it will mean that such an atrocity will be that bit more likely and that it will be that much more difficult to deal with it and stop it.

This is not just a question of the legislative provisions and the fact that we are being dilatory in getting round to dealing with this issue. I understand and have all sorts of sympathy for Ministers in the context of a coalition where one side of the coalition is less keen on such a provision than the other and starts to position itself in advance of a general election. I have lots of sympathy for all that, but the fact is that collectively Governments over the past eight to 10 years have failed to address and deal with this issue.

There is a second vital element, which is that there is a degree of public support for and public buy-in to the changes that have been made. That is why not pretending that this is a magic bullet is so important. In the past, security measures have been oversold as the one necessary thing that will stop all these atrocities, and every time that excuse is used it has bred public cynicism about these measures.

Part of what has to happen is a proper public debate about why these powers are needed, why they matter and why they do not constitute the infringement of civil liberties and personal liberty that some people assume. Failing to have that debate has been a wasted opportunity over the last few years. When the Joint Committee produced its report, the Government should have used that as the opportunity to say, “Let’s have that public debate”. Had they done so, we might now be in a position where there was a public understanding of these issues and a readiness to go forward.

The reality is that if the noble Lord, Lord King, presses his amendments, people will say that the parliamentary process has been abused, and we have no doubt already had dozens and dozens of emails and letters saying precisely that. It is an abuse of the process because it does not allow the normal times for debate, but we have failed to give ourselves the time for that, and that is why we are in such a mess.

Should we agree to these amendments? No, because they do not incorporate the views of the Joint Committee; no, because we have not had an opportunity for the public debate; and no, because we have not had the report of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I do not want to get into why we have not had all those things but the fact is that we have not. It would therefore be wrong to press ahead with these amendments at this stage, much as I personally believe that something along these lines is necessary and much as I personally believe that we should have taken action much sooner. However, the reality is that those other things are not in place. I blame the Government—of course I would because I am on this side of the House—for failing to have those other elements in place and for failing to ensure that there has been the necessary public debate. However, to press today without public support and public debate, and in the absence of having the views of the independent reviewer, clearly would be a mistake, particularly in the context in which people would see that the legislation had been rushed through by some sort of legislative sleight of hand.

The noble Lord, Lord King, gave the Government a week’s opportunity to move forward. The Government have not taken that opportunity. For the very reasons I have given about not having public support or having built things up, I do not believe that they should have responded to the noble Lord’s amendment last week by bringing forward their own amendments to do all this overnight. But it would have been an enormous step forward, and still would be an enormous step forward, if before Third Reading the Government were to publish the revised versions of the legislation that they have, even if they are not the final product, so that that public debate can start. Some of the myths about communications data and what the Government are trying to do could be dispelled.

We are in a sorry mess. Frankly, I do not think that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord King, solve the problem. They could conceivably make it worse. But for goodness’ sake, we need to treat people like adults, not pretend that this is a magic bullet, and allow the public debate to take place.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I cannot resist the opportunity to add my ha’penny-worth, to respond to my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, and to acknowledge proudly the label of pesky Liberal Democrat. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blair, for saying that he at least does not disagree that the Liberal Democrats have a position of principle here. However, I disagree with him about the 2004 Spanish election. The Partido Popular did not lose the election because of the bombing being by Islamists. It lost because it tried to misrepresent those bombings as being by ETA, which was against the advice of its own intelligence services.

My noble friend Lord Paddick has put extremely well, and much better than I could, all the objections of principle. The storage of everyone’s web browsing for 12 months, even if it is only up to the first forward-slash, would blur the boundary between communications data and content. It could reveal an awful lot about people’s health, sexual characteristics, political views, marital problems and other potentially embarrassing personal information. This is simply too much power to give to the state. Yes, 12 months’ storage of everyone’s web browsing history is an objection of principle.

I also stress the practical difficulties of scooping up third-party data and setting up a transatlantic jurisdiction on a war which we are destined to lose. From my time as a Member of the European Parliament in the last few years, I have some experience of this in the wake of the Snowden revelations and the whole impact that had on the attempt to get data sharing across the Atlantic without the framework of a transatlantic data-protection agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who is not in his place, will remember those debates. We need to work co-operatively with US-based companies rather than try to overreach ourselves in terms of jurisdiction. I fear that the reaction to that, which already has happened in the last few years, is that it could lead to fragmentation and balkanisation of the internet. The glory of the internet is that it is global. We in the West look askance at what is happening in China and Russia in trying to cut themselves off from the global internet. I foresee that that could happen transatlantically as well. Companies in the United States are under a great deal of pressure to comply with at least the safeguard provisions of US law, partly as a result of the lively public debate there in the last 18 months, which is unlike in this country where there has not been so intense a public debate. Of course, we know that they are going faster and faster down the route of encryption, with all the problems that my noble friend Lord Paddick mentioned.

18:15

One of the few changes between last week and this week in the amendments proposed is the removal of the filtering arrangements. Last week, I said that I was afraid that the filter could increase the risk of phishing expeditions but the reply is that, equally, it might protect against unnecessary intrusions. I am not necessarily reassured by the removal of the filtering requirement. The requirement to retain weblogs would increase the size of the haystack by a huge factor. Some estimates say that it would be by a factor of 1 million, which will not make finding the needle any easier. Intelligence agencies already face challenges in making use of the data that they have.

There is a huge risk to privacy in the storage of such massive volumes of data. We have had numerous examples of data breaches. Who needs reminding—but I will—of the 25 million child benefit records lost by HMRC, while eBay had its database of 233 million customers hacked? Mention has been made of Edward Snowden. Of all people, the CIA had a database which was vulnerable to, some would say, whistleblowing, and, some would say, theft by Edward Snowden. City banks have had their systems hacked. Surely, the kind of database and the volume being talked about here would be a hackers’ honeypot. Compared to what risks such a database would present, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

Without being discourteous, signing up to amendments which some of the sponsors say they would not vote for and floating a proposition only so that it can be discussed at the other end seems quite a peculiar way to legislate. I would have thought it more sensible to legislate on the basis of clauses that it is accepted represent some reasonable, coherent scheme. This certainly does not.

Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Carlisle that I do not believe that there is agreement on the extent of the capability gap in government. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who, once again, has given a most impressive speech, said that the committee did not get any cogent explanation from officials. My understanding is that there still is not an agreement, so we do not even know the target that it is proposed to hit. Until there is such an agreement, essentially that is delaying any sensible proposal on communications data.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harrison of Haringey, said that there is a danger of people being cynical about this legislation. It is also a danger that people will be cynical if, having been warned of an increasing threat and the growing capability gap, the then Government fail to take action. It has a danger of casting doubt on the seriousness of the warnings. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also raised a series of objections to what is being proposed today. I entirely agree with him that the legislation when it comes forward will not provide a complete answer. It certainly will not because technically it is not possible for it to do so. There is no doubt that we will need international co-operation. He is also right about the importance of Nigel Sheinwald’s mission.

Encryption undoubtedly makes the task a great deal more difficult and we will not get around some of it. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is also right to say that it is a long-term task. However, I do not conclude that that is an argument for delay—rather the contrary—nor is the argument that because we cannot do everything we should do nothing.

I am unhappy with the situation at which we have arrived and it is clear that we shall not make progress today. However, data communications are central to our future capability in counterterrorism. It is an important matter and we should not engage in further delays. I am unhappy that the Government could not find a way of producing legislation that we could have looked at seriously. They could have found a way had they wished to but, if they are not going to, I hope that whichever Government come to power after the election will honour the commitment to priority and that early and good legislation will be passed.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we had a full, thorough and interesting debate on this issue last week, as we have had today. When the noble Lord, Lord King, suggested that he had been criticised for bringing it forward, he will recall that my criticism is that we have not had enough opportunity to discuss legislation on this issue over the past two and a half years.

Last week’s debate was, in some ways, a Second Reading, which was a sensible approach to take. This is a controversial and complex issue. These are detailed amendments—18 amendments over 14 pages—and there is a lot to consider and discuss. It is highly unusual to have amendments on an issue such as this introduced at the Committee stage of a semi fast-tracked Bill that has already been through the Commons. It is for that reason that I felt it was sensible to have the kind of debate that we had last week. We are now talking more about the detail.

I strongly object to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blair. He described the debate today and the political debates as the art of the preposterous and suggested that there was some kind of cosy arrangement or deal between the Front Benches. If he has read my comments or heard them in the debate last week when we discussed this, he will know that we were clear in our views on these specific amendments. Nothing has changed and his comments contrast sharply with those of the other noble Lords whose names are on the amendment. No other noble Lords, from all parties or none, have cast any doubt on the willingness and determination across your Lordships’ House to tackle terrorism and on the need to constantly keep under review the proposals and provisions we have in place. We have made our position clear and the suggestion that there is no good reason to oppose these proposed new clauses is incorrect and unfounded.

I do not want to repeat all the comments I made—it is not necessary—but I reiterate that I understand why noble Lords have brought these amendments forward for debate. When the Government published their draft data communications Bill it was, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seriously criticised by the Joint Committee of both Houses set up by the Government as defective in many ways. We went into the details of that last week and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has raised some of those issues today. Basically, it was far too broad, a point made also by the noble Lord, Lord West, lacked safeguards and inadequate penalties for abuse in some areas, and serious concerns were also raised about the accuracy of information and the costings of the draft legislation. The Government accepted that criticism.

I hear a telephone ringing. That will be the Home Secretary phoning the noble Lord, Lord King.

However, we now understand that, although there may not be a new draft Bill, there are drafted amended clauses to the Bill. However, they have never been presented to Parliament and we have never seen any further detail or evidence of them. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, agreed—he has not seen anything either. I said to the Minister last week that it would be helpful if not only the noble Lord, Lord King, had seen them but also the Official Opposition, who may be in position to legislate on these issues in government.

The Government have never sought to introduce an amended Bill. They have brought forward the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which was fast-tracked last summer, and the clauses in this Bill. When DRIPA was debated, all parties agreed to our proposal that there should be a full and thorough investigation and report on this issue by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and that this should be on a statutory footing. In the two and a half years since that report, there has not been a wider debate or a fuller public consultation, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the new proposals.

The Government have never sought the views of Parliament on the proposals they have picked up on following the report of the Joint Committee but now, just prior to an election, they have said that they want to revisit the issue after the election. What has happened in the past two and half years? Why has this issue not been brought forward? Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have said that something has to be done to address changes in technology and how this is used, but legislation, debate and any proposals have to be far more specific than “something has to be done”.

A statement to the effect that we will have to return to these issues later in the year after the general election is not a particularly dramatic pledge. Any Government will have to do so. We made clear our commitment to that in the last debate. It is why we insisted that David Anderson’s report should be produced prior to the election. DRIPA expires in December 2016. New legislation not only needs to be debated before then but needs to be in place and operational. It is a matter of the highest priority for any Government who take office, and David Anderson’s report will be crucial. He will have presented his report in May.

The public are entitled to expect both security and protection of liberty. They are not mutually exclusive unless we take both to an absolute position on either side, but we do not. We seek to balance both those objectives and the public expect us to bring our good judgment from an informed position. In many ways, the debate around these kinds of amendments is best addressed in your Lordships’ House. It has the experience, the expertise, the commitment and the interest of noble Lords to provide the probing and scrutiny needed to fully examine these amendments and to consider the changes needed.

However, today we are asked to consider them without the opportunity to make other amendments or any significant changes and without the kind of scrutiny that your Lordships’ House is used to providing. The amendments are largely based on the ones that were so heavily criticised—a criticism accepted by the Government—and then withdrawn. I do not know whether noble Lords see the irony in this that I do. It is not unheard of for the House of Commons to pass flawed, inadequate legislation because when it gets to the House of Lords, “They will sort it out up there”. It happened with this Bill in regard to judicial oversight in Part 1. Ministers asked MPs in the other place to reject our amendment on judicial oversight on the ground that they would table something and sort it out when it got to the House of Lords. This is the first time I have been aware of the House of Lords being asked to pass defective legislation so that the House of Commons can then sort it out. I hope it will not be a trend.

I appreciate the comments about there being two months left of this Parliament. It remains open to the Government—as it always has over the past two and a half years— to provide the detail, the evidence and the time but it appears now that the changes to the Bill are not ready.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord West, for their courtesy in discussing their amendments and sharing their views with me. However, most of the changes they have made and the proposals they have put forward do not address the criticisms made by the Joint Committee. I appreciate the point about organisations having access—I agree with it—but limiting the purpose of the Bill to national security and serious crime was not criticised by the Joint Committee. It thought its purposes—to save life, for example—were justifiable.

I also note that those proposing the amendments may have expected greater co-operation from the Government and to have sight of the work previously undertaken on the draft Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised that issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord King. However, that has not been the case. The noble Lord, Lord King, made clear that the Government consider that further work is needed—that this had not been a priority for the Government. Moreover, noble Lords have had these discussions with the Home Office and possibly the Home Secretary, and they have far greater access to security information than we do as Her Majesty’s Opposition. Given the quote from the Home Secretary used by the noble Lord, Lord King, did he also ask why this has not been a priority if she considers the threat to be that great?

My noble friend Lord Harris made a powerful speech in which he said that we govern by consent, but in the two and a half years that the report has laid on the table gathering dust, we have not had an opportunity to have the public debate that would ensure that we have public consent and approval for any measures which are brought forward on data communications and retention.

We know that legislation in this area has to be kept up to date, it has to be necessary, and it has to be proportionate. Following the election in just a few months’ time, when David Anderson has reported and we will have had the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, there is a time imperative to replace DRIPA and to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose. We will have to consider new legislation. It may be that some of the provisions in the draft Bill and the suggestions in the report of the Joint Committee are already being outpaced by the advance of technological change—given the time lag we have already had over the past two and half years. But what is clear is that we will need an evidence-based approach from the Government. We will need to explain to and engage the wider public in the debate, and your Lordships’ House will have to scrutinise any proposed legislation to ensure that it addresses both the security issues and those of public liberty. The proposals must do just what they are intended to do—we have often debated their workability—and they have to be proportionate and necessary. We will debate exactly what the provisions would do and their impact.

However, that is not what we are being asked to do today. We are being asked to support these specific, flawed amendments with no guarantee that the Government will provide any additional time in the House of Commons for them to be debated in full. No doubt the Government delay has wasted time, but these amendments do not resolve that. I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have put them forward because we have been given the opportunity to hold two very good debates on both the principles and the substance. However, if the amendments are put to the vote today, I regret that on the information we have, we will be unable to support them.

18:31

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. The points which have been raised have in effect focused on six main areas: the threat, the power, the amendments themselves, the draft Bill, the technology and the procedure. With the leave of the House, I will use those as the outline for my remarks.

I shall first say something about the nature of the threat because context is all in the legislation we are bringing forward. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, expressed his concerns about the nature of the threat. It is important to remind ourselves that since April 2010, more than 750 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offences. More than 210 have been charged and over 140 have been successfully prosecuted. In Committee, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, outlined some of the content of those cases and the intended acts of terrorism which those who were prosecuted had intended to carry out. We were horrified at the list he presented. Let us be clear: we are seeking to address a very real threat.

Other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Paddick, have made reference to the use of technology. Perhaps I may put this into context for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Certain caricatures are not helpful here. Clearly she dealt with one, but let me deal with another one, which is that this legislation has somehow been left on the shelf to gather dust. That is not the case because of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014—legislation that came directly out of the draft communications data Bill. That legislation was taken through this House on a fast-track basis last July. The IP and the technology elements contained in this Bill are also drawn from the communications data Bill. Moreover, since the start of this Government, the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit has secured the removal of 65,000 items from the internet that were encouraging or glorifying acts of terrorism. More than 46,000 of those items have been removed since December last year. At present, content relating to ISIL, Syria and Iraq represents around 70% of the unit’s caseload. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension as to the seriousness of the threat or that the police and the security services are not making daily efforts using the powers they have to keep us safe, and we should express our gratitude to them.

It is worth making another important point here. To say that taking forward measures of this nature to attack terrorism might somehow be seen as alienating the Muslim community—which was the example that was given—could not be further from the truth. Bombs and bullets do not discriminate between religions and faiths, as we saw in Paris where the personal protection officer for one of the journalists who was also murdered was a Muslim. We need to remember that as we move forward, and we also need to remember that we might not just be looking at terrorism by jihadists. Mohammed Saleem, an 82 year-old Muslim from Birmingham, was stabbed to death by a far right extremist who then went on to try to bomb mosques in Walsall, Wolverhampton and Tipton. These threats cross cultures and religions. We have talked about republican terrorist threats in Northern Ireland, but those are different. What we are talking about here are the specific acts of people who seek to subvert the democratic process and curb people’s freedom and liberty by undertaking violence in order to advance their cause.

Those are the points I wanted to make in relation to the threat, because it is real. Is there a gap? Yes, we believe that there is a gap, and that has been repeated on many occasions. The security services believe that these additional powers are absolutely necessary as a matter of urgency in order for them to work on closing the gap. We must recognise that the nature of the threat is mutating, if I may use that term, on almost a daily basis, such are the advances in the technologies and in the capricious use of them by those who seek to do us harm.

Perhaps I may turn now to the draft Bill which was under consideration. My noble friend Lord Carlile dwelt heavily upon this. We did have a debate in Committee and during that debate I did say that I would look again at what we could actually share with the House at that point. I have to say that we tried—again, I do not want to be caricatured by the notion that the Government took away a request that was made by a highly respected source, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and then somehow forgot about it. We worked on that very seriously. When we looked at it carefully, there was a view that the amendments which had been shared with the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Armstrong, were draft clauses and in many cases had been superseded by legislation which was contained in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act and in this Bill. It was therefore felt that it would be unsafe to do anything at that stage. Moreover, those particular clauses were under the active consultation and review of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, as well as that of the police and the security services. For a whole host of reasons, it was felt that they would not be advisable. We did try to secure the review for noble Lords, but we were not able to do so at that time.

I turn now to the amendments which are before us. The amendments are significant, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord King, who has been tenacious in the way he has advanced his cause and pressed us on this issue over the past week. When a phone went off and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, commented that it could be the Home Secretary for my noble friend, that might in fact have been the first hour that has gone by over the past week when there has not been a telephone conversation—not that the content of them could ever be disclosed, under any circumstances, under present legislation. There has been regular contact.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said very clearly that he regards this as a priority and as a pressing need. The Home Secretary has said it is a priority and a pressing need. The important thing to say is that we do regard it as a priority, but not the amendments before us at this stage. This is a principal part of what we say to the sponsors of these particular amendments. It is perhaps made more difficult because of the legislative stage we are at with the Bill. We would be faced with sending the 14 pages and 18 or 19 clauses down to the other end, not for them to consider at Second Reading or to discuss and run through in Committee, but for them to vote on in a fairly truncated parliamentary procedure. That might be something which would cause concern. I am simply placing pieces of a jigsaw here to try to explain to my noble friend why, reluctantly, the Government feel that they are not able to support these amendments in their present form.

Then, of course, there is the procedure that we move on to from here, which has been settled. Section 7 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act says:

“The Secretary of State must appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers … The independent reviewer must, in particular, consider … current and future threats to the United Kingdom … the capabilities needed to combat those threats … safeguards to protect privacy … the challenges of changing technologies … issues relating to transparency and oversight … the effectiveness of existing legislation (including its proportionality) and the case for new or amending legislation”.

That commitment was made in legislation and has to be delivered by 1 May. Further consideration is under way by the Royal United Services Institute, in addition to further consideration undertaken at the present time by the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which my noble friend is a distinguished former chairman. That work will be extremely important in informing us all in Parliament what the scope and content of that Bill should be.

Finally, I want to come to the point about timing. This is probably the strongest argument which my noble friend Lord King has put forward. The threat is real, and the need is now. We cannot see this as something which can be kicked into the long grass; it has to be a priority for the new Government. I believe that there is just reason to claim that that might be the case and that it may not be subject to the kind of experiences that I acknowledge he may have had with previous legislative arrangements. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act is sunsetted to the end of December 2016. If we work back from that, as we have done, we realise that we need legislation to replace that well in advance of that date, as there certainly cannot be any gap in the coverage of that very important power. If it needs to be in place before that, it necessarily needs to be introduced very early on in the next Session, to allow it to follow its appropriate course through Parliament.

[Lord West of Spithead]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he saying then that this will be a manifesto commitment?

18:45

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord will recognise that I am a little too junior to actually write the manifesto. What I can say for absolute certain is that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made clear, in the most forthright terms, their personal belief that this legislation is needed and that it must be introduced as a matter of urgency in the new Parliament. I hope that that will deal with some of the scepticism which there might be about the power.

I was trying to set out that there is a particular legislative need. Whatever Government are there after the general election, they will have to start to do something very early on, simply because it will take seven to nine months to actually get it in place. However, when it does start, it will start with due consideration of the Joint Committee’s work and the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It will start with the excellent debates and consideration that we have had, thanks to my noble friend’s putting forward these amendments in Committee and now again on Report. It will have the benefit of the input of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, of the Intelligence and Security Committee and of other individuals who work in this area. It will be a better piece of legislation for that, providing that it is enacted.

With these comments, I am trying to be as frank as I can in explaining, in a transparent way, where we have got to—where we are—and where we need to be as a matter of urgency in the next Parliament. I hope that my noble friend will see that the Government are grateful for his urging and that we have responded by being more forthright than perhaps we have been before about our intentions. In that spirit, I hope that he will feel reassured enough to be able to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, we have had another most excellent debate in what the whole House, I believe, recognises is an extremely serious and dangerous time. It is right that the House should be addressing this issue. I start by thanking the Minister for the way he has responded successively to two very important debates, first in Committee and now on Report. I thank him also for the extremely courteous and constructive way in which he has responded to the representations that I and other noble Lords have made. I thought that we were going to fall out for a moment, because I thought he said I had been tendentious—but I was corrected very quickly by my noble friend beside me, who told me that the word he had used was “tenacious”, which is certainly much more acceptable.

I will just address some of the comments that have been made. I do not mean to be unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but he rather repeated the speech that he made in Committee. He spent some time criticising the amendments we have put down, but these are not the amendments that we wanted to move. As he knows, we tried to change them but the Government did not feel able to co-operate in that respect, so we had to make do with what we had. I also draw some comfort from this quote from his own Joint Committee’s report:

“Our overall conclusion is that there is a case for legislation which will provide the law enforcement authorities with some further access to communications data”.

I will be the first to say that that sentence then has various other qualifications about the need for improvement—the committee had lots of worries and concerns about it—but that is the basis on which we went forward.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Jones answered the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, very well. The noble Lord’s weekend of research brought out very clearly how difficult this issue is, how complicated it is and how much will have to be done before this can actually be brought in. Some might argue that if you have all those complications before this gap—which has been generally recognised to exist—can be closed, leaving open the inability of our country and our security agencies to necessarily meet the threats that they may face, then we had better get cracking on that now. Dealing with the international complications and the issues around encryption are very important points which need to be dealt with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who I get the impression is against the idea of having any Bill at all—although I may be misrepresenting her—slightly misrepresented the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. He did not say that the terrorist attack in Spain caused the change of government. He made a very interesting point that I had not quite focused on. In the context of the time in which we live, as we move towards an election, I understood him to be referring on the Spanish connection to the way in which terrorists have often used election time, a time of political uncertainty, to cause an outrage. That would appear to have been the case in Madrid.

Our debate has brought out some general concerns. I do not think that there was any argument whatever about the threat. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a most interesting and constructive speech on the challenges that have to be faced, including the challenge of looking at both sides of the problem. Of course, we are aware at all times of the risks of overstepping the mark and of alienation. I lived through a time in Northern Ireland when the measure of internment without trial—a necessary measure at one time—had undoubtedly significantly increased the problems of terrorism that we then had to face. We in this House and others have a responsibility as legislators to get that balance right.

I am impressed by the statements of the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, the shadow Home Secretary, the Home Secretary and both Front Benches, who make no apology for saying that the threat is severe. That is its standing at the moment. For anybody who did not understand what “severe” meant, those statements were made before events in Paris and Belgium. We are undoubtedly in a time when we need to be able to ensure that our defences are as strong as we can make them.

I understand that it is unusual for such a substantial amendment to be put down at the Committee stage of a Bill in this House. I was not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was suggesting that it is for this House only to do modest revisions to what comes from the Commons and not for it to be on occasions an initiator, inviting the Commons to give their views on what we are putting forward. I certainly do not sit in this House on the implication that I am not allowed to initiate good ideas if I think them necessary, particularly if I think that they will support the security of our nation—but I may have read too much into that.

What we have got out of this debate is not, unfortunately, co-operation on the tabling of more up-to-date amendments which might have given the House of Commons a chance to consider whether they could be incorporated in the Bill. We now move forward to an uncertain time: an election time with no certainty as to who the Government may be or how long it will take to undertake any of the new legislation which I think everybody—certainly, all those in positions of responsibility in the major parties—believes is essential. At such a time, we have to ensure that in every way we can we give support to our security and intelligence agencies in their work. My noble friend Lord Howard said in debate on an earlier amendment that the security of the nation is the first responsibility of the Home Secretary. She has made it absolutely clear that she wishes to see this legislation in place as soon as possible but has set out her own timetable for it. I am quite clear what the positions of the Government and the Opposition are in not supporting these amendments, but at least we have given the opportunity for these matters to be thoroughly examined.

I do not think that when this Parliament resumes, in whatever guise it is, people will have any excuse for not knowing what the strength of feeling is on this issue. I think that a number of us, who fortunately do not have to stand for election, will be on their tails in this matter. We will be able to resume the charge and try to ensure that, at the earliest possible opportunity, the security of our nation is supported in the best way we can. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11A withdrawn.

Amendments 11B to 11T not moved.

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

12: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Authority-to-carry schemes: entry into force etc
(1) An authority-to-carry scheme comes into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
(2) The Secretary of State must not make regulations bringing a scheme into force unless—
(a) a draft of the regulations and the scheme to which they relate have been laid before Parliament, and(b) the draft regulations have been approved by a resolution of each House.(3) If the Secretary of State revises an authority-to-carry scheme, the revised scheme comes into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
(4) The Secretary of State must not make regulations bringing a revised scheme into force unless—
(a) a draft of the regulations and the revised scheme to which they relate have been laid before Parliament, and(b) the draft regulations have been approved by a resolution of each House.(5) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.”

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, we move now to Part 4 of the Bill—I hope, briefly—dealing with aviation, shipping and rail. I hope that these government amendments will find favour with your Lordships. During Committee, I acknowledged the concern of noble Lords that the Bill as drafted provided only for indirect parliamentary scrutiny of an authority-to-carry scheme made under Clause 22. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed a similar concern in its report on the Bill.

In recognition of your Lordships’ concerns, the Government undertook to consider further how we could provide for more direct parliamentary scrutiny of such a scheme. I am pleased to inform the House that Amendment 12 provides for direct scrutiny by laying before Parliament regulations subject to affirmative procedure which bring a scheme, or a revised scheme, into force. With this approach, the scheme comes into force by regulation. This will allow for schemes to be similar in format to the 2012 scheme, which carriers will be familiar with and where the use of plain English makes it more easily accessible to foreign-registered carriers. Amendment 12 enables this. Amendment 13 is a consequential amendment to Clause 23. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We had an amendment in Committee when this issue was discussed, in the light of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in particular, its view that Clause 18 constitutes a significant delegation of powers to the Secretary of State and that the Bill should be amended so that the powers are exercisable by statutory instrument. In their response, the Government said that they were considering the report of the DPRRC, would reflect on the concerns expressed in the debate and then return to this issue on Report. The Government have done that with their Amendments 12 and 13, which we support. We thank them for their further consideration of this issue.

Amendment 12 agreed.

Clause 23: Penalty for breach of authority-to-carry scheme

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

13: Clause 23, page 16, line 10, leave out from “refer,” to end of line 12

Amendment 13 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Mental Health Services: Sign Language Users

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

18:58

Asked by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of mental health services for deaf people using British sign language.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the current provision of mental health services for British Sign Language-using deaf people is poor and it is likely to get worse if the Government do not wake up to the problems which will be caused by the move towards using co-commissioning groups for specialised services within the NHS.

Last March, I held a similar debate on the physical health of deaf people. This debate is about mental health services for BSL-using deaf people. It draws on similar research, namely that 40% of deaf people are likely to experience mental health problems in their lifetime, compared to 25% of the hearing population. Indeed, recent research by the Sick Of It campaign suggests that the figure for deaf people could be much higher than 40%.

What makes deaf mental health different? The incidence of schizophrenia among the deaf population is about the same as for the hearing population, but for more common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety the incidence is much higher. This is believed to be due to a variety of factors but particularly to social isolation and also difficulty communicating with parents when deaf people are growing up. I find it interesting that deaf people who have deaf parents are less likely to experience mental health problems.

A deaf person with a broken leg should be able to receive good care at their local hospital, provided a BSL interpreter is used. However, for mental health provision a deaf or signing clinician is needed. A therapeutic relationship needs to be established one-on-one and not via a third party. A specialised therapist would be in a much better position to spot visual clues that are relevant to diagnosis and treatment—for example, pressured signing and alternative signs, where some signs have a double meaning.

Unfortunately, access to specialised support is not available in most parts of the country. This leads to a second-rate and sometimes dangerous service. The current tiers of service within the United Kingdom are as follows: for in-patient services there are currently three units, in Manchester, Birmingham and London, as well as secure private units. This means for most deaf patients that their nearest in-patient unit is a considerable distance away.

Community provision is supposed to be commissioned by NHS England, but in practice there is a postcode lottery. Deaf people in most parts of the country have no access to a specialised community service. The result is that deaf people are dependent on assessment and treatment from non-signing hearing professionals. This frequently leads to misdiagnosis, which can in turn exacerbate the initial problem. The lack of community teams also means that, when deaf people are in-patients, they often have to stay longer than necessary in hospital as discharge is difficult because of the lack of community support.

For psychological therapies, the national Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, or IAPT, programme worked with strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to train deaf IAPT therapists. These therapists were employed by the charity SignHealth and commissioned by PCTs to provide a regional and/or local service. However, since the transfer of commissioning, these contracts have started to come to an end as co-commissioning groups have not been renewing the contracts. As I speak, the BSL IAPT service in Bristol, B&NES, South Gloucestershire, Swindon and Wiltshire has announced that it will close at the end of March. It seems that the CCGs are going back to commissioning IAPT services individually. As a result, there is no mechanism for them to join together again to commission a BSL service as part of IAPT.

In this situation, deaf people are usually told by their IAPT provider that they can book an interpreter if needed. This is a retrograde step, akin to offering an English speaker therapy with a foreign-speaking therapist, with an interpreter if needed. While the BSL component may be a minor issue for commissioners and providers, it is a huge issue for deaf people. Most will now go back to suffering in silence. This step backwards also means that deaf people can no longer self-refer to IAPT services and must go through their GP, who in practice is often a barrier to accessing the service. It is interesting and revealing that SignHealth’s IAPT service had a recovery rate of 76% compared to the 44% achieved by hearing mainstream IAPT services. Adding an interpreter to a therapeutic dynamic lessens the chance of a good therapeutic relationship and adds to the cost.

I understand there has been a meeting between SignHealth and the Minister, Norman Lamb, in recent weeks. It is not yet clear whether a solution to this problem can be found by the Department of Health or NHS England. The important thing—and the purpose of this debate—is for deaf people to have access to a BSL service wherever they live in the country.

I also mention the pilot service dealing with dementia in deaf people. The Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre works in partnership with the National Hospital for Neurology. This service is threatened with closure as it appears it does not fit in the commissioning structure we currently have. This is another example of services being so specialised and niche that co-commissioning groups, even clustered ones, have too few patients to make it viable. The problem is that the number of patients in each co-commissioning group is too small to commission effectively and there is no mechanism for the groups to co-operate nationally. There has never been national success in commissioning deaf mental health services at a local or regional level. Deaf mental health services have always been considered a low priority, no doubt because deaf people are a largely silent minority. Co-commissioning would be a backwards step from where we are now, which is bad enough. If anything, psychological therapies need to move up to a national approach, with responsibility remaining local. Moving specialised services down would leave them in the same poor position as deaf IAPT services.

I gave the Minister notice of a couple of questions. First, what progress is there with moves to commission a BSL IAPT service? Secondly, would the Minister commit to addressing the problem I have outlined with BSL community and secondary services available to all BSL-using deaf people? It has been suggested that a working party be set up as appropriate to address the issues I have raised today.

Every BSL-using deaf person deserves a care pathway. Currently, the pathway is broken and getting worse, and this would not be acceptable for any hearing person in the United Kingdom. There is wide acceptance among experts as to what is needed. I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to set out the Government’s plans for addressing the mental health needs of BSL-using deaf people. I beg to move.

19:07

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for securing this debate and drawing attention to this important issue. A few weeks ago, I opened a debate in this House about the many challenges confronting mental health services as well as the important new policy and service development instigated by this Government. I particularly appreciate the chance to speak today about the problems that deaf people face in accessing effective mental health care.

It is really important to remember that when we speak of deaf people, we speak of a large and extremely diverse group. There are 9 million deaf or hard-of-hearing people and 700,000 severely or profoundly deaf people in the UK, 50,000 of whom use British Sign Language as their first or preferred language. While some deaf people were deaf at birth or from a young age, others become deaf late in life. The mental health needs of deaf people will differ depending on these factors.

Nevertheless, deaf people as a group share a disproportionately pressing need for mental health care. It has been estimated that 40% of deaf people have a mental illness. The prevalence of common mental disorders such as anxiety and depression in the deaf community is nearly double that of the hearing population and behavioural and personality disorders are between two and five times more common among sign language users.

Deaf children are particularly in need of mental health services as the particular challenges of their life make it more likely that they will experience mental health problems. More than 90% of deaf children are from families with no first-hand experience of deafness, which can lead to isolation and troubled relationships with their families. It is salutary to note that deaf children are twice as likely to be abused or neglected as hearing children.

Let me now turn to the issue of prevention. For many people who lose their hearing as adults, the experience of becoming deaf can adversely affect their mental health. For example, research shows that older people with hearing loss are twice as likely to develop depression as their peers without hearing loss as well as increased feelings of loneliness and social isolation. Like, I am sure, other noble Lords, I am conscious of this from the first-hand experience of close relatives. By providing people with hearing aids, we can reduce these risks. Those who wore hearing aids experienced less depression and anxiety, had more and better family and social relationships, and felt better about themselves than those who did not.

It is impossible to avoid the issue of funding and it is complex. To set the overall context, while very welcome additional funding has been made available for specific mental health initiatives, our recent debate made clear that mainstream mental health services have suffered from disproportionate cuts in comparison with physical health services for both adults and children. Within this context, specialist services for deaf people remain a particular concern, not least given the current architecture of health service commissioning. In short, while secondary and tertiary mental health services for deaf people are commissioned on a national basis, primary mental health care is the responsibility of local clinical commissioning groups, and this, of course, includes mental health services for deaf people. So while the specialist in-patient units for deaf people in London, Birmingham, and Manchester that we have already heard about may receive adequate funding, commissioning for community services is extremely patchy. That is mainly because the deaf community within the area covered by each CCG is relatively small and there is therefore little incentive for it to prioritise the needs of deaf service users. The result is that only a handful of services receive local commissioning.

Let me try to bring this to life. Until early last year, deaf service users were able to access a deaf therapist fluent in sign language through the British Sign Language Healthy Minds IAPT service developed by the charity SignHealth, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with funding from the Department of Health. The programme was extremely successful and nearly doubled the rate of recovery from 44% to 75%, which is extremely impressive and important. However, in the restructuring of the NHS, clinical commissioning groups were often hesitant to commission the service, preferring to use hearing therapists with interpreters, even though the evidence shows that this is not as effective. Meanwhile, the service was often considered too small scale to qualify for national commissioning. Because of these challenges, the service is rapidly shrinking and some staff have been made redundant. Can my noble friend the Minister say what the Government are doing to support CCGs to increase the data collected in their local community to help inform mental health commissioning for deaf people?

In such circumstances, deaf people seeking talking therapies, which I greatly support, often have little choice but to resort to mainstream services. Deaf people are often not given adequate access to interpreters, as we have heard. Indeed, a 2012 survey of British Sign Language users found that 68% of respondents did not get an interpreter for their GP appointment, despite having asked for one. Many others must wait longer for treatment and travel further in order to secure access to an interpreter. What plans do the Government have to increase the provision of medically skilled interpreter services?

Even when there is access to an interpreter, going through therapy with an interpreter can present significant challenges. The 2012 survey indicated that 41% of deaf patients felt confused following their appointment as they had trouble understanding the interpreter. This may be due to cultural reasons. It is important to recognise that the life experiences of deaf people differ in ways that go well beyond language, especially if they have been deaf from birth or a very young age. The relationship between a hearing therapist and a deaf service user can be made more difficult by cultural barriers as well as linguistic ones. It is no surprise or indeed criticism that mainstream mental health service providers often lack the specific expertise necessary to understand the unique life experiences of deaf people and work effectively with deaf clients. It is just that a specialist service requiring specialist expertise is needed.

Moreover, the inclusion of an interpreter, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, inevitably changes the dynamic in a therapeutic situation in ways that can be detrimental. For example, the sorts of topics discussed in therapy can be difficult enough to tell to a therapist without having to wonder whether one’s words will be faithfully conveyed by the interpreter. As the deaf community is small and close knit, there is a real chance that the patient will know the interpreter, and because qualified interpreters are hard to come by, the options are limited and there are few alternatives if a patient is uncomfortable with his or her interpreter.

As we have heard, there are specialist in-patient psychiatric units for deaf people in London, Manchester, and Birmingham, but the quality of care that deaf people receive is adversely affected by a lack of community resources. A recent report by the National Deaf Mental Health Service has shown that deaf adults in specialist and general in-patient programmes were in hospital for twice as long as hearing patients, not because of actual clinical need but because the community services they would need on discharge were not available. The current dearth of specialist services for deaf people is not inevitable. As Dr Sally Austen, a specialist for deaf people with mental health problems and a former chair of the British Society for Mental Health and Deafness has pointed out, if specialist deaf services were to include partially deaf people, the economies of scale would change. Dr Austen has also suggested that what is called “tele-mental health”, including online services, may also provide a solution for deaf patients with poor access to appropriate providers having to travel very long distances.

This is an extremely important discussion, and yet is not one that we often have. The last government strategy on the topic was back in 2005. If nothing else, what we have already heard—and more is to come—about the wide array of challenges that deaf people face in securing access to mental health care should surely convince us of the importance of updating our aims for this type of healthcare provision. I therefore, finally, ask my noble friend the Minister what plans the Government have to update the 2005 Mental Health and Deafness: Towards Equity and Access document so that it can become the cornerstone of all our work.

The UK has had a proud history of providing excellent mental health services for deaf people. It would be a tragedy to neglect that history by failing to give deaf people the access to therapy that they so clearly need and deserve.

19:17

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Ewing Foundation for deaf children.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for again raising for debate important issues on deafness, but I rather disagree with the noble Lord on the definition of deafness. It should not be defined as the characteristic of those who use sign language, because there are a host of elderly deaf people who do not use BSL and many children born with a profound hearing loss now have cochlear implants which, although leaving them still with a significant hearing impairment, enables them to communicate in spoken languages. Similarly, improvements in hearing aid technology have made it easier for other deaf children to communicate in a spoken language. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “deaf” as lacking the power of hearing or having impaired hearing. That is the definition we should use; a definition that depends on BSL implies that BSL is the only characteristic, and that is problematic.

Today’s debate is particularly important because there is a lot of evidence of depression and mental health issues among deaf people, including those who use sign language. All the evidence suggests that hearing loss can substantially increase the risk of mental health problems. Anxiety, paranoia and depression are particular risks. Those with hearing loss are overrepresented among samples of patients suffering from paranoid psychoses in later life. Older people with hearing loss are more than twice as likely to develop depression as their peers without hearing loss. It is therefore important that the appropriate mental health services are available for deaf people and that the right steps are taken to improve outcomes.

I know that some will argue that, because not everyone can use sign language, deaf people who use it may experience depression and mental health issues even more acutely. Deaf people using sign language to communicate may have fewer opportunities to access appropriate special services too, and there are still a few children who use BSL as their only language who would struggle to access mainstream mental health services because of language barriers. This no doubt accentuates the feelings of frustration. There is research showing that deaf children who live in families where BSL is the only language are less likely to experience mental health problems than deaf children in families who use English. If you cannot communicate with your family, it is little wonder that you feel isolated. However, that research is dated.

New technology, such as digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, is reducing the need for the BSL language, and early detection is further breaking down the reliance on BSL. We have to remember one crucial point in this debate: there is a whole range of deafness, and not all the people on the spectrum use BSL, but new technology and early detection mean that many more can take a full and active part in a hearing society while still being able to use sign language if they choose. Doors are opening and many deaf people or partially deaf people can enjoy the best of both worlds rather than becoming frustrated by the limitations of just one. Being able to access both deaf and hearing communities is going to be good for the mental health of those with hearing difficulties.

Much more care is being taken to focus on the mental and emotional health of deaf children. The National Sensory Impairment Partnership has worked with the National Deaf Children’s Society to produce documents for teachers of the deaf on emotional well-being. The website for the National Sensory Impairment Partnership has published guidance for teachers on how to deliver a course called Think Right Feel Good. This helps teachers to understand and develop emotional resilience in deaf children.

There are a host of foreign languages in the UK. All speakers of unusual languages have the same problem: the inability to communicate except in their own community. The number of deaf young people who are reliant on BSL to communicate and access teaching and learning has declined significantly, and this will be reflected over the next few years in the adult population. I am full of admiration for the wonderful children who use BSL while learning to read and write English at the same time, but technology is changing that and we have to embrace it. It is so exciting that we can bring deaf people into the speaking world. Look at the new apps available on smartphones nowadays. Google Translate and Skype Translator both instantly translate foreign languages. Siri is starting to do so on Apple products. The app Mimix says that it will simultaneously translate from English into American Sign Language. MotionSavvy will translate the other way. I am sure it is not yet perfect, but a great start would be for BSL users to carry this sort of technology when having a vital conversation with a doctor. This is a story of success—not perfect by any means but apparently getting better.

It is, of course, very sad that the situation was so bad in the past, but the important thing is that things get better, and it will be ameliorated by technology, not by government expenditure. The overall priority should be to integrate deaf children into society, and as a fully integrated group they will no doubt have a similar incidence of mental illness, tooth decay and cancer as the rest of society. Any incidence of mental illness is appalling, but I am not sure that it is sadder because the victim is deaf than because the victim speaks Pashto or Welsh.

I ask my noble friend the Minister if he is able to publish data on the characteristics of children referred to specialist deaf mental health services. What percentage of the children are lip-readers, use BSL or have cochlear implants? I believe that more information will only help us to learn and improve. It would be very helpful to see the data on the characteristics of children referred to specialist deaf child and adolescent mental health services to see what we can learn. If we were aware of the most common profiles of children referred to the specialist services, perhaps this would inform preventive work and where it should be targeted.

19:25

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, in a short debate like this it is not uncommon when you come in at the end for much of what you want to say to have already been touched on, but in this debate I am afraid there has been the banging of guns and the falling of foxes all over the place. I am left with saying, as my noble friend who has already spoken has said, that much of what we are discussing here was touched on in our debate on mental health. I spoke then about the fact that all disability groups are overrepresented in the mental health sector—end of story. Anybody in those groups who has problems in the outside world and suffers more stress will have mental health issues, as night follows day; the question is what we do to ameliorate the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has rightly pointed to a particular group here, because the whole question is brought into focus when you look at a particular group: you see the specifics as opposed to the general. The whole spectrum here is made up of a series of specific points. British Sign Language users are going to have their own specific problems. They are specific, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has just said, to a section of those who have hearing problems, such as hearing loss. The group has quite profound problems, and the question we are looking at here is how we make sure that they can access and receive support. Even if the noble Lord is right and they are a declining group, they are still going to have problems in the future that must still be addressed, because if you do not address them you store up problems, costs and inconvenience for the rest of society in an ongoing process. I therefore congratulate the noble Lord on raising this issue, because unless you concentrate on the problem in this way it becomes a generality, and I very much commend him for raising it.

Then we come to technology, and here I must declare an interest as chairman of a company called Microlink, which deals with technology. There is a lot of interesting stuff out there that can be of some assistance to those with varying degrees of hearing loss. As has already been said, there are dozens of ways in which you can play with language and translate it. There are things that can be used, and we have probably only just started to touch on this. There is something that can translate language into text; I use it myself as a dyslexic. There are dozens of bits of technology out there.

However, as was pointed out to me with considerable force when I started doing research on this, the deaf community across the spectrum is already using an incredibly widespread piece of technology called texting. This had not occurred to me at all. Mobile phones? I am part of the generation that regards a phone as something you talk to. I am apparently in the stone age here. Phones that you can text on that use a simpler, less elaborate grammar are actually a very common way of communicating in the deaf community. Do health workers and mental health workers actually know—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke about the same problems—that this is a way of establishing communication that might well mean that you find an easier path through to therapy than using sign language interpreters? It might well be some form of back-up to the primary talking cures for all forms of mental health treatment, which are generally regarded as better, longer lasting, more maintainable than simply pumping somebody full of drugs, even if drugs have to be used at the same time. Unless there is some way of bringing all these things together to get the best outcome, we are going to miss a trick.

Unless we learn to use the technology coming through, which is increasingly available—here I am probably shooting my own company in the foot—we will incur more on-costs. A little awareness training—asking people in casualty if somebody comes in who is in a very distressed state, “Have you tried communicating with them by text?”—may well relieve some of the stress, it may identify some of the symptoms more quickly. Could not a little bit of guidance here and there be worked in?

There are other forms of communication. My favourite one is called the UbiDuo. I like not only saying the word but the fact that it is instant typing to another screen that translates straightaway. The whole thing is about the size of a traditional laptop, so you can carry it around. That would be more appropriate for those who have good written skills, but there are lots of established pieces of tech that we are not getting the best out of. For the foreseeable future, we will need councillors who are skilled at using the specific sign language, with its rules of grammar, nuance and cultural references, but we may well need to support them and take some of the stress off them by using technology at the same time.

When all is said and done, the technology is generally cheaper. If we concentrate on that and make a funnel through to those very valuable—at times, irreplaceable—people, we will surely be doing all of us a favour.

19:31

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add a couple of points to the debate from my experience as a psychiatrist. We have heard that deaf people continue to face unacceptable inequities in access to mental health services, and that is particularly the case for the estimated 25,000 deaf people in the UK who use British Sign Language as their first or only language. Deaf BSL users from black and minority ethnic communities, or who have additional needs arising from co-morbid visual impairment or intellectual disability, encounter even greater obstacles to accessing mental health services.

We have heard that deaf children are more likely to experience emotional, physical or sexual abuse, which contributes to later mental health problems. Deaf adults are much less likely to know how to report suspicions of abuse. Thus, children living in deaf communities are more likely to have their experience of abuse go unnoticed and unreported. The community interest company, Books Beyond Words, which I chair, has been commissioned by the NSPCC to help it develop pictorial resources to improve the reporting of such abuse to organisations such as the NSPCC.

We have heard that many deaf people leave GP consultations with no understanding of what went on, and consequently avoid going to see their GP altogether. Research has shown that a shocking one in seven people with hearing loss has missed a healthcare appointment because they did not hear their name being called in the waiting room. Those access problems continue despite the Disability Discrimination Act’s requirement for reasonable adjustments to be made, and they are compounded by a lack of deaf awareness training for professionals working in healthcare settings.

Within mainstream mental health services, few staff possess the BSL skills and experience needed to work effectively with deaf BSL users. Mental health services frequently fail to arrange for BSL interpreters to be present at appointments, often relying on family members, including children, to act as informal interpreters. That practice is unjustifiable, particularly in mental health services, where sensitive and personal issues, sometimes including abuse, may be disclosed. There is also an ongoing shortage of BSL interpreters in healthcare settings and a lack of specialist training for those who wish to work with people with mental health needs. What steps will the Government take to increase the number of BSL interpreters within mental health services?

The Sign Health charity highlights that over the past three years, it has trained 18 deaf and three hearing BSL users to work as psychological well-being practitioners in several geographic regions, but only seven are currently employed, reflecting a lack of recognition of the need for their services. Does the Minister agree that such provision would constitute a reasonable adjustment, and can he assure the House that action will be taken to improve deaf people’s access to IAPT services provided by therapists sufficiently fluent in BSL?

Deaf people are also overrepresented in secure mental health settings, and are thought to be overrepresented in the prison population, which may reflect a prior failure to address their mental health needs. It suggests the need for specialist prison in-reach services, so that deaf people with mental health needs can be identified and supported.

I highlight the importance of addressing the social determinants of mental well-being in deaf people. The exclusion, isolation and barriers that deaf people experience in education, employment and the community can negatively impact on their social and emotional well-being, along with their education and employment outcomes, thus perpetuating the cycle of adversity which puts them at greater risk of mental health difficulties. Can the Minister assure the House that recommendations to address those factors will be included in the Government’s forthcoming action plan on hearing loss?

A couple of examples were given to me by a psychiatrist working in one of the national deaf mental health services of children who he visited in mainstream schools. One child was using only BSL in a mainstream school where nobody else knows BSL. A young person in a special school whose only language was BSL was in a class with seven young people with learning disabilities, none of whom was deaf or knew BSL. That is clearly unacceptable. I look forward to the Minister’s response and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for raising these important matters.

19:36

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for instituting this debate and Sign Health for its valuable briefing. I welcome the input of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, but my noble friend’s Question was quite specific. I fully accept that however widely you define deafness, the scale of mental health problems is serious and deserving of attention. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, put it well. The focus on British Sign Language users is valuable in itself, but it is also a signal of more general problems.

Interesting work published recently in the British Medical Journal has shown, first, as is well known, that deaf adults in the UK occupy poorer socioeconomic positions, have poor literacy and have limited access to communicate through speech. Their health is generally poorer than that of the general population, with probable underdiagnosis and undertreatment of chronic conditions. As for mental health, other research shows that 40% of deaf people are likely to experience a mental health problem. Although the incidence rate of schizophrenia is probably similar to that of the hearing population, the rate of common mental health problems is much higher. Going back to the BMJ research published only a week ago, the rates of depression self-reported by deaf participants was 24% overall—32% for women and 14% for men.

In any response to the mental health issues facing many deaf people, it is abundantly clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, that there is no national strategy to which one can turn to describe what services deaf people could expect from the NHS. That is related to confusion about what should be commissioned at national and local level. We see lots of indications that clinical commissioning groups find it very difficult to commission services for what inevitably will be a small population in their area.

Equally, I fully accept that not all of that can be commissioned at the national level. We need to find a way that will help clinical commissioning groups to commission services locally for these smaller population groups so that there is much more of a cohesive approach. I do not think that CCGs will do it if left to themselves. That is the real problem that we face, alongside the funding issues around commissioning at a national level for speciality services. This is not an easy issue, but we have to do better than at the moment.

A number of noble Lords referred to the position facing speciality services, and I want to add to the points that my noble friend made about this. I want in particular to raise the question of the Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre at University College London, which I understand is putting together a costed business case for a national neurological service for British Sign Language deaf users. I understand that it has met Norman Lamb; it has also met my colleague Andrew Gwynne. This has clear cross-party support. The centre is putting a business case forward to secure the presence of a clinic beyond 2015; I do not know if the Minister will be able to update me on progress in that area.

My noble friend and other noble Lords have mentioned the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service, which showed very promising results from the date of its introduction. Other noble Lords referred to the outcome measures. This has clearly fallen foul of the problem of being delegated to CCGs to commission; they are clearly not going to do so. I had the privilege of meeting SignHealth with Mr Norman Lamb. We had a very good hearing and I was left with considerable optimism that some way would be found to fund this. Again, if the Minister were able to give us some updates on the progress of that, I would be very grateful.

We come back to the point that, if this is left to local CCGs, there is no hope for services that need a contribution from each CCG to make it viable. One way or another, we have to find a way for there to be some kind of national leadership. Indeed, if I were to ask for one thing above all else, it is that the Minister would see if his department was prepared to produce some kind of cohesive strategy around deaf issues and mental health issues for deaf people. That would then give us some encouragement that we would be able to tackle these issues in a coherent way. I always thought that national service frameworks were a very good idea; I am not sure that the current Government think so but, if we are not to have them, we need something in their place.

I want to ask the Minister about the equality duty in relation to deaf people. Is he satisfied that the NHS understands its responsibilities under the equality duty? The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, suggested that many staff in the health service are very much unaware of the issues for deaf people and the barriers that they face. The issue here is that we lack national standards against which local NHS bodies could judge their performance. The noble Baroness raised the question of reception and waiting room experience. The fact is that work has been done showing that 90% of deaf people have missed many GP appointments through not hearing their name called out in the surgery. That is just one example of the kind of communication problems that they face. At this point it would probably be better if I sat down and gave the Minister even more time to answer the questions.

19:44

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for securing this short debate on the mental health of deaf people who use British Sign Language. Over 10 million adults in England live with some degree of hearing loss and, while some will be among the one in 700 babies born with hearing loss, many of us will develop hearing loss over our lifetime. With an ageing population, this figure is only going to increase, with the World Health Organization predicting that by 2030 there will be an estimated 14.5 million people in the UK with hearing loss, with adult-onset hearing loss predicted to be among the UK’s top 10 disease burdens.

We know from research that deaf people are at a much higher risk of mental ill health than the general population, with 40% of the hearing-impaired population and 50% of the profoundly deaf expected to experience mental health problems during a lifetime, compared with around 25% within the general population. It is therefore vital that we provide deaf people with appropriate services that support their mental health needs.

The Government are committed to improving mental health services and ensuring that those services have equal priority with those for physical health. Our mandate to NHS England makes it clear that everyone—I emphasise “everyone”—who needs them should have timely access to evidence-based services. Over £400 million is being invested over the spending review period to make a choice of psychological therapies available for all those who need them in all parts of England. We have put in place for the very first time waiting-time standards for mental health, a significant milestone on the road to parity.

The NHS is a universal service. I listened with care to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about equality. NHS England is under a specific legal requirement in relation to tackling health inequalities and advancing equality. The Government will hold NHS England to account for how well it discharges this duty. We recognise the importance of deaf people being supported and enabled to communicate through British Sign Language where they wish to do so. Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 requires CCGs to make “reasonable adjustments” so that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is an anticipatory duty, meaning that service providers are expected to anticipate the requirements of disabled people, and the reasonable adjustments that may have to be made for them, before any disabled person attempts to access the service in question. Simply put, it is not acceptable for health services not to be equipped to provide communication support to those who need it.

Equality legislation means that service providers and public bodies must provide a reasonable adjustment to their services to meet the needs of clients when it is reasonable to do so. This may be the provision of interpreters or services delivered in BSL. In September 2013 the Prescribed Specialised Services Advisory Group, PSSAG, considered a proposal from SignHealth for NHS England to commission psychological therapies for deaf sign language users. The PSSAG felt that although the provision of IAPT services using BSL was clearly complex, it did not meet the requirements for a specialised service commissioned directly by NHS England, and therefore responsibility for commissioning psychological therapies for deaf sign language users should remain with clinical commissioning groups. The PSSAG recommended that CCGs be signposted to the relevant organisations and informed about the services and support that they can provide to deaf patients.

From his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was clearly in favour of community and secondary deaf mental health services being commissioned as a specialised service. I am sure he will understand that any proposal of that kind would need to be considered by the PSSAG. However, with regard to NHS England retaining responsibility for existing specialised deaf mental health services, even if co-commissioning were introduced I can assure him that NHS England will retain the responsibility as set out in the mandate and the Manual for Prescribed Specialist Services for the specialised deaf services. Future collaborative commissioning arrangements have not been confirmed as yet, but that will not alter NHS England’s responsibilities as the responsible commissioner. However, we know that more needs to be done.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned, my right honourable friend the Minister for Care Services, Norman Lamb, recently met SignHealth. At this point, I pay tribute to the exceptional work of SignHealth in promoting the same sort of access to healthcare and health information for deaf people as hearing people receive. I have visited SignHealth on more than one occasion. SignHealth impressed upon my right honourable friend the importance of psychological therapies for deaf people through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service. Since the meeting, officials have been working to develop proposals in support of the commissioning and provision of psychological therapies for deaf people in England. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked whether a working group could be established to look at this issue further. I believe that is a sensible suggestion, and I am happy to commit to it. In the mean time, we will remind clinical commissioning groups of the importance of commissioning IAPT services that are accessible to British Sign Language users.

We are committed to delivering health outcomes that are among the best in the world for people with hearing loss. We have made considerable improvements over recent years, including the rollout of a national screening programme for newborn children, significantly reducing waiting times for assessment and treatment and greater choice of hearing aid services—for example, through independent high-street providers.

NHS England is developing a new accessible information standard which will provide clear guidance to health and social care organisations on the steps they need to take to ensure that disabled patients, carers and service users receive information in appropriate formats, and communication support if they need it. This will include the provision of interpreters or BSL users for deaf people. NHS England has worked closely with SignHealth in the development of the standard, and SignHealth has offered advice about aspects of the standard which relate to deaf people. It is anticipated that the standard will be published in the spring and that organisations would then have 12 months to implement it. Alongside the statutory information standard, NHS England will publish guidance on making reasonable adjustments to meet the communication needs of service users with disabilities.

As well as an information standard, NHS England, alongside the Department of Health, is developing an action plan on hearing loss which will identify the key actions that will make a real difference to improve the lives of all those with hearing loss. The action plan is in its final stages of development with a view to being published soon. I hope that goes some way to address the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about a national service framework or the equivalent thereof.

I shall, of course, write to noble Lords whose questions I am unable to answer in the debate. My noble friend Lady Tyler asked me several questions. One was about the 2005 document Mental Health and Deafness—Towards Equity and Access. There are no plans to update that document. She also asked me, as did my noble friend Lord Borwick, about what we are doing to support CCGs to increase the data collected in their local communities to help inform mental health commissioning for deaf people. Our goal is to create the most open and transparent healthcare system in the world. To support this ambition, we need to build a truer, more up-to-date picture of mental health and well-being, both nationally and in each area. The current level of information collected on IAPT represents the gold standard of data collection. We have robust information on the numbers of people accessing services, how long they wait, how many recover or improve as a result of treatment and the cost of these services, which is a genuine world first in mental health. Our ambition is to bring the same standard of information to all mental health services over time.

My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about the supply of medically skilled interpreter services. It is clear that we need to work across government and with the voluntary and public sectors to encourage more people to come forward to train and qualify as BSL interpreters. We know that it takes at least three to five years to train a person in BSL to level 3, which is a basic requirement for a therapist/clinician. NHS England advises us that this will be addressed within a framework for workforce planning.

My noble friend Lord Borwick spoke with tremendous authority about the mental health needs of deaf children. Children and young people’s mental health is a key priority for the Government, as I hope he knows. In August 2014, we launched the children and young people’s mental health and well-being task force. That task force brings together a range of experts. It is looking at how to improve the way children and young people’s mental health services are organised, commissioned and provided and at how to make it easier for young people to access help and support, including in schools, through voluntary organisations and online. That very definitely includes deaf children with mental health problems.

My noble friend Lord Addington spoke very powerfully about the use of technology. As he will understand, this is a decision for individual providers, but the NHS’s ambition is to embrace technology as part of its drive to offer modern, convenient and responsive services to patients, their families and their carers. General practices are leading the way on that. The NHS is working with local commissioners and is undertaking a number of pilots to redefine and improve the design of the future NHS 111 service, which includes improvements to the text relay service, making it easier for text relay users to navigate to a service provider. As regards the delivery of psychological therapies to deaf people, we are currently exploring the commissioning of online BSL or text-based models of delivery.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about the UCLH project. University College, London, has developed a case with the Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre on what a deaf cognitive service should look like. We understand that proposals for the future of the services are under discussion.

I hope that in the time available I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and indeed the House, of this Government’s continued commitment to meeting the specific needs of deaf people and that we take this issue very seriously.

House adjourned at 7.57 pm.