House of Commons

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 11 March 2015

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

1. What progress she has made on her consultation with the Electoral Commission on the transparency of donations and loans to political parties in Northern Ireland.

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

The whole House will have been deeply saddened by the passing of Lord Molyneaux of Killead. James Molyneaux was a distinguished second world war veteran and a fine parliamentarian who served Northern Ireland with great distinction for more than four decades, both in this House and the other place.

We are committed to ensuring the maximum transparency in party funding in Northern Ireland that the prevailing security situation allows, and progress has been made in detailed discussions with the Electoral Commission on finalising the new arrangements. I have spoken with the electoral commissioner, and I am confident that the necessary draft legislation will be ready to lay early in the next Parliament.

[Naomi Long]

I add my condolences and those of my party to those expressed by the Minister to the family, friends and former colleagues of Lord Molyneaux.

During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, an undertaking was given here that last October the security situation would be reviewed again with a view to lifting the secrecy pertaining to party political donations. What progress has been made in that regard?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is right that during the passage of the Act we discussed a review of the security situation and amending the measure accordingly. It is our aspiration to have full transparency in Northern Ireland, as we do in Great Britain. At the moment, our judgment is that the security situation does not warrant it and that we cannot take that risk, but we will keep the matter under constant review.

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

While looking at the transparency of donations to political parties, will my hon. Friend ask the National Crime Agency and the Chief Constable, when they are investigating organised crime, especially things such as fuel laundering in the border area, particularly South Armagh, to look carefully at the destination of funds arising from organised crime, given that the people taking part in crime—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I was indulgent towards him in not taking account of the fact that he has Question 8, but the substance of his question just now has nothing to do with Question 1.

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

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, KBE, who served in this House as the Member for South Antrim from 1970 until 1983 and then from 1983 to 1997 as the Member for the new constituency of Lagan Valley. He is fondly remembered by my constituents. He was the consummate parliamentarian and provided strong leadership in very dark days in Northern Ireland. He will be fondly remembered and missed by many, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

The Secretary of State and the Minister will be aware that Sinn Fein raises millions of pounds by various means each year for its electoral campaigns. There is a clear disparity in political party funding in Northern Ireland, yet Sinn Fein Members continue to draw hundreds of thousands of pounds in allowances from this House, despite not taking their seats. When will the Government address this disparity?

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter for the House, not me. It was last determined in 2006, and I would not wish to trespass further on the prerogative of the House.

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

2. When she plans to make a progress report on the Government’s economic pact for Northern Ireland.

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

3. When she plans to make a progress report on the Government’s economic pact for Northern Ireland.

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

An annual progress report on the economic pact was published last July. The range of items so far delivered include improvements to business access to finance; funding projects secured from the Green Investment Bank; the continuation of 100% assisted area status for Northern Ireland; and a record year for inward investment following the G8 and follow-up investment conference.

[Mr Bain]

With one in six people in Northern Ireland on low pay and intergenerational poverty remaining stubbornly high, should not the Government be getting a move on to raise the minimum wage to at least £8 an hour and get as many people as possible on to the living wage to make this a recovery in living standards for all the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said he would like to see increases in the minimum wage. We are cutting taxes for those on the lowest incomes. We have cut taxes for 670,000 people in Northern Ireland, and those on the minimum wage have had their income tax bills halved. We have also seen unemployment in Northern Ireland fall for the 25th consecutive month—it has fallen by 1,700—giving many more people the security and reassurance of a pay packet.

[Mrs Glindon]

Will the Secretary of State meet the Northern Ireland union leaders, as I did recently, so that she can understand the frustrations of squeezed teachers, bus drivers and health workers, and praise their vital work rather than condemn them for being forced to vote for industrial action?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have met trade union groups on various occasions, including in Northern Ireland, and I am of course hugely supportive of the work done by our public servants and our front-line workers. It is important that the whole public sector takes part in the austerity programme, and the Government are doing everything they can to put our public finances right to ensure that we can continue to provide the best possible public services for the country.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

What impact does the Secretary of State think another round of stalemate at Stormont will have on measures to attract investment and encourage growth in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

There is no doubt that the announcement by Sinn Fein on Monday was a significant setback for the Stormont House agreement, but it is inevitable that there will be bumps in the road with agreements of this nature. That has been the case in the past. I will be working hard to get things back on track and to help the parties get this matter resolved. Political stability is, of course, crucial when it comes to attracting inward investment. That is one of the many reasons why we need to press ahead with implementing the Stormont House agreement.

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

Does the Secretary of State accept that people in Northern Ireland and those who observe the Northern Ireland political scene are stunned, bewildered—and, indeed, angry—at what Sinn Fein has done in reneging on its agreement on welfare reform, without any good reason whatsoever? Does the Secretary of State wish to spell out now from the Dispatch Box the implications for corporation tax and other issues of the Stormont House agreement not proceeding? It is clear that Sinn Fein is putting its own narrow party interests ahead of vulnerable people and the entire community in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said, this is a serious setback. I believe that Sinn Fein’s change of mind is unhelpful and hugely disappointing. As I have said, however, the task now is for the Northern Ireland Executive parties to continue their efforts to implement the Stormont House agreement. I hope to get the party leaders together as soon as possible to discuss how to resolve this welfare question, but the Stormont House agreement will not be reopened; we need to press ahead with implementation. The corporation tax question is difficult. It is expressly linked with the resolution of welfare reform. The Bill contains a commencement clause, and there is no question but that this welfare issue must be resolved. The Executive must fulfil their obligations under the Stormont House agreement before the commencement clause can be operated. In the interim, the Government propose to continue with the legislation and to complete its parliamentary progress, because we are determined to implement the agreement fully and fairly. Let me be clear: Northern Ireland will not get these devolved powers until the Stormont House agreement has been implemented.

[Mr Dodds]

It is important now that people in Northern Ireland, this House and everybody looking at the political scene are clear that the responsibility for the current crisis lies squarely with Sinn Fein, which is reneging on its commitments clearly made and openly expressed in the Stormont House agreement. Will the Secretary of State be clear that she will not take this blanket condemnation or blame approach, but focus on the problem—Sinn Fein?

[Mrs Villiers]

I will indeed focus on the problem. The right hon. Gentleman is right that this current setback is the result of the actions of Sinn Fein, which is, as I have said, hugely disappointing and unhelpful. To be honest, it was a significant surprise, too, given the enthusiasm with which the Deputy First Minister and Sinn Fein were promoting the agreement. Now I think we all need to work together to try to get this sorted, because it would be a huge step backwards if the Stormont House agreement were to be jeopardised. It would potentially plunge us back into the sort of budget and political crisis with which we were grappling last year.

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

May I, on behalf of my party, associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Molyneaux of Killead, and convey our condolences to his family, friends and colleagues?

Given the need to create economic and political stability in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State prevail on the Chancellor to reduce VAT on United Kingdom tourism products in next week’s Budget? That would have important financial consequences for the tourism industry in Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Villiers]

Let me also take the opportunity to associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the distinguished record of Lord Molyneaux. He was indeed a very distinguished parliamentarian over many years, and this is a sad loss to Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor is well aware of the campaign for the tax change that the hon. Lady would like to see. Tax reductions are difficult because the imperative must be repairing the public finances, but the Chancellor has relieved tax burdens on business by reducing corporation tax, introducing an employment allowance and, of course, helping people into work.

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

May I associate my party with the comments that have been made about Lord Molyneaux?

As the Secretary of State has said, economic progress and political stability in Northern Ireland are inextricably linked. Does she agree that the unravelling of the Stormont House agreement would be an unmitigated disaster for economic and political confidence in Northern Ireland, and that now is the time for responsible leadership which accepts the need for a reformed welfare system that mitigates the impact of cuts on the most vulnerable while also being affordable and sustainable?

[Mrs Villiers]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Now is the time for level-headed consideration of how we can resolve this matter. In the autumn, Northern Ireland faced a budget crisis that was so serious that the very sustainability and future credibility of the institutions was at stake, and we were looking over a cliff at the possibility that devolution would collapse altogether. Returning to that position would be a huge step backward. The Stormont House agreement was a big step forward, and it is vital for all parties to work to ensure that it is implemented fully and fairly.

[Mr Lewis]

Does the Secretary of State intend to convene urgent all-party talks in an effort to put the Welfare Reform Bill back on track? By what date must the Bill be passed, if the Executive rather than civil servants are to set next year’s budget in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I expect to meet the five party leaders in the coming days. I hope to do so tomorrow, but that will depend on when the First and Deputy First Minister return from New York.

It is vital for progress to be made on welfare reform. That is a key part of the Stormont Castle and the Stormont House agreements. I will press for such progress, not least because without it the Northern Ireland Executive’s budget will become unsustainable, which will hugely impair its ability to function effectively.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What assessment she has made of the current political situation in Northern Ireland.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the current political situation in Northern Ireland.

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

The political situation suffered a setback on Monday following Sinn Fein’s withdrawal of support for the Welfare Reform Bill. It is very important for the Stormont House agreement to be implemented fully and fairly, including all the sections on welfare and budgets. I will continue to work intensively with the Northern Ireland parties to resolve the impasse.

[Fiona Bruce]

What does the Secretary of State consider to be the wider political implications of Sinn Fein’s withdrawal of support for the welfare proposals?

[Mrs Villiers]

The political implications are very serious. They put in jeopardy corporation tax devolution, a financial package of about £2 billion in extra spending power, and a fresh approach to the past which is designed to produce better outcomes for victims and survivors. All that is under threat as a result of what has happened this week, and I will do all that I can to retrieve the situation so that the Stormont House agreement can go ahead.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Does the Secretary of State agree that Her Majesty’s Government must take resolute action against Sinn Fein over its irresponsible and selfish behaviour, which is jeopardising the Stormont Parliament and everything that has been achieved in Northern Ireland so far?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said, the approach taken by Sinn Fein is hugely disappointing and dramatically different from everything that it has been saying over the past few months. I am urging Sinn Fein to change its approach. It is vital that we have a responsible and realistic approach to welfare. The welfare reform package agreed under the Stormont House agreement is a good one, a generous one and a fair one, and therefore it is vital that it is implemented.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I wish all my friends in Northern Ireland the very best for the future? People often take for granted the peace and stability that has been secured in Northern Ireland since the 2007 agreement, but that was won only after conflict, terror and hatred going back centuries, through very difficult negotiations. It took dedicated skill and constant strong leadership by the Labour Government to achieve it. Does the Secretary of State accept that maintaining that progress requires nurturing by this Government and by any Governments to follow?

[Mrs Villiers]

I do accept that. This Government will continue to do all they can to support and nurture that political settlement. That is a message that all parties need to hear, including Sinn Fein—that we should not take risks with political stability in Northern Ireland, because the consequences could be very grave.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is not just Sinn Fein, but their lapdogs in the Social Democratic and Labour party who have blocked welfare reform in Northern Ireland and put the Assembly in jeopardy? Will she spell out the consequences for corporation tax, the economic package and the long-term sustainability of the budget in Northern Ireland as a result of that irresponsible behaviour?

[Mrs Villiers]

If this question is not resolved, if the welfare reform legislation remains permanently stalled, obviously the rest of the Stormont House agreement does not happen. That includes the financial package and the devolution of corporation tax, but we are not at that point yet. It is important to work intensively, and in the meantime the UK Government will do everything we can to continue to implement the agreement.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State will be at pains not to feed the sense of impasse that surrounds the Stormont House agreement. She knows that there were two elements to the understanding on welfare reform—one was the understanding about the amount of money from the Executive’s budget that could mitigate measures; the other was the degree of leeway within the welfare spending. Has anything changed in the lines from the Department for Work and Pensions that have given rise to the allegations that Sinn Fein is making against the Democratic Unionist party?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to do all we can to keep the situation as calm as possible. Unfortunately, episodes of this kind are characteristic of the implementation process of agreements. It will be helpful for as many facts as possible to be made clear about how the welfare reform programme will operate in Northern Ireland and how the top-ups will operate. It is a generous package, and once the details are clear I hope everyone will be convinced of that.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

At this, the last Northern Ireland questions before the election, there is an air of some melancholy. Who knows where we will meet again or on what side of the Dispatch Box? May I ask the right hon. Lady what, in her three years as Secretary of State, in which she has been unfailingly courteous, she would consider her proudest—her finest—achievement?

[Mrs Villiers]

Up to Monday, I would have said the Stormont House agreement—[Interruption]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) asked a question. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s answer, and she is entitled to have her answer heard.

[Mrs Villiers]

Up until Monday, I would have said the Stormont House agreement. I think that is still the greatest thing that I have contributed to and it is still on the road. We have had a bump on the road, but the Stormont House agreement will carry on. The other thing of which I am proud is the progress that we have made towards devolution of corporation tax. I do not want to see that thrown off course by events that have taken place this week.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What further steps the Government plan to take to resolve outstanding issues relating to flags and parades.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

9. What further steps the Government plan to take to resolve outstanding issues relating to flags and parades.

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

The Stormont House agreement identified a clear way forward on parades and flags. [Interruption.] The Government will continue to work with the five parties in the Executive on the implementation of all the provisions of the agreement, including on these issues. [Interruption.]

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, although I must admit I had trouble hearing it. Unrest around the parades has an unsettling impact on the community, on local businesses and on tourism. What steps are the Government taking this year to try to ensure a peaceful parade season?

[Mrs Villiers]

I urge everyone involved in parades or parades-related protest to ensure that all activity related to parades and protest is both peaceful and lawful and that the determinations of the Parades Commission, as the lawfully constituted authority, are complied with. I continue to have a series of meetings to try to find a way forward on the parading impasse in north Belfast.

[Rosie Cooper]

In Belfast, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) recently said that securing the peace process and a strong economy went hand in hand. Does the Secretary of State agree, and will she support the Heenan-Anderson commission to ensure that people at the margins are not drawn to violence on issues such as flags and parades?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that politics and economics are intertwined in Northern Ireland. Political stability is crucial for a successful economy. I note the Labour commission on this, but I think the crucial thing is to stick to the Government’s long-term economic plan, because that is delivering economic recovery in Northern Ireland.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise the feeling of injustice in the Unionist community on the issue of parades? In my constituency we have waited 16 years to get a return parade—a church parade. When are we going to get a resolution?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am very conscious of the concern felt in the community in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is crucial that the Parades Commission’s determination needs to be abided by, but it is also important to press ahead with a reformed and devolved system of parades adjudication, as envisaged by the Stormont House agreement.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to reduce the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

10. What steps the Government are taking to reduce the cost of living in Northern Ireland.

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

Cutting income tax, freezing fuel duty, welfare reform, dealing with the spectacular deficit we inherited and keeping interest rates low are practical examples of how this Government are helping hard-pressed families in Northern Ireland.

[Nic Dakin]

Labour has set out clear plans to raise the national minimum wage to at least £8 by 2020. What is the Minister doing to tackle low pay, when one in six people in Northern Ireland are in low pay?

[Dr Murrison]

I thought the hon. Gentleman would have started by welcoming the Government’s efforts to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland—17,000 extra jobs in the private sector over the past year alone. If he was listening, he would have heard the answer to his question from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier

[Alex Cunningham]

The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action estimates that introducing the living wage would see 173,000 low-paid employees receive an average gross pay rise of £1,300 a year. Will the Government look at strengthening the living wage to help Northern Ireland, which has the lowest private sector pay in the UK?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, have seen the Institute for Fiscal Studies incomes report published earlier this month. It marked a major milestone, for it is now clear that average incomes in Northern Ireland are back from the pit they were in prior to Labour’s deficit crisis. The IFS further forecasts that incomes will rise above inflation in the year ahead, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister recognise that the Democratic Unionist party’s long-term economic plan to see household taxes at their lowest and a freeze on the regional rate on household taxes for five years is working? However, this Government could have a direct impact by reducing energy costs for employers and consumers alike, and they should address that immediately.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his characteristically formidable fashion, and I am sure he will welcome the freeze on fuel duty, which will mean that by the end of this Parliament a tank of petrol will cost £10 less. He will also welcome inward investment to Northern Ireland, which I know he feels very strongly about given what has happened in his constituency, with, for example, Kainos, Randox, WhiteHat, Revel and PricewaterhouseCoopers. They will be creating 800 jobs in Northern Ireland—high-quality jobs—in the year ahead.

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

8. What recent progress has been made on the status and operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland.

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

I welcome the vote in the Assembly that will enable the full operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are afforded the same protections from serious and organised crime as those in the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Robathan]

When the NCA is up and running in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend speak via the Chief Constable to ensure that the agency investigates the destination of funds from serious and organised crime? Many of the serious and organised criminals in the border area are the people giving funds to the IRA, and it is important that those funds do not fund political parties.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, but I know that the full implementation of the NCA in Northern Ireland is a welcome step. I pay tribute to the Justice Minister and others for securing that result, and I know that they will bear down on all the perpetrators of such activities and on any who receive the funds that those activities create.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Gregory Campbell.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the National Crime Agency specifically target the organised criminal gangs that are engaging in subterfuge and in the organised criminal activity of fuel laundering along the border areas of Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

That is a significant problem, and the House will have the chance to debate it later. Significant cross-border co-operation is under way, and the authorities in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the police services on both sides of the border are determined to tackle the problem and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The Prime Minister was asked—

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

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 March.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

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

[Stella Creasy]

Our allies are warning of a dangerous gap between us and America on this, so will the Prime Minister tell us what will be more important to him in the next Parliament: protecting our armed forces or introducing tax cuts?

[The Prime Minister]

What is important is combining economic security and national security, and the two go together. We inherited a £38 billion black hole in our defence budget, but because of the excellent stewardship of the economy by this Chancellor and this Government, we have filled that gap. We are investing in defence, our economy is strong and our country is safe.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in connection with the Post Office mediation scheme, the Post Office has just sacked the independent investigator, Second Sight, and told it to destroy all its papers? Does he agree that it is essential that Second Sight’s second report should not be suppressed, but should be supplied to sub-postmasters and MPs, starting with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that he has consistently raised the concerns of some sub-postmasters about the operation of the Post Office IT system and the matter of the Post Office mediation scheme. The Business Committee is currently taking evidence on this issue, and it should be given all the relevant information. The Government should not interfere with the independent mediation process, but I will ask the Business Secretary to write to my right hon. Friend about his concern and to ensure that the Business Committee can do its job properly.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

Less than two months ago, the Prime Minister said in this House that he wanted a head-to-head debate between me and him. He said it was game on. When did he lose his nerve?

[The Prime Minister]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants a debate, I have offered a date: the week starting 23 March. Why won’t he say yes to it?

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to be at the debates set by the broadcasters on 2 and 16 April, but I am asking the Prime Minister about a two-way debate between him and me. The original proposal for the two-way debate did not come from me or from the broadcasters but from him. He said:

“I’ve suggested…we need a debate where the two people who could actually be Prime Minister debate directly with each other.”

It was a good proposal then, and it is a good proposal now. Why does he not just name the day?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman said “anytime, anyplace, anywhere”. I have told him: 23 March —let’s hold that debate. But I will tell him what has changed: it is now obvious that Labour cannot win without the Scottish National party. He says we need the two leaders, but we need the two leaders who can call the tune—that is me and Alex Salmond. Let us have the debate.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister says it is all about leadership. He says it is about him and me— [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody in the House of Commons—[Interruption.] The Government Chief Whip should not be smirking about it, as it is not a laughing matter. Nobody in the House of Commons should be shouted down. I have got news for Members: however long it takes, it is not going to happen—Members will be heard.

[Edward Miliband]

These are pathetic, feeble excuses. Can we now take it that there are no circumstances in which he will debate with me head to head between now and the general election?

[The Prime Minister]

We have had four years of debates and we have found out he has got no policies; he has got no plan; he has got no team; and he has got no clue about running the country. The truth is this: Labour is now saying that it cannot win the election. I have here the leaflet that Labour put out in Scotland—I think the SNP might be interested in this. It says:

“At the General Election we need to stop the Tories being the largest party.”

Labour is not trying to win; it is just trying to crawl through the gates of Downing street on the coat tails of the SNP. The right hon. Gentleman has to prove he is not a chicken and rule that out.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person preparing for defeat and it is this Prime Minister. He is not going to be able to wriggle out of this. This is what he said before the last general election:

“we have the opportunity to debate…at prime minister’s questions. But that is a very different matter to a proper television debate during a general election campaign…when Parliament is not sitting, and when people will be most receptive to engaging in political discussion.”

We know he lost to the Deputy Prime Minister last time. Why does he not just cut out the feeble excuses and admit the truth: he is worried he might lose again?

[The Prime Minister]

Amazing! The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the future of a television programme; I want to talk about the future of the country. Four questions, three weeks to go, and he cannot talk about jobs because we are growing jobs. He cannot talk about unemployment because unemployment is plummeting. He cannot talk about inflation because it is at a record low. The truth is he is weak and despicable and wants to crawl to power in Alex Salmond’s pocket.

[Edward Miliband]

If the Prime Minister is so confident, why is he chickening out of the debates with me? Everyone can see it. Mr Speaker, I will tell you why this matters. It matters because it goes to his character. The public will see through his feeble excuses. Instead of these ridiculous tactics, why does he not show a bit more backbone and turn up for the head-to-head debate with me—any time, anywhere, any place?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what goes to character: someone who is prepared to crawl into Downing street in alliance with people who want to break up our country. What a despicable and weak thing to do, risking our defences, risking our country, risking our United Kingdom. If he had an ounce of courage, he would rule it out.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of the United Kingdom and it is this useless Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question will be heard. The noise calculatedly being made by some Members on both sides of the House is a disgrace to the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) will be heard and the Prime Minister will be heard. That is the end of the matter.

[Edward Miliband]

There is only one person who is a risk to the integrity of our country, and that is this Prime Minister. On the head-to-head debate, we have learned something about him: like all bullies, when the heat is really on he runs for cover.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman has been offered a debate any time, any place, anywhere, but he will not take it. The truth is that Labour has nothing to say on policy and nothing to say on the economy. Its only way into Downing street is on Alex Salmond’s coat tails. It is an alliance between the people who want to bankrupt Britain and the people who want to break up Britain, and the British people will never have it.

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

On 25 March, the Penrose inquiry, which has been looking at the tragedy of contaminated blood in Scotland, will finally report. It is likely to have implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. The time scale means that it is highly unlikely that there will be a full response by this Government before the end of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend, who has taken a great personal interest in this—as have more than 100 Members of this House—give an assurance that the matter will not slip from his or the Government’s agenda, and that as soon as possible in the new Parliament there will be an attempt at closing this terrible tragedy in our country?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for leading on this issue. I suspect that, like me, every Member of Parliament has heard moving stories at their surgeries from constituents who have hepatitis C or HIV because of contaminated blood. It is right to wait for the Penrose inquiry. Let me make it clear that that is not an excuse, because I want us to take action. I am not sure whether that action will ever fully satisfy those who want this wrong to be righted, but as a wealthy and successful country we should be helping these people more. We will help them more, but we need Penrose first, and if I am standing here after the next election it will be done.

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

Q2. Before the last election, the Prime Minister repeatedly promised to cut immigration. Instead it has gone up. Net immigration is now three times higher than he promised. Why has he failed?

[The Prime Minister]

We have cut net migration from outside the European Union. We have created more jobs than the rest of the European Union put together, so we now need to reform welfare to ensure that people who come from other European countries cannot claim unemployment benefit, leave after six months without a job and have to work for four years before they get tax credits. That is what people will get if a there is a Conservative Government after the next election.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

In celebrating international women’s day, the Prime Minister can be congratulated on making it happen for women: we have more women in work than ever before, more female-led businesses than ever before, more females on boards than ever before, and more child care provision than ever before. Given that women are core to the long-term economic plan, will my right hon. Friend support the creation of a women and equalities Select Committee to ensure that future Governments do as much for women as the current Government have?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in agreeing to that. Of course we still have to break down disadvantage and barriers in our country, but there are more women in work than ever before; the pay gap for the under-40s has been eradicated; we are doing more to help with child care and to help people with caring responsibilities; and we have tried to help women around the world, not least by campaigning and working to cut out female genital mutilation and to put an end to the horrors of forced marriage. This Government have a good record on promoting women’s issues and rights, not just in the UK but right around the world.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q3. Does the Prime Minister share my admiration for The Brick, a Wigan charity that last year gave 6,000 food parcels to local families? Will he tell those families why, 30 years after the miners’ strike, yet again our community is having to compensate for its heartless and hopeless Government? I would be ashamed of that record; is that why he will not go head to head and debate it?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall tell the hon. Lady what we inherited in Wigan: since we came to office, unemployment has come down by 44% in terms of the claimant count. In the north-west, we have seen 124,000 more people in work. Those people are now able to provide for their families. That is what is happening. We have a growing economy because we dealt with the mess left by the hon. Lady and her party.

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

Q4. We can be rightly proud of our science and technology research base, but there is a danger that Government spending on that important area is falling behind. When my right hon. Friend is returned as Prime Minister in only a few weeks’ time, will he commit to a real-terms increase in the science budget, thus supporting Basildon’s innovative industries, maintaining our world standing in the sciences and helping to create the high-paid jobs that we need to deliver our long-term economic plan?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention science. Of course, we ring-fenced the science budget during this Parliament because it is absolutely essential to building the modern manufacturing and advanced economy that we want to see. We can also see excellent initiatives such as the Newton fund, the Alan Turing institute and the Sir Henry Royce institute—all big investments in science in the next Parliament.

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

It has been estimated that entrenching market structures in the NHS, for example through tendering, bidding and contracting to the private sector, costs over £10 billion a year. Why does the Prime Minister not think that that money would be better spent on patient care?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have done is save money by cutting out bureaucracy, so we are seeing an extra £4.5 billion go into the NHS. If the hon. Lady is saying that there is no occasion at all when anyone from the independent, charitable or voluntary sectors can help in our NHS, I think that she is wrong. I think of the work that Macmillan cancer nurses and Marie Curie Cancer Care do, helping with the end of life. The idea that there is only one way to deliver health care in our brilliant NHS, which is expanding under this Government, is completely wrong.

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Q5. Despite record numbers of new jobs, people with a learning disability can still find it tough to get into work. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the Basingstoke inclusion zone, which will recognise the commitment of local employers to people with a learning disability, whose talents and ability in the workplace are too often hidden?

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my right hon. Friend in praising the great work of the inclusion zone, which is launching this Friday. We need to build on the success we have already, with employment of disabled people up by 141,000 over the past year. We need a change not only in action, but in culture, which is why the Disability Confident campaign is so important for encouraging employers to join in and give employment opportunities to disabled people. We now have over 1,000 committing to change their practices with disabled people, and I want to see that go right across the country.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Q6. I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to join me in congratulating Titanic Belfast, which this week beat competition from the London Eye and the Eiffel tower to become the best international group visitor attraction. Does he therefore share my frustration and anger that in the same week the much bigger prize of political stability and economic progress is being jeopardised by Sinn Fein reneging on promises made in the Stormont House agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me join the hon. Lady in praising the Titanic exhibition, which I have been to see myself. It is an absolutely brilliant visitor attraction and yet another reason to visit Belfast, and not only for people from across our United Kingdom, but for people from across Europe and around the world. I agree that what matters now is implementing the Stormont House agreement. Everyone should do what they signed up to do in that agreement, including Sinn Fein. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working very hard to try to ensure that everyone fulfils their pledges.

[Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)]

Q7. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the many dedicated health professionals who work at St Ann’s hospice in my constituency, and does he agree that the decision to devolve £6 billion of NHS spending to Greater Manchester presents a tremendous opportunity to integrate health care services better and secure a more positive long-term funding arrangement for our local hospices?

[The Prime Minister]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The hospice movement is another good example of something that provides vital health and social services in our country but is not necessarily owned and operated by the NHS. I am a parent who used a hospice in Oxford regularly, and I was absolutely amazed by the brilliant work they do. We have allocated over £100 million of capital funding to hospices since 2010, and that is in addition to the £10 million for children’s hospices. I would welcome more NHS money being made available to hospices, as he says, and I think that the Greater Manchester decision is a way of ensuring that decisions are made between local authorities and the NHS and are made closer to the patients who they are serving.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

A leaked NHS report shows a looming deficit of £200 million in Staffordshire in three years’ time. Last year, 10 more of these reports were commissioned into distressed local health economies around the country, and yet, after repeated stonewalling, health Ministers are now saying:

“Consultancy firms were not commissioned to produce reports on the local health economies, as described in the question”.

May I ask the Prime Minister why, election or no election, the Government are engaged in a cover-up of what lies in store for large parts of the NHS around the country?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a pattern, which is that Labour MPs in Staffordshire are determined to try to frighten people about the future of the NHS, and they are the last people who should do that after the appalling mess they made in Mid Staffordshire. We are seeing £12.7 billion more money going into our NHS and a strong future for the NHS in Staffordshire that will be continued as long as I am in this place.

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

Q8. This is the third time in four months that I have raised at Prime Minister’s questions NHS England letting down the 180 or so people with ultra-rare diseases, some of whom are outside the House today, who have been failed by a flawed process. Some of those children will lose access to their drugs from May, and their conditions will deteriorate irreversibly. We have two sessions of Prime Minister’s questions left. Can he tell me that, in that time, he will announce when we will get interim funding for the drugs that these children and these people need?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, because these are very rare and debilitating conditions, and there are drugs that can help the children who have them. Having looked at this—and I know that the health and science Ministers have looked vary carefully at it and met the families and the drug companies, as well as NHS England—my understanding is that NHS England is holding a review, which will be completed by the end of April, and the companies are currently funding these drugs until the end of May. So I do not see any reason why there should not be continuity of care and continuity of drugs, and that is what I hope we can achieve.

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

Spending 2% of GDP on defence is not only significant as part of our NATO commitment—it is also a commitment to being a reliable ally. Only last September, the Prime Minister still thought it was important when he lectured other NATO countries on meeting Britain’s commitment. Is he not just a little bit embarrassed that he himself has now reneged on that?

[The Prime Minister]

This country has met its NATO commitments, not only for 2% but to spend the money on deployable equipment and forces, which is just as important a commitment. What I would say to the hon. Lady is this: how does she feel about her leader contemplating a deal with the SNP, who want to strip this country of their defences? That is what they are prepared to do. He will not rule it out. It says very clearly in his leaflet: they are only trying to be the largest party; they are not trying to win a majority. That is the risk we face: no Trident, no protection for our country—defence stripped bare by a Labour party in hock to the SNP.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Q9. With unemployment falling in Southend, enterprises expanding and 310 new businesses being created, will my right hon. Friend describe to the House which Government policies will see this recovery continuing so that the irresistible and unstoppable case for Southend to be made a city actually happens?

[The Prime Minister]

May I once again commend my hon. Friend on the consistency of his campaign to see Southend recognised in that way? He asked me what policies will make a difference and continue to bring businesses to Southend. We are cutting the jobs tax for businesses and charities, and that is helping; we have got the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7, and that is helping; we are abolishing national insurance contributions for under-21s; and we are extending the doubling of the small business rate relief. All of these things, sticking to our long-term economic plan as the OECD, IMF and others have advised us to, can make sure that Southend can continue to grow and perform well.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

Q10. In protecting universal benefits, the Prime Minister said that pensioners “deserve dignity” when they retire. Retired constituents in West Lancashire say, “What’s the point of a bus pass when there are no buses?” [Interruption.] There are not even trains, as the Conservative borough council has pocketed the additional money that would have been used to allow pensioners to have access to trains. Will the Prime Minister do the right thing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady needs to bring her question to a close, but that question, notwithstanding a display of very considerable rudeness towards her, will be heard. That is the end of it. It will be heard however long it takes; it does not matter to me.

[Rosie Cooper]

Will the Prime Minister do the right thing and ensure that concessionary travel for all pensioners is fair and equitable?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, buses are the responsibility of the county council, so I think the point made was a fair one. I have talked about dignity and security in retirement, because we have kept our commitments and upgraded the pension by the triple lock, so pensioners in the hon. Lady’s constituency will have £950 more in terms of the basic state pension than when I become Prime Minister in 2010. We committed to keeping the free bus pass, keeping the free television licence, keeping the freedom from prescription charges. We have kept each and every one of those promises. We have gone beyond that by saying to pensioners that they do not need to buy an annuity: it is their money, their savings, and they can spend it as they choose. This has been a Government who have recognised that people deserve that dignity and security, and we have delivered in full.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Seventy-five per cent. of our schools contain asbestos, more than 20 teachers a year are dying from exposure to asbestos and our children are known to be particularly vulnerable. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government publish their completed policy review on asbestos in schools before Dissolution?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue, which has been well broadcast and covered in the media in the past couple of days. That is why we are carrying out an asbestos review going through all schools. We will publish it in due course, and action will have to be taken.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Q11. I was thinking of raising with the Prime Minister the Conservatives’ so-called long-term economic plan—like Pinocchio’s nose, it grows longer and less attractive by the day—but with just two Prime Minister’s questions to go, I thought that I would ask the Prime Minister whether he shared my imminent relief that neither he nor I will have to pencil in 12 noon on a Wednesday any longer.

[The Prime Minister]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, as he will shortly be leaving the House? As a new Back Bencher, I will never forget coming to this place in 2001 and, in the light of the appalling terrorist attacks that had taken place across the world, seeing the strong leadership he gave on the importance of keeping our country safe. He is a remarkable politician, a remarkable man. I remember once in the Home Affairs Committee that, even though he could not see who we all were, he knew exactly who was concentrating and who was not. I do not know how—he has this extraordinary gift—but he is an extraordinary politician. I pay tribute to him, and I know the rest of the House will join me in doing so.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

During his conference speech, the Prime Minister rightly warned voters flirting with UKIP that if they went to bed with Nigel Farage on 7 May, they could end up waking up with the Leader of the Opposition on 8 May. May I put it to the Prime Minister that the outcome could actually be a lot more unpleasant? Is it not now the case that if voters go to bed with Nigel Farage on 7 May, they could wake up not only with the Leader of the Opposition, but snuggled up next to Alex Salmond?

[The Prime Minister]

That is the point. Who knows who you could wake up in bed with? It might not just be Alex Salmond; it might be Nigel Farage. It could be any number of people. [Hon. Members: “It could be Nick Clegg.”] Yes, of course that is an option too. It all points to the difference between the competence of the Conservatives and the chaos of the alternatives.

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

Q12. People in Northern Ireland have once more seen the issue of sexual abuse put under the spotlight as members of the IRA stand accused of holding kangaroo courts, re-traumatising victims as a result. Will the Prime Minister help to establish a cross-border inquiry with the power to call key witnesses, to try to bring some form of closure and justice, especially to young people who have been abused and whose abusers have been sheltered by the IRA?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Stormont House agreement includes a set of measures and proposals to try to deal with the issues of the past in a fair and accountable way—perhaps this is one such issue that could be dealt with in that way.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Q13. In Gosport we have a proud history of supporting the armed forces, and the recent £420 million contract to service the Chinook helicopter fleet will help local companies such as Vector Aerospace to preserve those links. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister reassure the House of his commitment to defence spending, the defence industry, defence procurement and defence jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly make that commitment. We have said that the £160 billion equipment programme over the next decade is fully protected and will grow in real terms, and I have recently been to Portsmouth to see for myself the new docks that are being put in to welcome the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, and the massive investment that will go into Portsmouth for ship servicing. My hon. Friend’s constituency will benefit from the Chinook contract—a new order of Chinooks pumping money into our defence industry and leading to the training of apprentices, jobs and livelihoods for many years to come.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A couple with two children where the man earns £25,000 and the woman earns £10,000 will be £9,417 worse off in tax credits if they stay together, as opposed to if they break up. Is that brutal attack on working families another reason why the Prime Minister will not go head to head in a pre-election debate with the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have obviously helped all couples by lifting the first £10,600 that someone earns out of tax, and we are the first Government to introduce a married couple’s tax allowance, which I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman voted against. If he cares about couples and commitment, he should be voting with us.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Q14. It has been an honour and a privilege to be the Member of Parliament for North Warwickshire for the past five years, and I am particularly proud that in that time crime in North Warwickshire has fallen. There are more doctors and nurses in the George Eliot hospital, and the number of schools rated as needing improvement has halved. Perhaps most importantly, unemployment in North Warwickshire has fallen to the lowest level since constituency records began in 1983. Does the Prime Minister agree that that shows that gripping the economy, gripping the deficit, and having an effective long-term economic plan is not just empty rhetoric but makes a real difference to people on the ground?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he has done. The claimant count in North Warwickshire has come down by 70% since the election, and the long-term youth claimant count has come down by 64%. I know that, working with Craig Tracey, he will work hard to ensure that North Warwickshire continues to benefit from our long-term economic plan.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Q15. The Prime Minister may know that this could be my last Prime Minister’s questions after 20 happy years representing Bradford South. He will be pleased to know that I am making my retirement plans—what are his?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only on his service in this House but on winning a by-election. Any of us who have taken part in by-elections—I remember the Bradford South by-election, not entirely happily from my point of view—knows what daunting prospects they are. We all have plans for after 7 May, and people who we want to spend more time with, and less time with. I have a little list, and I suspect he has one too.

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

Members of the Scottish National party have been licking their lips in public at the prospect of blackmailing one of the two main parties into delaying or abandoning the replacement of the Trident submarines. Will the Prime Minister confirm that if he is still Prime Minister in 2016, as he should be, he will ensure that the maingate contracts for four successor submarines are signed that year?

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure my hon. Friend. For me, Trident and its replacement are non-negotiable. They are an absolutely vital part of this nation’s security. Let me just remind Labour Members of the leaflet going out across Scotland. It says this:

“At the General Election we need to stop the Tories being the largest party.”

They have given up trying to be the Government and trying to win a majority. They want to crawl into Downing street on the coat tails of the SNP and put our country at risk. The British people will never have it.

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

Seventeen thousand police officers have gone in this Parliament. Under the Chancellor’s spending plans, another 30,000 would go in the next Parliament. The outgoing president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, has warned that it would no longer be possible adequately to protect the public from criminals or from the growing threat of home-grown terrorists. Is he right?

[The Prime Minister]

What we have seen in this Parliament is that, yes, we have made difficult decisions on police spending, but crime is down, including crime in the west midlands.

As for the shadow Chancellor’s dossier this week, he briefed against it before we even had a chance. I have heard of him briefing against the leader, but he has beaten his own records. He now briefs against himself.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Points of Order

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

12:36

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need to declare an indirect interest. I seek your advice, because I would hate for a Minister to have unwittingly misled the House. Is it in order for the Chief Secretary to return to the Dispatch Box and supply the correct figures for social house building? Yesterday, in response to me, he said that the Government

“have the highest annual rate of social house building than under the previous Government”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 145.]

The UK Housing Review, published on Monday, had within it a Department for Communities and Local Government live table, which had the following figures for social rent starts and completions: in 2009-10, there were 39,492 starts and 30,939 completions. The figures in 2013-14—the last full year—were 3,961 and 7,559 respectively. As you can see, Mr Speaker, the Chief Secretary’s statement is wrong, and his Government have not out-built the Labour Government.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for notice of its likely content. She has put her point on the record. I hope she will understand if I say that the content of Ministers’ observations in the House is not a matter for the Chair. If the Chief Secretary, upon reflection, judges that he has made an inaccurate observation, it is of course open to him to correct the record in one or other of a number of different ways. I hope the hon. Lady will not take offence if I say—it is meant as a compliment—that she is a wily character. She has largely achieved her objective by putting her point on the record in prime time.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have always advised Members of this House of the importance of showing respect to others in the workplace. In that regard, is it appropriate, in this House, which is a workplace, that a female Minister should be referred to as a washing machine?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I certainly did not say that a Member was a washing machine. If I caused offence to an hon. Member on Monday afternoon in the course of Question Time, in rebuking her for a long answer—it did result in a somewhat shorter one after that—and if I caused offence by what I said, I very happily apologise to that Member. I intended to cause no offence to her and hold her in the highest esteem. I hope I ordinarily treat Members with great courtesy. It was an off-the-cuff remark, it may well have been a foolish one, and I apologise for it.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this House, during a Division, if Members wish positively to abstain, the option of walking through both the Aye and the No Lobby is available to them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No it is not.

[Conor Burns]

It is possible to walk both through the Aye Lobby and the No Lobby and—

[Chris Bryant]

No, it is not.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, Mr Bryant, I know you are an exceptionally clever man. No one is more aware of your cleverness than you, but you can leave me to deal with this matter.

[Conor Burns]

We are, of course, regularly reminded of that, not least by the hon. Gentleman himself.

In a deferred Division, when one wishes to abstain, as I tried to recently, I was told that if one fills in both the Aye and the No Lobby one is recorded as “not voting”. Was that advice correct, or should it be possible, in the same way that one can vote in both Lobbies, to do the same in a deferred Division?

[Mr Speaker]

I am advised that the advice the hon. Gentleman was given is correct. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the Acting Clerk has confirmed the accuracy of that advice to the Chair.

More widely, perhaps I can take this opportunity to make it clear—I think this largely deals with the concerns of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—that the occasional practice, and it is usually a very occasional matter, of a Member going through both Lobbies as a means of abstaining has long been deprecated by the Chair. It is not a breach of any particular rules, so far as I am aware, but it has long been deprecated by the Chair. It did happen on a piece of legislation a couple of years ago. I have to say, I strongly deprecated the decision of a particular Member to abstain in that way. I think it is an unsatisfactory way to behave and it is better avoided.

I think we have dealt with the matter, but if the hon. Member for Rhondda now wants to have his say on his feet, rather than from his seat, doubtless he will do so.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated dissent.

Bills Presented

Standardised Testing for Diabetes (People Aged 40 and Over)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Keith Vaz, Mike Freer, Andrew George, Grahame M. Morris, Jim Shannon, Mark Durkan, Mark Reckless, Mr Adrian Sanders, Dr Julian Huppert, Valerie Vaz, John Robertson, Mr Jim Cunningham, Mr Alan Campbell and Phil Wilson presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to provide annual standardised tests for diabetes for those aged 40 and over; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 186).

National Health Service

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas, Andrew George, John Pugh, Mr Michael Meacher, Chris Williamson, Mr Roger Godsiff, Kelvin Hopkins, Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Hywel Williams and Katy Clark presented a Bill to re-establish the Secretary of State’s legal duty as to the National Health Service in England and to make provision about the other duties of the Secretary of State in that regard; to make provision about the administration and accountability of the National Health Service in England; to repeal section 1 of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 and sections 38 and 39 of the Immigration Act 2014; to make provision about the application of international law in relation to health services in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 187).

Horses and Ponies (Live Export)

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

12:42

[Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about improving and enforcing the arrangements for the regulation of the export of live British horses and ponies from the United Kingdom; to require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a study of the effectiveness of such arrangements, including their efficacy in distinguishing between the transportation of live horses and ponies for sports and those for meat; and for connected purposes.

The Bill would require the Animal and Plant Health Agency to take full responsibility for enforcement of horse health and welfare laws at British ports. It would require them to use the Government Agency Intelligence Network to involve Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency and other authorities to crack down on the illegal trafficking of tens of thousands of British horses, ponies and donkeys each year.

The UK can be proud of its laws that protect the welfare of every one of our country’s 1 million equines, including protecting them from indiscriminate export for slaughter. Indeed, if I want to export a horse legally I must complete various papers and declarations citing the purpose of export, the destination address, the veterinary certification that I have obtained stating that the horse is in good health, and details of the horse passport and microchip numbers. Ponies must also be above a certain value—at least £145, depending on size—if they are to be eligible for export. One might think that the information declared in these export applications would be occasionally checked and the destination address validated to ensure it exists. Sadly, it seems that this simply does not happen.

One might think that, at the very least, the health certification of animals leaving or entering our country would be checked by the APHA at our ports, but that does not happen. One might also think that occasional checks are made to ensure that the horses listed in the export declaration are the ones on the given lorry, but that does not happen, either. One might think that occasional checks would be made to ascertain the transported animal’s welfare, as advised by the European animal transport regulation, but that does not happen, either. In fact, horses and ponies can effectively be shipped anywhere, for any purpose, in any condition, despite our laws, which are meant to protect them.

For instance, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that there have been no applications to export horses for slaughter for very many years. However, World Horse Welfare, which I thank for its help in preparing the Bill, has clear evidence that many horses and ponies exported under the pretence of sport or leisure are actually taken directly to addresses associated with the meat trade, including markets on the continent where slaughter buyers are present. We are not talking about a few dozen horses slipping through the net; we are talking about tens of thousands of horses and ponies each year.

For example, over just one weekend of monitoring in 2013, World Horse Welfare saw 51 shipments exported from Dover to France and 41 shipments imported, on vehicles taking between two and 22 horses. Not a single check was observed being carried out by the APHA. It is no secret that these low-value horses and ponies are probably being exported with fraudulent identification documents, thereby allowing them to be entered into the meat trade on the continent. Without proper identification, these horses could not be considered safe to enter the food chain, but European abattoirs are much more likely to be fooled by false UK paperwork than our own abattoirs here in the UK. We are watching this happen and, it appears, doing nothing. I am afraid that this is exactly the kind of complacency that contributed to the horsemeat scandal. Horses, unlike other livestock, are relatively unregulated, so trafficking in them is easy to get away with.

Organised criminals are also exploiting the fact that horseboxes can sometimes travel in and out of Britain without a single check or search. Imagine the tax revenue we are losing by letting this trade flourish under the radar, never mind the value of the proceeds from crime. The case of a horse dealer from Northern Ireland, caught smuggling nearly 25 kg of cannabis worth nearly £250,000 in his horsebox, is just one example of the kind of trade we are dealing with. The charity World Horse Welfare estimates that a lorry load of 20 horses could be worth anything from £5,000 to £10,000 at the meat markets, and that trafficking 10,000 horses per year would fetch criminals £2 million to £5 million.

There no enforcement because there is no longer a workable line of responsibility or, it appears, the effective resources to enforce the laws. Instead, we seem to have a dysfunctional system where responsibility appears to be shunted between DEFRA, the APHA and local authorities. As the competent authority, DEFRA is responsible for the enforcement of the laws governing the welfare, transport and trade of animals. However, it has delegated that duty across different agencies. The APHA is clear that it does not enforce those laws. That is a job for local authorities through trading standards or other agencies, but trading standards will not consider enforcement unless there have been reported breaches in compliance. Even then, it must meet its public interest and proportionality tests. As the APHA does not have an intelligence capability, it can only act on specific intelligence. Without intelligence, the APHA is reliant on assessing the declared information of compliant individuals, which does nothing to identify or assess the non-compliant trade. Effectively, therefore, we have no enforcement whatsoever and criminals will continue to profit from horse suffering.

My Bill would, I hope, change that. First, it would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a study of the effectiveness of the current enforcement in horse exports. Secondly, DEFRA would make the APHA the enforcement authority for all equine exports and imports, including health, welfare and documentation. That streamlining of enforcement would be effective and simple to implement. A similar scheme was in place some years ago when checks at our ports were carried out by the State Veterinary Service before the current arrangements were put in place.

Penalties for breaches would be increased and the maximum imposed to serve as a deterrent. The penalties imposed for breaches of welfare-in-transit laws are usually insignificant—cautions or brief suspensions—despite the courts having the option of fines of up to £5,000 per animal. Penalties for breaches of other laws, such as the use of false horse passports or vehicle violations, are also relatively small and are therefore also too often not considered worth the time of local authorities. However, if it follows the national intelligence model the APHA could target prolific offenders collectively and significant penalties could be imposed through the courts, thus delivering much-needed revenue to the Government, never mind what tax officials and the criminal enforcement agencies might be able to recoup from the proceeds of these traffickers’ crimes.

My Bill would also require the APHA to put in place an effective collaborative framework to gather, assess, disseminate and act on intelligence regarding equine health, welfare and documentation irregularities as well as suspicious patterns in the trade. The APHA claims that it already conducts intelligence-led enforcement but it has no effective system to hold, analyse or act on that intelligence. Non-governmental organisations such as World Horse Welfare have extensive intelligence that they share with Government agencies and are keen to share with the APHA. Many NGOs are ready and willing to do all they can to help.

Finally, my Bill would require greater transparency and therefore accountability for the APHA by publishing enforcement actions and suspensions, as happens with vehicles through traffic commissioners and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I hope that the House will support the Bill so that we can better protect our horses, stop this criminal trade and ensure that the Government receive their due revenues.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Gregory Barker, Mrs Anne Main, Zac Goldsmith, Sir John Randall, Caroline Nokes, Jim Fitzpatrick, Simon Kirby, Joan Walley, Michael Fabricant, Charlie Elphicke, Andrew Rosindell and Mr Shaun Woodward present the Bill.

Gregory Barker accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March and to be printed (Bill 188).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[19th Allotted Day]

General Election Television Debates

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

12:52

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

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the potential value of broadcast general election debates between party leaders; notes however that neither the broadcasters nor politicians can escape the charge of self-interest in their organisation, and that they should best be left to an independent body to arrange; further notes that the broadcast debate formats proposed for 2015 have been inconsistently and incompetently formulated so far; further notes that there exists a substantial danger as a result that these debates will now not happen; and believes that the point of any debates which do happen must be to benefit those who watch them, not those who appear in them or broadcast them.

Mr Speaker, you are the first among us to mention when the public think we are doing a good job of debating and whether we get it right or wrong. You, sir, do a much better job of ensuring that debates happen than the broadcasters do and, if I may say so, of ensuring that all the relevant people turn up, including Ministers. In this Parliament, Ministers have certainly been made much more accountable than they have been in previous Parliaments, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful for that.

With just eight weeks to go to polling day, there are as many questions as ever about the proposed television broadcast debates. Who will be debating with whom? Who is invited? Who will actually turn up? When are the debates happening? On not one point has agreement been established, and we heard again today at Prime Minister’s questions that the controversy continues to rage. The situation is completely unsatisfactory and deeply disappointing.

Before the broadcasters report critically about us, they must first ask what they have got wrong in this process. Did they engage constructively and sensibly with all the parties? Can they honestly say that they have had at the front of their minds the interests of the voters, their viewers? Has not the self-interest of the broadcasters been rather too evident in much of the many mistakes they have made so far?

When we put ourselves before the voters, we hope for a fair hearing. Does anyone think that the broadcasters have had that, rather than ratings and spectacle, in mind? If they did, how does one explain their oscillation from one format for debates to another?

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Did the right hon. Gentleman welcome, as I did, the intervention by Lord Grade, the former chairman of the BBC and chairman of ITV? He knows what he is talking about when he says that the arrangements for these debates are deeply flawed.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. The intervention in a letter to The Times this morning from the noble Lord was interesting and pertinent. It is interesting to note that someone who might have a party political affiliation but who is so experienced in broadcasting for ITV and in the world of the BBC is speaking so forthrightly about how broadcasters have handled the situation. It has to be said that that is particularly the case with the BBC, which has a responsibility as a public broadcaster to be fair and impartial to everyone. One issue that concerns television licence fee payers in Northern Ireland is the deliberate exclusion of Northern Ireland parties when other parties from Scotland and Wales that stand only in their respective countries are included. That prompts serious questions about the impartiality and fairness of the BBC, in particular.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is no good the broadcasters saying that the Welsh nationalists and Scottish nationalists can take part in the debates if the parties from Northern Ireland cannot. He should pursue his case vigorously.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I am also grateful for the support that has been evident from Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, I have with me letters from the leaders of other parties throughout the United Kingdom defending and supporting our inclusion in the national debates.

Let me make the position of the Democratic Unionist party very clear. We want the national debates to happen and we do not want to intrude or ask to be involved in a national debate involving the national parties. For instance, we are quite happy that there should be a head-to-head debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or a debate among those parties that are deemed to be national and have sufficient standing to stand in all parts of the United Kingdom. We did not raise any objections to that or ask to be included in that debate. When the broadcasters decided that they would invite the Scottish National party from Scotland and Plaid Cymru from Wales to be involved in the national debate, however, that prompted the question of why they would include a party that stands only in Scotland and a party that stands only in Wales but not the Democratic Unionist party, which has more MPs and more votes than Plaid Cymru and more MPs than the Greens, Plaid and the SNP put together. The whole thing is ludicrous.

We met the BBC at our request after it had proposed its second formulation. As I understand it, the BBC never asked to speak to any of the parties in Northern Ireland. Not only did the BBC not speak to the political parties in Northern Ireland but, as I understand it, the BBC mandarins and fonctionnaires did not even speak to their own journalists in Northern Ireland. I am not sure what happened in other countries or regions of the UK, but they took the decision without consulting the people directly involved in Northern Ireland. I hear them talk about consulting all the parties, but it is clear that they have not fulfilled their obligation, because they have not consulted us, despite our size and contribution and the potential for a hung Parliament on 8 May. These are serious questions, particularly for the BBC, that need to be answered. I reiterate our position: we are concerned with the national debates only because parties from other countries are to be involved but Northern Ireland is to be excluded, and there will be parties in those national debates putting forward candidates in Northern Ireland, and therefore it is prejudicial to Northern Ireland parties, particularly the DUP.

It is sometimes said by the BBC and other broadcasters, “Well, there will be local debates in Northern Ireland among the main parties. That is the opportunity for Northern Ireland politicians and parties to debate in front of the Northern Ireland electorate and set out their policies.” That is all fine and well—we have no objection to debating in that format—but I understand that such debates will also take place in Scotland and Wales. Yes, let us have those debates, but when it comes to the national debates, we cannot have one rule for parties chosen arbitrarily at the whim of unaccountable broadcasters deciding what is best for everyone else and having a different rule for Northern Ireland. That is totally unacceptable.

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

Lord Grade is reported as having accused channel bosses of breaking their legal duty of impartiality in threatening to stage the debates without the Prime Minister, but does that duty not also extend to the DUP, which is well represented in this House, given the inclusion of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend raises the important point, which the noble Lord referred to in his article, about the duty of impartiality that is placed on the BBC and to which I think other broadcasters should show due high regard. It remains to be seen what happens. Significantly, in this debate about debates, people have been forthright in saying, “This will happen”, but the reality keeps turning out to be very different. In the first formulation, the broadcasters assured us that there would be three debates with invitations to four parties—the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Lib Dems and UKIP—and that if anyone did not turn up, they would be “empty chaired”, but then of course they changed their minds.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, but is it not paradoxical to have party political broadcasts that virtually nobody watches but not to have debates that 23 million people watched the last time they took place? Are the broadcasters not trying simply to step into the vacuum that the House has left, and should we not legislate to ensure fair debates across the UK and in the nations and regions of the UK?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point to which I shall return. Indeed, our motion states that the matter has been so badly handled by the broadcasters—undoubtedly political self-interest has raised its head as well—that steps should be taken, as a result of this debacle, to ensure a fair and equitable basis on which to agree proper and fair debates. This experience makes that point very strongly—although whether it should be done through legislation is another matter.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and he makes his point about regional differences very well. Of course, the BBC and commercial stations can put on regional programmes involving regional politicians—regional parties are emerging in England, such as the North East party now standing in my seat, and Cornwall has a tradition of regional parties—but does he agree that the broadcasters need a model that fits all future purposes, whether for regional or national broadcasts, and that can determine which parties participate? They need to express a model that makes sense.

[Mr Dodds]

Until now, the broadcasters have made it up as they have gone along, responding to pressure here, there and everywhere. They have responded to the latest opinion polls—the exclusion and then inclusion of the Greens was done on the basis of opinion polls—but polls go up and down, so a decision on whether someone should be included will depend on when one takes note of the polls. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A model needs to be designed in good time, well before a general election—especially because with fixed-term Parliaments everybody knows when the election will be—and with maximum agreement, setting out fairly and squarely the rules that will apply come what may. It needs to be fair to all parties and all regions and countries of the UK. We cannot have one country excluded and one major party in the House disadvantaged compared with other smaller parties. It cannot go on like this—he is right about that.

The broadcasters came up with their first formulation—three debates, four parties—but then they changed their minds and told us that seven parties would be invited. Not only did they completely change the proposed format and bin the nonsense about dissidents being “empty chaired”; they came up with proposals that, among other fascinating things, told us that the Liberal Democrats and Plaid amounted to pretty much the same thing—I mean no disrespect to either party when I point out to the broadcasters that there is quite a big difference between them in terms of size and appeal across the UK.

Until last week, no one had agreed even to that second unsustainable debate format—Labour had not agreed; UKIP had not agreed; the Liberals were vigorously denouncing the prospect of being relegated to football conference status; and the DUP had not agreed either. We have been absolutely consistent. As I said in response to earlier interventions, we can entirely see the case for the parties that Ofcom deems “the big four” debating with one another. One can debate whether Ofcom is right, but that is what it has said, so we can see the case for the broadcasters organising the debates on that basis. At a stretch, we can see the case for including the Greens—it is arguable, although it would make for much better television, from the broadcasters’ point of view—but we do not accept that the BBC and other broadcasters can pick and choose which parties from the countries and regions of the UK they deem fit to attend.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem arose when the broadcasters broke their rationale simply to include UKIP, rather than sticking with the previous elections as the basis on which to decide who should participate? That is where the rot stems from.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady raises the point I referred to about Ofcom’s definition for deciding which the main parties are. It is for Ofcom to make its own decisions and explain its rationale, and she certainly has a point, but we are where we are with that decision. It goes back to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). We cannot go on making it up as we go along. We need a set of rules, well in advance of the elections, that are clear, rational, fair and understandable.

[Ian Swales]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is coming on to the issue later in his speech, but the question of thresholds is relevant. Will such arrangements or models contain some sort of threshold, based perhaps on current representation in this House or some other method? Such a system would have various features, which could be explained in advance, and then used on every occasion.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is certainly part of the debate that should happen, but it should happen well in advance—not in the heat of a general election and not in the run-up to the election when so many vested interests are at stake. As we have discovered, people who were previously enthusiastic have become less enthusiastic, depending on their particular vested interest. Likewise, others who were not so keen have suddenly become very keen indeed.

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

The right hon. Gentleman is making a compelling argument. Does he agree that the wider body politic and all our constituents right across the community would like to see us debating the substance of the issues that impact on them on a day-to-day basis, on which the general election will be decided?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, which is why it is important to have a debate about ensuring that that happens. As things stand, it looks likely that the public, who watched the debates in considerable numbers last time, will be denied the opportunity to hear the contributions from the various party leaders who could form the Government. The public would be very interested to hear about the priorities for the smaller parties that could play a significant role one way or the other—what is their general outlook and how would they see things shaping up? I agree entirely with the hon. Lady.

As I have said, at this time no one has any idea what debates, if any, are going to occur. The broadcasters can say what they like about being determined to proceed and can make threats of empty-chairing, but there is no consensus at all about whether these debates are going to occur.

I want to make it very clear to the House and people beyond it that Northern Ireland Members will certainly not tamely accept any attempt to pick and choose the parties to the detriment of Northern Ireland. We are part of the United Kingdom; we play a very significant role in the House. The Democratic Unionist party has eight MPs, but there are other Northern Ireland Members from other parties, and indeed no party, who play a role here, too. They deserve to have their voice heard on behalf of the people they represent. They should not be excluded, especially in a context where the Democratic Unionist party could play a much more significant role on 8 May than some of the parties that are going to be included in the debates. People across the United Kingdom need to know where we stand on the national issues.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I agree with virtually everything the right hon. Gentleman has said in this debate so far. Let me ask him about timing, which is a huge concern to me as a candidate. By having the TV debates within the last three or four weeks of the campaign, we convert it into a sort of “X Factor” whereby people will decide how to vote on the basis of looking at the television screen. The role of the hundreds and hundreds of candidates out there campaigning will be completely sidelined by this process if it takes place in the last few weeks of the campaign. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman intends to cover this, but I think the timing of these debates in a short campaign, which devalues the role of candidates, is an important one.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I think should be discussed in the wider context of setting out a model for how these debates should be run in the future. The timing is extremely important. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of these big debates and the attention they receive. The Prime Minister’s argument about sucking the life out of the campaign is relevant, particularly to local campaigns.

Having said that, however, I also have a lot of sympathy with the view that the public are interested in having these sort of debates between people who might become the Prime Minister and form the Government. It is a question of balance, and looking at when these debates should happen is relevant, but I am not going to be prescriptive about it. It should be discussed and debated, and we need an independent model to take it all into account. It is wrong to say merely that we should go along with what the broadcasters have outlined because they believe that it is the right approach, and that anyone who disagrees with that does not have the interest of the wider public at heart. I do not believe that that is the right approach; it is a question of balance.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

My right hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that after 8 May Democratic Unionist Members could have a say on who walks into Downing street as Prime Minister. That being the case, is it not right and proper that the national audience should know where smaller parties such as ours stand on the issues of national defence and the Union, on grammar school education, health care, taxation, the cost of living, defence spending and so forth? The public are entitled to know that; it will help them to decide which parties should help to create and form the next Government.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is in the interests of people throughout the United Kingdom. If we are to hear the views of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, it is absolutely right for people to hear the views of the Democratic Unionist party and others on the national issues, because this could have a major impact on the next Parliament.

When the leader of my party, Peter Robinson, and I met the BBC in Belfast, we heard this argument: “We have included the SNP and Plaid in addition to UKIP, the Greens and the three major national parties, but it would be difficult now to include the DUP. We recognise the strength of your numbers; we recognise the role you could play in the next Parliament; we recognise that you have more votes than Plaid; we recognise that you have more seats than Plaid; we recognise that, unlike some parties, you are genuinely going to weigh up the options after the election on the basis of proposals that come forward. You are not in the pocket of any party; you have not already sold your vote. You have not already said that you are going to oppose the Tories, come what may, or that you will never go into coalition with the Labour party. All that is perfectly valid, but it will be very difficult to broadcast a debate because we would have to invite all the Northern Ireland parties, which would make it very unwieldy.”

So it comes down to a problem the broadcasters have created by the inclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, leading them to say, “It is too difficult to cover Northern Ireland because we would then have to include more parties than the DUP”. It is a problem of their own creation. It is hardly fair to blame the DUP or Northern Ireland when this is a problem that the broadcasters have created themselves. When they came forward with this formulation and created this problem, they must have done so with their eyes wide open. They must have known that the effect would be to exclude Northern Ireland completely and that they would have to resort to a weak argument along the lines of: “It would be very unwieldy in broadcasting terms and it would not be a great television show.” I have no reason to doubt that functionaries at the top of the BBC and elsewhere are reasonably intelligent people, so they must have known the implications, but they were prepared to proceed nevertheless. In my view, that is a gross dereliction of their duty of fairness and reasonableness.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is blatant arrogance coming from the BBC. This is an organisation funded by the general public who pay the licence fee. The public want to hear what the parties have to offer. This is just blatant arrogance.

[Mr Dodds]

That is absolutely right, and I think the BBC will live to regret that arrogance. The way it is treating the political parties of Northern Ireland displays a great level of contempt for the people of Northern Ireland.

I shall start my conclusion as I know other Members want to speak. Where are we at the moment? We are, preposterously, supposed to believe the threat from the broadcasters that they can legally contrive debates during the short general election campaign at which the Prime Minister is not present while many of his political opponents are. Reference has been made to what Lord Grade has said today. Some people may believe that that is possible. Some people in the BBC, including broadcasters, may believe that it is possible, although I should add, in fairness to the BBC’s employees, that I have yet to meet a BBC journalist who believes that it is. It would do the BBC Trust, and indeed Rona Fairhead, some good to listen sometimes to what members of their front-line infantry are saying.

Even now, it is not too late to do what should have been done long ago. A matter of such importance—putting the electoral choices of the British people directly in front of them—should be raised above the level of partisan squabbling or media meddling. Even at this late hour, a Speaker’s conference would start to take us where we need to go, towards the establishment of an independent commission to superintend broadcast election debates. Of course the public want to hear from us, but they must hear from us fairly, without bias and without the blatant incompetence that we have seen here before getting in the way.

Throughout the world, broadcasters work with independent commissions arranging political debates of this kind, and the end result is that in other countries, those debates happen. Here, it seems that the broadcasters know best. They know how to organise the debates, and they go ahead and try to do so on their terms. What has been the end result here? Chaos and confusion—and, eight weeks before the general election, no one has any idea what is happening about any of these debates.

[Dr McCrea]

Lord Grade, whom I mentioned earlier, writes that the BBC and the broadcasters

“are not the guardians of democracy.”

He also writes that they are “unequivocally playing politics.” Surely those are not characteristics of an independent BBC, and surely that means that an independent body to arrange the debates is required.

[Mr Dodds]

Again, my hon. Friend has made an important point. We must remember that we are sent to this House, having been elected by the people, to speak for the people: that is our role. We must take some responsibility, and learn the lessons of this debacle. We need to ensure that the debates happen in future, but on the basis of a model that sets their organisation and formulation aside from broadcasters and politicians.

I want the debates to happen. I sense that many Members on both sides of the House want them to happen, and that many members of the public do as well. The public want to see their politicians in front of them, debating the issues, at the appropriate juncture. The tragedy is that, at present, it is the broadcasters who are getting in the way,

During Northern Ireland questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to the late Lord Molyneaux of Killead. Let me, as leader of the DUP group at Westminster, add my own tribute. I know that Jim Molyneaux, who was a distinguished and valiant Member of the House for many years, would have relished the excitable mess—as he would have put it—that people have got themselves into. He would have been getting them together and counselling them to sit down and find a way through it, calmly and rationally. He conveyed such a sense of authority that I think he was almost born an elder statesman, rather than growing into the role. He wanted people to engage in politics in sentences and paragraphs rather than in soundbites, and that is what these debates should be about. We should be seeking to place serious, coherent, cogent arguments before the public. That is one of the reasons I believe in a debate. I believe that, sadly, Prime Minister’s Question Time has become largely an exchange of soundbites, all sound and fury and very little elucidation.

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

Lord Molyneaux was adept in another respect. At the time of the last hung Parliament when Unionists held the balance of power, he showed that Ulstermen, and indeed women, are very good at doing politics when the occasion arises.

[Mr Dodds]

My right hon. Friend has made a very pertinent point, but I think it is a debate for another day.

Obviously my party will always stand up for Northern Ireland, and in raising this matter today, we are standing against an illogical and unreasonable attempt by some broadcasters to exclude us from the debates. However, the issue is wider than just us. Who are these debates for? Are they for the people who take part in them? Are they for the people who so desperately want to produce them? No, they are not. They are for the people who watch them, and who then decide whether we are to come back to this place. If the broadcasters cannot be trusted to put the interests of the voters first, in all parts of the United Kingdom, we must remember our historic role. We speak for the people because we are elected by the people, and others should never dare to presume to get in the way of the people when they are trying to hear their elected representatives speak and debate with one another. I commend the motion to the House.

13:25

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for giving us an opportunity to debate this matter, and for making such a powerful speech. I also thank him for evoking the spirit of Lord Molyneaux, whose presence, given the respect that he enjoyed in this place, would no doubt have been very welcome during these rather turbulent discussions.

This may be a debate about debates, but it still matters. Millions of people watched the televised debates at the time of the last general election, and I think that it was a positive step for our democracy that the electorate were able to reflect on the choices that were put before them. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), television debates are not the only feature of a general election campaign, and the intensity and concentration of their sequencing tends to generate a close interest which, as the Prime Minister put it, sucks some of the life and vitality out of the campaign itself. That was certainly the case last time. Three years ago, the Prime Minister proposed that we should agree on a set of debates that would, ideally, take place before rather than during the short campaign, so that campaigning in the constituencies would not be overshadowed by the very important aspects of the debate.

[Ian Swales]

Does the Minister believe that such debates should take place before the publication of party manifestos?

[Greg Clark]

As was made plain today during Prime Minister’s Question Time, there is plenty to talk about. I think that the choices between the parties are pretty clear, and I see absolutely no reason why we should not have a debate. The Prime Minister proposed that we should have one during the week beginning 23 March, and I hope that his proposal will be taken up.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North was ingenious in drafting the motion. This is not, of course, a matter in which the Government have any direct legislative say. I think it important for the press—and broadcasters specifically, as part of the press—to be recognised as being robustly independent, and I would not want to breach that in any way

The Government have no direct role in the conduct of the leaders debates, which, in my view, is entirely proper. Government policy extends only to the framework by which broadcasters are regulated in the United Kingdom. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s independent communications regulator and competition authority, is required to set the standards for programmes on television and radio, which are embodied in the broadcasting code. The code applies to all broadcasters who are licensed by Ofcom. Crucially, it contains specific rules that apply during election periods and require licensed broadcasters to ensure that their coverage is duly impartial. That includes the requirement for due weight to be given to the parties.

In parallel the BBC, whose output is overseen by the BBC Trust, has editorial guidelines and election guidelines that set out the requirements for impartiality and accuracy generally, and specifically within an election period. The role of the press has been debated extensively during this Parliament and I know that all Members will support me in recognising the principle that independence and the requirements for accuracy and impartiality should be at the heart of broadcasting in this country.

Let me say a little about the particular contention in this debate. The aspect that the right hon. Member for Belfast North raised is who gets the power, in effect, to decide who gets a platform and who does not, and the way in which that has been conducted. He made a powerful case on behalf of his party and all parties in Northern Ireland. He expressed forcefully their concern about their exclusion from the arrangements proposed by the broadcasters. He referred to the fact that at the last election the Democratic Unionist party won more votes than one of the parties that is included in the seven-way debate, and more seats than four of them.

To try to cut through the logjam, the Prime Minister made an offer to participate in a seven-way debate before the start of the campaign. The leader of the Labour party said that he would debate the Prime Minister “any time, any place, anywhere”, as I understand it. The Prime Minister has proposed a time: he proposed that there should be a debate the week after next. The offer has been made; it is now up to the Leader of the Opposition to accept it.

As for the specific line-up of the parties, the Prime Minister has said, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North will be aware, that the leader of the DUP should be permitted to make his case for why he should be included, but that case should be made to the broadcasters rather than to the Government.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

May I take the Minister back to the point about the timing of these debates? Of course the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition can find plenty to talk about. No doubt they could fill an hour arguing every day of the week, but the point is that in elections the electorate has the opportunity to vote for a manifesto. Is it not absurd for the Prime Minister to propose a debate before the manifesto is published? That is a con on the electorate.

[Greg Clark]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is plenty to debate, as he is kind enough to acknowledge, week after week. There will be no shortage of points that can be made in the debate and it would be a good thing to get on with it. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will change his mind and agree to participate in the debate.

In every part of the United Kingdom, we are living through a time of rapid political change. Between one election and the next, we have seen major shifts in voter support, so it is vital that we do not see the result of previous elections fossilised in the format of the TV debates. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister objected to the exclusion of the Green party from the broadcasters’ original proposal. To people who ask, “Why should he care?”, let me give an answer that should appeal to all of us in the House. The more we are seen as turning our back on the legitimate expectation that people whose parties enjoy some support in the country should be able to make their case, the more we risk increasing the sense of alienation between this place and the country we represent. I also think it is a good thing to put the smaller parties on the spot. We know they can protest, and they often do so vociferously, but the question is whether they can propose workable solutions to the problems that they draw attention to. That is a different matter.

Speaking of workable solutions, it is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman affirmed in his remarks, that the broadcasters have failed to produce one in regard to the debates. Today’s debate demonstrates that the proposals made thus far have not achieved the breakthrough or the consensus that three years ago the Prime Minister said should have been engaged in ahead of the general election. Lord Grade’s letter, which many hon. Members have spoken about today, comes from a very distinguished and experienced broadcaster and regulator, who should obviously be listened to with respect. My party entered into negotiations with the broadcasters in good faith and repeatedly made the case for a more representative debate structure. Initially this was unilaterally disregarded, as the exclusion of the Green party made clear. The follow-up proposal was made without any consultation.

The motion before the House today proposes a new way forward—the creation of an independent body with responsibility for arranging the debates. The right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that it is rather late in the Parliament to debate the proposal, but he proposes it to reflect his dismay at the arrangements that have been suggested. It gives us the opportunity to raise the key questions—most fundamentally, who would the independent body be independent of? How would it be established and how would it be funded? Which debates would it produce? Who would it invite and how would this stand up to challenge? How would it succeed in convening the parties at all? Would they be compelled to participate? How would it secure the distribution of the debates by the broadcasters?

[Ian Swales]

The Minister mentions the possibility of parties being compelled to participate. As a great student of politics, he will know that rule 101 for incumbency is, “Don’t give your opponent a platform.” Does he accept that those in power will try not to have such debates, as we are seeing right now?

[Greg Clark]

I can only speak for my party, but a platform for the Leader of the Opposition is something devoutly to be wished for by those of us on the Government Benches. I do not know whether that breaks rule 101, but I very much hope that the Leader of the Opposition will accept the invitation.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

On that point, the Leader of the Opposition has agreed to the broadcasters’ proposal for a head-to-head debate with the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to have that debate?

[Greg Clark]

The Prime Minister has made an offer. The Leader of the Opposition said that he would debate “any time, any place, anywhere”. The Prime Minister said that he would appear in the debate the week after next, and I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition appearing there.

The proposal for an independent body is not a new one. The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Communications in the House of Lords examined these questions and published its findings on 13 May 2014, in good time before the general election. Though recommendations were explicitly not made to the Government, reflecting the point that I made earlier, the Committee’s key conclusion questioned whether an independent body was required. It said that it had considered carefully the potential case for a body to be established independently of the broadcasters to oversee and produce broadcast election debates, but it has not been persuaded. It found no good arguments for the introduction of such a body.

Given the events of the past year, others, no doubt including the right hon. Member for Belfast North, will insist that the status quo is not working, and would perhaps invite that Committee to reflect on its proposals. In the immediate term, this is the purpose of the Prime Minister’s offer of a televised debate before the campaign proper, but time is running out. If the Leader of the Opposition does not make up his mind soon, it will be too late. Inevitably, he wants to distract us by insisting that the debate be restricted to the Prime Minister and himself alone. He does not want the scrutiny of the other party leaders—

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman will have his chance.

The Leader of the Opposition does not want the scrutiny of other party leaders, including the leaders of other parties who are entitled to their say—the point that the right hon. Member for Belfast North made.

The Leader of the Opposition has already had his chance. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was debating with him again today. I have calculated that they have spent nearly 40 hours facing each other across this very Dispatch Box over the past four and a bit years. The latest instalment of this long-running televised head-to-head debate took place just a few minutes ago, and it will continue up to the moment that Parliament is dissolved. I can understand that the Leader of the Opposition might like one more chance to get it right—he tends not to come off the better in these head-to-head debates—but if it has not happened yet, I suspect it never will.

I read in the papers that the latest wheeze from the official Opposition is a law to make the TV debates mandatory. It is hard to know where to begin, or where the legal action from excluded parties would end. If participation in the debates is to be made compulsory, then, goodness me, are we to make watching them compulsory too, as part of the edification of voters? Indeed, it sometimes seems that the Opposition’s way of thinking is: why achieve anything through voluntary action when we can use the power of the state to enforce our will? It is very revealing of the instincts of the Labour party that, faced with a difficulty, it reaches for legislation and compulsion rather than agreeing a consensual way forward. In making this ludicrous proposal, the Labour leader has done more to reveal the likely chaos that would ensue from the election of a Labour Government than any number of debates could achieve.

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

On voluntary or compulsory participation, does the Minister agree that the ideal solution would be some form of independent commission for the next election five years hence, which every party is obligated to agree to, and with fairness as the essence of the decision about how the debate would be constructed? In that way, no one would have any excuse for running away from the debate.

[Greg Clark]

I listened with respect to the proposal from the right hon. Member for Belfast North and his party. I understand the frustration they feel and why they are proposing this, but it is rather late in the day. I put on record my concern that compelling voluntary organisations to participate is not in the spirit of the way we have conducted these things. I accept the spirit in which the proposal has been made, however, and I do not think the intention is to put this on the statute book, but rather to explore the issues.

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

To assist in this matter, could a Speaker’s conference be brought into existence immediately after the election to ensure we have a way forward for the following election?

[Greg Clark]

This will be a matter for the next Parliament, and the Government have not taken a view to that extent—and, speaking for the Government, I think it is right for me to record that. No doubt, however, having raised the debate this side of the election, if the Members of the hon. Gentleman’s party are returned after the election, they may well come back to it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North said in his speech that if anyone should compel the party leaders to give an account of themselves, it should be in this House by Mr Speaker, not by an unelected quango. This is, thank goodness, a parliamentary democracy. We do not have a presidential system, although if it was the presidential system of the United States of America, it could be that the Leader of the Opposition will be spending more time in the USA with his brother before long. Before that, however, let us give him one last chance through his spokesman here: an opportunity to appear before the nation with the other party leaders to explain why he should be Prime Minister. Our offer of this televised debate before the campaign starts still stands. Is he up for the challenge, or is he frit?

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I thought he had sat down and had not allowed me in. Will he answer this question clearly for the record, because he has not done so yet: has the Prime Minister ruled out a head to head, potential Prime Minister with potential Prime Minister? Has he ruled that out, and am I correct in thinking that the debate he is offering is just one with other leaders?

[Greg Clark]

I am always happy to extend my remarks to include the hon. Lady. What we have seen—I think this has been attested to in the speeches so far—is complete chaos and confusion on the part of the broadcasters. The Prime Minister has made an offer—an offer he first made three years ago—to have a debate before the election campaign starts. The offer is there on the table; I very much hope the Leader of the Opposition takes it up.

13:44

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join the Minister in congratulating the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on securing this timely debate on this important subject. As has been said, the general election is just eight weeks away. In the 21st century, it is surely right that the public have an opportunity, in the weeks before polling day, to see the party leaders and potential Prime Ministers debate the issues.

Voter turnout has fallen significantly in recent years. Trust in politics and politicians is at a low ebb. We must do more to confront these challenges, and television debates are an opportunity for the party leaders to reach out, to inspire, to answer concerns and to attempt to engage with people. In 2010, nearly 10 million people watched the first TV debate between the leaders, eclipsing even “Coronation street” and “EastEnders”. It is an extraordinary opportunity to reach out to people, many of whom have not remotely started thinking about the election yet, and to give them the opportunity to hear from the leaders of the political parties. To reject that opportunity would be to show a disregard for the British public, who have made it clear that they want these debates to happen.

On this side of the House, we want these debates to happen. We have said that the broadcasters should make proposals, and we have accepted their proposals for three debates during the campaign. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) just reminded us, the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate the issues head to head with the Prime Minister. Realistically, there are only two leaders who could be Prime Minister after this general election, and the country should have the opportunity to see them debate head to head, and the broadcasters are proposing that there should be such a debate, alongside two others. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said, to use his much quoted term, he will debate with the Prime Minister any time, any place anywhere. Of course, regardless of who is in power, we might expect the Leader of the Opposition to be bullish.

[Greg Clark]

Does that offer extend to appearing in the week commencing 23 March?

[Stephen Twigg]

If that is the proposal that comes forward and is supported by other parties, but not as the only debate. What the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are proposing is an election debate before the campaign has even started. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) have said in this debate, party manifestos will not even have been published in that week. If the citizens of the country are going to have an opportunity to question, and listen to, party leaders, that should happen after manifestos have been published.

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Gentleman said, part of the Leader of the Opposition’s phrase was “any time”, but the hon. Gentleman is now saying that there is a certain time before the election that is not acceptable. How does he reconcile that with the commitment to debate any time, any place, anywhere? Why not the week commencing 23 March?

[Stephen Twigg]

Because we do not believe these are decisions to be cooked up between the party leaders. They should not be being made by the party politicians. They should be taken away from them. The broadcasters have proposed three debates, two with seven parties and one a head-to-head debate, and we have accepted those proposals. Why can the Conservative party and the Prime Minister not accept those proposals? Does the Minister want me to give way to him so he can tell us why they are so reluctant to accept a head-to-head debate?

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Stephen Twigg]

If not, I give way to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert).

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case as to why we need to have debates, and I share his characterisation of the Prime Minister as a bit too scared to want to be properly involved, but why was neither his leader nor the Prime Minister prepared to take part in debates before the European elections? They both turned down invitations to debate with the leader of my party and the leader of the UK Independence party. If the Prime Minister continues to refuse to show up, is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to debate with the Deputy Prime Minister, leader of my party, or is he too scared to have that head-to-head debate?

[Stephen Twigg]

The reality is that the two people who may become Prime Minister after this election are the leader of my party and the current Prime Minister. I very much doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister, even in his most wildly optimistic moments, is expecting to form a Liberal Democrat-led coalition or majority Government after this election.

We want a debate between Labour and the Conservatives. Two of the debates proposed by the broadcasters would include the Liberal Democrat leader and other party leaders. The broadcasters have proposed a head-to-head debate as the third of three debates and we think that that makes sense. We accept that proposal.

[Dr Huppert]

I absolutely understand why the hon. Gentleman would like to return to two-party politics, with the two parties that get a larger share of MPs than their share of the vote. I understand why that is in his interests, but is he saying that his leader is not prepared to debate with the leader of my party head to head?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that we are prepared to have a debate with not only the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party but the leaders of a number of other parties. We accept the proposals of the broadcasters. We want a head-to-head debate with the leader of the Conservative party because there are two main parties in this country that poll consistently higher than the other parties, and nobody is seriously arguing that there is a prospect of anyone other than the current Prime Minister or the leader of the Labour party being Prime Minister after 7 May. If the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) wants to intervene on me to say that there is a serious prospect of the Deputy Prime Minister moving into No. 10 on 8 May, I will give way to him one more time.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. It is very hard to tell what will happen. I understand that he would be concerned, given the performance by my leader in the three-way debates last time, but it is a great shame that his leader seems to be too scared to take part in such a head-to-head debate. Maybe we should have three head-to-head debates: one between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; one between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister; and one between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That could be a fascinating series of debates for the public.

[Stephen Twigg]

If the broadcasters come forward with such a proposal, we will of course take it seriously.

[Dr McCrea]

Bearing in mind the shambolic nature of the proposals from the BBC, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are Members in this House who have no confidence whatever in the BBC or in the other broadcasters that are arranging the debates?

[Stephen Twigg]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Belfast North when he opened the debate today, and I entirely understand the concerns that he raised. We certainly do not see the case for treating Northern Ireland any differently from Scotland or Wales. However, we strongly believe that it is for the broadcasters, not the politicians, to determine the nature of the debates. Even at this late stage, we hope that agreement can be reached.

Before I took those interventions, I was quoting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It could of course be said that parties in opposition will be bullish about these matters. Five years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he said:

“I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great”.

He agreed with us, saying:

“I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go some way to restoring the faith and trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country”.

I agree. In 2010, the then Leader of the Opposition was exasperated by any suggestion that the debates would not happen, saying:

“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean, they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia, for heaven’s sake, and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.”

Even as recently as last year, when he was no longer Leader of the Opposition but Prime Minister, he said:

“I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see”;

and only five weeks ago, he said:

“I want to go and debate”.

But when push comes to shove, the Prime Minister is running scared.

We heard from the Minister today that the Conservatives want an election debate before the election campaign and before there are any party manifestos for the party leaders to be interrogated on. The Minister also talked about Prime Minister’s questions being the forum for debate. The current Prime Minister used to argue that Prime Minister’s Question Time was not a substitute for proper television debates, but he is now attempting to use it as his way out. We know what happens at Prime Minister’s questions: the Leader of the Opposition and other MPs ask a lot of questions and the Prime Minister does not answer them. The idea that that is a debate that could be a substitute for a forum in which party manifestos could be held to account is unacceptable.

Has the Prime Minister lost his nerve, or has Lynton Crosby lost the Prime Minister’s nerve for him? This is perhaps typical of this Prime Minister. He used to hug a husky and clamour for the green vote. That has gone. He used to talk about compassionate conservatism, but that has gone. He used to talk about a new way of doing politics, including the importance of TV debates, but now he is even turning his back on that, too.

We cannot allow future Prime Ministers, of whatever party, to play games with these TV debates, and I welcome what the right hon. Member for Belfast North said about creating a set of rules. We have said that a Labour Government would put the requirement to stage a fair and impartial leaders debate on a statutory footing. The Minister has done his best to make that proposal sound incredibly Orwellian and statist, but it would simply introduce a system that would work along similar lines to the current party political broadcasts, with the Broadcasters’ Liaison Group having the power to come up with proposals for the debates.

In keeping with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, we believe that we shall have an opportunity in the next Parliament to get this right and to learn from what has happened during this Parliament in the lead-up to the election campaign. We suggest a deadline of 2017, midway through the next Parliament, for the proposed changes to be put in place. That would give everyone plenty of time to plan for the debates before the subsequent general election. This would be an important constitutional change, introducing a mechanism for the increased accountability of the Prime Minister and other party leaders. In our system, such reforms would be welcome.

[Greg Clark]

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. Will he tell me whether it would appear in the first Queen’s Speech of a Labour Government? Would it be such a priority for the running of the country that it would appear in a Labour Government’s first legislative programme?

[Stephen Twigg]

As the Minister well knows, neither he nor I can indicate what would be in either of our party’s Queen’s Speeches at any stage. We have fixed-term five-year Parliaments, so I am not going to comment on the timing. However, we welcome the opportunity to debate that important reform, and I hope that he will engage in a serious debate on it.

The Prime Minister’s politics tutor at university, Vernon Bogdanor, has welcomed our proposal, saying that

“the public are entitled to see how party leaders perform in debate, and also how the Prime Minister and alternative Prime Minister perform.”

A Prime Minister, of whatever party, should not be able to duck debates and thereby potentially cancel them for everyone. If a party representative refused to appear on BBC “Question Time” on a Thursday night, the show would go on. These debates are important for the credibility of this election. How can the Prime Minister, as leader of his party, look the British public in the eye, having been so overt in his support of debates, when he is now running away from them? Why should he have a veto on the opportunity for the public to hear from other party leaders?

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend not think that it is actually slightly worse than that? The Prime Minister is saying he will debate, but he is not saying he will debate head to head. He is trying to bamboozle people by saying he will take part in that debate. He is just saying things that are not really true.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been quoted as saying that he will meet the Prime Minister “any time, any place, anywhere”, and we have accepted the broadcasters’ proposals for three separate debates—

[Greg Clark]

What about 23 March?

[Stephen Twigg]

As the Minister confirms from a sedentary position, the Prime Minister will debate only with the other leaders, and only in a week before the election campaign, before the manifestos have been published. This Prime Minister is not prepared to debate head to head with the Leader of the Opposition after the manifestos have been published. That says a great deal about this Prime Minister and about the Conservative party’s approach to this election.

We on this side of the House are keen to make this happen, and we believe that there is still time for the Prime Minister to join us in accepting the proposal from the broadcasters. For the sake of democratic engagement, I really hope that he and his advisers will reconsider their opposition to these debates. Before the last election, the leader of the Conservative party—now the Prime Minister—said:

“I think people have the right to look at the people putting themselves forward as the next Prime Minister”

in TV debates. That could not be clearer. We agree. The public agree. Let’s get on with it.

13:59

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

To paraphrase the words of the famous comedy duo Laurel and Hardy, this is another fine mess they’ve gotten us into. I refer of course to the broadcasters.

We have heard a series of proposals, and a series of responses to those proposals, and it seems to me—and, apparently, to virtually the entire population of the United Kingdom—that we have a thoroughly unsatisfactory, unfair outcome as things stand at the moment. And who knows what tomorrow may bring? Initially, the broadcasters seemed to be looking favourably at what would have been a fair debate: the potential Prime Minister coming from the largest party in the opinion polls going head to head with the other potential Prime Minister from the second largest party. For a national debate, most people would have said, “Let the debate continue.”

The broadcasters moved from that position to include a range of smaller parties, but the threshold appeared arbitrary in that they included some parties but not others. That was particularly the case when they included the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. The defence I read after they had reached that conclusion was that Plaid Cymru and the SNP were facing the other parties in their respective jurisdictions, whereas, for example, the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland was not. What the broadcasters did not deal with was the fact that in the national debate that they are currently proposing, the UK Independence party, the Greens and the Conservative party will all be facing us in Northern Ireland, yet we will not have the opportunity to respond to issues that our competition will be putting forward in that debate. The current position is therefore totally untenable.

We are seeking a resolution for the upcoming and immediate election. It needs to be reached within the next day or two, so that the parties can debate adequately and, more importantly, so that the general public can understand what the issues are, make their minds up about those putting forward the positions and determine whether how they intend to vote is affected. In the longer term—this is why we have worded the motion in the way we have—there must be no repeat of this Horlicks. That is what it is: a complete Horlicks. I have heard no reporter from any broadcaster seek to defend it, because it is indefensible.

Beyond this election we must get some independent mechanism that will use a fair rationale for arriving at a debate. It could be a series of debates, one featuring the two potential Prime Ministers and then another debate among a series of parties, either including regional parties or excluding them. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, “We want a head to head. Then we are going to open up a regional debate, but we are only going to include some regions. We are going to include Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland.” This is indefensible and unjustifiable and it cannot be promoted, explained or rationalised by any sensible individual.

Given that my throat is about to give up, I shall call it a day.

14:03

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I rise to support the motion, but I do so with some reservation, because although I come from a part of the UK where we are well accustomed to talks about talks, I suspect that with debates about debates there is a similar relationship between public interest in the debate and the amount of time we spend debating the debate—an inversely proportional one. The timing of this debate is particularly unfortunate, as it feels slightly self-indulgent for us to be debating who is able to debate the issues instead of using parliamentary time actually to debate some issues that matter to our constituents and which would make a difference. As Northern Ireland MPs, we get a relatively limited amount of time on the Floor of the House to be able to engage in those issues where Westminster has a direct impact on our constituencies. So it is unfortunate that we end up today in something that could be viewed by the public as slightly self-indulgent: a discussion about how parties will engage with each other in the run-up to elections.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Naomi Long]

I want to move on, because I have said my piece on that.

How do the public view this? They will be weary of the debate around it. However, I did rise to support the motion; although I am not sure this is the right time or place, on this occasion I am not disagreeing with the proposal made. I believe there is an inherent unfairness in the way this whole situation has been handled. I agree with the motion because it is not about individual political parties or the amount of air time they get in the run-up to the election; it is about allowing members of the public to engage with the issues and to hear what those people who may beyond this general election have an influence on the formation of a Government—that could be any of us who stand for election to this place—would do in terms of the kind of Government who would be subsequently formed. So it is important that every party is treated fairly and equally.

Previously, two rationales were given to us as to why Northern Ireland was not included in those debates. The first was about the threshold at which parties “validly” could argue their position for being in those debates. The Liberal Democrats made a strong case on the last occasion, managing to find a way to be part of the debate, even though their prospects of providing a Prime Minister were very limited. That was the first point at which the normal rationale, about the parties that would provide a Prime Minister, started to break down.

We then moved beyond that to a basis of opinion polls and of elections of a different kind, whereby UKIP should also be included because of its performance. Previously, however, elections of a similar kind had been used as the basis for making those judgments. So the comparison between a European election, where UKIP’s policies perhaps have a particular resonance, and a general election, where wider policy may play a greater role in people making their decisions, would not have been taken into account in the same way. The inclusion of UKIP in the debate suddenly gave us another crack in the façade of the rationale as to why people were or were not included in the debate.

We moved on from that to discussing the political challenge around the debates, then demanding that the Green party ought to be included because it also ran in a national way across all of Great Britain. Of course that relates to the second logical reason for the exclusion of the Northern Ireland parties, and indeed the Scottish and Welsh parties: they did not run candidates in every part of the UK.

[Mr Donaldson]

It may have been a slip, but I am sure the hon. Lady did not mean to say that when we talk on a national basis, we talk about Great Britain—the nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long]

I think my views on that are well known. I did make the point that the Greens ran in all parts of the UK, so when I refer to the UK, that is what I am referring to.

The logical reason being given was that our Northern Ireland parties did not run candidates throughout the UK—that was the second rationale for our being excluded. However, when we remove that second rationale, no argument can be made for why a party that has one Member elected to this House in this Parliament—the Green party—ought to be in those debates, yet other parties that have eight Members, three Members and one Member are excluded. There is no logic to that. There is no rationale, and that is because this is all being done on an ad-hoc basis.

I believe that the logical reason was always there; there was a clear and concise reason and rationale for how the debates were structured, one that was clearly understood by the public, and clearly understood and respected by the political parties. However, when that was abandoned in favour of a kind of populism and things were thrown open, we opened a Pandora’s box. Wherever the line is now drawn it will feel unfair and arbitrary to some party in Parliament. Plaid Cymru could be included in the debate but the Social Democratic and Labour party excluded. Why would that be the case? It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The problem is that, having opened Pandora’s box, no one seems clear about how to close it again. Let me make it clear that I am not standing here to make a pitch to be included in the national debate, or for the SDLP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, or the SNP to be included in the debate. I say that not because I want to see any of our parties excluded, but because if the purpose of these debates is to engage the public and to make them interested in what the next Government and the leadership—particularly the Prime Minister—might look like, we will end up with a panel that is so large and unwieldy that any real debate, exchange of ideas, or engagement will be absolutely stifled.

What we need to do is return to a situation in which the panel size is reasonable and in which the rationale is clear, legal and justifiable. Given the mess, the time scale, and the challenges that could hold serious sway if they were taken up by a number of parties, my fear is that we will end up risking the situation. I say that not because of the debate we are having about the debate, but because of the unwieldiness of any subsequent panel. The number of people on the panel could outstrip the number of people who actually want to watch the debate. The biggest crime of all would be to disengage the public further. We need to stop debating the debate and to get a clear rationale, which must be fair and apply to all parts of the UK and not disadvantage those whom we represent.

14:11

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), not least because, on this occasion, I agreed with everything she said. When I say that it is important that we do not spend too much time here today debating this issue, I am not criticising the DUP for its choice of debate. Someone from the media said to me, “Is it not a bit much that Parliament is spending time debating this?” I made the point that the media are spending more time debating the matter, in between covering Jeremy Clarkson and other matters. It is a bit rich for them to criticise us for taking a bit of time in Parliament to debate the issue.

As other Members have said, the broadcasters have made a hames of the whole situation. They thought that they had to scramble together an offer, that a proposal on high from them would have to be accepted and that everyone would have to comply. Then they found themselves being played into different corners by the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who has created this situation with the broadcasters.

Last week, headlines said that Downing street had issued its final offer to the broadcasters, which did not look good. We are talking here about the office of the Prime Minister. It would have been one thing for Conservative party headquarters to say it, but it was Downing street, and the letter came from the director of communications, who is on the civil service payroll. The broadcasters should not have allowed themselves to be drawn into such a situation.

This is an unseemly mess. The way in which this debacle is playing out does no one any credit—the parties, the political process and the broadcast journalists. As the hon. Lady said, I do not think that any of us would have huffed or grumbled if a clear decision had been made that the main focus of the debate should be between the parties and the party leaders who are hoping to lead or to form a Government. That would have been clear. Even the broadcasters seem to accept that one of the debates should have that sort of bespoke focus, so no one contends with that principle. Once they started drawing in others, they took inclusion to the point of ridicule. By assembling such a large number, they will create the effect of a game show. The only problem is that the viewers will not have the joy of seeing people eliminated or have the opportunity to vote people off as the exercise progresses. Instead, people will switch off.

It is nonsense to have a studio-centred Tower of Babel presented as some sort of rational political debate. But we must remember that that idea came not just from the broadcasters, but from the Prime Minister. I never saw him as someone who was particularly concerned about the inclusion of all parties, even the small regional parties. We are seeing a whole new side to the Prime Minister. Certainly, he seems to be keener to hear people in debates than he is to hear people in this Chamber. This is a whole new dimension to him.

Why does the Prime Minister insist that we need this wide-level debate? I know that TV screens are getting bigger and wider, but they are not wide enough to take a pan shot of the debate that the broadcasters and the Prime Minister seem to want. It is all about the clear electoral strategy of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister wants to create this idea that the only alternative to a single-party Tory Government is the Leader of the Opposition and an absolute ragbag coalition of a rabble of other parties. He wants that image around the debate precisely because it suits the Conservative election message. Some Members have said that Lord Grade’s intervention was a neutral one, coming as it did from someone who has experience in so many different media outlets. However, his intervention is informed entirely by the fact that he is on side with the Prime Minister’s agenda to use these debates to create a picture that reinforces a basic Tory message in this election campaign. The intervention was entirely biased. The broadcasters have allowed themselves to be played into this situation.

I agree with the salient point in the DUP motion that, rather than having these confused and stylised arguments and rumours between the broadcasters and the politicians, all of whom will be accused of vying for their own interests and advantage, there should be some credible and neutral authority, whether it is set up specifically for the purpose or a hybrid between the Electoral Commission and Ofcom, to make judgments about how the debate should be framed. There will be other opportunities for wide diversity in debates. Many of us—even those who were not in Scotland—were absolutely transfixed and excited by the referendum debates in Scotland. Those debates took many forms, the most powerful of which were not necessarily those that included the party leaders. Some had strong inputs from studio audiences, which included young people. Just as there was a diversity in the type and range of debate in Scotland, so too should there be here. The broadcasters and the Prime Minister should not pretend that the only way of including the small parties is in the big head-to-head debates. That is why our party is not joining the queue to say, “Oh, no, it has to be us, too. If you are going to have Plaid Cymru, you must include us.”

On the point about which other parties to include, perhaps the broadcasters should have come up with some rationale around the number of candidates who were standing. Perhaps they would have been able to draw the line in that way. If parties are putting up candidates right across the UK and backing them up with a campaign effort, perhaps some regard should be given to that, as well as to factors such as opinion polls and seats in Parliament, when considering who is eligible to take part in the debate. We were told at the time of the recent by-elections that the results could change who would have to be in a TV debate. I found it hard to believe that a single by-election result could have that effect, but apparently that was what was understood in media circles. Other rationales could credibly be used to frame a debate sensibly, and a range of wider broadcast opportunities could be used to allow fair access for parties of all scales.

There are parties in Northern Ireland saying that, because of their size and standing in Northern Ireland, they should be included in just the same way as parties standing in Wales and Scotland, but some of them will not even be standing in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, because there will probably be electoral pacts and other factors. It is a bit much for parties that might not even stand in all Northern Ireland constituencies to insist on equal rights in a TV debate with parties that are hoping to form the next Government.

The fact that we have all been sucked into these arguments goes back to the false calls that were initially made by the broadcasters. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was right to criticise the broadcasters for scrambling their original proposals, and for doing so without sounding out parties or journalists, even those available to them within their own organisations. That is what created the problem. We have to find a more sensible way of doing this. Let us be clear that politics also lies behind the debacle we now have, because that debacle suits one party and one party leader, and we should not pretend otherwise.

14:21

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

I was amused by the comment made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the need for wide-screen TVs if all parties take part in the debates. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said from a sedentary position that it would be a bit like the game show “Take Me Out”. I am not sure that I would want to take part if Sinn Fein was involved, because “take me out” might have slightly different connotations. Perhaps “Blankety Blank” would be a more appropriate name, given that Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats in this House. That is a serious point that it is worth making in this debate.

In Northern Ireland we have traditionally had debates with the local political parties that participate in elections, and that has worked reasonably well. I do not think that the DUP would have raised this matter today had it not been for the proposal, particularly from the BBC, to include parties that contest seats only in certain regions of the United Kingdom—the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. An important principle was breached: that the main debate was about the national scene. I think that there is a lot to be said for the idea that the debate should be between the two leaders who are most likely to be Prime Minister and to lead the next Government of the United Kingdom.

If that debate is extended, especially to include parties that contest seats only in certain regions, then there is no valid reason to exclude Northern Ireland. If that occurs, the question, as others have asked, is this: why, then, would only one party from Northern Ireland be included? If we look at the political parties represented in this House, we see that the Democratic Unionist party is the fourth party in Parliament, and four of the parties that it is now proposed should take part in the national debate have fewer seats in this House than the Democratic Unionist party. That puts us in a unique position with regard to the national issue.

My second point is that everyone out there who is commenting on the likely outcome of the general election—including, most recently, Lord Mandelson—is saying that a hung Parliament is inevitable. Therefore, with regard to the complexities of the next Parliament and the question of who will form the next Government, there is a strong possibility that the Democratic Unionist party will be a factor in determining who forms the next Government. There is no prospect of Sinn Fein being a factor, since its Members do not take their seats. Therefore, their participation in debates at the national level is, frankly, irrelevant. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the SDLP, but I do not think that it will play a major role in determining who forms the next Government, since it is already aligned to one of the parties that could form the next Government.

Therefore, with regard to the national debate and the public interest, it could reasonably be argued that the Democratic Unionist party is the only party from Northern Ireland whose policies would be of interest to voters from other parts of the United Kingdom, since they might have a bearing on who forms the next Government.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point about Sinn Fein, because one of the broadcasters’ arguments for including the SNP and Plaid Cymru was that they will compete against parties that could form the next Government and so could play a role in the formation of the next Government. However, they also say that if they go to Northern Ireland, they will have to include all the parties, especially Sinn Fein, because they get votes and have seats. The reality is that there is absolutely no point in listeners hearing from Sinn Fein Members because they do not come to Parliament, they will not be voting in Parliament and they have no role to play in Parliament, and that is of their own volition. It is clearly a nonsense argument that the broadcasters are using.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have been very generous, but we must try to have shorter interventions.

[Mr Donaldson]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is interesting, is it not, that Sinn Fein declares itself to be the strong supporter of Irish freedom and independence yet wants to take part in a national debate that is relevant to the United Kingdom. The very same party is acting in a way that suggests it wants to hand back all the powers we have in our devolved Assembly and Executive to the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it really raises a question about their credentials as Irish republicans that they are in favour of returning to direct rule, rather than honouring the agreements that have been reached and are moving forward—but I digress.

The hon. Member for Belfast East said that we should not really be debating this issue because there are more important matters to debate. I simply point out that on every opportunity that the Democratic Unionist party has had, as the fourth party in this Parliament, to discuss matters—this is relevant to the wider issue—we have sought to focus not on issues that are relevant only to Northern Ireland, but on issues that are relevant on the national stage, and they are issues that are important to the people we represent. This afternoon we will debate another motion that is of national significance as well as of importance to our constituents in Northern Ireland.

We are all concerned about declining participation in the democratic process in the United Kingdom, with voter turnouts and membership of political parties going down, so this is an important issue. In fact, I would argue that few issues are more important than encouraging people to respect and participate in the democratic process, because that is about democracy itself. Indeed, one of the two gentlemen who may well be the next Prime Minister seemed to think the question of TV debates important enough to devote the entire exchange in Prime Minister’s questions to it.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all this could create a certain ennui or weariness among those in the wider body politic, who are interested in what we, Parliament and Government could do for them in delivering on the issues that matter for them rather than wider issues about debates and who should take part in them? That is what people are saying to me.

[Mr Donaldson]

I must say that most of my constituents do not mention the TV debates to me. Nevertheless, I repeat the important point that someone mentioned earlier: the TV debates had a massive audience the last time round. We should all welcome that, and it is why it is important that we get this right.

The formula that we should be looking at, at the national level, is a debate involving the two leaders who are most likely to be the Head of the next Government of the United Kingdom. We in Northern Ireland are happy to participate in debates among the political parties at the regional level, but we are not happy with being excluded on the basis that Northern Ireland is the only region not to be represented in the proposals.

[Dr McCrea]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be wrong for elected representatives in this House to fail to speak up for Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that they ought to be heard across the United Kingdom if the Democratic Unionist party were indeed able to assist any Government in governing the United Kingdom in future?

[Mr Donaldson]

I agree. I have great respect for the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but I have to say that my father, who is one of her constituents, would be very upset if he lost out on the opportunity to see these debates in the general election, because he is an avid watcher of political affairs.

I hope that these matters can be resolved. Our motion is an attempt to push the issue forward and to get some common sense applied. I hope that common sense will be the outcome. The outcome that must not occur is one that excludes Northern Ireland but includes other regions where political parties are represented that do not participate or put up candidates in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be deeply unfair if Northern Ireland were the only region that was excluded on that basis.

14:32

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I emphasise at the outset points that other hon. Members have made. We brought this debate forward not because we have some selfish party political interest, but because we believe that if there are to be debates about the shape of future government, and the input that parties will have, or potentially have, into future government, including in Northern Ireland, then the public should have the widest possible information about who will be involved and the ideas that will be put forward.

We recognise that even in a hung Parliament our role may be quite marginal, so we would have been quite happy for the parties that are most likely to form the Government of the United Kingdom to have their leaders debating the issues before the general public. We are not as arrogant as the BBC or some of the other broadcasters. We do not believe that we have some God-given right to be included just because we happen to have Members in the House of Commons or are putting people forward to be Members. However, once the rules were manipulated, changed, twisted and warped to include some smaller parties, but not all, we had a right to make the demands that we have made to the BBC and the other broadcasters that are included in this motion.

I do not believe that the debate about the debates has done politics any good at all. Despite what has been said, I do not see this as a problem that was made by politicians, although some people would happily point the finger at the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. The problem was primarily caused by the broadcasters. We probably all have our own interpretations of what their motives were. Was it simply that they believed that they could imperiously wave their fingers at the politicians of this country and tell them, “We will give you broadcasting time. Here are the conditions on which you will have it, and if you do not obey the rules that we have set down, we will punish you”? Another interpretation is that they simply wanted to sex up the broadcasts, and saw that perhaps a good head-to-head row between the Prime Minister and the leader of UKIP would do the job. Alternatively, given the left-wing bias of the BBC—I have sympathy with the views of some Government Members on this—perhaps it mainly wanted someone present who would take on the Prime Minister. I have a great belief in the left-wing bias of the BBC. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, were you to give me time—I know that you will not, because I would be diverging from the motion—I could wax eloquent on that matter for a long time, but I will not do so.

[Ian Paisley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the left-leaning bias of the BBC with regard to these broadcasts again opens up the debate that should properly take place about whether we should be paying licence fees for such an organisation to exist?

[Sammy Wilson]

I will desist from getting into a discussion about licence fees, the payment of licence fees, the non-payment of licence fees, the compulsory payment of licence fees, or whatever. That is another favourite topic of mine, but it is not quite relevant to the motion before us.

Whatever the reason for it, we now have an unbecoming shambles that is not doing politics any good. Despite what is said about how rubbishy people think politicians are, I think there is a general desire among the public to hear debates on the issues. However, those debates have to be in a fair and properly structured format. The unbecoming shambles that we now have brings politics in this country further into disrepute.

We have put forward an unassailable case. We would prefer a much tighter arrangement for the debate, but if it is to be opened up—I add the qualifications put forward by Members from the Alliance party and the SDLP, and ourselves—there are absolutely no grounds for saying that the fourth largest party in this House, which stands only in a regional capacity but is no different in that regard from Plaid Cymru or the SNP, and has more members than many of the smaller parties that will be included, and could have the same influence as all those parties, should be excluded. That is especially the case because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, it is not as though we operate in some kind of bubble in Northern Ireland and will not be competing against some of the parties that are represented on these Benches and that will be participating in the debates.

I will have a UKIP opponent and perhaps even have a Conservative opponent and, by proxy, I will have opposition from Labour in the form of the SDLP and from the Liberal Democrats in the form of the Alliance party. When I say “opposition” from competitors I mean it in the loosest possible sense of the word, because such opponents will be somewhere down at the bottom of the pile when it comes to counting the votes. I will also have an opponent from the Greens, but given the fact that the Greens in Northern Ireland want to prevent the good constituents of East Antrim from eating bacon butties on a Monday in order to save the planet or from seeing adverts for flying to the Mediterranean because they will put too much CO₂ into the air—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we will both agree that this is not about debates between the party leaders, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to get back to that.

[Sammy Wilson]

The point I am making—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Never mind what point you are making. The point is that you are offbeat. Get back to the debates.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am trying to explain my point, Mr Deputy Speaker. My point is that the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Greens in the debates will not make any difference because their policies are so outlandish that nobody will vote for them anyway. However, they have been included, and given that they are a small party and much smaller than our party, our argument is that we ought to be included as well.

The problem, which has of course been created by the broadcasters, is that if we end up with seven parties, as we now have, or eight or nine parties, we will not have a debate—or even a beauty contest given some of the people involved. We will have a shambles or, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, a Tower of Babel—utter confusion—with points not being properly debated.

The problem created by the broadcasters is one reason why we believe that there should be some attempt, even at this late stage, to resolve the issue either by accepting the inclusion of all parties with a sizeable representation and candidates standing nationally and regionally, or by finding some way to narrow the number down. We cannot have the worst of all worlds, which is including some and excluding the others.

Another part of the motion that has generated a fair range of comment is about how we proceed. The proposal for an independent body to make an adjudication may well come too late for this election, but that is not to say that it should not be considered for future elections; otherwise this shambles might be repeated. On the one hand, there are the politicians who have their agendas, but on the other hand, the broadcasters have their own agendas, as we now know. The broadcasters are no less guilty in all this than those that some of the public may see as self-seeking politicians. We therefore believe in the creation of an independent body.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), asked how independent the body should be and how it could be made independent. Such an idea has already been rejected in the House of Lords, but only because greater faith was placed in the broadcasters than should ever have been placed in them. Now we have seen that they are incapable of the degree of independence and objectivity required to ensure fair, reasonable and rational debate on the issues, we must look again at having an independent body. It should be no more difficult to create an independent body to oversee broadcasts during elections than to have an independent body for any other job for which such a body is required. The Minister’s point about how we ensure the body’s independence should not cause us a great deal of concern.

Another issue that hon. Members have raised is whether whatever is decided should be mandatory, as the Labour party wants, or voluntary. Our view is that the job of the independent body should be to set the rules. If the rules are set fairly, there will be no need for coercion. People will be able to sign up to the conditions attached to the rules, so there should not be any unseemly rows. At the end of the day, I must say that I am not attracted to making participation mandatory. Even once the rules have been set and the parties have agreed to them, there should still be a right and an opportunity for the parties—they will have to explain the circumstances to the electorate—to decide whether to participate.

[Stephen Twigg]

Let me make it clear that I entirely share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. We are suggesting not that participation in the debates should be mandatory, but that it should be mandatory for the debates to be held.

[Sammy Wilson]

We agree that, once we have a framework for the debates, people should have the right to decide whether to participate in them.

The final issue is whether the debates should be held before or during the election campaign. I do not like the argument that if the manifestos have not been published, there could not be a debate. What do debates consist of? Very often, they are as much about looking back as about looking forward. They are about looking at the parties’ record in the past, because that is sometimes a far better way of judging what they will do in the future than what might be in their manifestos, given the cynicism of much of the electorate about manifesto commitments. We only have to look at the Liberal Democrats to think of how they made a major commitment, but moved away from it very quickly. A debate on the basis of manifestos may not be all that productive.

I can see the argument for having a debate in the period up to an election without its sucking the lifeblood out of the election campaign. As the hon. Member for Foyle pointed out, there are many formats for debating the issues. He mentioned the variety of formats used during the Scottish referendum campaign. Whether the broadcasts are straightforward head-to-heads between the two main protagonists, panel discussions, debates involving audience participation or a range of other things, they can be done in many ways, so we are not all that worried about their timing.

I must say that I can see the Prime Minister’s point that a shambolic debate, especially with seven different parties all fighting and squabbling for a bit of time in a one-and-a-half hour debate, might not be all that edifying in an election campaign and might distract from many of the other good ways in which parties and individual candidates seek to communicate with the electorate.

One issue that the independent commission must sort out—the hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and for Foyle made this point—is the basis on which we make judgments about the parties, which is where this debate started. Should a television debate include all parties, those that reach a certain threshold of Members of the House, or those putting forward a certain number of candidates? Do those candidates have to stand nationally? Will the debates be based on the results of the last Westminster elections or the latest opinion polls? If we are to have a fair framework those issues must be considered by an independent body.

In conclusion, we cannot afford in this election to have the same shambles as we experienced in the previous one: it is not becoming to democracy or to the parties involved, and it is distracting. I suspect that the debate about the debate will be more interesting than the debate itself, especially if we end up with a seven-party squabble on TV, or a debate where the main issue is, “Why is the Prime Minister not sitting there and why is there an empty chair?”, or whatever.

Sometimes there are things that we as politicians can be blamed for, but I do not believe that the finger of blame in this instance can be primarily pointed at us. It is unfair that all the attention is directed on the Prime Minister, because he had a reasonable case for saying that the BBC was setting rules that placed him at an unfair advantage, so why should he co-operate in its game. If we are to avoid that in future, some of the proposals in this motion should be adhered to, followed through and worked on, so that even if we do not sort it out this time, we can sort it out for the next election.

14:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

We have, once again, a debate about debates, and as the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), said at the outset, these things matter in a democracy. Debate and discussion is how we arrive at consensus in a democracy, and how we inform the electorate about our respective views as parties and what we plan to do. It is important to have this debate today, although I recognise the comments by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) that in some quarters members of the public will be wondering why we have been talking about this issue for so long.

This is an important debate and it is surprising that, 60 days from the general election, the main opposition party in this House is more content talking about debates than about any other issue. What about the deficit, the fantastic employment figures, the fact that unemployment is down and wages are going up? Labour is willing to talk not about those things but about a debate—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said from a sedentary position, Labour did not initiate this debate today, but the Leader of the Opposition chose to focus on the TV debates in Prime Minister’s Question Time. He had the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister six important questions, but he focused on that debate, which is surprising.

I understand why Labour Members want the public to see more of the Leader of the Opposition before the election. I want that too. What is surprising, however, is the usual hue and cry that we have heard from the Labour party: “Let’s have legislation, legislation, legislation.” My right hon. Friend was right to ask whether, if we make debates compulsory, we will make watching them compulsory too. I dare say that Labour is staking a lot on having the Leader of the Opposition in the television debates. The understanding is that somehow after five years in this House, and four hours of debating at Prime Minister’s Question Time, an hour in the TV studios will make the British public finally see him as a future Prime Minister, but I think Labour is staking a lot on that idea.

[Stephen Twigg]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gyimah]

I have a short amount of time so I cannot take interventions.

All I am waiting for from Labour is a judge-led inquiry into the debates. The crux of Labour’s argument this afternoon—I will come on to the substance of the debates in a moment—is that we need a head-to-head debate, but the moment that idea was introduced we realised some of the problems with it. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) immediately asked, “Why don’t we have a head to head between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?”

[Stephen Twigg]

rose—

[Mr Gyimah]

I will carry on with my speech. The important point, while we discuss a head to head, is to remember that we are a parliamentary democracy and do not have a presidential system. People in this country vote for a party, and the leader of the party that is able to form a Government becomes Prime Minister. For me, the emphasis on the head to head is somehow misplaced, and the discussion about how the smaller parties can be incorporated and involved in that TV debate is important and powerful.

The Democratic Unionist party has more seats than four of the parties that it is proposed to include in the seven-way debate, and more votes than one of them. That raises a question about the influence and power of broadcasters to decide who is involved in debates and who is not. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made a powerful and eloquent case, forensically analysing that issue. He spoke about the BBC’s handling of the matter, and the questions that it raises about the BBC’s impartiality. His central point was that the BBC cannot pick and choose which parties matter for the election, and he rejected the idea that any broadcaster should do that. Three years ago the Prime Minister proposed that we should hold debates and that they should be as inclusive as possible, but that was disregarded. He also said that it would be helpful for the debates not to be held in the short campaigning period, because we do not want them to be the only focus during the campaign. The broadcasters rejected that out of hand, and as a result there has been a lot of discussion that could have been avoided.

The Prime Minister did respond to the Leader of the Opposition saying that he would debate with my right hon. Friend “any time, anywhere”, but it turns out that the Leader of the Opposition meant, “any time, anywhere, but not the week commencing the 23rd”.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Let me be absolutely clear: it is any time, any place, anywhere. Only two people can seriously be Prime Minister after the election, so we want that head-to-head debate. Why is the Prime Minister running scared of it?

[Mr Gyimah]

A key point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech today was that voter turnout is low and we need to engage and involve the public. One of the biggest features of British politics in this Parliament is the support going to the smaller parties. Why should not we have a debate that includes those smaller parties? That was the Prime Minister’s focus.

A point was also made about the timing of the debate and holding it before the short campaigning period. I understand the concern that if so many parties are involved in the debate, as the hon. Member for Belfast East said, it might resemble the television programme “Take Me Out”, but at least we would be giving the public a say and hearing from smaller parties, who would be put on the spot about the policies they are advocating. I believe that is as important as focusing on the policies of the main parties.

I want to make a quick point on the BBC and impartiality, and on consultation with the DUP. There is no specific requirement for the BBC to consult, but it would be for the BBC Trust to judge whether, by not consulting, editorial impartiality guidelines had been breached. It is worth putting that clearly on the record.

The DUP made a clear call. It wants an independent body to be in charge. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office raised a number of questions that need to be answered. How would it be established and funded? Which debates would it produce? Whom would it invite, and how would it stand up to challenge? How would it succeed in convening the parties, and how would it secure the distribution of the debates among broadcasters? It is an interesting suggestion, but it is obviously not a matter for the Government. Those are some of the questions that rightly need to be answered.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about an unseemly mess that does not credit anyone. If the Prime Minister’s formula from three years ago had been followed, that unseemly mess could have been avoided. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no clear rationale for what the broadcasters advocate in terms of which parties are included and which are not.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said that voter turnout makes the debates important. He made a powerful point that it is deeply unfair if Northern Ireland is excluded on that basis.

I always enjoy listening to the mellifluous tone of the oratory of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He dwelt on the inconsistency of the approach to the different parties and said that the problem was caused by the broadcasters. I was surprised by his suggestion of the Green party’s campaigning approach in East Antrim—it is stopping people eating bacon butties to save the planet. I believe that was a caricature of Green party policy rather than its actual policy.

The hon. Gentleman made an insightful comment that elections are as much about track record as about what the party promises for the future. For most voters, track record gives credibility to what a party promises for the future. For that reason, it is possible to have debates before manifestos are pledged. In fact, we know where a lot of the main parties stand on some of the big issues, such as the deficit and the economy. We have debated those issues a number of times in the House. We can have debates before the short campaign.

This is obviously not a matter of Government policy. There have been a number of debates within today’s wide-ranging discussion. Several different party views were represented. That attests to the reasons why this is not an easy problem to address, but it was a worthwhile discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the potential value of broadcast general election debates between party leaders; notes however that neither the broadcasters nor politicians can escape the charge of self-interest in their organisation, and that they should best be left to an independent body to arrange; further notes that the broadcast debate formats proposed for 2015 have been inconsistently and incompetently formulated so far; further notes that there exists a substantial danger as a result that these debates will now not happen; and believes that the point of any debates which do happen must be to benefit those who watch them, not those who appear in them or broadcast them.

Cross-border Crime

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

15:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the continued prevalence of serious organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland on a cross-border basis in relation to fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and the counterfeiting of consumer goods; recognises that this has had a significant and detrimental impact on HM Treasury; regrets the lack of prosecutions in relation to this activity; and calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HM Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI so that this criminal activity can be eradicated.

It is a great pleasure to move the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

According to the Home Secretary, organised crime costs the UK at least £24 billion a year. In Northern Ireland, police assessments indicate that there are more than 140 organised criminal gangs in operation. We are all acutely aware of the audacious attempts by such gangs to carry out all sorts of crimes, including the laundering and selling of illegal fuel, and the counterfeiting of consumer goods.

Although the criminals respect neither borders nor victims in their illegal pursuits, Northern Ireland is unique within the United Kingdom in that it shares a land border with a foreign country. The findings of a recent British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly report show that law enforcement agencies in both jurisdictions work together; that illicit trade and smuggling are some of the largest challenges faced by cross-border agencies; and that the number of border area fuel laundering plants, and the number of filling stations selling illicit fuel, is alarming. The report called for a cross-border approach with a permanent multi-agency taskforce to deal with illegal activity and to tackle tobacco fraud, and for legal changes to prevent filling stations prosecuted in connection with illegal fuel from reopening within months of conviction.

I echo the comments made by Fine Gael TD Patrick O’Donovan when he spoke in a debate at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly on the report. He said that authorities were turning a blind eye to illegal activity in the border area, motivated by an “appeasement” process of replacing the cowardly butchery wing of the IRA with the racketeering wing, in what has effectively been considered a bandit area, which has helped to support claims that the Real IRA is the ninth richest terror group in the world.

Fuel laundering is currently worth around £400 million a year in lost tax revenues in Great Britain, and £80 million in Northern Ireland, where the problem is particularly acute. According to Mr Pat Curtis, a senior official at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, organised crime gangs have established sophisticated laundering plants to remove the giveaway dye, sourcing chemicals from China and using the internet to improve their techniques.

Figures for 2012-13 indicate that the illicit market is worth 13% of the total. HMRC is responsible for investigating fuel fraud, including fuel laundering—as part of that work, it cleans any sites it uncovers—but in 2012 the Northern Ireland Environment Agency commenced a fly-tipping pilot in partnership with local councils. Between June 2012 and January 2015, Antrim borough council, which is in my constituency, had one fly-tipping incident. The cost incurred by NIEA was £346.76. In the same period and in stark contrast, Armagh city and district council had 114 incidents at a cost of £266,743.65, and Newry and Mourne district council had 198 incidents at a cost of £585,333.94. Those figures are startling.

In 2013-14, some 38 fuel laundering plants were dismantled in Northern Ireland compared with 13 plants in 2003-04. Although a fuel laundering plant is detected every 10 days in Northern Ireland, and despite the fact that this criminality is filling terrorists’ coffers and bankrolling the IRA and Real IRA, no one has been jailed for fuel fraud since 2002. Such statistics are preposterous, and the Northern Ireland public have a right to know whether that is the price of keeping republicans bought off for the sake of the peace process, or whether fuel launderers are tipped off ahead of raids.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

One challenge is that the nature of the fuel laundering process means that people do not need to be present. Part of the difficulty is catching the right evidence. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice is trying to ensure that evasion of the duty becomes a criminal offence so that people can be put in jail for it. That is much easier to prosecute.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful comment. I trust that that will be a warning to those participating in that illegal activity.

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

I am sure my hon. Friend will mention this, but does he recognise that the criminality extends to drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and many other things in addition to fuel laundering? Does he also recognise that it is not the sole preserve of republican paramilitary organisations, but that some of the loyalist paramilitary organisations have moved into organised crime, and are corrupting our young people in many communities in Northern Ireland?

[Dr McCrea]

I concur. This is not an issue for just one community. However, there is an area of the Province along the border that lends itself greatly to cross-border crime, and republicans are up to their neck in that.

There is a query about whether fuel launderers are tipped off ahead of raids. After the 2013 major cross-border police raid on Thomas “Slab” Murphy as part of Operation Loft, the authorities at the time believed that the IRA chief of staff and his associates had been tipped off just hours before, as salvaged from the embers were the burnt remains of laptops, documents and computer discs. The status quo approach to tackling fuel smuggling and laundering is untenable. When the operators of filling stations are successfully prosecuted—this is not really happening at the moment—for selling illegal, laundered fuel, provision should be made in legislation to ensure that these outlets cannot simply be reopened again after a few weeks, as happens at the moment. The community is sickened by this.

The challenges we face are grave. We must take them head on and the Government ought to take them head on. These fraudsters must be stopped and the criminals must be put behind bars. However, a number of questions must be asked regarding Government proposals that are supposed to tackle this problem. Why are the Government continuing to designate the Dow fuel marker in legislation, when they knew a year ago that it was not fit for purpose? Why do the Government not support their own British science company, when its fuel markers are the only IMS-proven—invitation to make submissions—indelible markers recommended? Why did Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs director, Mike Norgrove, give evidence to the 2012 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry that he would travel anywhere in the world to find a solution for fuel fraud, when he personally turned down an invitation a year earlier by the same British science company that saved the Brazilian Government billions of US dollars and reduced fuel fraud to less than 1% by 2012? Why would any Government allow billion-pound fraud to continue, when a British science forensic solution already exists? Even more troubling to me, however, is that I am told that a Treasury Minister wrote to the NIAC Chairman asking him to keep the Dow launderability confidential. We must do all within our power to stop illegally traded fuel raking in massive profits for the criminal gangs mentioned today.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the loss of revenue to the Exchequer and the financing of criminal gangs, immense problems are being caused to the environment as a result of toxic chemicals being poured into water courses?

[Dr McCrea]

Concern for the environment was also mentioned by a Minister of the Irish Republic recently. The House should be taking this matter very seriously, because damage is being done and we cannot turn a blind eye. The concern that many of us have is that the Government could do more. I cannot understand why those involved in this activity have not been brought before the courts. That is totally unacceptable. The last time anyone was brought before the courts was 2002, even though there are those who are known to have committed this crime.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think the problem might be that HMRC has the lead duty to investigate fuel laundering? Perhaps, given that this involves serious organised crimes, the Police Service of Northern Ireland ought to have lead responsibility in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it would be more effective at bringing prosecutions.

[Dr McCrea]

I believe there are many agencies—when I am winding up I shall draw attention to this—that could work together to resolve this situation. I also accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said. We must turn our attention to the cross-border drugs and alcohol problem.

I turn now to another serious organised criminal cross-border activity: the counterfeiting of consumer goods. Although smokers have been warned of the serious health threats posed by illicit tobacco, the current price of duty-paid tobacco makes cheaper tobacco more readily available to the young and the vulnerable. For example, a notorious black market cigarette brand, Jin Ling, which is known to contain asbestos, was recently found on sale in Belfast. Smuggling black market cigarettes is extremely lucrative for organised gangs, which can make huge profits and which cost the UK £2 billion a year in lost taxes.

Last month, almost 1 tonne of raw leaf tobacco and 10,000 suspected illicit cigarettes were seized in raids by customs officers at a farm in south Armagh. HMRC said they were worth an estimated £236,000 in lost duty and taxes. In separate searches on the same day, 10,000 illegal cigarettes were recovered. A number of private and business addresses in County Down were inspected. A vehicle and the cigarettes were removed, worth an estimated £2,800 in lost duty and taxes. It is truly remarkable that no arrests have yet been made in relation to either operation. The question we have to ask is: why?

It is believed by many in the Province that the authorities are turning a blind eye, because this is a way to keep some paramilitary groupings sweet. Those groupings are able to fill the coffers of their organisations and even stand in elections against those who seek to do things in a legal and proper fashion. Although earlier this month five people from County Tyrone and County Down were arrested as part of an investigation into a suspected tobacco fraud worth £110 million, the situation highlights Northern Ireland as an attractive region for international crime gangs owing to the inertia in past months of parties failing to support the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. It is through these statistics that we are now clearly seeing the out-workings of not having the NCA in operation over the past year-and-a-half. It is no accident that these quantities of illegal substances are being smuggled across the border into Northern Ireland. These gangs know only too well that at present if the gang leaders are caught, some of their assets cannot be taken from them. For the past 18 months, we have been a soft touch for smugglers and criminal gangs. Although the NCA is now expected to be operational in Northern Ireland by May, it is largely a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Nothing surprises us about the intransigence of Sinn Fein and their hostility to the introduction of the NCA. They have a vested interest in seeking to hinder investigations into the skulduggery of their republican mates. However, others have dithered in their support for the NCA and have denied the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue that could have ultimately benefited the people of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive. The difficulties of policing the area along the border are well documented. As recently as last month, a south Armagh man was injured in an explosion while taking down a poster, put up by republican criminal gangs, which claimed that a second individual was a security forces informer or “tout”. However, while it is clear that there are tensions within republicanism, there remains a prevalence of fear in the community about co-operating with the police to bring those behind such threats and attacks to justice.

In conclusion, the motion calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HMRC, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI in combining their investigative prowess to eradicate the scourge of criminal activity from our society.

15:19

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

I am very grateful for this timely debate. The motion, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and his DUP colleagues, is a good one and we support it. I am conscious that many in this House have given a great deal of attention over the years to the various issues under discussion. For example, I am happy to acknowledge the work of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its 2012 report on fuel laundering and smuggling. I also pay tribute to the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, whose committee report, “Cross-border Police Cooperation and Illicit Trade”, which was published last month, the Government are studying closely. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on presenting his remarks in typically robust fashion. I will try to address the points he has raised as far as I can.

The motion lists a schedule of serious criminal activity, but before I address each of them in turn I want to put on the record the fact that crime rates overall in Northern Ireland are low and that Northern Ireland is a safe place to be. I say that because it is important to pay tribute to the various agencies that operate in Northern Ireland for the work they do in ensuring that safety, and to give a message to those who are looking at Northern Ireland as a good place to invest and a good place to be. Many of us grew up in the 1970s and ’80s and, although we did not live in Northern Ireland, every night we saw images on our television screens that portrayed a very different Northern Ireland. That is, mercifully, a thing of the past and, in order to foster the economic security that goes hand in hand with security, we need to give the right message to those who may be seeking to invest in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels as strongly as I do about that.

The DUP is right, however, to bring the issues under discussion to the attention of the House. Northern Ireland has particular issues regarding criminality. It is a very particular place and the challenges are peculiar to Northern Ireland, and we cannot ignore them. We owe it to people in Northern Ireland to address them to the best of our ability.

The hon. Gentleman effectively described the situation of fuel laundering, which is a clear and present danger that is particular to Northern Ireland, given that it has the United Kingdom’s only land border. Fuel laundering and fuel smuggling come at a great cost to the Exchequer, honest businesses and the environment. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the possible cost to security. The Government take the problem of oils fraud and crime very seriously indeed. The hon. Gentleman should be assured of that and I hope to be able to give him some examples of the efforts we have made to drive it down. Moreover, with the assistance of the agency to which he referred, I hope we will have further successes in the months and years ahead.

Fuel duty plays an important role in a range of Government objectives—social, environmental and fiscal. Fuel duty is also the fifth largest revenue stream for the Government at around £27 billion a year. Clearly, we cannot ignore it. The rates of fuel duty for all of the UK are set by the Chancellor, taking a wide range of factors into consideration. To support motorists and businesses, the Government cut fuel duty in March 2011 and have cancelled all subsequent planned increases until the end of the Parliament, a point I touched on during Northern Ireland questions earlier today.

The Government have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle fuel fraud and crime. The oils anti-fraud strategy was originally launched in 2002, as the hon. Gentleman has said, and has driven down the estimated illicit market considerably in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the latest tax gap figures published by HMRC indicate that the estimated illicit market share for diesel for Northern Ireland has fallen from 26% to 13%. By any measure, that is quite an achievement. The strategy was aimed at making it much harder for fraudsters to obtain rebated fuels, and to track and analyse the supplies of them, including a requirement for all dealers to register and submit returns. The registered dealers in controlled oil scheme has been a key weapon in our fight back against fuel fraud.

In Northern Ireland, the Government have close and productive co-operation with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the authorities in the Republic. Co-operation and intelligence sharing through the Organised Crime Task Force and the cross-border fuel fraud enforcement group has been invaluable in applying multi-agency pressure to tackle oils fraud, including fuel smuggling and laundering.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On combating fuel fraud, will the Minister confirm that the new fuel marker that is about to be introduced in Northern Ireland has no roadside test capability whatsoever and that, therefore, the Government are about to put in a marker that cannot be tested on our roadsides?

[Dr Murrison]

The road marker has been a long time in the making. It has been trialled both in the UK and in the Republic and both countries are happy with it. I am assured that it will be robust and that it is extremely difficult to remove.

[Ian Paisley]

I will have an argument with the Minister about its capability in a moment, but I am asking a specific question about roadside testing. We cannot combat crime if we are not able to stop someone who has the fuel and test it at the roadside. One of the requirements of the IMS test was to have roadside capability, so will the Minister confirm that the Dow marker has no roadside capability?

[Dr Murrison]

What I can confirm is that the marker is capable of being discovered; otherwise, frankly, there would be no point in having it, would there? What would be the point of going to the expense of putting in a marker if it was not possible for criminal justice agencies to determine whether the material was illicit or not? [Interruption.] Perhaps I will be able to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks later, but if I cannot deal with them satisfactorily perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who will be in the hot seat shortly, will be able to shed some further light to his satisfaction.

In the financial year 2013-2014 alone, HMRC dismantled 38 laundering plants, closed 79 huckster sites and seized more than 500,000 litres of illicit fuel in Northern Ireland. I accept that the hon. Member for South Antrim is frustrated by the failure to eradicate this particular form of criminality, but that is quite an achievement and it represents considerable downward pressure on organised crime in Northern Ireland. Although we are all impatient for more, we sometimes have to celebrate successes as well as take note of failures.

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

The Minister refers to progress, but what about the issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) about the lack of prosecutions and of people being put through the courts and convicted? A lot of people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, anyone watching the debate, would find it incomprehensible given the scale of the illegal activity that so few people are brought before the courts.

[Dr Murrison]

There have been prosecutions and perhaps I can enlighten the right hon. Gentleman about them later in my speech. Clearly, we all want to see prosecutions for criminal activity and the hon. Member for South Antrim rightly highlighted the introduction of the NCA into Northern Ireland, which everybody in this House would welcome, I hope. We are doing that to drive down further organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland and to get the convictions that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Dr McCrea]

Does the Minister not realise that the community finds it absolutely abhorrent that filling stations that sell illegal fuel are not only not prosecuted but open the following week to sell fuel again? In many cases, the community has seen such filling stations closed down on a number of occasions without any court case following.

[Dr Murrison]

I would certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration if there has been criminality without prosecution. Of course, these matters do not rest with me but when crime exists we want it to be expunged and dealt with. I would start to part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, on the suggestion that there has been some complicity or a deal done. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I can understand his suspicion, of course, but I would like to downplay some of his suggestions that in some way agencies have been allowing things to go on or have not been prosecuting or pursuing cases when, of course, the law would require them to do so. That is a very serious charge and were there to be substance in it I would expect it to be reported to the appropriate authorities and investigated.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I join the Minister and others in welcoming the fact that the NCA will now have a remit in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the DUP and all those who pressed the Government and other bodies to ensure that that happened. Given that the NCA now has this much wider remit, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs has recommended in the past, will it receive any additional resources to deal with these issues?

[Dr Murrison]

Part of the difficulty, of course, has been that the PSNI has had to deal with a lot of these matters itself. The Chief Constable will say that he is well resourced, but he has been subject to considerable restraints, as have all police forces in the United Kingdom in recent years. That inevitably has an impact on what he can do. The fact that the NCA has not been able to operate at anything like its fullest extent in Northern Ireland has meant that there has been a deficit in policing in Northern Ireland. That is now, mercifully, being remedied so that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from the full entirety of policing to which they are entitled. That will clearly have resource implications, which I hope will be beneficial, for the PSNI.

On the question of concerns about the lack of custodial sentences, after running a consultation in summer 2013 the Northern Ireland Department of Justice implemented legislative change in December of that year allowing the referral of unduly lenient excise fraud sentences to the Court of Appeal. The consultation and the resulting measure had the Government’s full support, of course. I can report to the House that in the period 2013-14 six individuals were prosecuted for fuel fraud in Northern Ireland. I accept that that is nothing like enough, given the extent of the problem, but it gives the lie to the suggestion that there have been no prosecutions as there clearly have. However, I would share the assertion made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that there need to be more. I hope that the introduction of the NCA will play a part in that.

On the specific issue of fuel laundering—

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I will in a minute.

Hon. Members might be aware that the UK has worked closely with Ireland to identify a new fuel marker. It will come in in May and represents a significant improvement on the current fuel marker. It gives much more protection against fraud.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I think that we have exhausted this particular point, and I did say that I would come back to the hon. Gentleman. However, I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills).

[Nigel Mills]

While we are talking about the lack of prosecutions, the sentences that are given out are somewhat more lenient than we might hope for an offence of such seriousness. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem in that a lot of people perceive fuel laundering and illegal sales of tobacco to be victimless crimes whereas—this is certainly the case in Northern Ireland—they are serious organised crime offences that fund other serious activity and should be treated with that seriousness by the public, by all the authorities and by those who give out the sentences when people are caught?

[Dr Murrison]

I agree it is not a victimless crime, as is clear from the figures I have trotted out—there is the cost to the Treasury alone. All of us who rely on the largesse of the public services we enjoy are victims of this crime, so I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend. On the leniency of sentences, I will be interested to see what the Court of Appeal decides.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I think the Minister said—I stand to be corrected on the exact wording—that the Government were confident that the marker would work, but a test carried out in Bellingham with Queen’s university and others, to which HMRC had to be dragged kicking and squealing, along with the Irish Revenue, proved that the Dow marker could effectively be removed by simple distillation. We must have confidence in the marker, but this one cannot do it.

[Dr Murrison]

I am certainly not going to assert that any marker or anything added to a substance is incapable of being removed, but clearly it is perfectly possible to launder fuel at the moment—it happens all the while—and although the pattern of fuel laundering is changing, as was touched upon by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), nevertheless it remains and brings with it financial and environmental costs, and costs in terms of criminality, security and all the rest of it. I am advised that the new marker, which we will introduce in May, is an improvement on what we currently have.

[David Simpson]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Murrison]

I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not agree, and I am sorry if I cannot give him an absolute assurance that any substance we add could never be removed, but he will have to accept that it is an improvement on what is happening at the moment, which is patently inadequate.

[David Simpson]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Murrison]

Well, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks when he makes his contribution.



Mention has been made of fraud and tobacco—topical given the deferred Division at lunchtime. To be clear, our aim is to maintain the downward pressure on the illicit market in cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. HMRC’s anti-smuggling strategy is effective and has been adapted continuously to deal with changes in criminal behaviour. Since HMRC first launched its strategy to tackle tobacco smuggling, the illicit cigarette market has reduced by half and the illicit hand-rolling tobacco market by a third, which is substantial.

The motion refers to greater co-operation between the PSNI, the NCA and HMRC on combating serious criminal activity. This cuts to the heart of today’s debate and the point on which we pin so many of our hopes for the future. Extensive multi-agency cross-border co-operation is a key element of the operational response to fuel fraud. HMRC chairs a multi-agency cross-border fuel fraud group that meets quarterly and has representatives from HMRC, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, the NCA, the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and their Republic of Ireland equivalents. This group shares intelligence and information on operational activity, as well as co-ordinating joint operations. The joint UK-Irish project that identified the new fuel marker is a prime example of that co-operation, notwithstanding the remarks from hon. Gentlemen this afternoon.

I am delighted that the House has agreed legislation to extend fully the remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland. This follows the vote in its support last month in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Serious and organised crime groups do not operate in isolated pockets of each region, and nor do they respect borders or force boundaries. The PSNI estimates that there are between 140 and 160 organised crime groups active in Northern Ireland and 800 active criminals. Nearly one third of these groups are assessed as having links to international criminality, and another third are linked to criminality in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

Since it was created just over a year ago, the NCA has begun to make a real impact on the threat to the UK from serious and organised crime, but until now the fight against such offences in Northern Ireland has been inhibited. There have been a number of significant PSNI investigations that the NCA would have been better placed to lead, given that key criminals and their associated infrastructure have been based outside Northern Ireland. It has also been difficult for PSNI to access the specialist resource and capability that the NCA holds. Northern Ireland has been left at a greater risk from child sexual exploitation, cybercrime and economic crime because the specialist resources that the NCA has developed have not been available.

Civil recovery has been affected. Since June 2013, civil recovery investigations are down by more than 50% and property-freezing orders by more than 70%. This is worrying, because denying criminals the proceeds of crime is one of the most effective ways we have of disrupting their activities. However, the NCA will soon be able to deal with serious and organised criminals—no matter where they are—and I am confident that the people of Northern Ireland will now have the same protection against serious and organised crime as those in the rest of the UK. That is surely their right.

As I have said, we do not doubt the seriousness of these types of criminal activity and the harm they cause to society and security. We and devolved colleagues are, as I have outlined, working in co-operation with partners elsewhere to address these problems vigorously. There is often close co-operation with counterparts across the border, and I would say that it is increasing, but we need at all times to ensure that the fullest pressure is maintained on the perpetrators, wherever they may be, and the Government will seek to go on doing just that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. The Ayes were 367 and the Noes were 113, so the Ayes have it.

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

15:41

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

I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for bringing home both the scale and seriousness of the threat in Northern Ireland. I welcome the initiative of the Democratic Unionist party in bringing this motion before us, because the DUP is absolutely right to bring home the scale of the problem, and to argue for determined action to deal with what is a serious threat, involving effective co-ordination of all the agencies concerned within Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

The motion is right, too, to argue for vigorous enforcement of the law in circumstances where, to be frank, enforcement in the past has sometimes been lamentable. In particular, for vigorous enforcement of the law, it is necessary to make an example of the worst culprits and to go after their ill-gotten gains, sending an unmistakeable message that crime will never pay. Sadly, at the moment, it too often does, which is wrong and must be put right.

David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister who chairs the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland has said, as the Minister mentioned, that there are between 140 and 160 gangs operating in Northern Ireland. Criminal gangs in Northern Ireland are not just involved in what one might call “traditional criminal activity”, but are now turning to computer-based cybercrime and operating in rural areas. A report released last November on “Serious and Organised Crime” in Northern Ireland states that

“serious and organised crime ranks among the most serious risks of harm to the community in NI”.

It went on to say:

“Organised crime also has very significant consequences with the impact of, for example, drug dealing, robbery and fraud and other insidious forms of organised criminality. It has significant consequences for individual communities and for society as a whole. Both serious and organised crime…has a detrimental impact on public finances.”

That is absolutely right, because the consequences of serious and organised crime can include, with particular respect to the drug trade, the ruining of lives. Those who commit fraud and online crime and prey on the vulnerable may leave them bankrupt and destitute. There is also the impact on the taxpayer. The Minister mentioned the overall tax take of £27 billion from fuel duties, but too many people in Northern Ireland who are operating across the border get away with paying no duty at all.

The Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey, which measures perceptions, found that nearly two thirds of respondents believed that the problem of organised crime was widespread in Northern Ireland. Indeed, having recently reported its findings in Dublin, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly expressed alarm at the extent and scale of the fuel-laundering business along the border. On a fact-finding visit, members of the group witnessed no fewer than 12 diesel-laundering fronts in operation on the border area between south Armagh and the Republic. As a result, they made several recommendations with the aim of curbing the lucrative black market that currently exists. They urged, for instance, that

“every possible effort must be made by law enforcement authorities in their collaborative efforts to shut down these operations, despite the difficulties in policing some of these areas.”

In the context of fuel laundering and the avoidance of fuel duty, may I press the Minister further on the issue of the Dow Chemical Company? I should like to know how confident the Government are about that issue, because some serious questions have been posed to us. It was proved to HMRC and the Republic’s revenue authorities that the Dow marker was defective, in what we understand to have been a private test. Is that true? Both sides said that they would carry out a scaled-up version of the test. That has now happened, and a report is available. The report states that the Dow marker can be removed completely, and cost-effectively, in a scaled-up field test. Is that true? We are told that Ministers may not know exactly what is happening. We do not know; is that true? What does the Minister know, and what would he be prepared to tell Parliament?

Instead of opting for the immovable British marker that came top in the test but was more expensive, the Government are sticking to a flawed marker which may well not work. That cannot be right in the context of combating fuel laundering, and it also cannot be right for a good British product to be turned down in favour of an alternative that is flawed.

I have had sight of a letter to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) from the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the present Education Secretary, who was then in the Treasury, which deals with the question of whether the test is defective. In the letter, the right hon. Lady wrote that she was aware that the hon. Gentleman was focusing on the issue of the marker, and that his Committee was discussing it. She also wrote:

“I would be grateful if you could otherwise treat the contents as confidential as any information regarding theoretical weaknesses could alert fraudsters.”

Are there weaknesses, theoretical or otherwise? I think that the Government need to tell Parliament, because if we are finally and fully to combat the menace of fuel laundering, we need to be absolutely confident that what we have works.

It is clear that more needs to be done to combat such illicit activity. In fact, the report “Serious and Organised Crime: An inspection on how the Criminal Justice System deals with Serious and Organised Crime in Northern Ireland”, to which I referred earlier, recommended that

“The OCTF should develop a new jointly agreed strategy with clear outcomes focused on co-ordinated joint enforcement operations and linked to explicit underlying harm reduction strategies.”

The setting of such an objective is welcome, not least because crime groups are highly mobile and flexible, operating across national and international borders and criminal sectors. If there is a gap in our defences, including in respect of asset recovery and coverage, it affects everyone. These problems are not confined to Northern Ireland and can bleed through to Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and beyond, and vice versa. In some cases, the root cause is yet more nefarious than mere profit, because historically some of the gangs concerned have had strong links to both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups. Dissident republican groups, which continue to be a threat to the peace process and to the stability of Northern Ireland, are heavily dependent on organised crime. Members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, too, have been known to be involved in extortion, loan sharking, robbery, drugs, burglary, theft and money laundering, and the list goes on.

With reference to the powerful speech from the hon. Member for South Antrim, we are rightly concerned about the link between organised crime and dissident republican groups because that puts peace and stability in Northern Ireland at risk, but the problems of organised crime being linked to paramilitaries is not exclusive to the republican community.

I pay tribute to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, George Hamilton, for all the work that he has been doing to address these issues. However, the motion from the Democratic Unionists is right to say that we need to be more vigorous in our approach at the next stages, with strengthened and more effective co-ordination between all relevant bodies to enhance law enforcement and bring more people to justice in order to stamp out fuel and drug smuggling for criminal profit and, in some cases, terrorist ends.

On the extension of the National Crime Agency to Northern Ireland, we warmly welcome the fact that the impasse has finally been broken, the law has been changed and we will see the extension of the NCA’s coverage to Northern Ireland. It is an objective that we have supported for some time. We have encouraged parties to come together in Northern Ireland and agree that objective. It is not right that there were some who dragged their heels, but at last the remit of the NCA has been extended, which is to be welcomed. Wherever racketeering and exploitation take place, action should be taken to tackle those serious crimes.

I welcome the fact that in this place there was cross-Chamber agreement, with all parties coming together to say that the extension of the NCA to Northern Ireland was a sensible measure, not before its time. At the next stage, co-ordinated action is crucial, as the motion calls for. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about the effective resourcing of that was well made. In circumstances where the lack of prosecutions is lamentable, the enforcement of the law and—I stress this again—a much more vigorous approach are needed to pursue the ill-gotten gains of those involved in serious and organised crime. Although the extension of the NCA to Northern Ireland is a welcome step, it needs to take a much more vigorous approach to going after those who benefit from the proceeds of crime. During the passage of the recent Serious Crime Bill we sought to strengthen the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and some progress was made, which we welcome, but there is enormous room for improvement in future.

Recently I heard Keith Bristow, head of the NCA, saying that the agency had seized only £22.5 million in criminal assets in its first year, and he went on to say that more than £1.3 billion of the £1.46 billion owed by convicted criminals to the taxpayer is unlikely ever to be recovered. As with so many other issues, this is an issue where, here in Britain but also in Northern Ireland, we must be more vigorous in our approach to recovering those ill-gotten gains and starving criminals in Northern Ireland of their resources.

This is a welcome debate at a crucial moment. There is a determination across communities in Northern Ireland, as here in Britain, more seriously to tackle serious and organised crime, but it is not enough that we simply pass motions in this House or elsewhere; it is about what is done to see the law implemented. There must be effective action against that which remains a serious threat. Tackling serious and organised crime is important no matter where we turn in the UK, but it is all the more important in Northern Ireland because of the tremendous progress that has been made in terms of the peace process. It remains in some respects fragile, and there are those who challenge it, but the last thing we want is that those who challenge it, particularly republican paramilitaries, being able to benefit from serious and organised crime to fund their nefarious activities. We strongly support the motion.

15:56

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this timely debate. We have debated this subject before. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done a report on it, and it has been ongoing for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) used the word “Horlicks”—and that is exactly what this is. It is costing the Exchequer hundreds of millions of pounds. I predict that the Government will introduce this Dow marker, and it will not reduce the problem. That is my prediction, because the tests we have witnessed and those that have been carried out show that it does not work.

I will be brief as I know other Members wish to speak, but I need to put a number of questions to the Minister. Can the Minister or his officials tell us why Dow Chemical Company was not thrown out of the IMS—invitation to make submissions—tendering process for the marker under European law, when in 2013 it was fined $1.1 billion for fraud? It was fined $1.1 billion, yet it is part of the tendering process, and we are about to introduce a dye that comes from that company.

The Minister was asked a question earlier to which we did not get an answer, but perhaps his officials or the representation from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs today can provide the answer: why was this technology awarded to Dow with no roadside test when the other, British recommended company had a roadside test?

A number of years ago—maybe 10—I was asked to pay a visit to South Armagh by a political activist who lives there. He rang me and said, “David, you have raised issues of fuel smuggling. Would you like to see some of them?” I spent the day going around 15 distilleries and seeing their fuel laundering equipment—or whatever the terminology is—and got within 100 metres of Slab Murphy’s house and his laundering facilities. We moved back up the road a mile, on a hill, and the lorries were freely going in and out of Slab Murphy’s facilities, with nothing being done about it—absolutely nothing.

Right up to the present day, no one has been imprisoned for this. The Minister corrected one of my colleagues on the subject of prosecutions, but this is costing the Government and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. We spoke earlier about the budgets. There is no money in the budgets, and I understand that there are to be further cuts after the general election to try to clear the deficit. There will be issues if that is the case, because we are suffering and the amount being lost to the Revenue every year could be used to build several hospitals.

[Dr McCrea]

Is my hon. Friend talking about the same Slab Murphy whom Gerry Adams described as a decent businessman?

[David Simpson]

Yes, absolutely.

After we had seen the activity I have just described, we reported it to what was then the RUC, and several moves were made to close some of the laundering facilities. These activities are unfair to the ordinary everyday workers and businessmen in Northern Ireland who are doing their best to pay their taxes and keep their businesses going. They are completely above board, yet other individuals are profiting from their activities. That is totally wrong, and it has been going on for far too long.

Whether the Minister has been furnished with all the information or not, the information I am giving him is factual, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will certainly be able to give him a lot more when he winds up the debate. This issue needs to be got right. It has gone on for far too long and it has become a laughing stock. At the beginning of the debate, it was suggested that this arrangement might have been a pay-off for the republicans. When we were talking about the National Crime Agency earlier today, someone in the House remembered that the deal involved 2p to the pound. I would hate to think that any Government had done any kind of deal with republicans and criminals or given them 2p to the pound to keep their mouths shut. It would be a travesty if that were the case. There is something rotten about this whole process and system. There is something wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

[Dr McCrea]

This might be a laughing stock, but it is certainly no joke. This is a very serious matter. Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) say that the British-Irish grouping went out on a fact-finding mission and saw 12 of these facilities in operation? If they could see 12 of them operating on that one day, where was HMRC and where were the authorities at the time?

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. Someone was sleeping on their watch, if indeed they were watching at all.

I have another question for the Minister. Why would the Government not support their own world-leading British science company when its fuel markers are the only IMS-proven indelible markers that are recommended? I want to ask him a further question. Given that the IMS is a joint UK-Republic of Ireland process, why was a single Dow marker IMS awarded when the Government knew that they needed a minimum of two indelible markers? I have asked a series of questions. I do not expect to get the answers today, but it is important that we try to get to the bottom of this.

[Dr Murrison]

Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman with a fuller account if he wants me to. This whole debate appears to be revolving around the Dow marker. That is fine, but hon. Members need to understand that the tendering operation was free and open. The Government are bound by rules in that respect, so there was no shady deal in which a British company was disadvantaged or in which Dow was given preference. That would have been madness. The alleged laundering method does not appear to be a viable large-scale proposition. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks that a marker exists that can never be removed. The experiences in the laboratory and in the field are very different, as I think he will probably, on quiet reflection, understand.

On the other point about markers and whether we would be able to detect at the roadside whether something was illicit or not, clearly we are not going to remove the marker we already have until we are completely happy with the new one and it is proven. So the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the two will run in parallel and, thus, there will be no disadvantage. I am hopeful that the new marker will be an advantage, but certainly we will be running the two in parallel. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

[David Simpson]

Not really, but I will say something about the process. My understanding is that a year ago the Dow marker was tested and found not to work, yet a year down the road we are introducing it. I cannot understand that. If something does not work, why are we spending millions of pounds on introducing it? We are trying to get to the bottom of this and we need the proper marker introduced.

[Jack Dromey]

The Minister said he is “hopeful” that it will work, but I am not sure that will inspire confidence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Minister said that the Government were bound to accept the bid—suggesting that because it was a cheaper bid they were bound to accept it—that was not a correct reading of, among other things, European procurement rules, because ultimately what is procured has to work?

[David Simpson]

We do not necessarily have to take the cheapest option—it has to work.

[Dr Murrison]

I understand that 23 markers from 12 companies were assessed side by side, and clearly the one that worked was chosen. I hope that is helpful.

[David Simpson]

As I have said, time will tell. I think this is going to be an expensive exercise that will be proven in time to be not as effective as the Minister has been led to believe.

[Dr McCrea]

If we are introducing something, surely it must work—millions of pounds will otherwise be lost to the Exchequer. If those millions of pounds are not needed here, I assure hon. Members that they would be very welcome in the coffers of the Northern Ireland Executive, given the deficit we face. Surely this has to work and we have to be sure that it works. We are not doing this on a trial-and-error basis; we have to be sure that we have something that works.

[David Simpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he is correct about that. The matter is too serious for the marker not to work. This situation has been ongoing, and the amount of money that has been lost and wasted over the past 10 to 15 years—or longer—is just horrific. It could have done a lot to help many vulnerable people, not only in Northern Ireland, but on the mainland. We are where we are and time will tell, but I know my colleague will have a few other statistics and figures to give in his winding-up speech.

16:08

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for bringing this motion to the House today. This important issue is often overlooked because in many ways it is a hidden crime, and, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said, it is often viewed as a victimless crime. It is anything but. It is important that as well as trying to combat it through the various agencies that have a role in addressing organised crime, we communicate carefully with the public about their role in combating it and about the risk it poses to them. People often simply see cheaper goods and that is the only aspect they see of organised crime; they do not see the risks to them, the other criminality that goes with it, the danger, or the money taken from revenue that would otherwise be invested in services.

Obviously this is a complex area. Others have mentioned how difficult it has been to secure convictions, and I shall move on to discuss that. First, however, I pay tribute to the law-enforcement agencies for the work they are doing on both sides of the border. A complex collection of agencies has to deal with this complex area of crime. We have the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Garda Siochana and the National Crime Agency. We welcome the fact that we now have the additional resource of the NCA, because while we focus on one border, criminals operate across many borders, so having that national organisation involved is hugely important. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Revenue commissioners and Border Force work closely together in order to share intelligence, to disrupt those who try to perpetrate crimes and to ensure that they are eventually brought before the courts. When people are brought before the courts for participation in organised crime or for benefiting from taking goods that are clearly only available as a result of organised crime, the penalties should be a deterrent.

The impact of fuel laundering has been discussed at considerable length. The scale of the problem in Northern Ireland is undeniable. Fuel laundering is not just a cross-border issue: the uncollected revenue from fraudulent diesel in Northern Ireland was estimated by HMRC to be £80 million in 2012-13, which is 13% of the overall market share in Northern Ireland. That is a significant sum of money, especially when we compare it with the GB figure for illicit market share, which was about 2% in the same year. That gives us a clear indication of the scale of the problem, but it is not just a Northern Ireland issue, because that revenue is being denied to the UK as a whole. There is a genuine interest here in Parliament to address the issue robustly, because it is Great Britain’s schools and hospitals as well as our schools and hospitals that lose out as a result of the revenue not being collected.

The nature of fuel laundering means that sites themselves are not regularly attended, which can make it difficult to establish a clear link to the perpetrators. In Northern Ireland, we often say that everyone knows who does things, but knowing and proving are two different things when it comes to the law. Part of the strategy is to disrupt those who are involved in illegal activity, and part of it is to try to catch them. Trying to balance those two things can be very difficult. It is often hard to make that clear link to the perpetrators. It requires the seizure of records and the scene of crime work, which is complex and slow. Prosecutions in this field often do not come to court for many years after the breaking up of the illegal fuel laundering plant.

There has been an increase in the number of fuel laundering plants dismantled—the number has risen quite quickly over the past few years. There has also been an increase in the number of convictions, but the problem is that not one person has received a custodial sentence of more than 10 years, which seems ludicrous given the impact that the crime has on society.

The challenge in making arrests and obtaining the evidence is something of which the Department of Justice and my colleague David Ford are fully aware. As the Minister rightly said, the Department of Justice has introduced legislation adding the evasion of duty in relation to fuel and tobacco to the list of offences that can be referred by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the Crown court to the Court of Appeal when a sentence is considered to be unduly lenient. That does not resolve the issue entirely, but it does mean that there is a fall-back position when judges are seen not to have taken seriously enough someone who is brought before them in connection with these crimes.

[Dr McCrea]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there is another difficulty? In the instance I mentioned, laptops and documents were destroyed or burned before HMRC arrived at the scene. The concern was that there had been a tip-off.

[Naomi Long]

There is no doubt that that is a concern, and it has been a concern for some time. There is evidence that when HMRC or the PSNI has turned up on site, people have scattered and taken with them some of the critical evidence, which suggests that they were aware that those organisations were coming. Obviously, we can look at that in two ways. The first is that someone could be tipping off those launderers. The alternative is that these are complex organisations that have their own intelligence. They are observing the movements of the police, HMRC and others in the area and may well become aware that operations are moving against them. In some ways, we need the intelligence on the legal side of the fence to be much more robust than the intelligence on the other side. We should not rule out the possibility that the criminals themselves are gathering intelligence about what is happening in their neighbourhoods that helps them to evade capture.

I want to move on to the wider issue of the impact of this crime. I have referred to the fact that this is not a victimless crime, and it is worth talking now about some of the victims.

[Dr Murrison]

The point about intelligence is well made. It is important not to provide organised criminals with information if we can possibly avoid it, which recalls the letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I have not seen the letter so cannot comment on it in any detail, but I think it is probably wise not to put such a letter in the public domain if it would give succour to organised criminals. We must be careful not to display our tactics and what we do to those who might wish to make use of them in a way that is contrary to national security or good order.

[Naomi Long]

I understand the Minister’s point, but there is a wider point about how Members can raise their concerns about these issues. They have done so via correspondence and in private evidence sessions, as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done here with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and in other places. It appears not to have been taken seriously. That is the concern expressed by Members on this side of the Chamber. I certainly would not wish to put anything into the public domain that would give any succour or encouragement to any criminal; neither would I want to rely on a marker if there was evidence that it could be easily removed.

We also need to acknowledge that this is a multi-billion pound business for the people involved. Whatever marker is used, they will invest in the technology that will allow them to evade it. All that we are trying to do—all that we can ever do in these circumstances—is stay ahead in the game. We need to be realistic about the fact that when it comes to protecting the public, what we are trying to do is stay ahead of the criminals in the technology we use: they will no doubt be chasing that technology as soon as it is included as a marker.

As I said, I want to move on to the wider issue of the impact on the victims. I have already mentioned that this is not a victimless crime. I want to talk about the wider impact of fuel smuggling and fuel laundering and the wider counterfeiting of consumer goods. The motion ranges slightly wider than fuel, although fuel obviously exercises us all because of its significance. There are two separate but linked issues. The illicit and counterfeit goods themselves have an element of risk attached to them. They defraud the public. People often purchase inferior goods in the belief that they are getting the real thing, and that in itself can be extremely dangerous.

For example, when fuel is stretched rather than laundered or smuggled, it can seriously damage vehicles. Often the people who purchase it are unaware that it has been stretched. There are two classes of people in that regard: those who know that they are buying fuel at a ridiculously low price and that they are risking their vehicles; and those who stop at what looks like a reasonable petrol station and purchase fuel, only to find out subsequently that it has damaged their vehicles because it was illicit. That is a different issue, but it causes real damage to vehicles, and is the public need to be made aware of that. Frankly, it may well provide a bigger deterrent against buying laundered fuel than almost anything else we could say to motorists.

Counterfeiting also places the public at risk in other ways. Reference has already been made to the discovery that some counterfeit cigarettes contain asbestos. Counterfeit cigarettes sold in Northern Ireland in the past have been found to contain arsenic. The people who make these products do not really care what goes into them or what impact they might have on health. When people purchase counterfeit and illicit goods, they are placing themselves at considerable risk. Another example is that of products made of flammable materials being brought into the household. People might think that those products meet the regular standards, unaware that they are actually bringing materials into their home that could put their family at serious risk.

I also want to highlight the conditions of those involved in counterfeiting these goods, because often they are being held against their will in other countries, having been trafficked as slaves in order to produce them. The abuse often reaches much further than consumers and the public here in Britain; it also affects those producing the goods further afield.

As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly, if rather surprisingly, said, significant environmental damage is caused when people get involved in fuel laundering. The mess that is left around the countryside in Northern Ireland not only costs millions of pounds to clean up but will take many years to be ameliorated. It will leave an almost indelible mark on parts of our countryside, on our water supply, and on many other things, so these illicit and counterfeit goods have a significant impact on the public.

The other aspect is smuggled goods—the stuff that is brought in through smuggling routes. Those who open up those routes do so not for one particular set of goods; once they are available they will use them for anything. When they have good routes for smuggling fuel, consumer goods or cigarettes, we can be sure that they will use the same routes for smuggling people and drugs—and all human misery is there. It is about opening up routes around the world so they can smuggle goods, and they do not care whether it is people or goods being trafficked.

In all cases, whether counterfeiting and laundering or smuggled goods, people are evading their tax and Revenue payments. That brings us back to the issue of robbing public services. Those who purchase cheap cigarettes or cheap petrol and diesel, and thereby counterfeit goods, may think that it makes no difference. However, when they turn up at the hospital and face long waiting times for accident and emergency services, or cannot get a bed and are lying on a trolley for 48 hours, they should realise that those problems are due to money not going to the Revenue. We have to be honest with the public and say: “You are only stealing from yourself when you purchase goods in this way; you are not doing anything to help your own situation.” We need to try to disabuse people of the notion that this is a victimless crime.

In Northern Ireland, as several hon. Members have said, this has a more sinister element in that much of the money raised in this way is being funnelled into further illegal activity and, in particular, paramilitary activity. That should be a matter of concern to us all. We want a stable and peaceful future, but most of all we want a safe and secure future for the people we represent. We need to say to people: “When you purchase smuggled goods at the petrol pump or elsewhere, bear in mind the fact that you are putting money in the pockets of people who are quite happy to set out with murder in mind and take lives for political gain. Those are the people who benefit from this.” It is not only republicans but loyalists who are willing, through organised crime, to work in drug smuggling, drug dealing, counterfeiting, and all the other things. Criminals will work together where there is money to be made. That will be more important to them than any political objectives they may claim to have, and much more important than the lives and the security of the people in their communities.

It is important in this debate that we spend a little time considering the fact that this is not a victimless crime but a complex and difficult one that requires a multi-agency approach. I have no doubt that the agencies are pushing very hard to bring it to an end, but we need to secure public support. With that support, it will be much easier to find those who are behind these smuggling rings, hold them to account in the courts, and see them serve jail time for what they are doing. I commend the hon. Member for South Antrim for bringing this motion to the House.

16:23

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure again to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), as in the previous debate. Again, much of what I say will find agreement with what she has said, and indeed with what some other hon. Members have said. I might need to take up some other points that were directed particularly at the SDLP.

I am glad to endorse the motion and commend my colleagues—right hon. and hon. Members from the DUP—for introducing it. It is important that we now harness every single effort that we possibly can to combat organised crime in all its forms and at all its levels, conscious of all its effects and impacts.

As other hon. Members have said, some people perhaps labour under a false impression that fuel laundering or smuggling is a victimless crime, but it is not. It robs revenue from hard-pressed public services. Such scams are not against big business and the taxman, but against neighbours, the community and consumers, as well as against public services and the revenue on which those services depend. In that sense, we are all victims of these crimes.

Nobody should have any fancy notions about the rackets and scams happening in this part of the 21st century being in any way connected with little family, folklore stories of people smuggling butter during the war years. They are nothing like that, and should not be seen in such a way. This is ruthless big business, and people are in it not just for their own mercenary motives, but with lethal menace. They go about their business in that way, and people who dare to interfere with them, are suspected of cutting across them or make a tip-off about their rip-offs face very serious consequences. That is why people who are conscious of, or surmise that, things are going on, first, find that it is very difficult to say anything, and secondly, find it hard to believe that more is not being done by the authorities who know about it, seem to know about it or should know about it.

Other hon. Members have mentioned cases in which action has been taken, but such action has been taken at a time or in a way that means people have removed themselves from a property and destroyed the evidence there before the authorities arrive. That raises all sorts of questions about how such situations arise.

There is a sense of scandal in many quarters about the fact that, as we moved on from the paramilitarism in all the forms we knew during the troubles, there was basically an acceptance that it was okay for some paramilitaries to privatise themselves into various criminal activities so long as someone within their broad political community could vouch for their staying on the right side of the argument over the peace process. The authorities were told to be careful about interfering with or coming down too heavily on some of those people because it might upset the balance of opinion or of favour within their republican base. That sense of scandal is one reason why the authorities need to be seen to be acting with full intelligence and full vigour, and why people want to see the courts follow through on prosecutions brought by policing authorities and HMRC, with convictions and credible, meaningful sentences. Rightly or wrongly, there is currently the sense that in that regard something does not add up or some connection is not being made.

Hon. Members have touched on the environmental impact of some of these crimes. Just as the criminal activity—the sourcing, processing and transfer for sale of the materials—is of a cross-border nature, so too have been the hazardous environmental impacts. Materials have been dumped into watercourses and have found their way into various counties and communities, as well as into waterways contributing to the public water supplies, on both sides of the border. That shows that the people committing these crimes are not just content with acting against the authorities or big businesses, but are prepared fundamentally to risk the health and well-being of neighbours and communities.

Hon. Members have mentioned the delegated legislation Committee that met in the House this week to discuss providing for the NCA to have full powers in Northern Ireland, and that is something I welcome and that we have worked for. When the legislation was first introduced in the Chamber in 2012, we made it clear that our concern was not opposition in principle to the role of the NCA, but a requirement that the NCA should meet the Patten threshold. We set those terms and they have been reached. I acknowledge the role of the Home Secretary and her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, as well as that of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, the NCA, its director, and the PSNI leadership, in helping to tease through those issues. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said that a circumstance has been arrived at that means Northern Ireland has a scheme of accountability and insight for the work of the NCA that he would like for parts of Great Britain as well. We have arrived at something stronger.

It must also be noted that the legislation does not only give the Policing Board Patten-style oversight and accountability in terms of the work of the NCA. It does not only vest particular responsibility in the Chief Constable, or only ensure that the ombudsman’s reach on issues arising with the NCA entirely matches the reach that it has for the PSNI. It also gives the Policing Board responsibility for encouraging public co-operation and support for the work of the NCA, which is hugely important. People need to understand what the work and role of the NCA will be so that they cannot misrepresent it in some sinister way, as some may try to do in the aftermath of the debate last month in the Assembly and the legislation passing through this House. That must be clearly understood, and I am sure that Members of all parties—certainly all those represented in this House—who are on the Policing Board will want it to discharge that role of assisting in full public co-operation with the NCA, as well as all the other vital roles that will fall to the Policing Board under these arrangements.

As we have heard, this debate is not just about fuel crime because there is also the issue of counterfeit goods. Again, criminals are using significant networks to make real profit for themselves at the expense of consumers. Those consumers are not buying quality or reliable products; they are buying products that are not only substandard but can be dangerous and risky in many ways. All of a sudden the House supports the added profile coming from organisations such as the Trading Standards Institute, again to help make people aware of the situation. It is important that some of these messages do not always appear to come from traditional law enforcement mechanisms but come from other civil purpose agencies as well, so that perhaps people will listen to them differently and hear—or at least credit—a warning that they do not hear from somebody else. We need to see that issue cracked, and action against it.

There is also significant waste crime in Northern Ireland and, of course, in the island of Ireland. Some of that waste crime has been cross-border in character, but not all of it. There have been debates about the NCA, and whether delays in passing legislation on that issue mean that all the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and other policing responsibilities that still fell to the police during that period will stop. One point that has been made is on waste dumps. One significant illegal waste dump was found in recent years in my constituency. It clearly represented an illegal business on the scale of millions of pounds. It emerged because of a random activity by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It was not known to anybody in policing, anybody in HMRC or anybody in SOCA. Nobody knew it. Everybody knows that it was essentially sourced and directed not from my constituency but from South Armagh. It seems strange that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency happened to stumble on it. It was not because of a tip-off or anything else—it was pursuing another matter and it came to its notice. Given the provenance and the scale of the business, it is hard to believe that nobody knew it was going on.

That brings us back to the concern that other hon. Members have reflected. There is a sense that a blind eye is being turned, and that there is some sort of set-aside deal going on, where people are saying, “You can have those rackets up to that point so long as you don’t transgress in other matters.” The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned the 2p in the pound. I would certainly refer to deals done between SOCA and people it was meant to be pursuing in respect of criminal assets. Those deals were for pennies in the pound. The story is that such deals were brought before the High Court. What choice would the High Court have but to say, “Here is an agreement between SOCA and somebody it is pursuing”? Of course the High Court would accept that agreement. Word has it that that sort of agreement not only applies to the individual in that case, but has the status of a group deal—it becomes the going rate for offers to join in on those terms.

That is one of the issues that the Social Democratic and Labour party was at pains to ensure could be addressed in future. We want oversight and accountability mechanisms that apply to the NCA. Many of the questions asked in the debate could be framed, raised and properly addressed in the Policing Board’s engagement with the Chief Constable, and with the director of the NCA, whenever they hear NCA reports and plans, and whenever they monitor the effectiveness of the NCA’s work. That all goes to the Policing Board under the arrangements. It would be right and proper to pursue that.

Another experience of SOCA that I hope will not be repeated under the NCA arrangements is that we had evidence, which I took to the Secretary of State and others, that MI5 was promising that, if people turned and joined dissident organisations and essentially became MI5 agents, it could remove a working SOCA interest in them. We presented evidence that showed that SOCA seemed to be pursuing people not so much for SOCA’s purposes, but to help frame operations that had MI5 at their heart. We must ensure that none of that happens in future. We must ensure that the NCA’s work and the work it carries out in Northern Ireland with the PSNI under the approval of the Chief Constable has none of that about it. If it does, it brings the NCA into disrepute, and compromises the Policing Board’s important role in ensuring the fullest support for, and engagement with, the NCA’s future work.

Revenue and Customs needs to be more active in these areas. On many of the cases referred to by other hon. Members, it has been less than authoritatively convincing in its silence. More assurance is needed.

We need to encourage fully the significant cross-border work that takes place under the Organised Crime Task Force. I recognise that that extends not just to the areas of crime that many of us have touched on today, but to other areas of crime—this was touched on by the hon. Member for Belfast East—relating to human trafficking. It was heartening that one of the first engagements of the new UK Anti-Slavery Commissioner was a meeting with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland and his southern counterpart to address this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), will recall that this was one of the issues on which I tabled amendments during the Committee stage of the Modern Slavery Bill, to ensure that all aspects of the Bill would either apply to Northern Ireland or be compatible with legislation that was then going through the Northern Ireland Assembly. In particular, I wanted to ensure that the new commissioner would be able to consider issues in Northern Ireland, and the performance of enforcement agencies not just in Northern Ireland but as they operated and liaised and engaged with their counterparts in the south as well.

I am very glad that we have legislation not just in respect of the NCA, but modern slavery provisions. That puts us in a stronger position to address different aspects of serious crime as they happen in Northern Ireland and across the border.

16:41

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

At the outset, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on securing this very important debate and on introducing it in such a powerful way. I thank all Members from across the House who have spoken, but I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), the Labour Front-Bench Spokesman. He has put on the record some incredibly startling facts that require answers.

Last week, Alan Bennett, the famed playwright, when interviewed on “World at One”, was asked to outline for us the most important achievement of this nation. After pondering on whether it should be the National Trust or our physical heritage, he said very clearly that it was English hypocrisy.

I am sick, sore and tired. We have heard a unified voice from this side of the House, whether nationalist or Unionist. We are sick, sore and tired of the hypocrisy that is fed to us by the shovel-load: that we are somehow thick Paddies who have no idea of what is going on in our country when it comes to crime, and that if we dare to expose anything about it, we are told, “Hush, hush, you’ll tip the criminals off.” Anyone would think we were a bunch of suckers when it comes to dealing with crime, but we have lived among these criminals for decades. We see how they work. We see the evil they bring upon our society. We want it dealt with and we want it dealt with now. We are saying that with a unified voice on this side of the House, across all parties. We are no longer prepared to be fed, quite frankly, the bull that we are being fed: that this matter is being dealt with by officialdom.

Alan Bennett was right when he pointed to hypocrisy. I see it in the officials that I meet and have met daily since 2009 and since entering this House. We have tried to deal quietly and discreetly with the issue of how we can tackle serious and organised crime in our society. All we get, frankly, is this hypocrisy: it will be dealt with, it will be dealt with. Well, five-and-a-half years later it has not been dealt with. Since 2009, when I came off the Organised Crime Task Force board, I have not seen one single inch of progress. I have heard a lot of platitudes. We on this side of the House are sick, sore and tired. We want something done. We want something done urgently. We want something done that is effective and actually makes a difference. I believe we are all on the same side and want to see the criminals beaten, but officials are dragging their feet when it comes to sorting out this problem. I hope they can get to grips with it.

Last week, a national newspaper report by Brian Flynn dealt with a number of crime issues and I want to address those listed in the motion. The first is the smuggling of tobacco products and the impact it has on our economy. Every crate of smuggled tobacco products puts £1 million into the coffers of the criminals, and 40% of all cigarettes smoked across the United Kingdom are either counterfeit or smuggled. The vast majority of that money goes into the coffers of the IRA. In fact, last year it was estimated that it achieved about £22 million from that enterprise.

Some of us take a different view of plain packaging, but under new regulations it is estimated that the profit margin will increase to €120 million, which is £87 million. That is enough money, as we would say locally, to choke a donkey. The people engaged in this serious organised crime are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of plain packaging after today’s vote because, whether we are for or against plain packaging—I respect the views of those who support it for health reasons—the legislation is defective on the issue of tracking and tracing.

At present, the manufacturing of cigarette boxes involves placing an electronic track-and-trace system in each box. The legitimate manufacturer of the cigarette packet gives those track-and-trace numbers to the police and customs, and the police can at any time place the packet on a hand-held machine in order to see the date and location of manufacture. Under the defective delegated legislation that went through the House today, that has been removed and packs cannot have track-and-trace. The Government have told me privately, “We’ll introduce it later on,” but apparently the earliest it can be introduced under the delegated legislation is in about three years. There is a bonanza coming for the next three years, because cigarette packets will have no track-and-trace capability. Criminals out there are rubbing their hands in glee because an effective security measure has now been removed from cigarette packets. The hypocrisy stinks to heaven.

The second issue that has taken up a lot of time in this debate is that of fuel laundering and fuel fraud, and it is a most serious crime. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington asked some very serious questions. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked 13 specific questions that have not yet been answered, and this House is entitled to answers.

Why would the Government continue in January 2015 to designate in legislation the Dow fuel marker when they knew a year ago that it was not fit for purpose, being completely launderable using basic science? The Hydrocarbon Oil (Marking and Designated Markers) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 will come into force on 1 April and they indicate the precise ingredients of the Dow marker. Under law, believe it or not, we have to tell the world what makes up the Dow marker. That is how pathetic the hypocrisy of our country is: we have to tell the criminals that publicly. The Minister said tonight that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, should not have read out a letter as it could have tipped certain people off, yet we publish in black and white the exact ingredients that go into the Dow marker. The statutory instrument is well timed, because it comes into effect on 1 April, April fools’ day. What fools we are for just going along with that and accepting the regulations, which publish what will be in the fuel and tip off scientists, legitimate and otherwise, about what is in the recipe for the Dow marker and what they therefore need to do to remove it.

If the marker was effective, that would not matter, because we would have those people and could prevent them from doing that. However, it is not effective and the Government knew that it was not effective a year ago. The Opposition spokesman put on the record the letter from 9 July 2014 from the then Treasury Minister, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), to the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), telling him that the information about the theoretical weaknesses in the fuel could alert fraudsters. The idea was that he should just hush it up and not tell anyone and the Government would keep working on it. The Government then went on to say that there was insufficient evidence to show that the process of distilling the fuel was

“a viable option commercially on a large scale for effective laundering of rebated fuels, although HMRC are continuing to investigate these claims.”

I will come to the question of whether that can be done effectively and economically, but let me turn first to the question of hushing things up. Members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee were prepared to sit for some time and give the Government the opportunity to change things and to make a move. We waited from last July and promises were made through August, September and October. Bigger promises were made in December and, at the turn of the year, we were told that things would be changed. They have not been changed and the April fools’ day legislation will be put in place without a single jot or tittle removed from it. The legislation, which will be pushed through, will push through a defective marker that the criminals will welcome and that they know they can remove.

How do I know that it can be removed? Today, we have placed in the Library a report that was confidential until yesterday, written by four academics, one from Queen’s university. The report, entitled “Distillation of fuel markers”, makes a number of startling claims, which I want to put on the record. In its opening section, it states:

“Distillation is a very simple and highly cost-effective way of removing a marker and has a key advantage over many of the methods cited above in that there is no laundering residue for the criminal to dispose of.”

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) can rest tonight in the knowledge that in future when criminals distil fuel and remove markers from it there will no longer be terrible sludge and waste pumped into our rivers. This marker is so simply removed that it can be distilled off the top of fuel without creating any terrible after-pollution. The simplicity of the distillation process is incredibly beneficial to the criminals.

The report goes on to state:

“Given the simplicity of distillation it is apparent that an authority would be foolhardy to employ a marker whose boiling point fell just in or entirely outside the boiling range of the fuel to be protected.”

That is exactly what Dow has done. It has created a marker that is effective until just below boiling point, so people can boil the marker away without causing any harm and it vanishes up into the heavens. It is the devil’s share. He gets his share and the criminals get theirs. That is what is happening as a result of the new fuel marker.

The report stated that the academics took a British piece of scientific equipment, a marker that was found worthy of being put into British fuel, and tested it against the Dow marker. It stated this, after testing both markers:

“These results clearly indicate that the Dow marker can effectively be removed by simple distillation and successfully separated from the diesel distillate.”

In other words, the fuel can be separated completely from the marker and sold as unabated fuel that is no longer marked.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is making a speech in his usual robust fashion, but it is important to put on the record the difference between a laboratory analysis and scaling up to field operations. I think he needs to reflect that in his contribution.

[Ian Paisley]

I am delighted by that, because I am going to reflect that point now and I thank the Minister for encouraging me to do so. The then Treasury Minister said that there was insufficient evidence that the process was a viable commercial option, which I think is the point the Minister has just made: “Yes, you can do this in a lab, but could you really do it in the field?” Well, the report that is now in the Library goes into this, under a section entitled, “Economics of distillation”:

“The capital cost of a distillation plant suitable for laundering out a marker from fuel is low. Cost for off the shelf plant can be as little as…£12k”.

For an initial outlay of £12,000 for a small plant, the criminals could make about £16,000 per day, after they have laundered the product, or 5.8 million quid a year—that is pretty economical in my books; that is pretty cost-effective. I will come to the in-field testing in a minute, so I hope the Minister will brace himself, because it gets even better.

The report goes on:

“Even taking into account the worst case scenario presented above, a 160kW distillation laundering plant would generate huge profits with a payback in just under a fortnight. If this process was refined with heat regeneration and vacuum distillation, it would be quite feasible to double the capacity of this system. A small 1MW industrial unit could operate 6 of these 160kW systems, generating clear profit of approximately £92,000 per day and a payback period of less than 2 weeks. Such a 960kW laundering facility would be capable of generating an annual profit of approximately £33.5 million.”

This is a feasible, cheap alternative for gangsters and criminals. This report, which is in the Library of the House, is by a credible group of scientists and, critically, presented in such a way that if it is wrong, the Dow Chemical Company could sue the pants of these people. But it won’t go near it—it won’t even address the points made.

I understand that in-field testing was carried out on four occasions. The one at Bellingham, which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned, was not a small test; it was a test of 30,000 litres of fuel distilled successfully—it was just distilled off. Another test was carried out in Northern Ireland, and another test of a similarly large quantity, carried out by a scientist, Professor J. J. Leahy, in the Republic of Ireland, also proved that this material could be distilled off. Queen’s university also carried out a test, but sadly, after it reported privately to officials last year, the official response to the professor at Queen’s university was this: “You’d better tell us where that illegal plant you’ve just set up is, because we want to put it out of business.” I can take a joke, but I do not think that was a joke—it is almost like they were telling him for daring to undermine what officials were doing. It is hypocrisy.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

As well as congratulating the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the huge amount of personal commitment he has put into this issue. Will he explain why, despite the evidence that the Select Committee saw, the Government, officials and the authorities have been so singularly afraid to go down the route we suggested?

[Ian Paisley]

I think that deserves a more detailed answer than a brief response at this point, so I will come back to the matter. The hon. Lady, my friend, puts her finger on a very important and worrying point. This was a worrying trend that we watched with our own eyes when we tried to deal with this matter.

I asked the Minister earlier whether there was roadside capability in detecting this marker in our fuel, but he did not quite get the right end of the stick. I must deal with this critical issue. The head of the oils fraud section takes the lead in dealing with fuel laundering in Northern Ireland. He is an important official in the department. He gave evidence to our Select Committee in 2013, and he told us that the IMS tendering process for the new fuel marker was incredibly important. Although a specific roadside test was not specifically asked for, his view was—and he is the expert—that it was critical because it was the one measure through which the system could be policed.

One of the companies that tendered brought forward a roadside test capability—a kit that is the size of a laptop. If a drop of fuel was put on to a pad, the kit could detect within two and a half minutes where and when the fuel was bought—both the location and time. That is how sophisticated the marker was, and the roadside test could be done in two and half minutes.

The Dow marker has no roadside capability. In fact, after the April fools’ day legislation comes into place, let me explain what will happen. If an official stops a vehicle and takes a sample from it, he will have to send it away to the Government’s own plant. Three weeks later, the sample will be returned and the result on whether the Dow marker remains or has been removed will be provided. Why should we have to wait three weeks? Unless someone has a very efficient car, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) does, the fuel will be evaporated within days.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a technical argument on this issue, displaying a lot of knowledge that is obviously garnered from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry. Is he aware of the level and number of prosecutions resulting from illegal fuel laundering? Is it documented on a year-on-year basis?

[Ian Paisley]

I understand that the level of prosecutions is woeful—zero. That is one of the driving forces that show why we need a marker that actually works, and it explains why some of us are so passionate about this issue. We know the type of villains and individuals who are carrying this out, and it would be valuable if we could get them behind bars or at least stop them in this particular aspect of their criminality. Yes, they will turn to something else, but at least we would have blocked off one section of activity for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The prosecution level is woefully zero, and it will remain zero because of this defective marker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked why the Government would not support their own world-leading British science company whose fuel markers are the only recommended IMS-proven indelible markers. This is important. The final report on the IMS procedure, which was a tendering process between the Republic of Ireland revenue authorities and our own HMRC, provided two options. One was to implement the Dow marker—it listed what it was—and the other was to introduce two markers: the Dow marker and the British company’s marker, which would provide something with which to confuse the criminals. There would be a choice of markers, allowing consideration of which one went in one month and which one did not go in. That was one of the options provided, but that course of action was not chosen, but it could still be chosen today.

The Government could amend the April Fool’s day legislation. They could introduce another statutory instrument tomorrow, providing for a different marker, and I hope that they will. I hope that, following today’s debate, they will see how foolish they have been in following the line they have followed. Some of us never wanted this debate to take place. We wanted the Government to take action and solve the problem, but unfortunately we have been pushed to this point. I think it will be clear from the anger that has been expressed today by members of several parties that we are all rightly concerned about what is going on.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington asked why, given that the IMS had been a joint United Kingdom-Republic of Ireland process, an IMS for a single launderable dye marker had been awarded when the Government knew that they needed a minimum of two indelible markers. Why—this is another question that was asked today—was technology awarded to Dow when no roadside test was available?

Who has the contract for HMRC fuel marker testing, and did the testing company have anything to do with the evaluation and final recommendation group? That very important question goes to the heart of the IMS procedure. The allegation that something went awry between whoever was carrying out the evaluation of the tests and the company that was awarded the final contract is very serious, and deserves to be answered by Ministers.

We have seen the answers to those questions. We know what has gone on. I actually feel sorry for the Minister, because he has been dropped into this debate without having been properly briefed about what has gone on and how serious the position is.

In 2012, the HMRC director Mike Norgrove gave evidence to the Select Committee. He had been offered the chance to see the new marker being used in Brazil. Why did he turn down that opportunity? I believe that that question was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann.

Why would the Government cover up a £1 billion fraud when a British scientific solution already exists?

One of the last questions that were asked was: the Government must be aware that the Dow Chemical Company was fined $1.1 billion in 2013 in a fraudulent bribery case, so why was the company allowed to continue to engage in the IMS tender process?

Opposition Members have asked important and pertinent questions that deserve to be answered. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked me why this was happening. I think that there has been a deliberate turning of a blind eye. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) put his finger on it when he said that a company had operated illegally in his constituency, and that it was based in South Armagh. I have the same problem in my constituency. North Antrim could not be any further from South Armagh, but we have a fuel station that changes its name regularly to avoid tax, and regularly sells illicit fuels to unsuspecting motorists. Sometimes it changes its name to “Taxco”, just for a laugh, to rub the officials’ noses in it. On other occasions, it changes its name to “Taxnoco”. It looks like “Texaco”. The name is spelt like that deliberately to embarrass officialdom, and nothing is ever done about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim spelt out loud and clear the problem of pollution that was associated with this crime—the leaking of waste into our lakes and river courses. With the new Dow marker, that will no longer be a problem, because it is now evaporating from our fuel. In the words of Alan Bennett, the hypocrisy will continue.

I think that we deserve answers to those questions, because we have waited long enough. We have pushed this issue for five years—we have pushed it in the Select Committee—and we have expected answers, but, to date, we have been let down.

17:09

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) on introducing the debate and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on his concluding comments. It has been an interesting and passionate debate and in my closing remarks I will endeavour to address the points that were made.

As we heard, serious and organised criminal groups do not operate in isolated pockets. We know, for instance, that they exploit the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As the motion reminds us, they are engaged in a range of crimes, including fuel smuggling, the supply of counterfeit medicines and electrical goods, and fraudulent trading in numerous products to evade VAT or make illegal repayment claims. VAT fraud associated with tobacco and alcohol has become more sophisticated and more multinational, and the internet has opened more opportunities for the criminals. The cost to the Treasury is substantial and the impact is felt in communities throughout Northern Ireland.

A number of hon. Members referred to the fact that these are not victimless crimes. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made that point explicitly, and they are right. The effect of fuel laundering, which has been a major part of the discussion, means that it is clearly not victimless. The hon. Member for Belfast East spoke about the impact on the vehicles of unsuspecting purchasers of illicit fuel. The impact on us all from the loss of that tax revenue means that we have less tax from which to pay for much-needed teachers, nurses and police officers. People purchasing that fuel are aiding and abetting the criminals. This is not victimless crime. The people involved in such criminality are not cheeky scoundrels. This is serious crime that is a threat to us all.

Our strategic approach needs to be tightly co-ordinated to counter that threat; otherwise, serious and organised criminals will exploit the gaps. We need to ensure that measures are in place relentlessly to disrupt serious and organised criminals, stop people getting involved in crime and strengthen our protection against the criminals. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly are doing exactly that. The launch in 2013 of the National Crime Agency and the serious and organised crime strategy represented a step change in our approach. The NCA and the 4 Ps strategy are already making a difference, leading to a more co-ordinated response across the whole United Kingdom. As a result, we have improved our understanding of the threat, strengthened co-operation with partners, invested in better capabilities and introduced important new legislation.

Implementation of the serious and organised crime strategy is consistent with the approach in Northern Ireland, where the Organised Crime Task Force enables law enforcement agencies to work alongside other Government bodies and the private sector to share knowledge and tackle organised crime in partnership and to deliver the objectives of Northern Ireland’s organised crime strategy for 2014-16. Leading the operational fight are the PSNI, HMRC and the National Crime Agency.

The NCA works closely with its partners to investigate the activities of organised criminal groups, including those involved in fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and the counterfeiting of consumer goods. The NCA is a key member of the OCTF in Northern Ireland, providing specialist knowledge, support and expertise. It continues to support the PSNI through the exchange of intelligence and information relating to Northern Ireland, including instances where the situation has required constabulary powers to be exercised. The NCA is undertaking civil recovery investigations in Northern Ireland, where fuel laundering and cigarette smuggling are believed to be the underlying criminality.

It is clear that fuel smuggling and laundering is a major problem in Northern Ireland. I was interested in many of the points that were raised, including the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East about criminals. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. This is a supply chain issue that the hon. Member for Foyle and I explored at length when we served together on the Committee considering the Modern Slavery Bill. He is right to commend the Bill for covering Northern Ireland where necessary, as does the remit of the commissioner. He made an interesting point about the impact on human trafficking and modern slavery. Sometimes we say that the criminality of organised crime groups lies in drugs trafficking, firearms trafficking or people trafficking, but in reality those groups are involved in all forms of criminality. That was brought home to us all by the dreadful case of the container in Tilbury docks with 35 Sikh people in it, including one who, sadly, died in transit. Part of the investigation of that incident involved a fuel laundering plant. That brings it home that this is not a victimless crime; it is a crime that affects us all, and those criminals are nasty people who want to harm us and are prepared to go to great lengths and hurt many people through different types of criminality to make money from organised crime.

We have heard from my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), that the Government have a comprehensive strategy in place to tackle fuel fraud and crime and it is working. HMRC’s latest figures indicate the illicit market share of diesel for Northern Ireland has fallen from 26% to 13%. Co-operation and intelligence sharing through the Organised Crime Task Force and the Cross Border Fuel Fraud Enforcement Group has been invaluable in tackling oil fraud, including fuel smuggling and laundering, and I remind the House that in 2013-14 HMRC dismantled 38 laundering plants, closed 79 huckster sites and seized over half a million litres of illicit fuel in Northern Ireland.

As has been said, a new fuel marker will come in on 1 April. Many Members, including the hon. Members for North Antrim, for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for Belfast East and for Upper Bann (David Simpson)—and I am sure there were more—raised that point.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister refers to some of my party colleagues. My hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mean no discourtesy to the Minister, whom I know they are very fond of, but they have had to leave the Chamber because of a meeting tomorrow morning with a Minister in Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will appreciate that they had to catch their flight.

[Karen Bradley]

I appreciate that intervention, apart from anything else because I am not going to have to answer yet another question from those hon. Gentlemen, who gave me a significant number to try to address. I do understand completely the time pressures we all face, however.

I understand that HMRC is making sure it has the best and most appropriate roadside marker testing equipment, further to strengthen testing capability. From day one of the new marker implementation, its road fuel testing units will be able to use their existing battery of tests to identify suspicious samples, and I should repeat the point that this is not a replacement marker initially; this is a running-alongside marker with the existing marker, to ensure we have full evidence and information. I also understand that, in addition, HMRC expects to have ground-breaking roadside testing equipment by the summer.

The hon. Member for North Antrim made a number of points and I understand that HMRC has written to him on many of them, in particular the point about the new marker being easily laundered and that that can be done on a commercial scale. I urge him to provide details of any trials about which he believes HMRC may be unaware. It does want to review the report he has laid in the House, and it will respond to him. The Government will of course review the report as well, and HMRC has investigated whether this can be done on a large scale. The hon. Gentleman says he has seen the test to prove that that is the case. If he provides that evidence to HMRC, it will review the report and write to him, but the only large-scale test that we are aware has been undertaken, which was with 25,000 litres, fully supported HMRC’s conclusion that this is not easily translated to large-scale operations in the field. We do take these claims very seriously, however, and HMRC will look at any reports that the hon. Gentleman provides.

The hon. Member for South Antrim talked about the number of arrests and prosecutions for this crime. In the period 2011-14 there was a total of 56 arrests for fuel fraud, and 47 of them were in Northern Ireland, while just nine were in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have not, of course, yet got the full figures for 2014-15, but the latest information is that there were 25 arrests, 13 of which were in Northern Ireland and 12 in the rest of the UK. That shows that we take this crime very seriously, including in Northern Ireland.

Confiscation was also mentioned. In 2013-14, the last year for which we have figures, £113,001 was applied on confiscation orders relating to this type of crime, of which £113,000 related to confiscation orders in Northern Ireland, with only £1 relating to the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and I have enjoyed many debates on the topic of asset recovery, and we agree that we want to see more confiscation orders and more recovery. The Government take this issue seriously and progress is being made.

HMRC’s anti-smuggling strategy is effective, and we continuously adapt it to accommodate changes in criminal behaviour. Since it was first launched, we have reduced the illicit cigarette market by half and the illicit hand-rolling tobacco market by a third, but we all recognise that more can be done. The hon. Member for East Antrim contributed to yesterday’s debate on the order to bring the National Crime Agency into Northern Ireland. I want to put it on record that, in regard to the priorities for policing and the NCA in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Policing Board will agree the NCA annual plan. That will allow key crime types, which may include fuel laundering, to be prioritised for the NCA in Northern Ireland.

One of the blockages to having full support in Northern Ireland has been the limit to the NCA’s ability to provide support to HMRC and the PSNI in Northern Ireland. That related to the powers issue, and thankfully that issue is now resolved. Yesterday, we debated and approved in Committee here, and in another place, the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015. The order will enable the NCA to operate with police powers in Northern Ireland from around the end of May. It puts in place accountability arrangements for the NCA that have been agreed with the Northern Ireland parties. It also extends civil recovery provisions and civil recovery investigation provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to Northern Ireland. This will increase activity and improve performance, alongside the efforts of other accredited financial investigators in Northern Ireland, such as the Serious Fraud Office, the PSNI and the Environment Agency. Perhaps that will answer the question from the hon. Member for Foyle about waste crime.

We are also strengthening the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act through the Serious Crime Act 2015. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and I served on the Committee that considered that legislation. Its provisions will make it harder for criminals to move, hide and use the proceeds of crime through the better enforcement of existing court orders and the better recovery of hidden assets overseas. These steps are important, as denying criminals the proceeds of crime is one of the most effective ways of disrupting their activities. We agree that, so far, not enough has been recovered, but with these enhanced powers, the NCA, working with law enforcement, will be able to recover more. I urge the courts to ensure that confiscation orders are applied whenever possible, and that compensation orders for victims are also put in place.

The hon. Member for Foyle also raised concerns about engagement with communities. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 that we approved yesterday provides that the Northern Ireland Policing Board must make arrangements for obtaining the co-operation of the public with the NCA in the prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, as part of the Justice Minister’s proposal paper, there will also be a requirement for NCA officers to have a duty to secure the support of, and to act in co-operation with, the local community. Additionally, the order provides that the NCA’s director general must obtain the Policing Board’s prior consent to the Northern Ireland aspects of the NCA’s annual plan.

Serious and organised criminal groups do not respect borders or force boundaries. The PSNI estimates that there are around 150 organised crime groups active in Northern Ireland. Nearly a third of those groups are assessed as having links to international criminality, and another third are linked to criminality in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. HMRC operates across the UK as a whole, and the National Crime Agency has both national and international reach. They are working more closely than ever before with the PSNI and other partners to disrupt organised criminal groups undertaking fuel laundering and smuggling in Northern Ireland and to deny criminals the proceeds of that crime. As has been said, we will not oppose this motion, and I want to thank everybody for the debate. I look forward to Northern Ireland seeing the benefits of the NCA that the rest of the UK has benefited from since October 2013.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes with concern the continued prevalence of serious organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland on a cross-border basis in relation to fuel smuggling, fuel laundering and the counterfeiting of consumer goods; recognises that this has had a significant and detrimental impact on HM Treasury; regrets the lack of prosecutions in relation to this activity; and calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HM Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI so that this criminal activity can be eradicated.

Ark Pension Schemes

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

17:25

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Ind)]

I begin by expressing my personal gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting this important subject for an Adjournment debate this evening. The Ark pension schemes were put in place a few years ago to offer an apparently lawful method by which participants could realise a substantial proportion of their pension pot many years before the relevant retirement age. At the heart of these schemes was a structure called a “maximising pension value arrangement”—MPVA. That involved a pension reciprocation plan by which members could gain access to their pension capital prior to the minimum retirement age without, it was claimed by its promoters, breaching Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rules. That was achieved by one of the schemes under the control of the trustees “loaning” funds to a member of another scheme under their control and, reciprocally, the same amount being “loaned” back to a member of the first scheme.

In a High Court judgment in December 2011 on the Ark schemes, Mr Justice Bean said that the arrangements, including the MPVA loans, were “beyond the scope” of the trustees’ powers. They were “made for ulterior motives” and were a

“fraud on the trustees’ powers.”

According to Mr Justice Bean, the Ark schemes in question had funds originally of approximately £25 million, with a total membership of at least 487 members. Those members were from across the United Kingdom, and their situation has been a matter of concern to many Members of this House. One of those scheme members, however, is my constituent. For reasons that are readily understandable, he does not wish to be publicly identified, so although I have provided the Minister with his full details in confidence, in this debate I will refer to him simply as Mr Smith.

Mr Smith is in his late 40s. At 18, he showed rather more foresight than is usual for people of that age and took out membership of a private pension scheme, initially with Britannic Assurance but this was later transferred to Standard Life. After almost a quarter of a century paying into the scheme, he decided in 2008 to stop paying his monthly instalments, which had latterly been about £300 per month. The earliest payout date under the scheme was 2022, at age 55. The total pension pot—the fund—was valued at £122,000 in 2011. Mr Smith had for almost the whole of his working life been employed in a specialist sector of the building supplies industry, as a salesman, and had been employed by the same company for 23 years. However, as one of the many consequences of the 2008 world financial crisis, that company went into liquidation in 2010, and his job with it was no more. He found employment with another firm in the same sector, but by February 2011 it became apparent to Mr Smith that because of trading conditions he was likely to be made redundant from that firm, too.

Given that uncertainty, compounded by his age, Mr Smith thought that the best thing he could do was to set up a shop in the sector and work for himself. On the internet, he saw an advertisement that promised that he could “release 50%” of his “pension tax free”. The scheme claimed to be

“registered with HMRC, and the Pension Regulator”.

It was under the name of “Ark” pensions, with Minerva and Athena as trustees. Ark claimed around that time that

“both HMRC and the FSA”—

the Financial Services Authority, as was—

“have conducted detailed enquiries (with the full cooperation of Ark) but neither has seen fit to take any action”.

Ark also claimed that the schemes were lawful and that it had been advised so by leading counsel.

Mr Smith decided to participate in the Ark scheme. He duly completed all the application forms, and transferred the whole of his pension pot of £122,000 from Standard Life to Ark. His wife also transferred her smaller pension pot of £20,000 to Ark. The issues raised by her case are the same, so for simplicity’s sake I shall concentrate on Mr Smith’s position in this debate.

On 20 April 2011, Mr Smith received from Ark a cheque for £58,725—50% of his pot, less a 5% charge and other charges levied by Ark. Two weeks later, on 6 May 2011, Mr Smith, as he had anticipated, was made redundant for the second time in less than a year. Three weeks after that, on 31 May 2011, the Pensions Regulator decided to impose independent trustees, Dalriada, in place of those operating the Ark schemes, owing to

“concerns over the behaviour of the previous trustees.”

Fourteen days later, on 14 June 2011, Dalriada wrote to all Ark members, including my constituent Mr Smith, to say that they had been advised by leading counsel that there was a “strong possibility” that the MPVA arrangements by Ark were void. Dalriada said:

“This would mean that the arrangements would not be recognised as ever having taken effect.”

The subsequent court action between Dalriada and the original Ark trustees resulted in the judgment of Mr Justice Bean, to which I have already referred, declaring that, as Dalriada had anticipated, the MPVA arrangements were indeed void. The judgment has not been appealed, and therefore stands.

As soon as Mr Smith had had a chance to digest the implications of both the Pensions Regulator’s decision to impose different trustees and the High Court decision, he took the initiative and asked his accountant to contact HMRC about his likely liability to pay tax on the £58,000 received from Ark pensions in April 2011. In a letter to me on 24 February 2014, the chief executive of HMRC, Lin Homer, said:

“Mr [Smith] ... cooperated throughout the process.... and in January 2014 he made the decision to make a payment”

to HMRC

“on account in the sum of £32,300.”

This sum is currently held on Mr Smith's self-assessment account, and to date HMRC has not raised an assessment about it.

Over the past few years, I have come to know Mr Smith very well. He is a thoroughly decent, honourable man. He is expert in his own field of work, but not in pension law. He was led to believe that this MPVA method of releasing funds early from his pension account was entirely lawful. Mr Smith now finds himself in limbo.

I hope that in this short debate the Minister can clarify what the future holds for Mr Smith and other members of the Ark schemes. What Mr Smith most wants is to be put back to the status quo ante. In other words, he refunds the total of what he has received from Ark—£58,000—and it is invested by respectable trustees in the usual way, and the benefits of his pension pot then become available to him, in the usual way, from the age of 55. Of that sum, £26,000 would be paid direct by him, and the other £32,300, which is currently held in a suspense account by HMRC, would be paid by HMRC to the new trustees. That seems to be entirely consistent with the statement of the new trustees, Dalriada, that if, as indeed happened, the MPVA arrangements were declared void, then they would

“not be recognised as ever having taken effect.”

My first and key question to the Minister is therefore this: can what Mr Smith is seeking happen, and if not—with respect—why not? Mr Smith fears that he may end up being the subject of a double whammy: first, he will have to pay the £32,000 in tax on the moneys released; and secondly, he will then find that the £61,000—the 50%—that was left in his pension pot under the arrangement is considerably reduced in value because of poor decisions by the Ark trustees, even though they had control of his moneys for less than six weeks. As I have already mentioned, HMRC has yet formally to raise an assessment against Mr Smith, so my second question to the Minister is this: are Mr Smith’s fears justified, and when is HMRC likely to decide whether or not to require the payment of the £32,300 held in the suspense account against a tax liability?

My third question builds on the second. Mr Smith fears that a considerable part of his outstanding pension pot will be absorbed by fees and legal costs incurred by the new Dalriada trustees. Are those rational fears?

My fourth and final set of questions relates to the assertion that Ark claimed its scheme was

“registered with HMRC and the Pensions Regulator”.

Are those claims correct? If they are, does that not imply that some responsibility for what has happened to individuals such as Mr Smith, who were acting in good faith, must lie with HMRC and the Pensions Regulator? If Ark’s claims are not correct—they were claims that my constituent and, I suspect, every other person who became a member of the schemes relied on—and they were fraudulent, what civil and criminal action is being taken against those responsible?

In short, it seems to me that my constituent has been the innocent victim of an elaborate and sophisticated arrangement designed to evade our pension laws. I have no sympathy for the architects of the scam or for those advising them. I have every sympathy for Mr Smith and his wife, and indeed for others in the same situation. I very much hope that the Minister does too and that he can offer the couple some better hope for their future.

17:37

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on securing the debate and on setting out his case so clearly and with such forensic skill, which has been a characteristic of his role as a Member of Parliament for some 36 years.

As the right hon. Gentleman outlined, the Ark pension schemes are a number of schemes that were administered by Ark Business Consulting. The schemes operated a pensions reciprocation plan that involved loans being paid between schemes and their respective members. That was on the basis that members could access a proportion of their pension savings without breaching tax rules intended to ensure that members access their tax-relieved pension savings only from age 55, under a practice known as pension liberation.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of concerns about the tax implications for individuals involved in the schemes. It might help if I set out the tax rules in a little more detail before turning to the particular points he raised. Tax relief is provided on pensions savings with the expectation that the funds are used by the member to provide benefits later in life. The tax rules therefore set out the various payments that a pension scheme is authorised to make to, or on behalf of, a member. They include payments of authorised benefits—pensions and lump sums—as well as such payments as transfers to another registered pension scheme. To be an authorised payment, these benefits cannot be paid before the minimum pension age, currently 55.

Where payments are made that are not authorised, they are classed as “unauthorised payments” and are subject to certain tax charges. These charges are intended to recover the tax relief previously given on the savings, as they have not been used as intended by the tax rules. Where savings are taken before age 55, this is an “unauthorised payment” and tax charges will apply. A loan made to a member from a registered pension in connection with their pension savings is also an “unauthorised payment”. This guarantees fairness to the taxpayer and ensures that pensions are not simply used as a tax-efficient savings tool. HMRC is looking into whether the payments made to the members of the Ark schemes are authorised by the tax rules.

The tax position in relation to the Ark pension schemes is by no means straightforward. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether, if the loans are repaid, they can be treated for tax purposes as though they had never happened. That is not the case, as loans are “payments” for the purposes of the tax legislation under consideration, whether or not they are repaid. He asked why we cannot return to the status quo ante. To do otherwise than treat loans as “payments” would enable people to withdraw funds early from their pension pots without any tax implications, and then return them to their pension pots at some point in the future if they so wished, with no consequences. Clearly, we do not want to encourage that type of speculative behaviour. The rules essentially comply with the principles that have been in place since tax relief was introduced many years ago.

[Mr Straw]

Of course I accept, as does, I think, everyone in this House, that if we are going to have arrangements by which people are able to save up for their retirement and to gain tax advantages in doing so, we cannot, in principle, have a situation where, in advance of their retirement age, they can simply pick and choose what they take out of the scheme, or not. However, does the Minister recognise the inequity of the fact that my constituent, who has acted in good faith, has been the victim of circumstances where he believed that what was happening was lawful—as indeed, at the time, it was—and accept that, in the special circumstances in which he finds himself, arrangements ought to be made by which he can return to the status quo ante, because otherwise he will suffer a huge penalty for no benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman puts his constituent’s case very well. In the situation as he describes it, it is hard not to be sympathetic to an individual placed in that position. However, the law is very clear that a loan payment of this sort constitutes a “payment”, and certain consequences follow. I take his point, and this may well be a hard case. The challenge arises if we have a situation whereby people are able at least to attempt to access some of their pension pot, and then subsequently find, for one reason or another, that that was not the right thing to do. However, simply putting them in the position they were in to begin with is, to use a snooker term, a bit of a shot to nothing. Although this might be unfair—I am sure that it is—on the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent, others who are acting in not quite such a degree of good faith might attempt to liberate, as it were, their pension in the hope that it does not get picked up, and in the knowledge that if it does, they are in no worse a situation. That is one of the challenges that a Government of any description would face, and that is why the law in this area has been tightly drawn for many years.

In the right hon. Gentleman’s second question, he asked when the matter might be settled so that he could provide some certainty for his constituent. I fear that I cannot provide such certainty about when the tax position will be settled. This is a complex case, and it may ultimately be for the tax tribunal to determine the correct tax position. Until that has been determined, it will not be possible for HMRC to settle the specific case, and that timetable is not within the control of HMRC. I have asked HMRC when it anticipates dealing with this case, but given that it will have to go to a tribunal, HMRC is not willing to provide a precise date.

The Government have a duty, not least to the taxpayer, to apply the legislation fairly and consistently in line with statutory provisions. Where a liability to tax arises, the normal rules in relation to interest accruing on any outstanding tax charge apply. Existing arrangements that allow individuals to get more time to pay or to pay their tax bill in instalments will be available to help those who want to use them.

On the specific case, in May 2011, the Pensions Regulator decided to appoint Dalriada Trustees Ltd as the independent trustee of the Ark pension schemes. It did so because it was satisfied that the interests of scheme members were at risk due to the schemes being used for pension liberation. Under trust law, Dalriada has a duty to act in the best interests of the members. I am sure that it will seek to locate as much of the scheme’s funds as possible, and to recover assets wherever it is reasonable and proportionate to do so, bearing in mind that the standard practice is for the costs of investigating and recovering assets to be met from member funds.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s third question, there are responsibilities on Dalriada as the trustee to ensure that its actions are proportionate and that the pension funds of Ark members are not frittered away. None the less, it faces a challenge in recovering the assets. I suspect that Dalriada as the trustee is better placed to give an estimate of the risks of legal costs substantially diminishing the pension pot in the Ark scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised the concern that Ark scheme members entered the arrangements in good faith. As I have mentioned, Dalriada was appointed because the schemes were suspected of being involved in pension liberation. He will doubtless be aware that pension liberation is a threat to individuals’ hard-earned pensions savings. It occurs where a scheme is set up to enable someone to access their pensions savings early—usually before age 55. Scheme promoters often fail to tell people about the tax consequences of accessing their pension savings early, and promoters often charge high fees. In some cases, people are promised cash if they invest their pension funds in esoteric investments, on which a high return is promised, and people unfortunately often lose all their pension savings in those cases.

Some products claim to unlock, liberate or provide early access to pension savings without giving rise to tax charges. That is not true: anyone receiving money from their pension scheme before the age of 55 will normally be subject to tax charges aimed at recovering tax reliefs. It is therefore vital for individuals to recognise the danger of entering into such schemes. If they choose to access their pensions savings early, they need to be aware of the tax charges and risks. HMRC is continuing to take action in pursuit of those who deliberately bend or break the rules by offering schemes to liberate pensions savings. That is part of a continuous strategy to combat pension liberation, as is the ongoing review of pension tax legislation. The Government will not hesitate to make further changes if necessary.

[Mr Straw]

It may be that the Minister is coming to my fourth question, but I would be grateful to know whether it is correct, as my constituent claims, that Ark held out that it was regulated by HMRC and the Pensions Regulator. If that is correct, does he believe that any responsibility for the fact that the scheme was advertised in that way rests with those two regulators?

[Mr Gauke]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I will turn to his fourth question in a moment, but before I do I hope it will be helpful if I first say a little more about what HMRC is doing in this area, and then I will deal with his question directly.

In addition to the measures I have mentioned, HMRC has been working extremely closely with partner agencies—the Pensions Regulator, the Financial Services Authority and the Serious Fraud Office—to detect, disrupt and deter promoters, and to warn people of the dangers of entering into these schemes. Although HMRC and its partners are taking action to raise awareness of potential threats, the Ark case highlights the need for people to be on their guard against promises of tax loopholes, offers of unrealistic investment returns, or other dubious advice linked to their pension pot or cash lump sums. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Individuals need to consider carefully what is on offer and whether it is appropriate to their circumstances, and ensure they have carried out sufficient due diligence, taking professional advice as they deem necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the Ark pension schemes were registered with HMRC, and I confirm that they were. As he will appreciate, it is difficult to know at the point an application for registration is received whether any particular pension scheme will ultimately be misused, but that is not to say that the Government should be complacent. Changes have recently been made to the process for registering a new pension scheme with HMRC to make the system more robust and disrupt any fraudulent intentions.

Legislation in last year’s Finance Act provided greater powers to check that pension schemes are being set up for the genuine provision of retirement benefits, and to impose penalties where wrongdoing is identified. That includes a “fit and proper person” test for those running the pension schemes applying for registration. Essentially, these changes provide stronger powers for existing pension schemes to be deregistered, or for new schemes to be refused registration where there are concerns.

HMRC’s role is to ensure that the tax system is being complied with. It is not there to perform a role of consumer protection, but to ensure that pensions are not liberated, and we have made a number of changes in recent months to strengthen its powers in that area. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate I cannot discuss individual cases, but I assure him that HMRC continues to ensure that the tax rules are applied fairly and consistently, that it will continue to pursue those behind pension liberation schemes, and that the British taxpayer continues to get a fair deal.

Question put and agreed to.

17:53

House adjourned.

Division 174

Ayes: 367

---

Labour: 192
Conservative: 122
Liberal Democrat: 37
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 113

---

Conservative: 103
Labour: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
UK Independence Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 March 2015

[Annette Brooke in the Chair]

Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(John Penrose.)

09:30

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I think this is the first time I have had that privilege and I fear that it might be the last, because of your impending retirement.

This is a great opportunity to discuss the importance of the Council of Europe and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am delighted to see a number of my colleagues from the Parliamentary Assembly here today, along with the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), who was a long-serving member of the Assembly until he retired at the beginning of this year after some 18 years’ service.

The statute of the Council of Europe was agreed in London on 5 May 1949. There were 10 founding members. Today, 47 countries belong to it, and Russia is one of those, having joined in 1996. All have signed up to the aims of the Council as set out in chapter I, article 1(a), which provides:

“The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals… which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

Article 3 of the statute provides:

“Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.”

If one recites the text of article 3 and sets that against the recent actions of the Russian Federation, the question immediately arises of what sanctions there are against members that are in breach or violation of article 3. The answer is contained in article 8:

“Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation and requested by the Committee of Ministers to withdraw under Article 7. If such member does not comply with this request, the Committee may decide that it has ceased to be a member of the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.”

My first question for my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I am delighted to see is responding to the debate, is, has the Russian Federation seriously violated article 3 of the statute? My view is that it certainly has, which I think is a view shared by all 18 members of the UK delegation and the 18 substitute members.

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

What the hon. Gentleman is describing could have been the case on at least five previous occasions, but it would appear that this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, certainly as far as the UK delegation is concerned. We could have had this over South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, the human rights issues relating to the death penalty and so on. All those have come up one time after another, so why now?

[Mr Chope]

I will go on to explain exactly why. It is not just the view of all the UK delegation’s members that the Russian Federation has seriously violated article 3; it is also the view of a substantial majority of the Parliamentary Assembly, as evidenced by the decision in January this year to impose sanctions against representatives of Russia, and of the European Conservatives group in the Assembly, which I have the privilege of chairing. It also must be the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, which has made various declarations calling on the Russian Federation to do this, that and the other, all of which have been ignored.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I confirm that that is also the view of the majority of the Socialist group in the Council of Europe.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I know that within the Socialist group, strong, differing views have been expressed, but the UK delegation in the Socialist group has been solidly supporting the notion that we must have application of the rules of law to the Russian Federation’s membership of the Council of Europe.

What has the Russian Federation done to put itself in fundamental breach of its obligations? First, it has illegally annexed the territory of another member country of the Council of Europe through the use of armed aggression. To make that worse, its President this week finally admitted that he ordered that annexation, and that there was no free will involved on the part of those living in Crimea. However, as recently as January this year, Mr Putin’s poodles in the Russian state Duma were trying to equate Crimea’s referendum with that the one that took place in Scotland last year and to say that the annexation was equivalent to the Federal Republic of Germany’s annexation of East Germany in 1989.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South asked what is new, and I have here an article from a Russian newspaper, dated 28 January 2015, with the headline “Russian lawmakers to consider declaration on 1989 ‘annexation of East Germany’”. It states:

“Sergei Naryshkin, the speaker of Russia’s lower house of parliament, has asked the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs to look into the possibility of adopting a declaration which denounces the reunification of Germany in 1989”.

He goes on to say that the Parliamentary Assembly’s reference to the events in Crimea was unlawful and that

“‘97% of Crimean residents voted for reunification with their motherland’”.

The article continues:

“Following the logic of those who call this historical event an annexation, the Federal Republic of Germany annexed East Germany, Naryshkin stated.”

We now know, from Putin’s words a year later, that he ordered that, so all the subsequent bluff and bluster were lies, as we knew they were at the time, and as most of us on the Parliamentary Assembly realised.

The second thing that I hold against the Russian Federation is that it has deployed Russian troops across the border in eastern Ukraine who have used and continued to use heavy weapons against the Ukrainian people. I ask the hon. Gentleman, is that not enough?

Thirdly, Russia has brazenly defied the rule of law by harbouring Andrei Lugovoy, one of its own MPs, who was involved in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. As has become clear at the public inquiry currently taking place, Lugovoy achieved a score of minus 2 when asked during a polygraph test in Moscow in April 2012 whether he had handled polonium, yet at the time Russia claimed that the test had emphatically established his innocence. To add insult to injury, on Monday this week, President Putin awarded a state honour to Mr Lugovoy for what was described as “services to the fatherland”. That is putting the proverbial two fingers up to all the other members of the Council of Europe. What are those members doing in response?

The fourth charge that I levy against the Russian Federation is that it has refused to honour its obligations under international law to release from custody Nadiya Savchenko, who was an elected Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. She was illegally abducted from Ukraine last July.

Then there is the Magnitsky case. That is a case of the Russians exercising impunity in relation to the killers of Sergei Magnitsky. A recently published book by Bill Browder, “Red Notice: How I Became Putin’s No. 1 Enemy”, is, according to the inside cover,

“a searing exposé of the wholesale whitewash by Russian authorities of Magnitsky’s imprisonment and murder, slicing deep into the shadowy heart of the Kremlin to uncover its sordid truths… With fraud, bribery, corruption and torture exposed at every turn, Red Notice is a shocking but true political roller-coaster that plays out in the highest echelons of Western power.”

On the back of the book, which, not surprisingly, has been banned in Russia, there is a quote from Bill Browder:

“I have to assume that there is a very real chance that Putin or members of his regime will have me killed some day… If I’m killed, you will know who did it.”

That is, sadly, rather reminiscent of what Boris Nemtsov’s mother said before his assassination in Russia last month.

In addition to all that, there have been multiple breaches of the accession document that Russia signed when it joined the Council of Europe. As Russia is still in deliberate breach of its obligations under article 3, why is nothing being done by the United Kingdom Government to trigger action against Russia under article 8? Indeed, one might ask what the purpose is of belonging to an organisation that manifestly shows so little respect for the values espoused in its founding statute.

There are precedents for suspension or expulsion from international organisations, and I want to touch on what happens in the Commonwealth. On Monday, Her Majesty the Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, attended the annual service at Westminster abbey, and her message for Commonwealth day was that the organisation’s values are

“more important and worthy of protection than perhaps at any other time in the Commonwealth’s existence.”

The same is true of the values of the Council of Europe. The principles of the Commonwealth were set out in the Singapore declaration of 1971 and restated in the Harare declaration of 1991. In essence, they talk about peace, democracy, liberty and the rule of law.

Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1995 for breaching the Commonwealth principles. It was reinstated in 1999, when it had a democratically elected President. Fiji was suspended in September 2009 for being in breach of the principles and is still suspended. Indeed, I think it has now left the organisation. Zimbabwe was suspended in March 2002. That resulted in its leaving the Commonwealth in December 2003. There are well established precedents for exercising the power of suspension from an international organisation when a member of that organisation is manifestly in breach of the principles.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I have a word of caution for my hon. Friend, who is making a very powerful and correct point. I am a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and one problem that we have had is that we are losing countries from the CPA because of the problems that we are facing. Australia is an obvious one. The problem in this case is that we may split the Council of Europe if we are not careful. The idea that my hon. Friend is putting forward is absolutely right—we have to have sanctions—but we do not want a polarised Council of Europe, in which countries feel that they are so bullied by Russia that they cannot continue to be within the Council of Europe. Does he see that that may be a problem, rather like what the Commonwealth has been facing over the last 20 years with the countries that we have had to suspend?

[Mr Chope]

There may be parallels. I defer to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of what happens in the Commonwealth. However, if we and the other founding members of the Council of Europe do not stand up for our belief in the principles of the Council of Europe, we make things much more difficult for other countries, particularly those that were formerly in eastern Europe and part of the Soviet bloc. It is much more difficult for them to try to comply with the principles of the Council of Europe if they can see that the bully boy next-door to them is being treated with impunity, which is exactly what is happening with Russia at the moment. We could send a very strong message if we took effective action and used sanctions against Russia. We would be sending a message to those other countries that we were on their side and would help them to stand up against their bully-boy neighbour.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I am curious to know why the Conservative group stayed in the same group as the Russians for so long if it felt so strongly about Russian abuses that have gone on for the past 18 years or so.

[Mr Chope]

The answer to that is that the abuses that I have been describing have not been going on for the last 18 years or so. What has happened is that things have got very much worse within the last year. That is why the European Democrat group, as it then was, decided to take sanctions against the Russians, as members of that group, for being in manifest breach of the Council of Europe. What was the straw that broke the camel’s back in that respect? It was the motion, passed in the Russian Duma by elected members of the Parliamentary Assembly from Russia, supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea. It was not a situation, as sometimes happens in the Parliamentary Assembly—this has happened with the hon. Gentleman and to an extent with myself—in which we as elected members say that we are not necessarily four-square supporting our Government but are standing up for the values of the Council of Europe against our Government. What happened in that case was that the members of the Russian Federation delegation and members in the European Democrat group were actively undermining the principles of the Council of Europe and actively engaged in supporting the illegal annexation of Crimea and were thereby breaching the principle that the Council of Europe stands for the territorial integrity of all its member countries. That is the short history.

[Mr Hancock]

But not Georgia.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman takes us back to what happened in relation to Georgia. He may recall that at that time there was a Labour Government in this country and one of the first international statesmen who spoke out in support of Georgia was none other than our present Prime Minister, so I do not think that we can be criticised for being slopy-shouldered in relation to what happened in Georgia. That was part of a continuing scenario. When it comes down to it, we have to face the fact that in Mr Putin we are dealing with a dictator and a tyrant. That is the scenario. In the same way, we have been dealing with a dictator and a tyrant in Zimbabwe. Eventually, patience ran out and Zimbabwe was expelled from the Commonwealth. It was not expelled immediately, because everyone was using the same arguments as are now being used in relation to Russia: “Isn’t jaw-jaw better than any alternative?” However, there comes a time when, if someone continues to be in complete defiance of the principles, we need to take, in my view, the only sanction that is available under the rules.

We are already in danger of being accused of double standards. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) chaired the Joint Committee on the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muiznieks, wrote to him on 10 October 2013:

“Thus, my message is clear: the Court’s judgments”—

Mr Muiznieks was referring to the European Court of Human Rights—

“have to be executed and the automatic and indiscriminate ban on voting rights for prisoners should be repealed. If the Court system is to continue to provide protection, there is no alternative to this for member states, other than leaving the system itself.”

He goes on to say:

“I think that any member state should withdraw from the Council of Europe rather than defy the Court by not executing judgments.”

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, until recently, the committee on legal affairs and human rights of the Council of Europe had for some time seen Russia engaging more, explaining its views about judgments and following up on some of them? That seemed quite encouraging, so it is a great pity that we have got into the current situation. Would it not be best for the Russians to follow the ceasefire agreement and find an honourable peace in Ukraine, so that the progress that has been made could resume?

[Mr Chope]

Of course it would be, but the point that I am making, and the reason why I have secured the debate, is that everything suggests that the reverse is true. In relation to the Court judgments, on 13 December 2013 President Putin praised the Russian Constitutional Court for upholding the Russian constitution by effectively stating that the Constitutional Court’s authority was superior to that of the European Court of Human Rights. As a result of that, did the Commissioner for Human Rights tell Russia that it should withdraw from the Council of Europe, as he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that the UK should do? No, he did not. Has the commissioner said anything similar about the various actions that Russia has taken in defiance of its obligations under the statute? No, he has not, and that is where the double standards come in.

We are being told that, because of our failure to implement an interpretation of the European convention on human rights which is in breach of the original terms of the convention—originally, it was clear that they did not apply to prisoner voting, but the interpretation has been extended—the United Kingdom should expel itself from the Council of Europe. Meanwhile, the commissioner has not said anything to the Russians about their membership.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am following the trend of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I am slightly unclear about whether he is against Russia, against the Council of Europe, or against our engagement with either.

[Mr Chope]

I am very much in favour of engagement, but only with those who want to engage on the same page, if I may put it in such a way. My concern is that the Russians are not showing any willingness to do so. If we believe that there has been a fundamental breach of the statute, as I have set out, and if that is allowed to happen with impunity, it brings into question the whole purpose of this international organisation. What is the point of belonging to it? That is the question to which I hope we will get an answer from the Minister.

[Mr Spellar]

We are a member of the United Nations, in which there is a huge range of opinions, democracy and practices. How does the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument follow?

[Mr Chope]

The Council of Europe is different from the United Nations, and the statute spells out that it is separate from the United Nations. The Council of Europe covers only Europe—European values and principles. I would be concerned if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to be an apologist for the Russian Federation, although I do not believe that he does. Until now, cross-party concern has been expressed in the House about the behaviour of the Russian Federation. If we are prepared to take economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, why should we not take the sanctions that are available to us under the Council of Europe statute? The answer may be because certain other members of the Council of Europe are too frightened to want to join in, but my answer to them is that the United Kingdom has traditionally taken a lead in such things. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the debate, will say that we are taking a lead and explain what we will do.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about engaging with people. Does he agree that we should encourage engagement with the sections of Russian society that have taken a stand against Putin, and that we should ensure that they have a voice not only in the Council of Europe but across the globe?

[Mr Chope]

I agree, but how best can we do that? That is a question of judgment. I have heard it said, for example, that we must keep Russia in the Council of Europe because if we do not, it will reinstate the death penalty. In fact, however, we can see from recent events that the Russian Government exercise an extrajudicial death penalty by murdering enemies of the state in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Do we tolerate such behaviour because we are fearful that Russia might reintroduce a judicial death penalty instead of the extrajudicial death penalty that is currently handed out by the President?

The extent to which we should impose sanctions is an eternal dilemma. Just as public opinion in this country is influenced by international events, if we took a firmer line against Russia on its human rights record and its breaches of the rules of the Council of Europe, we would support those in Russia who are trying to fight against the system. I know from having had the privilege of talking to Bill Browder that he also believes that it is better to try to sanction the regime in Russia than to continue to indulge it.

09:57

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We owe a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for securing the debate, because it encourages a useful exchange of views. He is the most distinguished leader of the European Conservatives Group on the Council of Europe. He has devoted himself body and soul to working on the Council in an often unsung role, and we are grateful to him. We all understand the depth of his feeling, and we can understand why he advances the argument that we should now expel Russia from the Council of Europe. I am sorry to say that I disagree with that argument. So far, Russia has behaved in an utterly lamentable fashion, and the Council of Europe has decided effectively to suspend it. In theory, Russia can turn up, but in practice it does not. It does not vote or speak.

Taking the next dramatic step of expelling Russia would be a mistake because, although my hon. Friend will not agree, as long as Russia is involved in the Council of Europe, whether on the death penalty, human rights or its position with regard to other countries, there is some sort of link and encouragement for it to make progress along the road of human rights.

Why was the Council of Europe set up? It is a very different organisation from the European Union. As my hon. Friend said, we are one of the creators of the Council of Europe. He referred to the famous remark of Winston Churchill in 1954:

“To jaw-jaw is…better than to war-war.”

That is what the Council of Europe is all about. I view it not as an executive body like the European Union; I view it as an inter-parliamentary assembly. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and one of the Council of Europe’s values is that we recognise that our powers are extremely limited—in fact, they are virtually non-existent, with the exception of voting for judges on the European Court of Human Rights—but it is an opportunity to meet Members of Parliaments from across Europe to exchange views. That is what the Council of Europe is: it is an inter-parliamentary assembly.

Article 1 of the statute of the Council of Europe states that its purpose is

“to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

As long as Russia is, albeit suspended, a member of the Council of Europe, we can hope to press it to mend its ways. Expelling Russia would be a considerable step. My hon. Friend mentioned suspended members of the Commonwealth, but it has been a rare step to expel countries from the Commonwealth—South Africa might have been expelled, and it might even have expelled itself in the early years of apartheid—and expelling a member of the Council of Europe would be a dangerous precedent, particularly in our vulnerable situation, as has already been mentioned.

As I understand it, in our Conservative party manifesto, we will proclaim the supremacy of Parliament. We will proclaim that, if our Parliament votes for a particular position, such as on prisoner voting rights, the Court cannot gainsay it. If there is a Conservative Government and if we pass such an Act of Parliament, there will undoubtedly be a move from some of our friends in Europe to expel us, but I am pretty sure that we will not be expelled. It is pretty foolish for us to set a precedent by now expelling Russia.

What Russia is doing by invading a sovereign country, its neighbour, is infinitely more egregious, more damaging to human rights and more lamentable in every respect than our will and desire to proclaim the supremacy of Parliament—I recognise that—but we have a problem, have we not? As some people will articulate, we have signed various conventions and, in a very real sense, the European Court of Human Rights is a supreme court, an ultimate authority of laws. Although we will undoubtedly want to stay in the Council of Europe—my right hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that—despite proclaiming the supremacy of Parliament, we will be in some difficulty. It is not entirely useful for us to set a precedent.

[Mr Chope]

Article 8 outlines a two-stage process. The first stage states:

“Any member of the Council of Europe which has seriously violated Article 3 may be suspended from its rights of representation”.

That is what I am suggesting as a first stage. Article 8 goes on to say what can happen afterwards. My hon. Friend says that expulsion would be a very strong sanction, but my suggestion is that we should start off with suspension, using the powers under article 8.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I argue with the position that we effectively have at the moment. Russia might not be formally suspended, but it is effectively suspended, which is a sort of halfway house. We are rapping its knuckles. If he is now saying that under no circumstances does he wish to expel Russia and that he does not view this as a process towards expelling Russia, I am sorry that I misunderstood his arguments. I am in favour of giving a message to Russia, but I am not in favour of expelling Russia. If he wants to make it clear that he is also not in favour of expelling Russia, I will happily give way.

[Mr Chope]

There are two separate issues: the Russian delegation’s membership of the Parliamentary Assembly and Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe as a country. I am saying that article 8 should be applied on that latter point. I am not talking about the situation within the Parliamentary Assembly, which has already been well rehearsed. I am talking about the Government’s responsibility to do something under article 8.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We now understand each other perfectly. I tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. We have taken the right, measured steps within the Parliamentary Assembly. The process of suspension may result in expulsion, and there should be no route towards suspending or expelling Russia from the Council of Europe. I think we have done the right thing.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing to bear in mind is that the European Court of Human Rights is extensively used by citizens of Russia and human rights defenders who want justice? They find justice in the Court when they do not necessarily find it in Russia itself. Equally, Russia benefits from bodies such as the Group of States against Corruption, which is trying to improve standards across Europe. Pulling the rug from under Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe as a whole, or putting its membership at risk, would have damaging effects.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree entirely. I was thinking of intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch when he introduced this debate. Has he been in touch with non-governmental organisations across Russia? Has he been in touch with people who are appealing to the Court, as my hon. and learned Friend said? My understanding—the Minister can confirm this or otherwise—is that the Council of Europe is valued by some people in Russia. They still have the right to go to the Court, and starting a process to expel Russia from the Council of Europe and denying those people the right to appeal to the Court would be dangerous.

Time is running by, and we do not want to get bogged down on the invasion of Ukraine. I am not pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. All I seek is to understand the mentality of the Russian people and the Russian Government, and that is part of the importance of sitting on a body such as the Council of Europe. Seeking to understand our opponent’s position does not necessarily mean that we agree with that position. It belittles and over-simplifies the debate to say that, because the current President of Russia, Mr Putin, is a tyrant—he may well be a tyrant and an extremely unpleasant person—this is somehow all his doing and that, if we in Britain were to apply certain pressures on him such as starting the process of expelling his country from the Council of Europe, we would somehow influence him.

We have to understand the attitude of many people in Crimea, eastern Ukraine and Russia. Thirty-four of the Council of Europe’s 47 member states have recognised the forcible division of Serbia after Kosovo proclaimed its independence. That is often cited, and it was directly cited by the Crimean Parliament when it voted to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. It blames us for double standards on Serbia, and it asks us, “Where were you, Britain, and what debates were there in the House of Commons, when Khrushchev forcibly, by diktat, removed Crimea from Russia and gave it to Ukraine in the 1950s?”

I do not want to comment on whether this is right or wrong, but there is a substantial body of opinion—a majority opinion—in Crimea and Russia that thinks that the people of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, who are ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, have a right to self-determination. We can have as many debates as we like, we can pose as many sanctions as we want and we can criticise Mr Putin as often as we like, but we are up against the absolute, convinced opinion of an overwhelming majority of Russian people, who think that the people of eastern Ukraine have a right to self-determination.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend extend the same argument to the Russian minorities in the Baltic states—Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am simply seeking to understand the Russian point of view. There is a difficulty with Latvia, because there are 300,000 ethnic Russian speakers in that country who are effectively denied their human rights. I am not going to get involved in a debate about whether that is bad or good, but my hon. Friend is right to say that it is often talked about in Russia. It is a real problem. However, there is a difference, because Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are members of NATO. We decided to draw them into NATO, so we are bound by article 5 to defend them.

I must end in a moment, because I do not want to weary the House by speaking for too long. I believe—I have said this before and I will say it again—that Great Britain has an historic role. There is no history between us and Russia, so we are natural arbiters. We were allies in the two greatest conflicts of the 20th century, and in many ways we are natural allies. There is a way out of this impasse.

I spent an hour with the Russian ambassador recently, and I asked his opinion. Hon. Members may say that he is just another diplomat sent abroad to lie for his country. I did not believe everything that he told me, but he said that Russia’s position—take it or leave it, but it is not completely unreasonable, and it is the basis for some sort of negotiated peace—is that Ukraine should not join NATO. Apparently, we have no desire for Ukraine to join NATO. The Russians claim that they are reasonably relaxed about Ukraine’s moving further towards the European Union, but they would like that to be balanced with corresponding trade agreements with Russia, which is a perfectly reasonable position. They recognise that eastern Ukraine should remain part of the sovereign state of Ukraine, which should have self-determination. Those three points of view are not completely unreasonable; they are the basis for peace.

I believe strongly that we should keep Russia in the Council of Europe and that we should go on talking to it. We should seek a solution based on peace; otherwise, we will be in a situation of war without end. The Russian people, who suffered terribly during the 20th century, will not give up on this issue. It is not of massive strategic concern to the British people, although we have an interest and a role to play as an arbiter. I believe that we should go on playing the role of arbiter and be a proponent of peace in the Council of Europe.

[Annette Brooke (in the Chair)]

I propose to call the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am at the very latest. Two hon. Members wish to speak, so that should be satisfactory.

10:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this challenge, which we have to face up to, to the House today. We should all be mindful of his words, but, like the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I think there is another side to the issue.

We ought to look at what the Council of Europe is about. We know that its main three pillars—its raison d’être—are human rights, the rule of law and democratic processes. However, all of us who have been in the Council of Europe for any length of time know that it also has two negative pillars, which it embraces with great enthusiasm: double standards and the lowest common denominator when it comes to getting something through the Council of Europe. Often, it is not the best argument that wins, but the one that the political bosses of the various parties decide they can carry in the Chamber.

A good example of the Council of Europe’s double standards is the situation in Ukraine. When was the last time we had a debate in the Council of Europe about the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus? I cannot remember one in my 18 years there. When did we have a debate in the Council of Europe about the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, which is an idea I support? When was the last time we criticised Armenia for occupying a third of the land mass of Azerbaijan? We have not had those debates. Why not? Because we would have to take positive action against those countries. Do we really want to say that to Turkey, Azerbaijan and Armenia? I think not. We know that will not happen.

The Library produced a very interesting document, which states:

“A group of Conservative MPs led by”

the then leader

“led a charge to suspend Russia fully from the assembly. His amendment was defeated”.

It was defeated because those people were taking a step too far, as far as the Assembly was concerned. I have long held the view that we have to have a debate on whether we want Russia in or out. There cannot be any half measures. Suspending the voting rights of the delegation is totally irrelevant. It causes a bit of panic in the Hemicycle for the hour or so after the vote is taken, when the Russian press are there and the media are trying to get a quote from everyone and anyone. I am sure I have seen some of the cameramen giving quotes about the issue to other television stations because there were no politicians around to do it.

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe had the pleasure of having Boris Nemtsov at its meetings on several occasions. I had the pleasure of meeting him, having dinner with him and talking to him. The question I asked him at our group meeting was, “Do you think we should expel Russia from the Council of Europe?” His words were, “Most definitely not.” He then spoke for about half an hour about why he thought that was not the case. During his half-hour response, he made a number of points that a lot of us thought gave conclusive evidence that Russia should not be in the Council of Europe. Nevertheless, he said no.

Over the years, the biggest problem has been the way we have looked at Russia since it joined in 1996. I joined the Council of Europe in 1997. Since then, the Council of Europe has not taken action against Russia on at least five occasions. One was when we had the long, drawn-out debates over Chechnya, which went on for the best part of four years. I went to Chechnya twice. One of our former members, Lord Judd, was one of the leading players on that issue. He came close to recommending that Russia be suspended and then expelled, but he drew back from that. He would say that he drew back because he was put under pressure.

There was the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Once again, are we really saying that it was okay for Georgia’s land to be occupied and for two free states to emerge in a Council of Europe country? What action did we take on that issue? We are still having a debate. We have rapporteurs looking at the Russia-Georgia issue, but we have not made a decision, although it occurred in 2008. Six years on, the Council of Europe has done nothing. Why? Because, once again, it aims for the lowest common denominator to keep everyone in the tent.

Human rights in Russia was another issue on which the Russians flatly refused, until 2012, to agree to the very principles that they had signed up for. The abolition of the death penalty—

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am following what the hon. Gentleman is saying very carefully. Does he not agree that in diplomacy it is important to have some messages that can be sent and some sanctions that can be imposed, in an escalating fashion, to make one’s point? Taking away voting rights in the Council of Europe, which annoys the Russians a good deal, is a measure that one can use, and it is wrong to say that it is all or nothing. Those escalating sanctions are useful.

[Mr Hancock]

But there comes a time when the credibility of the Council of Europe is at stake. That is the issue, is it not? Sooner or later, we come to a line in the sand and say, “Is it really worth belonging to this organisation?”

I do not want Russia to leave the Council of Europe, but I want to call the bluff of those who agitate time and again to nitpick—not “nitpick”, as that is the wrong expression—and to take voting rights away. Who gets cheesed off about having their voting rights taken away? Probably the wives of the Duma Members, who can no longer go to Paris and Strasbourg for sittings. I do not believe the politicians are particularly bothered that they do not have their voting rights. They know that in January next year there will be a vote and they will have their voting rights back. I am sure of that.

How can that be the case? The hon. Members who intervened on the hon. Member for Christchurch—the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—raised a point about Russia, saying, “Oh, well, if they agree to a certain line in the sand over Ukraine, that is okay.” Is it okay? Russia will never give up Crimea now, so where does the Council of Europe stand on the issue of Crimea? Forget eastern Ukraine; where does the Council of Europe stand on the issue of Crimea? I have friends who live in Crimea. They are Russian by ethnicity, have absolute faith that they are now back where they belong and are committed to staying there, and will fight very hard to do so.

[Mr Chope]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that people can be in a parliamentary assembly and have their rights suspended while they still remain members of the Council of Europe itself, because if someone’s country is still in the Council of Europe there is an argument for saying that their parliamentarians should be in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That is why I am arguing that Russia should be suspended from the Council of Europe itself.

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he presented his case extraordinarily well. I have no doubt about the merits of that case, but there is this other argument, which other Members have alluded to, that it is better to have people inside the organisation.

Would the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe have the same facilities offered to them in Russia if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. Would people in Russia, who make up nearly two thirds of all the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights, have any access to redress if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. If the £24 million that the Russians put in, as a grand payer along with the UK, was removed from the Council of Europe, what would that do for the Court in Strasbourg?

[Sir Alan Meale]

The hon. Gentleman said that the members of the Russian delegation to the Assembly do not really care whether they have voting rights, so why do they continually campaign to get the votes back and why do they threaten in discussions in the Duma that, if they do not get their votes back, they will seek to leave the Council of Europe? Surely, voting rights are important and, as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said, the strength of the push towards getting the negotiation to the Council of Ministers, or to the UN or wherever, is the important factor here.

[Mr Hancock]

The simple answer to that is that the Council of Europe needs Russia more than Russia needs the Council of Europe. That is the real issue for the Russian Duma Members and I have read with interest some of the comments they have made in the Russian press since the issue in January; they make interesting reading. Those Duma Members genuinely believe that the threat to suspend Russia is a bluff, because they know that the track record of the Council of Europe on taking forceful action is pretty abysmal and they have a lot of evidence to support that line.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) raised the issue of Latvia. Interestingly, the 300,000 ethnic Russians in Latvia are classed as non-citizens. If the Council of Europe believes in anything to do with human rights, how can it allow that situation to persist? It is ridiculous.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is pretty intolerable that a country that is a member of the EU and the Council of Europe is effectively denying citizenship to people, and the right for them to sit in Parliament and all the rest of it, unless they learn Latvian. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and there were large numbers of people here who could not speak English, or they were Urdu speakers or whatever, and we said, “You can’t stand for Parliament and all that sort of stuff because you have to vote in English.” There is a real problem here. I am not defending the Russian position, but we have to recognise that that is what the Russians think.

[Mr Hancock]

Some people might suggest that we are getting pretty close to that in the UK regarding the ability of people to speak English, but how can people be classed as non-citizens in an EU state—or, more importantly from our point of view, in a member state of the Council of Europe—and nothing is done or said about it, except by those of us who believe passionately that everyone living in a country should be classed as a citizen of that country?

What do we do? We have a debate here. I am not sure whether the suspension of voting rights for the Russians will do much at all. Expelling Russia from the Council of Europe would undoubtedly harm the organisation; it would diminish the Council of Europe’s credibility for being able to speak on behalf of the 700 million people who inhabit the 46 member states in the Council of Europe, so it would be a mistake to do it.

We must continue to work with Russia. It is quite interesting to see who the rapporteurs on Russia have been over the years. In most instances, they have been leaders of the political groups, or senior members of those groups who have taken on that responsibility. None of them has ever recommended anything like the suspension or removal of Russia from the Council of Europe. Why? Because they believed that their efforts brought some reward for the citizens in Russia.

The best message we can send out today is that we do not like what the Russians are doing and that we will do everything we can to achieve a peaceful settlement to the issues of eastern Ukraine, but that situation will not be solved and the people involved will not be saved from further harm by expelling Russia from the Council of Europe. We should take a positive step today to say that we hope to see in January a different attitude from the Russian side and from the Council of Europe side.

More importantly, however, for those Members who are lucky enough to be on the delegation to the Council of Europe after the general election, I suggest that they need to get rid of the two things that undermine the Council of Europe time and again: double standards and the continual striving to find the lowest common denominator, instead of finding the right answer.

10:19

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

Thank you, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak.

It is a great pleasure to play a part in this thoughtful debate. It has been particularly interesting to be part of a debate in which a diversity of views has been expressed. Often, our relationship with Russia is seen in a monochrome way.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on bringing this matter to the House. As he pointed out, the Council of Europe was established in the embers of the second world war and inspired by the need at that juncture to rebuild our continent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) pointed out, it was Sir Winston Churchill himself who recognised that only shared standards and values on the law and human rights, alongside democratic development, would help to stitch Europe back together. However, I do not think there was any great naivety at that stage about those ideals. There was a recognition that the ideals would be perhaps honoured in part in their breach, but it was still important to be able to talk and to have some sort of relationship.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) made it clear that there are a number of glaring situations in our continent at the moment that do not pass muster, and that if we take this draconian step against Russia it would be very difficult to see that we would not do so against a number of other nations, given some long-standing issues. One that he did not mention that comes to mind is, as the Spanish would see it, the occupation of Gibraltar, which might also become an issue. However, perhaps it is better that we move on from that to something closer at hand.

The Council of Europe as currently constituted consists of 47 member nations, incorporating nearly all the European countries as well as the outliers in the Caucasus. It has, of course, become best known in this country for the European Court of Human Rights, which sits within its auspices. As hon. Members mentioned, it was almost 20 years ago, in 1996, that the Russian Federation was formally admitted as a Council of Europe member. Even then, its relatively dubious human rights record was overlooked, on the basis that it was making progress on implementing the rule of law alongside free and fair elections. That decision symbolised the west’s optimism, at that juncture, that Russia was on its way to a normalisation after the collapse of the Soviet Union only five years before. People were saying, “Give it time and patience. If Russia is brought into the international fold, it will eventually begin to act like an open, democratic state.” Or so we thought.

Since then, the relationship between the Council of Europe and Russia has at times been testy, particularly with regard to questions about legal supremacy. In 2014, the ECHR made more judgments against Russia than against any other country. The ECHR has been used by many enemies of the Kremlin, most notably the Yukos founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, to bring cases against the Russian state.

After President Putin’s intervention in Ukraine, the Council of Europe deprived Moscow’s delegation of its right to vote, a move that has sparked wider discussion among Russia's ruling class—not just the wives of those in the Duma, I suspect—about whether Russia would wish to continue its membership of the Council. Many in Russia believe it has a negative influence on their nation and would like Russian sovereignty restored on matters such as the death penalty. If Russia withdrew from the Council, that would likely sound the death knell for some of the naive idealism that has guided western policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I had a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said in quite a brave contribution that was not something one necessarily hears on the Floor of the House. He is right: the simplistic way in which Putin is portrayed as a dictator and a tyrant in much of our press fails to understand some deep-seated issues in Russia.

I have long cautioned against assuming that Russia is on a steady path to becoming a functioning, multi-party democracy. We have always failed to understand that many Russians, to this day, see the Gorbachev and Yeltsin era as a time of chaos, uncertainty and utter humiliation. Putin has been able to maintain some domestic popularity by retelling a more traditional Russian story, filling the vast ideological vacuum left by the disintegration of the communist ideal with the notion of a Russian civilisation based upon patriotism, selflessness and deference to an all-powerful state. In doing so, he continues to tap into a pool of resentment that goes beyond Russian borders, to encapsulate many of those who dislike the global dominance of the USA over the past two decades. Specifically in relation to Georgia, there is no doubt that the Georgian leadership in that period, up to 2007-08, was little more than a CIA front. That was going on in Georgia and it is perhaps one reason why we have rapidly moved on from discussing that issue.

We are now faced with the Crimean crisis—let us be brutally honest: there is no going back from Crimea’s being returned as part of Russia—and the ongoing hostilities in eastern Ukraine. This continues to baffle many here in the west who fail to grasp why Vladimir Putin would wish to re-engineer an old-fashioned, imperialistic land-grab that risks western ire and Russian company balance sheets. The Russian President may well be a nasty piece of work—I am not in any way defending what he is doing—but he is a master at fashioning strength from weakness. From a position of fragile financial and geopolitical clout, Putin has boosted his profile with a domestic and global audience as a champion for the interests of Russia and, more worryingly, the Russian diaspora, which we have touched on in relation to Latvia and Estonia. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said: there is a fundamental difference between the way that we will look at Latvia and Estonia in years to come—they are members of NATO, and therefore protected under article 5, and members of the EU—and how we view Ukraine. The “one step forward, one step back” approach that has characterised western diplomacy in Ukraine in the past 18 months will endanger the countries beyond and give Putin a sense that we will not be serious about where a line is drawn to defend countries that are in NATO.

I should not be too surprised if Putin were now to engineer a similar victory by pushing for Russian withdrawal from the Council of Europe, making the case that continued membership is untenable now that the institution has become a vehicle through which western policy alone is exercised. Mr Putin has already suggested that neighbouring countries’ membership of the EU and NATO is equivalent to those nations existing in a “semi-occupied state”. He may also try to present an exit from the Council as a proud declaration of the supremacy of Russian sovereignty, as well as a defence of his nation’s distinct world view and political culture when it is under grave threat. In doing so, Putin will hope to sow the seeds of discord among remaining Council members, particularly when it comes to the ECHR, already a subject of hot debate on these shores. Why not try to fracture the consensus on human rights by suggesting that the ECHR has diminished national sovereignty, blunting members’ ability to tackle dangerous terrorists and the like? That argument is made on these shores and I suspect it may be made by Putin’s Russia as well.

For nearly two decades, the ECHR has enhanced Russia’s domestic legal system and provided an important outlet of dissent for those most at risk in Putin’s Russia. Without it—we should remember this in debates that we will, no doubt, have in this country on the ECHR in years to come—many opponents of the Kremlin would not have been able to gain the same level of publicity for their day-to-day plight. Naturally, if Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, the repercussions for such individuals would be considerable. Many colleagues have spoken about those issues in detail this morning.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful contribution, but where does that leave us in relation to the enforcement of judgments? For example, it is clear that the Russian Federation is not going to comply with the Yukos judgment against it. What sanction will there be when it does not?

[Mark Field]

I accept that. That is, I am afraid, part of the frustrating battle of diplomacy, which we can look at from afar, but which my right hon. Friend the Minister has to deal with day to day. I think diplomacy within the Conservative party is bad enough, let alone having to deal with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is the nature of the steadfast, patient way in which we approach these issues. We need to approach the issue of Putin in a steadfast and patient way.

My long-term belief is that, looking at what is happening geopolitically, including with the rise of China, for example—I know it pains many to even think in these terms—our relationship with Russia has to be part of our solution, not part of our problem in the longer term. Putin will not be there for ever. We need to recognise the importance of Russia as a place with which we have to have a working, workable relationship. That is in no way to justify what is going on. It is right that we should try to work with whoever is leading Russia to ensure that, if we cannot solve the real problems that we face, diplomatically, at least we are able to move steadfastly in the right direction.

My main concern with a Russian withdrawal is that President Putin will use it as a sparkling opportunity to stoke division and sow doubt among remaining members of the Council of Europe. No nation has ever resigned its membership, just as no country has ever left NATO, the eurozone or the European Union, and I hope that will continue for the foreseeable future, although one or two of my hon. Friends do not take a similar view. I fear that, by demonstrating that the post-cold war consensus on democracy, human rights and rule of law might be shattered, Putin could challenge at a stroke other international institutions that have so painstakingly been built to serve our best interests and foster freedom in our continent over the past 70 years.

10:39

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I think this is also the first and last time I have served under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. We should record that it is 30 years to the day since Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. That set off, or was the catalyst for, momentous global change. Not all welcomed that change. Vladimir Putin and the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) lament the decline, demise and fall of the Soviet Union, but western Europe and the peoples of the freed countries of the Warsaw pact and the former Soviet Union do not—they welcomed that change. That is not, however, to proclaim the end of history, as was most unwisely done at the time. History has shown that she has a lot of resilience left in her yet.

Where are we now? The annexation of Crimea and conflict in Ukraine have undoubtedly focused attention, but they did not come out of a clear blue sky. Assisted by the previous escalation in oil prices, Russia had already embarked on a substantial programme of rearmament. I outlined that on Monday in the Chamber in the debate on the non-proliferation treaty:

“We need to be concerned about the expansion of Russian capability and a major modernisation of Russia’s strategic forces—involving the deployment of two new types of sea-launched ballistic missiles, a new class of ballistic missile submarines, a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile; and work on a new bomber and long-range cruise missiles.”

I also said that Sir John Sawers, the previous head of MI6, gave evidence that the Russians had indicated that they were

“prepared to use those weapons in certain circumstances.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 118.]

That rearmament has been accompanied by increasing activity and tension, especially but by no means exclusively on Russia’s western borders. The pressure on countries in the near abroad, especially the Baltic states, has already been mentioned. Cyber-attacks have hit Estonia in particular, and NATO is discussing its response to such attacks. There is increasing maritime activity, particularly from submarines—not only in the Baltic, but around our shores. We have seen numerous instances, as have other countries, of near incursions by aviation activity, which is very much about testing our defences and our responses. We have also seen wider diplomatic initiatives, with an evolving approach from Russia.

We do not have time to explore Russia’s involvement in the middle east, but her deepening engagement in Asia, whether multilaterally through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or bilaterally with the agreement with China, is interesting and of concern; it remains to be seen whether they will be allies or adversaries in the end. That engagement was aptly described, I think by The Economist, by the headline “Autocrats of the World, Unite”. The underlying question is whether Russia sees herself as a European power or whether she sees her future in Asia. In other words, this is about the comment from General de Gaulle that Russia was not left, but east. That evolving situation has implications, including for our discussions here.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) outlined at some length the position in the Council of Europe, but I was still slightly unclear at the end on whether he had answered Vladimir Lenin’s question, “What is to be done?”, particularly by Britain and our European allies. Lenin asked that question in one of his pamphlets. Clearly, the isolationism of the left or right is not a realistic option—certainly not for Britain. As a member of the P5, a leading member of the Commonwealth and a member of the G7 and the G20, we are engaged internationally. We dealt with the isolationism of the left and the belief in unilateralism on Monday in the debate on the non-proliferation treaty. Interestingly, many of those engaged with the debate on the unilateralist side held the same views in the cold war about the malign intentions—they did not see them as that—of the Soviet Union and the need to resist them.

We also have to resist the isolationism of the right, which seeks to detach us from the institutions of Europe and, in particular, the EU. The hon. Gentleman gave a vigorous documentation of recent actions by Russia, but Europe’s response is crucial. Interestingly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), whose portfolio this is, is addressing a conference on precisely that issue and our need for engagement. He will be saying that the EU has in recent months stood together to agree sanctions against Russia over its proxy war in Ukraine.

The security dimension of our membership of the EU is becoming more important. The hard edge of our security will continue to be provided by NATO, but the commitment to the common values represented by the EU is crucial. Eurosceptics seek sovereignty, but the security situation demands common action and resolve. If the EU was to splinter or split, no one would be more pleased than President Putin, which is presumably why he supports some of the populist parties of the right in Europe, financially and rhetorically. It is no accident that the political forces that he admires are anti-European, nor is it an accident that the Front National in France has received loans of millions of euros from a Russian bank. It is also possibly no accident that Mr Farage has singled out Mr Putin for admiration “as an operator”.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) used an unfortunate word—I do not blame him for it—when he talked about “understanding”. It has an unfortunate resonance. The Germans have a phrase—the Putinversteher—for those who understand Putin. Talking about being able to “comprehend” the argument might be better, because we have to understand the different landscape that is evolving. I would say that it is reverting to a previous era. In Ukraine, we are seeing the implementation of hybrid warfare, with irregular forces and a wide range of propaganda, which softens up the will to resist. All that is reminiscent of the cold war, when there was a wide cultural front that covered the arts, sport, non-governmental organisations and trade unions. The labour attachés of the Russian and American embassies were major players in the trade union movement in that period.

It is extraordinary that we are cutting defence expenditure at the same time as we are cutting expenditure for the World Service, but we need to look at how we respond across the wider complex and whether we stay engaged. That is the crucial point arising from today’s debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch wants to engage only with countries that are on the same page, but that is a policy for hermits. Russia is a fact and China is a fact. We therefore need to look at how we can engage, and we should not underestimate the impact of engagement and of channels of communication and dialogue.

There is good historical precedent for that. There was a lot of criticism by the Republican right of Republican officials in the Administration when they undertook the Helsinki accords in 1975, which were seen as legitimising Russia and its control over the near abroad. In fact, those officials provided the basis and the channels that started to trigger the break-up of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union. It is about widening those channels. As was rightly said by the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), we should not underestimate the value to Russian citizens of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights.

We need to work to ensure that Russia meets its obligations if it wants to remain a member or active participant in international forums. That is why we support the steps taken so far by the Council of Europe to increase the pressure on President Putin to change course. Nevertheless, it is important that we maintain channels of communication, so that there is a possibility of moving forward through dialogue: ultimately, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

22:49

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I echo the comments of my colleagues who welcomed you to the Chair, Mrs Brooke, and I wish you well after you step down from the House of Commons at the forthcoming election. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing and leading what has been throughout an extremely serious-minded and thoughtful debate about not only Ukraine, but the more general relationship between the United Kingdom and the west and Russia and how we should address the challenges that we currently face.

I rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) when he said that there has been a tendency in the west to underestimate the extent to which people in Russia see the era of Gorbachev and Yeltsin as a national humiliation. Nevertheless, I do not believe that that suggests that the west has provoked President Putin and the current Russian Government in the way that he sometimes tries to claim. When looking back over the past 10 years or so, we see an effort by western countries to try to involve Russia in those international organisations that are the core of a rules-based international order. We have seen Russia brought into the G7, which became the G8; into the World Trade Organisation and the OECD; and into organisations such as the Council of Europe, which has been at the heart of today’s debate.

The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was correct to remind the House that we are looking not only at Ukraine, nor even only at Ukraine and Georgia, but at a number of areas where, in recent years, Russia has demonstrated a more aggressive pursuit of its national interests and posed a greater challenge to a rules-based international system—or at least, a system that we had hoped was rules-based. He mentioned cyber attacks and the increase in air and naval activity. I could add to that list the abduction of an Estonian official from Estonian soil. He is still in prison in Moscow, where he has been for six months without evidence being brought against him. I could also add the use of energy and strategic investments as a weapon of Russian power, the 2007 suspension of Russian participation in the conventional forces in Europe treaty and the fact that, only yesterday, Russia announced that it would suspend its participation in the Joint Consultative Group, the committee in Vienna that monitors the CFE treaty.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Perhaps the Minister could add to that list trade with Armenia. Recently, Armenia agreed to move closer to the European Union, resulting in a direct threat from Russia that if it continued to move away from the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia would instead trade with nearby partners.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman puts the point well, and one could add other items to that list.

We face not only a crisis over Ukraine, but an issue of principle. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the international community, including the Russian Federation, recognised the republics that then became independent states as sovereign and entitled to determine their own future. The question now is whether we believe that that is an important principle that should be upheld for both legal and political reasons, or that Russia is justified in trying to exert some kind of informal imperium over those countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid I will not. I have just over five minutes left and want to respond to the points made in the debate.

Today, we mark the 25th anniversary of Lithuania’s recovery of its independence after half a century of occupation. We would be foolish if we thought that simply acquiescing in a breach of the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states would have consequences that could be confined even to Europe. Countries throughout the world are watching the crisis in Ukraine and drawing conclusions about how the international community might or might not react in other circumstances.

We welcome the Minsk implementation plan for Ukraine. It is not perfect, but it is the best hope we have of turning a fragile and incomplete ceasefire into an effective truce and then, I hope, into a peacemaking process. I am advised that the latest situation is that the ceasefire has led to significant reductions in fighting, but there are still localised outbreaks of violence, especially around hot spots such as Donetsk airport and Debaltseve. Heavy weapons withdrawal has begun on both sides. On Monday, President Poroshenko said that Ukraine has withdrawn the lion’s share of its rocket and heavy artillery systems and that the Russian-backed fighters have also withdrawn a significant amount.

On verification, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is still not being granted full and unhindered access to the crisis zone. It seems to me that letting OSCE monitors through to see what is going on is a key test of Russia’s seriousness of purpose about whether it will try to turn the Minsk agreement into something meaningful on the ground.

As is clear from the debate, the issue is not only Ukraine. We must look at the full range of tools of international diplomacy to influence Russia’s behaviour and hold it to account for its actions. Organisations such as the Council of Europe offer opportunities for doing that. It is an organisation within which Russia itself has signed up to exacting standards in the field of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked a straight question: do the Government think that Russia is in breach of article 3? During the debate, I reminded myself of the text of article 3; I am no lawyer, but my political judgment is that I would feel pretty hard-pressed to argue that Russia is currently compliant with it. Nevertheless, it is a separate political judgment to decide what, if anything, should be done after that. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government’s judgment is that, on balance, despite its actions, it is currently better to have Russia inside the Council of Europe, where it can be held to account, than either suspended or expelled.

The European Court of Human Rights is a crucial mechanism for the protection of human rights against the most egregious abuses. The cases of disappearances and other serious abuses in Chechnya are important examples of where the Court must focus its attention. The majority of human rights NGOs and defenders in Russia tell us that the Court is the only chance they have of receiving some form of redress, which is why they value Russia’s continued membership of the Council of Europe. My hon. Friend mentioned the plight of Nadiya Savchenko: the Government strongly support the Committee of Ministers’ call for her immediate release on humanitarian grounds.

The Council of Europe has an important role in supporting Ukraine, not least through the advice of the Venice Commission on constitutional reform issues. I agree that we should not allow Russia free passes; it should be held to account. Depending on what Russia does in practice, I do not rule out the need to review and reconsider the Government’s current position. We do see a sharply deteriorating situation in Russia in respect of human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

We will continue to work in the Council of Europe, the UN, the OSCE and other international organisations to uphold our rules and values, and we will strive to bind Russia more closely to them. However, we should not do that at any cost. If Russia continues to flout those rules and undermine our values, that will bring further isolation, economic damage and hardship for the Russian people themselves. I very much hope that Russia will not choose that path. It is in her own long-term interests to embed the high standards in the fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law to which the Russian Government have committed themselves through their membership of the Council of Europe.

British Hong Kong Servicemen

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Good morning, Mrs Brooke. I am proud to be given the opportunity to address the House today in support of all those who served in Her Majesty’s armed forces in the former British Crown colony of Hong Kong, in particular the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Hong Kong Royal Naval Service.

Each and every one of us in the Chamber should salute with enormous pride the sacrifice made by all of Britain’s armed forces in defence of Queen and country over the past century, but none are more loyal servants to and truer guardians of the British Crown than the Hong Kong ex-servicemen. I am grateful that today we have the opportunity to bring into the spotlight a number of those who were prepared to uphold British rule in Hong Kong and to serve their country with bravery and dignity. In spite of that, they have faced grave injustice. They are servicemen who have been indiscriminately denied the right to claim citizenship of the nation to which they swore their allegiance, under the Crown that they served so gallantly.

In the final days of this Parliament I call upon Her Majesty’s Government to right that wrong and to recognise the ex-servicemen’s entitlement to full British citizenship. We should offer priority citizenship to all former Hong Kong soldiers of the British Hong Kong Military Service Corps and those who served in the Hong Kong Royal Naval Service.

Those proud people were born British, they lived as Britons, they fought to defend Britain and they paid into the British Treasury in the same way that we who live within the islands of the United Kingdom do. It was not the choice of those loyal people for the sovereignty of Hong Kong to move to the People’s Republic of China in June 1997—no self-determination for them, no referendum about their future. Indeed, Hong Kong was the only British colony where the inhabitants had no direct say over their own destiny. In such circumstances, it is only just for anyone who served in the forces of the Crown to be granted the British nationality that was always theirs.

As the Minister is aware, between 1990 and 1997, the British Government established a scheme that permitted a select number of British Hong Kong citizens to be granted full British citizenship. Only 50,000 persons were eligible, as per the recommendation of the Governor of Hong Kong at the time. What is regularly overlooked is the allocation of that 50,000 was more or less indiscriminate and the scheme did not pay the necessary or deserved attention to those who took the extra step to serve Queen and country.

Among the scheme categories, British Hong Kong soldiers were placed in the disciplined services class, or DSC, which was primarily based on a points system. Various factors were considered, such as the soldier’s army rank, qualifications, length of regular service and so on. In my firm view, that represents a remarkable error in the process. Beyond doubt, those servicemen should have been allocated their own armed forces class. They were serving in the conventional British armed forces and should have been treated as such, thus being afforded the privileges that they had fought for. All those who wished to do so should have been able to reside in the United Kingdom.

Moreover, it is totally unacceptable that only 500 passports were allocated to the some 2,000-strong Hong Kong Military Service Corps. Even more pertinently, repeated freedom of information requests have declined to state exactly how many of those 500 soldiers actually chose to reside in the UK and to become British citizens. It is wholly wrong that only 25% of the serving British Hong Kong soldiers in 1997 had access to UK citizenship and that so many men were forced to be left behind to suffer an uncertain future under the control of communist China.

The Home Office has stated in correspondence that the original citizenship policy was “fair and just”, but how could it be when only some 500 soldiers out of the 2,000 in the entire Hong Kong Military Service Corps could obtain UK citizenship, even had they all applied for citizenship? I understand and indeed acknowledge the reasons why the allocation for the entire Hong Kong population was capped at 50,000, but surely we must look after our armed forces first and foremost. We have a duty to those who have given their oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and who have performed their duty to Britain.

The Home Office has said that those men were only locally employed, with the status of locally enlisted personnel—since they were recruited locally, they would not have had the expectation of or automatic right to a British passport. If that is indeed the case, perhaps the Minister will explain why 500 passports were allocated at all? Why were any one of the Hong Kong ex-servicemen given British citizenship? Surely they should all have been treated the same. Those men were all born British, but some of them were denied the right to be British and to have the citizenship that they had every right to obtain.

Those veterans, whom I have had the honour to get to know in recent months, would tell you that they are British—they are more British than they would ever consider themselves to be Chinese. It was an appalling injustice to transfer their national status overnight from being British Hong Kong to Hong Kong Chinese, without even giving them the option to remain British subjects. The time has now surely arrived to correct that injustice and to grant those proud men the British citizenship that should rightly be theirs.

The Home Office has stated that, under existing legislation, individuals from Hong Kong may follow the immigration process and apply for UK citizenship. Such legislative provisions, however, by no means guarantee the outcome. They fail to acknowledge the seriousness of our failure of duty to those former servicemen and the debt that we owe them.

I was recently granted a debate and addressed the House in Westminster Hall about Commonwealth visas and immigration. Much of my frustration in that debate is echoed in the sentiments that I am expressing in the debate today. We continue to tolerate uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration from the European Union while neglecting those to whom we owe true allegiance and with whom we enjoy a shared history and friendship going back sometimes many hundreds of years. In this instance, the former British soldiers and naval personnel from Hong Kong who were prepared to lay down their lives in service to our country appear now, frankly, to be held in lower esteem than a citizen from an EU member state. How can that be right?

I remind the House of our obligations under the armed forces covenant, which stipulates clearly that we have a duty to our veterans and their families. The ex-servicemen from Hong Kong were part of the British Regular Army, working side by side with British troops both in Hong Kong and elsewhere. These men are now our veterans. The covenant involves an obligation for life, and the commitment and sacrifices made by veterans in the past, as well as their continuing value to society, should be properly recognised in the support that they receive.

To many, however, it seems that these veterans of ours now form a forgotten part of British history. They are soldiers who fought in numerous wars, who were awarded high honours and medals for bravery and were distinguished for their gallant service and sacrifice. It is surely a sad day when we find ourselves putting together bureaucratic excuses to push a matter such as this one under the carpet. We have no reason other than sheer defiance for turning our backs on our own veterans.

As I said to the House in the emergency debate on Hong Kong in December last year, Britain has no interest in interfering in the internal affairs and politics of China. But Hong Kong is different. Britain has a duty to the people of Hong Kong and we must not abandon them. The United Kingdom owes an allegiance to the people of Hong Kong, but particularly those who served bravely in Her Majesty’s armed forces. They should not be left behind any longer.

On 6 November last year, along with a number of the Hong Kong veterans, I delivered a formal petition to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. The research team involved with the campaign for right of abode for Hong Kong ex-servicemen managed to locate 302 Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans, 301 of whom signed the petition—a pretty high percentage—asking for equal rights for those soldiers and military personnel. We are not talking about thousands of people; we are talking about a relatively small number of people who are over there, but want to be here and to have the right to be British. Why should they not have that right? They have served our country and deserve to be treated equally. I urge the Minister to examine the issue more closely and to find a solution sooner rather than later.

It is clearly time to reflect on the injustice that has been carried out. The situation is unique and the British Government need to address it. It simply cannot be right to stand idly by while fellow Britons who served diligently in Her Majesty’s armed forces are forced to remain in a country where they do not feel truly at home and where, as they have explained to me first hand, they often feel persecuted and discriminated against for their allegiance to the Crown.

We must take the opportunity to undo the errors of the past and offer these men what is a small token when compared with what they really deserve. It is deeply sad to have to say that successive Governments have opted to turn their back on these soldiers. I believe it is high time for the policy on this matter to change. It is time for those who have proudly served Queen and country from Hong Kong to be given the recognition they so richly deserve—time, indeed, for Her Majesty’s Government to do the right thing.

11:13

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate and on the passionate way in which he has advocated not only his case, but the interests of Hong Kong ex-servicemen who served with the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. He rightly underlined the service they gave to this country.

I am afraid that I will not be able to accede to the request my hon. Friend has made this morning, and I hope to explain some of the reasons for the approach that has been taken consistently by the Government. However, that should in no way be taken as undermining or casting any negative impression of the important service those people provided. I hope that I will be able to explain some of our thinking and some of the existing rights. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to make the points that he has in the way that he has. I honestly hope that he will be returned safely as the Member for Romford at the general election and so will be able to continue to make his case in the next Parliament as well, as the issue will no doubt be returned to then.

My hon. Friend has suggested that former Hong Kong servicemen should be given a right of abode in the United Kingdom. Under current legislation, the only people who have the right of abode here are British citizens and some Commonwealth citizens who had secured that right before the law changed in 1983. It has been a long-established practice in British nationality law for British nationality to be lost when a country ceases to be a UK territory. That has been the case since 1949, when countries such as Australia and Canada ceased to be colonies, and was so through the 1950s and 1960s, when countries such as Uganda and Jamaica became independent.

The normal practice is that those who acquired British nationality only through a connection with the newly independent country ceased to be such a national on independence. The only people who retained British nationality were those with a continuing connection with the UK—for example, through birth here or descent from someone born here. It was not the practice for nationality to be retained as a reward for service within the former territory.

We accept that the position with Hong Kong was unique. Before Hong Kong was returned to China on 1 July 1997, it was a British dependent territory. Therefore, persons acquiring nationality only through a connection with Hong Kong were British dependent territories citizens: they would not have held British citizenship, and thus had no right of abode in the UK.

The position with Hong Kong was also unique in that British dependent territories citizens with a connection with Hong Kong were given the right to acquire the status of British nationals overseas and to retain that new status for life. Therefore, when someone ceased to be a British dependent territories citizen in 1997, they could still hold a form of British nationality. The issuing of passports to people with the status of British nationals overseas began on 1 July 1987. British nationals overseas are eligible for British consular protection and services when travelling or residing abroad and are exempt under the immigration rules from any requirement to hold an entry certificate or visa to visit the UK. However, they do not have the right of abode in the UK.

It was not, of course, obligatory for British dependent territories citizens in Hong Kong to apply for British national overseas status, but they could apply even if they held another nationality. If they did not choose to apply and on 1 July 1997 had another nationality, they automatically lost British nationality. If on 1 July 1997 they did not have another nationality and would otherwise have become stateless, they automatically became British overseas citizens. Those arrangements ensured that no one was left stateless as a result of the handover to China. A large number of people in Hong Kong chose to apply for British national overseas status. We estimate that there are approximately 3.4 million holders of BNO passports in Hong Kong, the majority of whom are also Chinese citizens.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the British nationality selection scheme, which was introduced in 1990. That scheme was set up in recognition of the fact that the confidence of the Hong Kong people needed to be restored leading up to the handover in 1997. It was felt that granting British citizenship to 50,000 of Hong Kong’s best-qualified key people, together with their spouses and minor children, was a means of achieving that aim. Under the scheme, 7,000 places were allocated to the disciplined services class. Places were given to each service in proportion to their staff numbers. For individuals within the services, a points system was used to select applicants. There was also a framework to award additional special circumstances points in the disciplined services class to reflect the varying needs of each service. Registration under the scheme was optional. Those applying had to submit an application and fee before a specified date. We remain of the view that the route to gaining a British passport under the scheme was fair and that the criteria were clear. As such, it would not be appropriate to revisit the terms of the scheme, which was established in 1990, and to introduce additional measures for those who were not selected.

Members of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps played an important role in the British garrison in Hong Kong—a point my hon. Friend made clearly, effectively and passionately—but they were locally recruited, and the majority remained in Hong Kong for most of their careers, so there was a distinction, in that their service was conducted in Hong Kong, rather than in other places where British forces were deployed on active service.

We recognise the contribution of those who served in Hong Kong, and we are grateful for their dedicated service. However, it is not appropriate to single them out by granting them citizenship exceptionally. We recognise their service, but other groups who served under the dependent territory Government and who may also have demonstrated commitment in their line of work may equally have failed to be selected. Similarly, others may have served while their territory was a colony, but they may not have gained British citizenship—for example, Australian Anzacs in the second world war and those who served in colonial police forces.

Those who hold British national overseas status or British overseas citizenship through a connection with Hong Kong already have a route to British citizenship if they do not have another citizenship or nationality.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister rightly mentioned Australia, but will he acknowledge that many former colonies have an ancestry visa that allows people to come to live in the UK if they choose to? Furthermore, all the other former colonies he may be thinking about are members of the Commonwealth. Uniquely, Hong Kong is denied the opportunity to be a member, because it has been taken into the People’s Republic of China. The people of Hong Kong are therefore hugely disadvantaged, compared with those of any other former British colony he may care to mention.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear my hon. Friend’s point. Hong Kong certainly has a unique status, but I underline the fact that we had the selection scheme from 1990 to 1997. Those who hold British national overseas status or British overseas citizenship through a connection with Hong Kong have a route to British citizenship if they do not have another citizenship or nationality.

Under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997, a person who is ordinarily resident in Hong Kong on the date of application and who was resident there on 3 February 1997 as a British overseas territories citizen can apply to register as a British citizen if he or she has no other nationality. Similarly, section 4B of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows for the registration of British nationals if they do not hold any other citizenship or nationality and would otherwise be stateless and if they have not voluntarily renounced or relinquished another nationality. I accept that those provisions are available only to British nationals who would otherwise be stateless and that many former Hong Kong service personnel will have Chinese nationality. However, they can rely on that Chinese citizenship for travel, and they have a right of residence in Hong Kong.

The Government are committed to creating a fair immigration system and to righting the wrongs of history where it is appropriate to do so. In the Immigration Act 2014, we therefore created a registration route for people who would have become British citizens but for the fact that their British father was not married to their mother. I am pleased to say that that provision will be commenced on 6 April, and applications can be made on or after that date.

I want to come back to my hon. Friend on the Government’s commitment to supporting our armed forces. The armed forces covenant was published in May 2011, and it is based on the principles of removing disadvantage for serving personnel in accessing public and commercial services and of allowing special provision in some circumstances, such as for the injured or bereaved. Through the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Act 2011, we have enshrined in law the need to have regard to those two key principles and an obligation to produce an annual report on the covenant’s operation in a number of areas, including health, education, welfare and inquests. The covenant is an obligation on the whole of society. It includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations and individuals, all of whom are asked to recognise our armed forces and to offer respect, support and fair treatment.

We have a positive record on providing for the armed forces in immigration and nationality matters. Nationality legislation was amended last year to give the Secretary of State discretion to overlook, in armed forces cases, the requirement to be physically in the UK on day one of the five-year qualifying residency period for naturalisation. Therefore, members or former members of Her Majesty’s forces on overseas postings at the relevant time will not have to wait longer to become British citizens. We have introduced processes to enable foreign or Commonwealth members of Her Majesty’s forces to apply for settlement in advance of discharge, thus smoothing the transition to civilian life. Both those measures were priority commitments under the armed forces covenant.

In addition, changes to the immigration rules in 2013 provided, for the first time, a single set of rules for the dependants of members of Her Majesty’s forces, regardless of the nationality of their sponsor. Those rules mirror those for dependants of British and settled civilians, but they contain some flexibility to ensure that the armed forces community is not disadvantaged through service life. For example, partners of members of Her Majesty’s forces can serve their probationary period outside the UK if they are accompanying their sponsor on an overseas posting, and they are granted a longer period of initial leave to prevent the financial disadvantage of renewing leave from overseas.

Let me return to the right of abode for former Hong Kong servicemen. It would not be right to grant citizenship to this group of locally recruited staff who were engaged by the UK Government, who remained in Hong Kong for most of their careers and who would not, at the time of their service, have had an expectation or automatic right of British citizenship.

This is a continuing concern to my hon. Friend and other Members of the House. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee made recommendations about British nationals overseas in the report that it published last week— my hon. Friend is a member of the Committee—and the Foreign Office is giving due consideration to those recommendations.

We recognise the service provided by former Hong Kong military personnel, but I underline the fact that it is not appropriate to revisit decisions made as part of the selection scheme introduced under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 and to create another category of people entitled to become British citizens and to have the right of abode in the UK. My hon. Friend will continue to press the point—

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will briefly give way one final time because I know how passionately my hon. Friend believes in the issue, which I am sure he will continue to campaign on.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister has clearly taken on board all the points I made, and he clearly senses that there is an injustice, which could be looked at. Is he willing to meet me and representatives of the Hong Kong ex-servicemen to see whether there is a way forward and to find a long-term solution?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we have little time left in this Parliament to consider further representations, although I know the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), has written to my hon. Friend about this issue. What I can say is that I note my hon. Friend’s representations, and I am sure we will return to the issue in the next Parliament to hear further representations.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

HIV Treatment: Low and Middle- income Countries

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

14:29

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main. I and the other members of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS are extremely grateful to be granted this debate to discuss access to HIV treatment in low and middle-income countries. The debate is based on the findings of our “Access Denied” report, which our group has been working on for a long time, so we appreciate the chance to bring it to Westminster Hall today.

I am grateful to the members of the group who have come to join us today. They have shown great dedication to this issue, which has not been riding high in the public agenda in recent years. Nevertheless, it is still extremely important and I am grateful for their support. It is notable that the group has extremely active members from all political parties represented in the House of Commons, and we have many active members of considerable experience from the other place, too. The cross-party consensus has been consistent for the four years that I have been chair of the group, as I understand it was before my chairpersonship, and I hope that that will long continue.

The debate is about access to HIV treatment in low and middle-income countries, but many issues that we will cover today, and which were covered in the report, are relevant to various diseases of poverty. I hope that we are able to discuss some of those later in the debate.

Our report outlines the findings of almost one year of research conducted by the all-party group, which included visits to South Africa and India, and also many written and oral evidence sessions here in Parliament.

Despite the incredible progress that has been made in the battle against HIV, there remain many barriers to accessing medicines and treatment in low and middle-income countries. The latest estimates from UNAIDS—the joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS—show that there are around 35 million people infected and living with HIV globally. There are encouraging figures, too. New infections have reduced from a peak of 3.4 million in 2001 to 2.1 million in 2013, the most recent year that we have complete figures for. However, 2.1 million is still a staggering number of people, so we must continue to do everything we can until we reach the ultimate goal of zero infections.

AIDS-related deaths have fallen from a peak of 2.3 million in 2005 to 1.5 million in 2013. In the past three years alone, deaths have fallen by a huge 19%. The statistics show that incredible progress is being made, but those huge numbers also show that more must be done. Behind the statistics are real people trying to live fulfilling lives. Mothers and fathers are trying to provide for their families, and young people are facing the prospect of a lifetime living with a currently incurable, although treatable, disease. If they are to have any chance of a high quality of life, they must be able to access treatment.

We now have almost 14 million people across the world accessing ARV—antiretroviral therapy—compared with fewer than 1 million 10 years ago. That is a tremendous, unprecedented achievement, which is the result of the global community coming together and a campaigning movement unlike anything the world has seen before. Many of the people who access treatment are able to do so thanks to the work of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. I commend the Government for their significant commitment of £1 billion to the fund, and also for the utilisation of the UK’s influence on convincing other donor countries to contribute.

So, 14 million people on treatment is clearly a significant number, but that leaves us around 21 million people in the world still unable to access treatment. That is equivalent to three out of every five people living with HIV unable to access ARVs. If 60% sounds high, the figure is even higher and even worse when we consider paediatric care. Of those children and adolescents living with HIV, 80% are unable to access treatment; we covered that in depth in the report. We have reached a crossroads in the AIDS response. Progress has been made, but international aid and public interest in HIV and AIDS is no doubt diminishing.

According to figures from UNAIDS, international donor funding for the HIV response is stagnating, with funds remaining largely the same since 2008, despite the fact that we now have an increased scientific understanding of HIV. We now know, for example, that starting treatment earlier saves lives, and, thanks to groundbreaking research, we have proof that treatment is highly effective at preventing transmission of the virus in the first place. That new tool, combined with improved targeting of a range of effective prevention interventions, means that we could significantly reduce the number of new cases of HIV by scaling up our response.

To sum up my introduction, we have the tools at our disposal to end AIDS in a generation, so this is not the time for us to walk away from that important issue. This is the time when we have to scale up the response. The Government have been at the forefront of that so far, and I want that to continue.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need renewed political commitment to keep the momentum going so that we do not lose it and undo much of the good work that we have achieved to date.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is an active member of the all-party group, and I appreciate his support in the work that we do.

I want to move on to the barriers to accessing treatment, which we have drawn attention to in our report. Various barriers were obvious to us at the beginning of our inquiry, but the impact of many came as a surprise. Barriers include the continued high cost of second and third-line treatments. The cost of first-line treatments has come down considerably, particularly due to the fantastic impact of the medicines patent pool. Indeed, the full impact that that will have is yet to come to fruition. However, second and third-line treatments remain very expensive for the poorest people living with HIV.

In our inquiry, we also found that there is completely inadequate access to the most effective testing and diagnostic tools, especially viral load testing. We found that continued weak and unsupported health systems in low and middle-income countries were having a direct impact on people living with HIV. Poor supply chain management is having an impact, although it is avoidable with technical support. Lack of investment in research and development is still having an impact. We found that particularly in lower priority areas and in less profitable treatment areas such as paediatric medicines.

In many countries there is still no political prioritisation of key populations most at risk, unlike here in the UK with our development work. We still see men who have sex with men, sex workers, injecting drug users and transgender people not getting the prioritisation that they need. They are being left behind, even in countries that are otherwise doing well in creating access to medicine. We also continue to see severe stigma and discrimination with respect to all people who live with HIV. That stops people accessing not only treatment, but advice on prevention and testing. That is causing people to contract HIV; it is not just affecting their treatment.

Sharp reductions in support—financial, technical and otherwise—to countries becoming classified as middle income are having a direct impact on the treatment of people living with HIV. To be clear, that is a much bigger debate in international development, but it is a clear example of the impact that is happening.

I will discuss some of those barriers in more depth, but I will start with the cost of treatment. Treatment prices remain one of the biggest barriers to accessing ARV treatment. From my experience in the all-party group and otherwise, the justification that we have often heard for high prices of medications has been the extremely high cost of research and development. Although that is a considerable cost and investment for many pharmaceutical companies, it was enlightening to hear, in one oral evidence session for the report, a pharmaceutical company representative admit that it is not the case that that determines the price. He was clear in saying that the price of treatments is primarily driven by licensing costs and decisions by pharmaceutical companies about what the market will bear.

Intellectual property rights grant exclusive rights to manufacture drugs without competition, and that lack of competition leads to high prices. That said, there is a globally accepted principle that IP rights and patents do not interfere with public health. That was not always the case, however, and in my experience threats to that principle have been overcome only by huge public campaigns.

Governments can bypass IP rights if there is a public health need by imposing compulsory licences. Alternatively, innovator drug companies can agree voluntary licences. Both those ways allow generic pharmaceutical companies to produce quality-assured generic treatments. We saw that first hand during our inquiry, when we visited India and South Africa. We visited generic companies and saw the work that they were doing, and we went to clinics to see the people who were being treated with those drugs, who otherwise would not be receiving any medication. We now have affordable first-line treatments that are available as a result of the voluntary licences, and that has been instrumental in increasing access to treatment.

We now have a price for first-line treatments of around $100 per person per year, whereas 10 years ago it was $10,000 per person per year, so there has been a huge drop in price. Unfortunately, however, if a patient’s first-line treatment is failing and second and third-line treatments are required, the cost of those treatments still remains high.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this extremely important debate. Will she expand on the role of the pharmaceutical industry? On page 21, the report mentions that

“a leaked document outlining a lobbying plan for the Innovative Pharmaceutical Association South Africa (IPASA)—the representative body for pharmaceutical companies in South Africa—highlighted the industry’s plans to delay reforms.”

What does that mean?

[Pamela Nash]

We met the South African Government and lobby groups in South Africa on that issue. There was a war between the pharmaceutical companies and Médecins sans Frontières and other smaller groups about this, and it was part of a wider campaign from some pharmaceutical companies to prevent any legislation that might reduce their power to have higher prices. That included such things as “evergreening”, which we have seen in other countries, when patents are granted for a drug because there is a slight change in its chemical composition. Drugs are designed to have a new patent and therefore get round some of the existing patent legislation.

There has been a lot of experience of those companies trying to dodge that, but there are good examples of companies such as Gilead, which have been willing to be at the forefront of being part of voluntary licences and of the medicines patent pool. I do not want to stand here and paint the pharmaceutical companies as the bad guys, because without them we would not have those drugs, but we want to encourage responsible behaviour from them and ensure that they realise what a fantastic contribution they can make to the public health of the world and of people living with HIV.

As I said before the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), there is still a clear problem with second and third-line medication being much more expensive than first-line treatment. In relation to the points that my hon. Friend made, issues have been raised about free trade agreements, in the inquiry and since with the all-party group.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will certainly not be a stranger to the inboxes of most Members in Westminster Hall today. TTIP and the Asia-Pacific Trans-Pacific Partnership—free trade agreements that are under negotiation—seem to pose the risk of introducing additional property rights restrictions or extending patent exclusivity. Although TTIP and TPP do not have a direct impact on the low and middle-income countries that we are discussing, an impact will be felt by them. There is a reasonable fear that the precedent set by those trade agreements will have an impact and shape future agreements.

Any introduction of more onerous patent rules would hinder the ability of generic manufacturers to operate and reduce competition and drive prices back up. That would be disastrous for access to treatment, and our Government must do all they can to protect global public health within these and future agreements. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified today whether the Department for International Development shares any of those concerns and if he put on record his Department’s formal input into free trade agreements. I appreciate that some of that is private, but I am asking how the Department does that and whether he feels that has an impact on the Government’s view as they go into these negotiations.

I shall move on to middle-income countries. During the inquiry, I was particularly struck, more than ever before in my involvement in international development, by the squeeze on middle-income countries and particularly by the impact on the poorest people living in those countries. As I said, this is part of a much bigger debate in international development—it is not confined to HIV—but access to medicine is a clear example of where we might be going wrong.

In providing HIV treatment, middle-income countries in particular are facing a crisis of increased prices combined with reduced financial support. Many of those countries are excluded from the licensing deals that I just mentioned for first-line treatments that allow generic production and supply, forcing them to purchase from innovator pharmaceutical companies at market prices. Those prices are prohibitive and inconsistent. For example, prices for second-line drugs in Argentina are $2,570 per person per year, and the price in Mexico is similar. That is over 12 times the price that South Africa pays at $204 per person per year, which is double the price that I mentioned earlier of $100, which is available for first-line drugs in many low-income countries.

At the same time as they face increased prices, many middle-income countries are having their official development assistance withdrawn from bilateral and multilateral donors. As far as I can see, that has been this Government’s policy, not only in bilateral support, but in using the UK’s influence on the expenditure of multilateral donors to which we contribute, such as the global fund. In addition, we are, in my view, using outdated country classifications and pushing more and more countries prematurely into middle-income status.

When those factors combine, national Governments in middle-income countries are unable to provide services, leading to a treatment crisis. Classification of countries must move away from the current gross national income to a more nuanced analysis. Further support needs to be given to countries, as they graduate through classifications. Decisions about the provision of aid need to be based on need, not just country classifications, although it is completely correct that resources should be prioritised to those who need them most.

Of course, we should expect countries to take on an ever-increasing responsibility for their own development as they become wealthier, but we should not assume that a country with a label of middle-income status has the resources or the technical capacity to cope with aid being withdrawn. The inequality within middle-income countries must be kept in mind. Increasing GNI does not instantly equate to improved living standards or fantastic new health systems, particularly for the poorest and hardest to reach. In relation to access to treatment, funding decisions should be based solely on evidence.

As bilateral donors such as us are withdrawing funding from middle-income countries, so the burden falls on multilateral donors to plug the gaps until countries in transition can fund their services from domestic resources. However, we have seen multilateral organisations following the lead of bilateral donors and reducing support for middle-income countries.

I repeat to the Minister that we should not underestimate the influence that the UK has globally. I say that not with a conceited British ego, but from the experience of speaking to multilateral donors and the people who run those organisations and to people from donor countries and from countries that benefit. When we speak to them, they beg us to bring to DFID the view that this is a huge problem. If a solution to it is to be found, it will require political leadership from the British Government and DFID and a concerted effort to make this issue a priority to ensure that it receives the necessary political attention. Will the Minister tell us whether that is recognised by the Government and whether there is any change in the Government’s thinking on how we look at middle-income countries and their support, particularly on this issue but also more generally?

As I said, the current models of research and development are not delivering all the treatments necessary to meet public health needs. R and D is not prioritised based on need; it is prioritised according to the most profitable products. In our report, we found that there is a gap in relation to treatment for many HIV co-infections, paediatric treatment and diagnostics for small children. Existing models for R and D rely on pharmaceutical companies securing patents that grant exclusive rights to sell the drugs that they develop. If a potential market does not exist, there is currently no incentive to develop products. The need for market advantage reduces collaboration between researchers and increases delays in research into potential vaccines and cures and more effective treatment regimes.

At this point, I want to highlight the fact that in the report we note the disappointment in the UK Government for withdrawing 80% of the funding for the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and research into an HIV vaccine. Will the Government reconsider that? If not, can the Minister explain why not?

On treatment, a key recommendation in the report is for DFID to play a role in developing new R and D models that are delinked from profits, based on open data sharing and reward people for the development of new clinical technologies, rather than exclusive sales rights being granted. We have recent examples of where what I have described could be a continued problem and where the solution that we have proposed could work. The Ebola crisis is a good example of the failings of the current global model, whereby a vaccine is developed only after a crisis has developed because there was no market incentive to develop one before. Médecins sans Frontières estimates that a vaccine for Ebola will emerge not from a private laboratory, but from publicly funded research.

Models for encouraging innovation in relation to HIV and neglected diseases can broadly be divided into push and pull mechanisms. Push mechanisms reduce the risks and costs of investment in R and D. They include direct funding of research and tax credits, both of which have already been used by the UK Government. The main drawback to push mechanisms, such as direct funding, is that they require funders to make a judgment about which research bodies are most likely to achieve the needed results. Clearly, more research is needed into who would be the best people to make that judgment.

Pull mechanisms, in contrast, create an extra incentive to achieve the result, such as a new medicine, with the benefit delivered only on achievement. Examples of such mechanisms include prizes for the first researchers to come up with a specified innovation, advance market commitments or tax credits on the sale of a certain product that has yet to be developed. There are examples of that already.

We have seen success in delinking R and D costs in relation to the meningitis A vaccine initiative. That developed an adapted meningitis A vaccine through collaborative research, which included the National Institutes of Health and the Serum Institute of India, a private vaccines company. The cost of the vaccine is approximately 50 cents a dose. Furthermore, delinked models of R and D are under consideration for the development of new antibiotics, particularly because there are no incentives for industry to develop products that are meant to be both affordable and conserved or tightly managed.

Our research findings show that the Government could be doing much more to explore the benefits of alternative research models, and I urge them to commission a paper analysing the costs and benefits of alternative R and D models. I ask the Minister whether the Department is considering that. It was a key recommendation of the “Access Denied” report and was previously communicated to the Department.

I want to touch on another finding of the report—the lack of access to viral load testing. We need effective diagnostic tools if we are to provide quality care, but we are seeing very limited investment in that area of research and provision. Viral load testing is the gold standard of diagnostic testing, with increases in viral load indicating treatment failure. If any of us in this Chamber were living with HIV in the UK, we would be undergoing regular viral load testing to ensure the effectiveness of our treatment. The idea is that if the treatment is not effective, people are moved on to second-line or third-line treatment as soon as possible.

In low and middle-income countries, however, viral load testing is limited, which leads to lower standards of care and delays in identifying treatment failure. There have been recent moves to reduce prices, but the tests are carried out only in specialist centres with limited capacity. When I was in India, we went to a clinic and saw the situation at first hand. There was very limited capacity to provide viral load testing. When someone was suspected of having a treatment failure, they had to go in front of a board. There were layers and layers of bureaucracy for such a person. The only justification that I can give is that people there just did not have the capacity and were trying to limit the number of individuals going for viral load testing because they could not afford to send any more. When we met representatives of organisations that were lobbying the Government and, indeed, us on this issue, they told us horrific stories of people who had died waiting to get a test to know whether their treatment was failing. That is something that we do not need to live with in this country, and we have the technology to stop it happening. I feel that we have a responsibility to try to increase the capacity for viral load testing across the world as soon as possible.

Even as the tests are becoming more affordable, there remains a challenge to ensure that these systems are in place. There is a need to develop affordable, accurate point-of-care testing to increase available testing and to reduce delays. That would avoid the need for patients to travel hundreds of miles to testing centres far from their homes and would significantly improve the quality of care received by patients.

Diagnostics are just one area where we see a disparity in treatment between rich and poor countries. We also see that across the spectrum of clinical settings. Distribution networks and health systems in low and middle-income countries are far behind where they need to be. Supply chains are vulnerable to a number of issues, resulting in poor access to treatments. Those challenges include significant delays in registering new drugs, poor demand forecasting and ordering, inadequate storage facilities, stock-outs, corruption and poor patient record management. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what his Department is doing to address those issues and to support health system strengthening to improve access to treatment, particularly in terms of what we can do to encourage investment in making viral load testing cheaper and more accessible to low and middle-income countries.

The final issue that I will consider is that key populations are being left behind. That has been much debated in the main Chamber and in this room by the all-party group on HIV and AIDS and by our friends among other all-party groups. In addition to the practical, scientific and economic barriers that have been outlined, there are definite social barriers to treatment. The UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic demonstrates that key populations are being left behind when it comes to access to treatment across the globe. The problem is not confined to low, middle or upper-middle-income countries, but it is particularly acute in some upper-middle-income countries—such as former Soviet Union states and countries in central Asia—because HIV epidemics are growing rapidly among key populations.

As MSF pointed out in its submission to our inquiry, the problem of pricing in such countries is compounded by the fact that the epidemics are not generalised but concentrated in marginalised populations. For the avoidance of doubt, I am talking about injecting drug users, sex workers, men who have sex with men, and the transgender population. As I outlined earlier, many global funders actively restrict funding to such countries. That inevitably creates barriers to access for the most vulnerable groups, because there is no political will in those countries to help the key populations that are most affected.

The UNAIDS report highlighted the barriers to treatment created by punitive and discriminatory legislation in many countries:

“As of 2013, 63 countries have in at least one jurisdiction, specific provisions that allow for the persecution of HIV nondisclosure, exposure and/or transmission. Criminalisation of key populations also remains widespread, and 60% of countries report having laws, regulations or policies which present obstacles to effective HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for key populations and vulnerable groups.”

Stigma and discrimination must be challenged wherever they are encountered, whether at a community or a state-wide level. If we do not remove social barriers to accessing testing and treatment, scientific advances will be ineffective. The thing I find most painful about this section of the report is that the position of key populations is not improving but getting worse. There have been many debates in this Chamber about the situation in Uganda and the change in its laws, and there has been much interest in what has happened in Russia. There is cross-party support in the House for fighting discrimination, and I am proud of our country’s record of working to do so. I hope that that will continue.

In conclusion, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this important subject. Hon. Members may think that I have gone on a bit, but I could speak for hours about the detail of the report. It was born out of the huge impact of the report on access to medicines that our predecessor group published in 2009, which I have seen on shelves across the world in countries that I have had the privilege of visiting as chair of the all-party group. A huge amount of progress has been made in the past five years, and a great deal has changed, so I felt that it was time to look at these issues again. As I said at the start of my remarks, despite that progress, so much more can be done. We need to ensure that that happens by working together to tackle the barriers that are outlined in the report.

15:03

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

I want briefly to reinforce four of the many excellent points that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) has made. First, I want to talk about access to medicine. Fifteen years ago, 70% of people living with HIV were located in low-income countries. Estimates now show that, by 2020, about 70% of people living with HIV will be located in middle-income countries. That dramatic shift means that a fresh approach is required to the AIDS response.

Recently, Governments and multilateral donors have withdrawn funding from middle-income countries, at the very moment when they are faced with increasing treatment costs. Outdated classifications of countries based on simplistic gross national income calculations need to be replaced with evidence-based approaches to ensure that the response to HIV/AIDS, and to other diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C, is as effective as possible. The focus should be not on low-income countries versus middle-income countries, but on ensuring that the most vulnerable and marginalised in society receive the services that they require.

Secondly, we need to keep going. It is now possible to end the HIV epidemic as a public health threat, but at the very moment when that has become possible, HIV has fallen off the political radar as a matter that requires urgent attention. There is an ever-decreasing window of opportunity to bring HIV under control, and that can be achieved only with a renewed political commitment. Without such a commitment, we face losing momentum and seeing a reversal of the progress that we have made. We must not let that happen.

Thirdly, I want to mention HIV transmission. Access to treatment is a significant problem that we must solve, and we must consider what more we can do to prevent new HIV transmissions. Social factors play a significant role in reducing HIV transmission. If people know how the virus is transmitted, they can often take action to protect themselves—often, but not always, because social factors such as stigma, discrimination and inequality can reduce the options available to vulnerable and marginalised groups. Fear and lack of knowledge about how HIV is transmitted can lead to stigma and discrimination, which make people afraid to get tested or to reveal their status.

Fourthly, we must consider social barriers. Women and girls face a disproportionate risk of HIV, and it has a disproportionate impact on them, because of gender power imbalances that result in economic disempowerment, gender-based violence and the denial of their human rights. Others at high risk of contracting HIV—including those who use drugs, sex workers, prisoners and people from LGBT communities—often cannot access evidence-based prevention services because of punitive laws, stigma and discrimination. Young people are denied access to information on their sexual and reproductive health and rights, including information on HIV prevention. Those social barriers to accessing HIV services such as testing, counselling and prevention services, alongside the freedom to control life choices, must be addressed as part of a holistic approach. I joined the all-party group on HIV and AIDS nearly five years ago, because it is a considerable issue in my constituency. It is still a big issue, but there is a realisation that we need to continue to do all we can around the world to end the HIV epidemic. I welcome the report.

15:08

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) not only for calling the debate, but for her leadership of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS since she took over as chair after the tragic loss of our parliamentary colleague David Cairns, who passed away suddenly.

I have been a member of the all-party group since I came into Parliament almost 18 years ago. The leadership of my hon. Friend and the previous leadership of David Cairns have backed up a robust group of individuals who have worked long and hard in Parliament on the problem of HIV and AIDS. I have not visited some of the many places that my hon. Friend has visited, but a few years ago I visited Ukraine courtesy of UNICEF UK. I was asked to go there because I am also joint chair of the all-party group on street children.

UNICEF UK looked at what was happening in Ukraine. Children sleeping rough on the streets were taking drugs intravenously, with many then finding that they had become HIV-positive. That brings us back to the point about stigma and discrimination. Many of those young people were living in fear, because if they presented for a medical, and it was discovered they were carrying the infection, they would be reported to the authorities—the police. They were in a real dilemma: they understood something was medically wrong, but should they go for the medical, given the consequences?

I and the UNICEF UK person who went with me to Ukraine, along with a couple of people working on behalf of UNICEF in Ukraine, visited the British ambassador, and I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed. I came away from the meeting thinking, “I sincerely hope that that individual has arrived here only in the last couple of days,” because he had no perception of the problems on the ground or of what people were experiencing. I also met one or two Ukraine Government officials, and it was anything but heartening to realise that what was happening was not an issue for them.

At that time, Ukraine was heavily dependent on global funding and support. Less than 12 months after I visited, that funding and support were taken away. Just because certain countries fall into the middle-income category, that does not mean they are handling some of these problems better. In my view—it is only my view, although one or two people did share it with me—Ukraine was on the verge of being a basket case in terms of dealing with HIV/AIDS, because there was no real support for people. That goes back to the issue of stigma and discrimination.

The all-party group’s report mentions paediatric treatment, which is lagging behind adult treatment in terms of access and research. Our report indicates that the market for paediatric treatments is, regrettably, a low-profit market, which reduces the incentive for research and development by private companies. There is a real lack of adequate treatment regimens for children, which often leads to adult treatments simply being broken up and given to children. It must be recognised that children are simply not being given the proper treatment and dosage on many occasions. Treatment regimens need to be tailored to individuals because children are not all the same weight or same height. We need to ensure that the correct dosage is given if we are truly looking for these young children to get proper treatment. If incorrect dosages or unsuitable adult treatments are administered, children’s treatment is unlikely to be as effective, which could lead to resistance and the need to switch to second or even third-line treatments.

Any of us, with any condition, would want to know that whatever we were prescribed would meet our needs as individuals. Of all the conditions that exist in the world, HIV/AIDS needs proper treatment. As a starting point, we need to encourage pharmaceutical companies to deliver more suitable dosages for children, because this problem has existed for far too long—indeed, it has existed since I joined the all-party group almost 18 years ago.

There is also a gap in early infant diagnostics, and there are insufficient opportunities for testing children. That results in children living with HIV not being identified and given treatment, or in those whose treatment is failing not having their problems addressed.

I do not want to say much more, because my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) have covered a significant amount of the report. However, I want to put on record that, in taking evidence for the inquiry, we were assisted by colleagues from the other place, as my hon. Friend said. Their support and assistance are invaluable. The oldest soldiers in the all-party group are Lord Fowler, who has done so much in the Palace of Westminster over all these years, and Baroness Sue Masham, whom I met when I first joined the group. They are absolute stalwarts, and it is fitting that we recognise the work they have done and the way they have assisted in maintaining such a robust group. I hope it will continue after the election on 7 May.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, as the chair, for pulling the report together and for securing the debate.

15:16

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I start where my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) ended, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing this important debate. I also recognise her unflinching commitment and her leadership on this important issue, and the tremendous work she and the all-party group have done on the “Access Denied” report. We can tell from her contribution that she has a genuine passion and commitment on the issue, which she has championed in Parliament for the past five years, and which I hope she will be championing here for many years to come.

The previous Government and this Government have done constructive work on this important issue, and we require a reaffirmation of that commitment on HIV/AIDS as we move forward, but I start by mentioning a few things from the report that shocked me. Two thirds of adults with HIV do not have access to treatment or are not on treatment. Three quarters of children with HIV do not have access to treatment—that is completely unacceptable in the modern day, and something must be done about it. Children and adults in low and middle-income countries have seen support from the international community fall and prices from pharmaceutical companies rise, which is a stain on the international community. By 2030, 55 million people are expected to need HIV treatment. Last year, 1.5 million people died of HIV when that disease can be managed, although we do not have a cure. Again, that figure is a stain on the international community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts said some thing that struck me—people need to come before profits, which is a powerful phrase. Treatments are available to help to manage conditions, but people do not receive them because they are too expensive, there is no health care system or stigma is attached to HIV/AIDS. That is completely unacceptable. We must remember that behind the statistics are real people, who have the basic human rights that we all share. They have the right to life, health, and dignity, and to contribute positively to their family and society.

It is easy to focus on doom and gloom, and obviously there is much that is negative, but there are also things to welcome. According to data, last year, for the first time, more people gained access to HIV drugs than were infected with the virus; the ONE campaign has called that the tipping point. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, 2.3 million people gained access to HIV treatment programmes, compared with 2.1 million people with new infections. That is a welcome statistic, but we cannot be complacent.

We do not want such progress to be reversed. The ONE campaign’s recent report noted that the US, France and the UK in particular have carried what it calls an “unsustainable” share of the burden in the international community. It is incumbent on the Government and their international partners to press donor countries, and indeed those developing countries able to provide support to those who need it, to do more. I look forward to hearing more details about that from the Minister.

The November 2014 UNAIDS report talked of a fast-track approach to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030, with a target to be reached by 2020, called 90-90-90. The target is that 90% of people living with HIV should know their status, 90% of those who know it should have access to treatment and 90% of those being treated should have suppressed viral load. That is a difficult but positive target, achievable if there is the will in the international community. It has been said that turning the target up to 95-95-95 would be tantamount to ending the epidemic.

A further report, “Fast track: Ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030”, also said that nearly 28 million new infections and 21 million AIDS-related deaths could be averted by 2030 if the target were met. However, it also warned that “business as usual” could mean missing the opportunity to end the epidemic for a long time to come. UNAIDS estimates that, by June 2014, 13.6 million HIV-positive people around the world had access to antiretroviral therapy, but an estimated 35 million need it. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target, what partnership work the Department for International Development is doing with it towards that aspiration, and what global leadership we are showing to get our bilateral partners and multilateral funding agencies to reflect those priorities.

It is important to talk about funding and to recognise the responsibility of the UK and the global community to support HIV and AIDS treatment. In 2012, the UK Government contributed 10.7% of all bilateral aid for HIV. That statistic is welcome, and so is the fact that between 2008 and 2013 DFID’s overall spend, including bilateral and multilateral funding, averaged £300 million a year. At the time of the recent global health fund replenishment, a commitment was given to provide £1 billion for 2014-16, which means that the annual contribution will increase significantly to £500 million. I am sure the Minister will confirm those figures.

I wonder, following the UNAIDS report, whether that funding and support have been reflected on. We have heard today, in the context of DFID funding, about budget spending that has been committed and unallocated funding. Might there be scope to look again at the funding and support we give to the global health fund, particularly given our withdrawal of funding for the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts pointed out? I welcome the fact that we spend £300 million annually, and the £500 million commitment for 2014-16, but cutting by up to 80% our support to IAVI—the fund trying to find a cure and a vaccine—is unacceptable.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation for that cut. We should not give up on the dream and hope of finding a cure and a vaccine for HIV and AIDS. I would like to think that we could find those things in my lifetime and bring an end to a global injustice.

Although the UK has come in for praise from the ONE campaign, as have the US and France, there is still a hell of a lot of work to do. Global funding for anti-HIV programmes reached an all-time high of $19.1 billion last year, but that is still an estimated $3 billion a year short of the annual $22 billion to $24 billion that the UN says we need to spend.

By 2020, low-income countries will need $9.7 billion, lower-middle-income countries $8.7 billion, and upper-middle-income countries $17.2 billion for the fight to bring the epidemic to an end. However, the report says that if the money is forthcoming and enough effort is made to reach the 2020 targets, the need for more funds will decline. That is an interesting point: the fund could decline if we matched the UNAIDS aspiration. By 2030, the funding needed globally could drop from $35.6 billion in 2020 to $32.8 billion. If we make an initial big investment—not taking any wasted route, in terms of value for money, but investing in genuine care and treatment to help to save lives—the long-term positive effect will be not only those lives saved and a reduction in the proliferation of the condition, but money saved that can be used to fund other areas of work.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts noted the important point made in the report about middle-income countries. There are many issues related to extreme poverty besides HIV and AIDS, including access to education and other health care, such as drugs and treatment for TB and malaria. We still have a lot of work to do in middle-income countries: 50% of people in extreme poverty live in those countries, so the international community, and particularly the UK, cannot afford to ignore or pass by their challenges. We must still engage with them, and consider need, as my hon. Friend said, rather than classification.

We need to support people as those countries graduate from the low-income to the middle-income group, rather than thinking that that means our job is done. Quite the opposite: sometimes in those cases, even more support is needed, particularly when there is a lack of governance, although some people might think that the graduation to middle-income status means Government officials can think less about their obligations to the poorest citizens.

I have in mind two examples raised by my hon. Friend and in the “Access Denied” report, which have been the subject of much discussion and negotiation. South Africa and India, with their continuing struggles, still need our support—particularly technical assistance and help with strengthening health care systems. Currently, 58% of people who are HIV positive live in middle-income countries. By 2020, the proportion is expected to rise to 70%. We cannot ignore that 70%; we need to engage and work with them.

There are a couple of other issues. First, 52% of people suffering from HIV and AIDS in low and middle-income countries are women. One young woman contracts HIV every minute. The report also found that in sub-Saharan Africa the proportion of young women aged 15 to 24 living with HIV is twice that of young men. There are also cultural issues. Given that carers and people with caring responsibilities when loved ones are unwell are often women and girls, we have a responsibility to support people with conditions and to support people who support those with conditions. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that, too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway rightly mentioned child treatment and transmission. When I read some of the stats in preparation for today’s debate, the stat that got me most was that, across the world, there are 3.2 million children with HIV and that 20,000 children a month are still being infected. Up to half of all new paediatric HIV infections occur during breastfeeding, which is a heartbreaking tale: a mother trying to do her very best to give her child the best possible start in life has, through breastfeeding, transmitted HIV and AIDS to that child.

In many cases, perhaps, the mother had to choose whether to breastfeed her child, knowing that the child would suffer because of her condition. That is heartbreaking indeed. More work needs to be done to ensure that we are giving adequate treatment to women and girls to prevent the transmission of the disease to children in the first place. If children contract the condition, they should get the support, medicine and treatment they need.

I have two further points in relation to women and girls. First, education is crucial. There should be education for all, and we should ensure that people know about the risks of HIV and AIDS. Secondly, we must address violence against women and girls. The Minister and I have talked about the important issue of female genital mutilation and violence against women and girls more generally, particularly in conflict. We have talked about putting women and girls at the heart of development, and putting women and girls at the heart of support for HIV and AIDS is also crucial and must be considered much more carefully.

Another issue raised in “Access Denied” that has perhaps been mentioned less in the debate is the support given to people who inject drugs. If we are to follow the “no one left behind” principle, we must ensure that we give adequate support to people who inject drugs, which means access to clean syringes, opioid substitute treatment and naloxone to prevent overdose and the spread of infections.

We have two good cases where treatment has helped to make a difference. Tanzania and Kenya have demonstrated good practice on those issues, but we must scale that up and ensure that we give them and other people in the region the same adequate support and treatment. UNAIDS estimates that $2.3 billion is needed annually to fund preventive measures for those who inject drugs, but all global donors combined spend only $160 million—that is $160 million when we need $2.3 billion every single year. How can we ensure that those issues are more fully considered?

We have heard colleagues talk about the obstacles faced in licensing and about companies putting profits before people. I welcome the progress that has been made on relaxing intellectual property rights to produce low-cost generic drugs for first-line treatment. I welcome the coalition of five big pharmaceutical companies that is granting licences for generic production to the UN-backed medicines patent pool, but more can and must be done.

Second-line drug combinations are far more expensive than the basic cocktail, which costs no more than $100 per person per year, although we have heard that in South Africa people are being charged exponentially even for first-line treatment. Granting licences for second and third-line drug combinations must be implemented much more efficiently than in previous decades. We must reduce the price of front-line drugs to a much more manageable level. That is the responsibility of the UK Government, working in partnership with the international community and other key development agencies, whether in country or through multilaterals. It is also for the drug companies to ensure that second and third-line drugs are available and affordable for all, irrespective of the income or the affluence of a person or a country. I emphasise the 80% cut to IAVI.

We can all get wrapped up in one fundamental issue, and I say that particularly in the climate of the discussions on sustainable development goals, which are ongoing and will continue—hopefully, they will conclude later this year. We see a lack of strong universal health care systems in developing countries. We see clinics popping up for tuberculosis, malaria and HIV and AIDS, but what we need is holistic care so that people, whatever conditions they turn up with, receive adequate support and the care they need.

There is no better example than our own national health service. We have a system that is based on people’s need, not their ability to pay. If we have that great system in the UK, it is incumbent on us to work with the international community to help to promote such a system of universal health coverage globally. That is why we have already said that we would set up a universal health coverage institute within the Department for International Development to provide technical assistance using the expertise of the Department, of the people who work with and for the Department, and of the NHS.

The institute would bring together the expertise of people who put together tax systems to help to create and build models in developing countries so that those countries may have universal health care systems that have the support they need, but are sustainable and able to raise their own funds. There is no greater example than the Ebola crisis. In Nigeria, where money has been spent on the health care system, Ebola was brought reasonably under control, which helped to save lives, and in Sierra Leone, which did not have such a system, the Ebola crisis worsened and up to 10,000 people lost their lives. I encourage the Minister to move forward with universal health care systems and access to health for all.

Today, let us resolve to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts and the wider all-party group on HIV and AIDS have done and put this important issue at the forefront by talking about it, discussing it and debating it. We must put the solutions at the forefront, too, so that in my lifetime, and in the Minister’s lifetime, we can bring HIV and AIDS to an end.

15:30

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), particularly when he makes such a helpful and thoughtful contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) not only on securing this debate and on introducing it so well but on the enormous impact that her all-party group has achieved with its two publications. It is extraordinary for an all-party group to be able to inform the public and the legislature in that way. I commend the other Members who have contributed: the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby). I owe my hon. Friend a particular debt because he drew my attention to this subject and engaged and interested me in it. He has worked very hard on HIV and AIDS in his constituency, where he rightly says that they have been a significant issue. I pay tribute to him.

I have been asked a large number of questions, so I will race through putting the Government’s position on the record, and then I will deal with the questions as expeditiously as I can. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said that there are 35 million HIV-positive sufferers, but I think that one of the most worrying statistics is that 19 million of them do not know that they have the disease. We have to draw attention to that. Only 34% of those who are eligible for treatment under the World Health Organisation’s 2013 treatment guidelines have access to antiretroviral treatment.

We remain the second biggest donor in the world. We set out our approach in the document “Towards zero infections” in 2011, and we updated it in “Towards zero infections: two years on” at the end of 2013. In those documents, we clearly laid out a pathway for withdrawing from bilateral funding and transferring to a multilateral approach to this problem. Principally, we are going to work through the Global Fund, which represents about one fifth of the entire world’s contribution.

We have changed the way we operate, but we have not reduced it at all. I looked at the figures extensively this morning. From 2006-07 to 2009-10, we spent £849 million on HIV/AIDS, and from 2010-11 to 2013-14 we spent £1,070 million. The highest years for expenditure were last year and one a couple of years before that. Therefore, quite properly, we are maintaining the pressure on this important issue. We are not slacking or suffering from donor fatigue. The measure of that—the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Airdrie and Shotts referred to this—is our commitment of £1 billion to the Global Fund from 2014 to 2016, subject to a 10% burden share.

We see ourselves as the voice of the affected populations. I will return to that point, because a number of hon. Members have expressed concern about it. We are driving forward improvement and integrating HIV treatment with health systems in the countries where people are affected. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central drew attention to that important agenda. We are driving forward the centrality of women and girls. He was entirely right when he said that, every hour, 50 young women between the ages of 15 and 24 are affected. That is twice the infection rate of young men, and it represents 22% of new infections. In sub-Saharan Africa, 57% of sufferers are women.

We want to use market shaping to ensure that drugs are available at affordable prices, so we have committed £35 million between 2012 and 2015 to the Clinton Health Access Initiative. That money has been used effectively to shape the market and to bring about £1 billion of savings to the purchasing countries, which translates to 2.5 million more people being treated and getting drugs, so it is an important part of the agenda.

The hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway and for Airdrie and Shotts spoke about children. I recognise that there is a gap in the market for paediatric care. The United Kingdom and France are the major funders of UNITAID, to which we made a 20-year commitment. As part of that agreement, we have committed an average of €60 million per year. UNITAID provided 400,000 children with fixed-dose combinations last year, and was instrumental in reducing the price of those doses from $252 per child in 2006 to $130 in 2011. Those actions contributed to the 52% reduction in child infections since 2001. That reduction has been accelerating in recent years.

UNITAID also funds the medicines patent pool, which has been performing well. I know that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has an interest in it because she raised it with my noble Friend Baroness Northover. That model was designed specifically for AIDS, but it is reasonable to ask whether it can be expanded and used to deal with other diseases. It is an effective way of operating and it has been a success, so I hope it is going to be part of the agenda in future.

[Pamela Nash]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for making that point, which will be good news not only for the all-party group but for the organisations that support us. I want to make one small point, which I have raised informally with the Department. The minutes of the UNITAID board meeting in December state that there was a reduced contribution from the UK Government. Can the Minister clarify that or seek advice from his colleagues?

[Mr Swayne]

The commitment of an average of €60 million per year for 20 years has been and will be met, but it is an average. There was a reduction, and my understanding is that it was made good with a €40 million contribution. The contributions are being met and we are fulfilling the requirements.

HIV treatment is linked to broader issues of health development, the strengthening of health systems, gender equality, and stigma and discrimination. All those things have to be addressed. We have to have a rights-based prevention and treatment regime. That remains a key policy objective in tracking how our contributions and investments deal with those issues. We need to be much better informed, and we must understand how to tackle stigma. Only when that happens will more people be able to access preventive programmes, get tested, and initiate and adhere to treatments.

The product development partnerships model has been very successful in bringing forward new drugs to the market. It has brought forward 43 new drugs in the past 10 years, and there are 350 under development. The Department for International Development is a strong supporter of PDPs; indeed, we were the first Government donor to them. I congratulate the Labour party on its initiative in 2008 and on driving forward that innovative agenda. It was an important contribution. We remain a globally significant player in that field, having committed £154.2 million between 2013 and 2018.

I was asked any number of questions. Let me start with those about vaccines and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. There has been no cut. We fulfilled the contract that we had with IAVI. All the money that we had committed was paid. We have a new contract now for £5 million, for which it competed, for a slightly different programme.

Let us be clear about what has happened. It is quite right that we have withdrawn from something that we were previously involved in, just as any organisation continually reviews its operations and does what it does best. I understand that some six vaccines went for field trials and we were funding that process. The results were disappointing, so it was back to the laboratory. We do not consider laboratory work as part of our comparative advantage. There are organisations in the world that are much better at dealing with that sort of scientific funding and do that work. Frankly, I believe that our funds are better expended elsewhere, where we have a comparative advantage.

Remember that we have not made a saving; we are spending more than we were spending before. We are spending it differently and I believe that we are spending it effectively, although we are not funding IAVI to the extent that we were in the past. That is a perfectly reasonable position to have taken, given the change in the situation.

[Anas Sarwar]

The Minister mentions the six vaccines that went to field trials and the “disappointing” results. He does realise that we only need success once, but we need to fund that programme to be able to get that one success.

[Mr Swayne]

Absolutely, but the difference is this. Funding field trials is one thing but going back to the laboratory and working there is a different field of endeavour, one where we have no comparative advantage. [Interruption.] I think we will just have to agree to disagree about this one, but there has absolutely been no cut in our funding of IAVI. We fulfilled our contracts and entered into a new one—a quite different one—with IAVI.

Now we come to the big question of the middle-income countries. I accept entirely that, when a country becomes a middle-income country, it hits a double whammy: one, the funding is withdrawn; and, two, all the prices go up. But hey—they are middle-income countries, and we are trying to encourage people to invest properly and to step up, as they are richer countries, and fund their health systems properly and have properly integrated health systems. That is an important part of the deal.

I accept entirely that that is a bit like falling off a cliff. Perhaps we should have some system akin to, say, universal credit, where there is a taper, as countries move from low-income status to middle-income status. I accept that there is an argument—a case to be made here. I am open to that discussion. It is something that we would have to agree with our international partners; I do not think we would have leave to change the system ourselves. Hon. Members have drawn attention to a very clear problem. The way we get around it at the moment is through the funding of the Robert Carr network, to which we have committed £4 million until the end of this month, and then we will have to replenish it. That is underfunded; there is a £13 million funding gap in respect of the Robert Carr network. We have to work with our donor partners to try to see how that gap can be filled.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts that viral load testing is the top end. It is exactly what we should be pursuing. I am glad that the price has fallen significantly as a consequence of the market shaping; it is down to a cap of $9.40, which is down some 40% in low-income and middle-income countries. The problem is, as she rightly pointed out, that that requires a developed network of laboratory testing. Again, I entirely share her view that we have to continue investing in alternative point-of-care technology, and in research and development in that area. I know that there have been more than 924,000 CD4 tests at point of care, but she is right that load testing is a much better and much more valuable tool. The way the Global Fund works is that it asks countries that are capable of supporting the network with laboratories for viral load testing to apply for that funding, and it asks other countries that are not able to support that to apply, certainly for the moment, for funding to deal with CD4 and whatever else may be brought forward. The work of UNITAID and the Clinton health foundation has been instrumental in reducing the price of viral load testing, which was one of the principal problems with it.

I come on to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the impact of any trade negotiations. I was asked whether we have formal input into the process. The reality is that, as a consequence of decisions taken in 1975—decisions that might be reviewed if the election result turns out the way I want it to—trade policy is a European Commission competency. Within the UK Government, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is the lead Department in relation to that, but DFID successfully ensures that issues such as access to medicines and intellectual property rights lead to joint discussions between our Departments. It is physically in BIS but it is actually staffed by DFID officials. Therefore, we do that.

On the issue itself, my own view is that it is down to the negotiations at the time, on a case-by-case basis. When we make a trading agreement, we have to ensure that we are absolutely certain that we are not compromising ourselves on intellectual property and that we are not going to restrict access to drugs as a consequence of the decisions we make. That is just down to being vigilant when we come to make these arrangements.

I was specifically asked about research and development. That agenda has been driven forward largely by civil society, rather than by nation states and Governments. Nevertheless, it is important. Frankly, it is unlikely that there will be a legally binding instrument for health research and co-ordination. The Government’s view is that any agreement needs to be built on existing mechanisms, such as that proposed by the expert working group.

The background to the issue is that for the past 10 years the World Health Organisation has convened a number of working groups to discuss and suggest solutions to the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, namely, funding flows, innovative funding mechanisms and co-ordination of health research. The latest of these groups—the consultative working group—suggested that we should establish a WHO global R and D observatory and a pooled fund for product R and D, together with a co-ordinating mechanism to support the fund.

The World Health Assembly is due to discuss that matter later this year. My concern is this: will countries wish to put more into this pool than they are putting in at the moment to contributions to R and D, particularly when the pool will be controlled by a mechanism other than the countries themselves? My estimate is that most countries would want to put research funding into a direct contribution that they control and to know where it is going. I will not go any further than that, because I was asked about 90-90-90 and I have one minute left to respond. It is a very interesting thing. It is far too soon to tell. My concern is that it adds a very substantial burden to the funding that already exists, and the emphasis must be on the poorest and the sickest first. I would want to see a little more about how the UNITAID proposals are brought forward before committing myself irrevocably to the 90-90-90 strategy.

Co-operative Schools

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

15:59

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

In 2007, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, said the Conservatives would shortly publish their policy proposals for a supply-side revolution in Britain’s schools system—a long-term response to various challenges and what he saw as educational failure. He said that he wanted to highlight one specific aspect of that revolution: the opportunities that his reforms would create for a new generation of co-operative schools. What better way to give parents direct involvement in their school than to give them ownership—not just as stakeholders, but as shareholders, and as shareholders not in a profit-making company, but in a co-operative built around the needs of local children?

The co-operative model reflects an important vision of social progress that Conservatives believe in: the role of strong independent institutions, run by and for local people. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the Conservative party to take the lead in applying the co-operative ideal to the challenges of the 21st century, and announced the establishment of the Conservative Co-operative Movement.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am absolutely tickled to join the hon. Lady in the debate. She has reminded me what a strong supporter I am of the Prime Minister and how delighted I would be if he completely fulfilled that vision.

[Meg Munn]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman—a strong supporter of co-operative schools who has advocated for them.

Let us find out a little more about what actually happened as a result of what the Prime Minister said. When the coalition Government came to office, there were 87 co-operative schools in England. Today, there are 834. The majority of those are foundation trust schools established under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, passed by the previous Labour Administration. One might expect the Government to trumpet the growth of those co-operative schools. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. What is heralded instead is a hoped-for expansion of free schools: 500 in the next Parliament. That is where effort and money are targeted—not on the parent-owned co-operative free schools, despite co-operative trust schools excelling with parent involvement.

Clearly, the Prime Minister’s words have been forgotten by the Department for Education—and by him. Some might say, “But there are 834 co-operative schools, so the commitment is there.” However, the remarkable advance of co-operative schools has happened despite, not because of, Government support. In debates in the past two years, Ministers have said they have not prevented growth and that they are therefore supporting co-operative schools. However, that is not the same thing at all. I am beginning to think that there is an ideological block on the issue somewhere in the Department.

I have been trying to engage the Department for some time in removing a fundamental barrier to the expansion of co-operative schools. I proposed two legislative changes: enabling schools to register as industrial and provident societies and amending the 2006 Act to enable nursery schools to be established as school trusts.

Let me provide a brief history. In 2013, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill. The two proposals were adopted as Labour party amendments to the Deregulation Bill in Committee in the Commons in February last year. The Labour team withdrew their amendments when the Government indicated that they were willing to work with the Co-operative party to put Government changes in the Bill. With the Co-operative party and co-operative schools experts, I worked with the Department to try to make that happen.

The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), was supportive, but officials indicated that the Department lacked the expertise and resource to take the issue forward. Lord Nash, a Minister in the Department, then expressed limited support for co-operative schools and changes to legislation. Following the reshuffle, the Department indicated that it would not be introducing legislative change.

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

My hon. Friend is, like me, a Co-operative Member of Parliament. Perhaps this is not a question of detail or the Department blocking. Perhaps it is just that the political leadership of this Government is put off by those schools, which are in favour of equality, equity, solidarity, openness, honesty, social responsibility and caring for others.

[Meg Munn]

I would like to know what is putting the Government off, because I spoke to the new Secretary of State for Education and she indicated that she was willing to consider the issue.

The Department said that it would work with co-operative schools to produce data on performance and look at a power to innovate to try to resolve the issue preventing nursery schools from becoming co-operatives. The power to innovate would suspend the relevant legislation for three years to test whether nursery schools wished to join co-operative trusts. However, since that offer was made the Department has not, despite repeated inquiries, responded to requests for an update on progress. On Second Reading and on Report in the Lords, the amendments were tabled again and ably moved by Baroness Thornton for Labour, but were not supported by the Government. Can anyone now believe that there is any Government commitment to co-operatives in the public sector?

Why does this matter? Leaving in place barriers to the growth of co-operative schools is simply an opportunity wasted. It holds back the possibility of lasting improvement in educational standards, which would benefit children’s education and local communities.

Many schools want to adopt the co-operative model. They have a desire to develop a self-improving school system, where a number of schools can work together and inculcate those co-operative values mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman): self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. We know that some schools, working together in a group, are achieving outstanding results.

The Schools Co-operative Society believes that by encouraging everyone within an organisation to work together they gain mutual benefits. Performance improves and pupils are engaged in the life of the school. The best possible environment for young people to learn and develop is created. Stakeholders in the local community have a say in the way the school is run. The values of equality and equity ensure that the environment is free from bias and that everyone can be the best they can be.

[Mr Sheerman]

When my hon. Friend and I were together on the Bill Committee—the Minister was there, too—we picked up on the fact that the quality of teaching matters in every school. Has she seen the high retention rates of staff and the contentment of teachers and staff working in co-operative schools? That trickles down to the students.

[Meg Munn]

Of course, my hon. Friend is right: these are key issues. He is a great advocate of that approach. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) spoke extraordinarily eloquently about the schools in his area and he is, believe it or not, a Conservative, so there is still some support.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is not a run-of-the-mill Conservative.

[Steve Baker]

Listening to the hon. Lady describe those schools, I was reminded of the success we are seeing in Cressex school in Wycombe. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), whom I work with occasionally, is a bit of a rascal, because Conservatives do support many of the values he described. The disagreement is probably on the margins. I say to the Government that it is time that we woke up to this message.

[Meg Munn]

I agree. I am not for one minute suggesting that Conservatives do not support those values. In fact, the Cabinet published a document called “Making it mutual: the ownership revolution that Britain needs”, which stated:

“The conditions are right for a resurgence of co-operative mutual and reciprocal activity.”

That has been said not just by people in the Labour and Co-operative movement, but by Conservatives, so my puzzlement at why we are not moving forward grows ever more.

[Steve Baker]

I hope the hon. Lady agrees that what is needed is another term of Conservative government so that we can put all those things fully into practice.

[Meg Munn]

We are getting into the realms of fantasy now, are we not? The hon. Gentleman can hardly expect me to agree to that. What I am saying is, regardless of our party political affiliations and regardless of where we come from, why can we not get together around the issue of co-operative schools? Why have those schools become so contentious when there is support for them, and not just from the hon. Gentleman? In a previous debate, we also heard support for them from other Conservative Members. The Minister attended that debate.

Why can we not get together around something that is good for our children? Let us do what the electorate so often ask us to do and put party politics aside and say, “This is how we should move forward.” Whether the coalition remains in place after the election, or whether we have a Labour Government or a coalition of another type, the Department will still be there, so let us get the officials working on this now.

Getting back to my specific points on why we should move forward, encouragement is given in co-operative schools to supporting each other and the local community—to give back to others the benefits that have been had and to spread the positive learning experience. There is evidence that young people brought up in that environment continue to contribute positively to their communities long after they have left school.

Children benefit from a positive start in life. That was recognised when the academies programme was extended to primary schools. Children need the best foundation at primary level to realise their potential at secondary level, but we have to go further and ensure that we also get it right at nursery level.

Many co-operative school trusts are based on strong geographical areas. They aim to raise achievement by supporting young people through the education system from nursery age to school leaving age. We have to recognise that children do not differentiate between being looked after, being cared for and learning. Learning begins as soon as a child is born, so we need our nursery schools to have a co-operative approach that involves parents, and then the children can do so well. Would they not do even better if they were part of that co-operative ideal from the start?

While there have been failures with co-operative schools—it would be wrong to paint a rosy picture everywhere—there have also been failures in the academy programme. Co-operative schools have seen remarkable success. More than 80 have been judged by Ofsted as outstanding. That was achieved with no support from Government, financial or otherwise, which is in stark contrast to the many thousands and millions spent on the academies and free schools programmes. Co-operative schools do not want preferential treatment; they just want a fair and level playing field and the same engagement and support as free schools.

Action is being blocked by the Department. Why? What will the Minister do to ensure progress on the issue and, in particular, to ensure that actions agreed with the Department are implemented? I would also like him to put on the record the assistance the Department will give to fulfil his Government’s pledge to support co-operatives. That pledge has been given by the Prime Minister and two Secretaries of State. An incoming Government must support the growth of co-operative schools.

We need cross-party support so that swift progress can easily be made. Just two steps would go a long way. First, the co-operative model as defined in the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 should be made available to foundation trusts. Secondly, nursery schools should be enabled to form or join foundation trusts by removing the restriction in the 2006 Act. The remarkable progress of co-operative schools proves that there is an instinct among many school leaders for co-operation as a means to drive up standards, rather than a dogmatic view that only competition can achieve improvement.

[Mr Sheerman]

This may be the last Westminster Hall debate where my hon. Friend and I are together. It is so appropriate that she is talking about co-operative schools and she has had such a distinguished career in the House. I congratulate her on all the effort she has put into co-operative schools and so much else in Parliament over the years.

[Meg Munn]

How could I object to that intervention? Before I finish, on the issue of co-operation as opposed to competition, I quote Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but co-operation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off”.

The Department’s vision is for a highly educated society in which opportunity is equal for children no matter their background. That is a vision I believe we all share. I thank my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for Wycombe, for intervening and showing that there is cross-party support for co-operative schools. I thank them for all their work to support co-operation and co-operative schools.

I want us to take an important step in helping to make that vision a reality. Let us put aside ideology and dogma, allow real choice in education and allow co-operative school trusts to flourish by removing the barriers that make achieving that vision difficult.

16:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. In the usual way, I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) on securing another important debate on co-operative schools. I well remember the debate we had in October 2013, which I have taken the time to re-read. Other Members who are present today also spoke at that debate. What struck me was that through it shone a real shared purpose on the need to raise standards right across the education system. There was also a recognition that co-operatives are a part of the solution. I will remind Members of some my comments, which support my contention that the Government support the work that many co-operative schools across the country are doing. I said:

“We should, and do, cherish the values of co-operative trust schools”.

I also expressed the hope that I had given—I hope I will do so again today—

“a forceful indication that this Government hugely value the co-operative movement’s work in our schools.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 127WH, 132WH.]

I want to make it clear that those values, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said in his intervention, are shared by all parties, which is demonstrated by the fact that there has been no attempt to prevent in an ideological way the growth of co-operative schools. In fact, they have seen their biggest growth in quite some time. We have more than 700 of them, and we will be close to 1,000 by the end of next year. That is a huge increase for the co-operative movement in education.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) slightly stole my thunder in recognising that, in her time as an MP, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley has, there is no doubt, been a huge force for good in ensuring that children of all backgrounds, but particularly the most disadvantaged, have their voices heard. It is a great loss to us all that she has decided to go on to bigger and better things in her future career. The service she has given and her commitment to the area is noted and should be applauded. In doing that, I hope that she recognises that we share the same endeavour. I reassure her and other Members that the Government continue to support wholeheartedly the role that school collaboration and partnerships play in achieving our goal of a high-performing, self-improving education system, which includes the role of co-operatives.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister is the acceptable face of the Conservative party, as is the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), but they are atypical. The fact of the matter is that we need a real commitment to change the law. That is what we want. We do not want to muck around. We have got 837 schools. We want a change in the law, for a faster expansion—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief and in the form of a question.

[Mr Timpson]

I like to think that I am typical of the Conservative party, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels the same about himself and his party. It is clear that there is a determination to drive up standards across our education system. He will appreciate that we are in the last few weeks of this Parliament, so there will be no time to change legislation. Nevertheless, we must increase and better understand the evidence base, so that co-operative schools can show the impact they are having and we can possibly widen their remit and potential in future.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley has met Lord Nash, and as part of her exchange with the Secretary of State for Education, she was invited to provide evidence on why we should accede to some of her suggestions, both legislative and otherwise. I look forward to receiving that evidence in due course.

[Meg Munn]

Significant evidence has already been provided. With all due respect to the Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, the problem is that the evidence is there and the opportunity was there with the Deregulation Bill, but this has simply been blocked.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady received a letter from the Secretary of State on 11 February that set out the Government’s position on the legislation and the amendments that were tabled in both this House and the other place. She will appreciate that the position articulated by the Secretary of State in that letter makes it clear that additional evidence or arguments in support of the educational benefits are still required to reassure the Secretary of State that the changes would be worth while. The hon. Lady will appreciate that that issue falls outside my portfolio. The best I can offer is to take back her clear sense of the direction that we need to follow. If she wishes to provide any further and better particulars to support her argument, I will endeavour to ensure that they are shared as soon as possible.

We are seeking to ensure that we are able to deliver better results, year on year and right across the education system. Inspection data show that more schools are now rated as good or outstanding than at any time since Ofsted was created in 1992. Based on the most recent inspections, 81% of all schools are outstanding or good. Since 2009-10, the proportion of schools rated less than good has decreased from 33% to 19%. As part of that process, the values of co-operative trust schools are ones that the Government share. They are good values. They were given a strong airing in our previous debate, and I would reiterate them all today, particularly the importance of shared responsibility for problems and designing solutions and of the people involved in a child’s learning having a real stake in that learning.

I am pleased to note the role of the co-operative movement as a sponsor of schools that require extra support and the increasing number of co-operative schools that are choosing academy status, thereby becoming co-operative academies. Collaboration is a defining feature of the academies programme as well. The formal partnership arrangements for academies and maintained schools provide a framework for joint working in which the lines of accountability remain clear. The co-operative trust model is one of many that facilitate effective partnership working. It is true that the education system is increasingly diverse, and we are seeing many models emerge, such as multi-academy trusts and teaching schools. That is helping to increase the choice for parents and the support for schools. Parents are clearly aware of the co-operative movement in the education system because more of their children are being taught within it. There is clearly value for communities across the country, including my own constituency, in having that model available for education provision.

The hon. Lady asked about amending the legislation on maintained nursery schools—an issue that goes back to the previous Government and the Education and Inspections Act 2006—and I know that she has some regret that the opportunity to resolve the matter was not taken up at that stage. I am sure that, beyond 7 May, she will continue to fight to allow a co-operative trust to support a maintained nursery school in much the same way as it can a maintained school. The Government have supported collaboration in such institutions, with the sector already benefiting from the freedom to create partnerships, should that be the choice. Maintained nursery schools can already work with other local partners and the wider community, and they can federate with other schools and early years providers. A wide range of providers facilitate the parental choice that we all hold dear. That comes with a high degree of autonomy. Similar to our position on schools, the Government require more evidence of educational gain if we are to expand provision into the nursery arena, and we must look more closely at the fact that only a small percentage of overall providers could do that.

[Meg Munn]

One thing that I struggle with is that the evidence base for free schools is nowhere near as robust as the evidence base for co-operative schools. For example, the excellence that has been achieved in a multi-school trust in Birmingham is there for all to see. Why is the Department so resistant to supporting co-operative schools as an alternative model?

[Mr Timpson]

We have, of course, seen co-operative free schools emerge as well. The free schools policy is benefiting the co-operative movement and helping to increase the diversity of choice for parents. There is no reluctance, and there is no attempt either to suppress or deny the expansion of any type of school. The issue is one of empowering parents to make the decision to expand provision if they feel that there are not enough good school places in their area. On Monday, I visited Cheadle Hulme primary school, a new free school that will be opening soon to meet the need in an area with mixed advantage but a particular lack of places. That is a good example of how the flexibility that we have provided to the education system is allowing parents, outstanding head teachers, charities, and others with an interest in boosting education throughout the country, the opportunity to do just that.

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Lady opened her speech with a clear summary of what the Prime Minister has said. As Conservatives, surely we should believe in a dynamic process of discovery. Although I admire my hon. Friend the Minister’s noble defence of the Government’s position, is it not time that we allowed some of these schools to expand at nursery level to discover whether they will succeed?

[Mr Timpson]

I applaud the passion displayed by my hon. Friend not only today but on many other occasions when he has advocated the co-operative movement, both at Cressex school in his constituency and elsewhere. He will appreciate that I am not the man with the manifesto in his hands, so I cannot give him any reliable information about what reassurance we might be able to provide in that document. Nevertheless, I hope that I am able to put across the fact that, in the expansion of co-operative schools that we are seeing—they are set to get into four figures by the end of next year—there has been no holding back of those who want to take that step. Ultimately, it should be for the individual school or community to make the choice that they feel best fits with the need in their local area. That is the right approach. Through the expansion of the academies programme, with more than 60% of secondary schools and 17%—and rising—of primary schools now having academy status, we have seen a real movement that helps to support and complement the co-operative movement in driving forward quality and higher standards in the education system.

[Meg Munn]

We could get to 5,000 co-operative schools in the next five years if we changed the law and made it easier. Why will the Government not sign up to give so many schools that opportunity?

[Mr Timpson]

No limit has been put on the expansion of co-operative schools under this Government; indeed, we have seen a huge rise. There is no cap and there has been no attempt to try to dilute that opportunity. With the hon. Lady’s huge influence in her party, I am sure that when she has some control over the manifesto that is being written, she will make co-operative schools a centrepiece of Labour’s offer. In saying that, I re-emphasise that the Government do hugely value the role of co-operative schools, but more importantly the people who work in them. They work extremely hard to ensure that children in their area get the best possible start in life. That should be the driving force for any of our efforts to support children into adulthood. I hope that we can do that in future.

Transport Management: Kent

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am bringing before the House the issue of gridlock in Dover recently and the wider problems on the M20 and A20 through Kent.

The most pressing matter for my constituents is the gridlock in Dover. In January and February 2015, and indeed today, Dover has been experiencing a serious rise in gridlock on the roads through and into the town. Tailbacks and gridlock have been a constant problem for many years, but they have become more serious recently. They have the following effects: residents are unable to travel around my constituency or Kent in general; local businesses are hurt as visitors stay away or cannot access businesses in the town; access for emergency vehicles is restricted, as is access altogether to some parts of Dover, in particular for the long-suffering residents of Aycliffe; and vast amounts of rubbish and litter are left along the A20 by the drivers of parked heavy goods vehicles. Some of that rubbish is unhealthy or contaminated waste and does not belong on a roadside.

To give an idea of the gravity of the problem, a number of my constituents have got in touch to tell me their experiences over the past few months. On 20 December, Mr and Mrs Brown, residents of Dover, wrote to me:

“Dover has been gridlocked with lorries and traffic travelling to the Port constantly for 3 weeks. I dread to think what the fumes from the continuous running of the static engines are doing to our health, let alone the use of our streets as lavatories”.

On 15 January 2015, Rohan Sootarsing, a resident of Guston, wrote:

“Every night this week my usual 20/30 minute drive home from work has taken nearly two hours.”

Mr Parsons, a resident of Martin Mill, wrote to me on 20 January:

“I have taken nearly 3 hours to complete a road journey that would normally be completed in 25 minutes. There was a backlog of HGVs that started at Capel and continued to the docks. This area of the A20 was gridlocked entirely due to trucks blocking both carriageways.”

Mr Dowley of Capel-le-Ferne wrote to me on 24 January about the M20 between Dover and Capel:

“On 21st January numerous lorries were parked, without lights, on the hard shoulder. On 24th January on the M20 heading west, 15 articulated lorries were parked on the hard shoulder”.

On 30 January Mr Terry, a local businessman, wrote to me:

“I run a business in Snargate Street and the continual queuing of lorries is having a seriously detrimental effect on it. The Harbour Board Police block the roundabouts to prevent the lorries from cutting into the queue, but this also prevents us from getting into Snargate Street”.

Mr Wilson, another local businessman, wrote on 5 February:

“Last evening after leaving work I had to drive up the A20 to Capel-le-Ferne to get back into Dover via the B2011. An extra 7 miles or so on my journey home”.

On 11 February a Mr Williams wrote:

“Roundabout is blocked, and fire service answering a call at the school could not get past traffic”.

This morning Mr Dodd, a resident of Aycliffe, which is again cut off today, wrote:

“Lorries are backed up on the A20 and both lanes are blocked. The first roundabout at South Military Road to Aycliffe and lorries are continuously blocking the entrances and exit”.

This morning the chairman of community group Castle Forum, Denise Smith, wrote to me:

“Local and regular disruption happens many times a week and is not caused by extreme events, but by volume of freight traffic not being processed and taken into the docks. Therefore we would like to make it clear that this request is NOT about Op Stack but about Operation Open-Dover.”

I hope to set out the situation that my residents and constituents have to face and put up with constantly. The causes include, first of all, simply, economic growth—our long-term economic plan is working, and all too well for the port of Dover. The rise of international trade is greater than economic growth. In the past year freight traffic has risen 10% and it is forecast to grow further. So the problem is structural and it will not go away; it will become more serious unless action is taken.

There is also a structural problem around Dover, with restrictions on the flow of traffic through the town and the lack of space in the port zone causing gridlock. Poor management of one-off problems such as the fire in the Channel tunnel not so long ago, and Dover port ferries being away on maintenance because there have been problems, have contributed to the situation, as has a lack of investment by the Dover Harbour Board and ferry companies in IT systems or advance check-in for the management of inbound lorries. I want to focus on advance check-in as a way to deal with the problem through a longer-term, sustainable solution.

The first of my proposed solutions therefore is that Ministers treat this as a national strategic priority. The traffic situation facing Dover should be such a priority and the Minister, who has responsibility for roads, is best placed to lead on finding a solution, in particular because he has been the most proactive and energetic roads Minister on the matter in the past 20 years.

Recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who is in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who regrets that she cannot be with us today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), met with the roads Minister. It was great to see the difficulties being encountered taken up with such alacrity, for which all of us in Kent are extremely grateful. We urge the Minister to go further and to take the situation on as a specific national strategic priority.

My second solution is the necessary advance check-in system. The eastern docks have only 1,000 spaces, but with a park further up the motorway of 1,000 spaces, for example, we could do advance check-in and the sorting of lorries there, then stream them into the docks so that they can move swiftly through the port zone and on to the ferries for departure to the continent. That sort of dedicated lorry park for advance check-in before the lorries arrive at the port should be implemented as a priority.

It is ridiculous that lorries can simply head into Dover irrespective of whether there is space for them or a ferry is available. The issue needs to be dealt with and a site near Folkestone with the possibility of 1,000 spaces has been identified. Shepway district council tells me that it is keen to give planning permission for up to 1,000 spaces. The proposal is supported by the people I have spoken to in Dover and Deal, with a measure of consensus throughout east Kent and among the long-suffering residents along the M20.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he has acknowledged, the problem is not only a Dover one. My constituents in Ashford and many other people throughout Kent or passing through to do business find the clogging up of the motorways to be unacceptable, in particular during Operation Stack. Does he agree that the solution, as he is beginning to set out, is a series of lorry parks around both the M20 and the M2? A consensus Kent proposal to put to the Minister is now essential, so that we may facilitate his great desire to help us.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree. There needs to be a consensus solution. All of us are finding and building that consensus. More places for lorries to park at the tunnel and indeed the docks are welcome, but they are still constrained and not enough given the growth in international trade. A thousand spaces around Folkestone, at the site that has been identified as a leading candidate, would be a start, but it is not enough. We need to look at other lorry parks—not one mega-park, but a number of parks down the M20. In particular, we need to look at Detling; the Kent County Show ground offers great potential for a park to be used in Operation Stack. I will come on to that, as Operation Stack is less frequent than the literally nightly gridlock my constituents suffer.

My proposal is to have an advance check-in lorry park at Folkestone, which would clear Dover of the queues of lorries blocking the town centre and causing tailbacks. That would improve access to residential areas such as Aycliffe, where the long-suffering residents long to get out of their area and not be jammed in by lorries. Port and ferry companies need to work together to invest in advance check-in lorry parks; they should do their bit by taking responsibility for the problems that they contribute to. They need to invest in their IT to bring it up to date in time for the exit checks that will come in shortly.

Funding could also be provided through the HGV road user levy, which has raised over £23 million to date. Funding for lorry parking of £3 million has already been won from central Government through the local enterprise partnership. To that could be added another £5 million that the LEP has won to facilitate the expansion of the port. Port expansion should be conditional on there being lorry parking capacity so that lorries can go into the port zone and on to ferries.

My next solution is more proactive policing. Both Kent police and the Port of Dover police need to take more effective action to ensure that traffic is managed more effectively and more speedily whenever there is short-term disruption at the port and the channel tunnel. The police need to clamp down on illegal HGV parking to ensure that lorries do not cause gridlock or access problems to Dover. Kent county council ought to consider issuing traffic orders under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to turn the A20 into a clearway, where no parking is allowed. It should also look at weight restrictions on outside lanes and other measures that could be used to ease congestion on the A20 and M20. Such measures are taken elsewhere, so we could do it at Dover as well.

I turn now to the related but separate issue of Operation Stack. Since 2010, it has come into effect four times, so effectively, on average, once a year. When it happens it is serious and problematic. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford rightly says, there need to be further lorry parks further up the motorway, rather than the M20 being turned into a gigantic car park, which is what happens at the moment. When Operation Stack is in place the motorway in effect becomes single lane, causing congestion and massive difficulties throughout Kent. We need extra lorry parks further up the M20.

Finally, I turn to my requests to the Minister. First, will he agree to make this matter a national strategic priority and to take the lead on the issue in his capacity as roads Minister? Secondly, will he give an update on the progress of the review seeking long-term solutions to the problem? Thirdly, will he agree to support, if only in principle, a request made to Kent county council to introduce a clearway through the A20 by a traffic order? Finally, will he look to provide funding for the advance check-in lorry park, either from Government funds, from LEP funds or by leaning on the port and ferry companies so that they understand their need to take responsibility and to do their bit? That way we can bring forward the investment needed to ensure that traffic can move swiftly throughout Kent.

As well as being roads Minister, the Minister has had responsibility for ports, and has been instrumental, as a people’s champion, in bringing forward a people’s port at Dover, for which I thank and praise him. There is a real opportunity to extend that further by ensuring that people in Dover and across Kent are more able to go about their daily business, to enjoy their lives, to bear less of the burden of our centre of international trade, transport and commerce and to enjoy more of its benefits, for the future economic prosperity of Kent and of Britain.

16:44

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I have not served under your stewardship very frequently, Mrs Main, so it is a particular delight to do so, certainly for me; I hope it will be for you, as well. It is also a pleasure to respond to the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). We have met a number of times about Kent issues, including about the port of Kent, which is closely connected to our considerations today. We have also met about road traffic issues in Kent. He is right to draw attention to the meeting I held with a number of Kentish Members, including him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who is in his place.

Ruskin said:

“The highest reward for a person’s toil is not what they get for it but what they become by it.”

In those terms, the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—his labour in representing the interests of his constituents—has turned him into a powerful advocate, an impressive campaigner and a sagacious voice in this House. I listen to him carefully about all such matters.

Before I respond to the specific points my hon. Friend has raised, it is perhaps worth me setting those comments in the context of the Government’s wider view about the strategic road network. I will speak about the questions he has raised, and I think I have good news for him, but I do not want to deliver that until the end of my speech, because otherwise I will blunt the excitement that is already beginning to percolate through the Chamber.

Let me instead say a few words about a subject that is almost equally as exciting—there are those who would say it is more exciting, but I am not prepared to say that in a debate on Kent, which, as my hon. Friend and others know, is very dear to my heart. The strategic road network matters for all kinds of reasons. Its strategic importance can barely be overstated. The arterial routes by which goods are moved around and businesses do business are vital to our economic well-being and to the success of our long-term economic plan, to which he drew the Chamber’s attention. Less frequently argued for, although of equal importance, is the effect that our roads have on societal interests—communal well-being and individual opportunities. The ability to get to where we need to go, whether for jobs, for public services or simply for recreational travel, plays an important part in all our lives and can enhance them or do the opposite.

Traffic congestion and any compromises on road safety do damage, so it is vital that the Government take seriously the considerations that my hon. Friend has brought to our attention, and also take seriously our duty—I use the word advisedly, as it is more than a responsibility—to plan carefully for the development of our strategic road network.

I think I can say without hyperbole that this Government have done exceptionally well in those terms, with the biggest road building programme of my adult lifetime—that illustrates how very young I am—and a strategic plan that in scale and character is genuinely impressive. There has been investment of £15.3 billion with schemes across the country that, when gauged in cost-benefit terms, on an empirical basis are as impressive as anything we have ever seen, and money following that strategy.

To forward-commit funds to a road investment programme of this scale is not something that Governments have typically done. Our statement of 26 June 2013 announcing the conclusion of the Government’s 2013 spending review made it clear that there would be a step change in road investment. Our more recent work, at the end of last year, with the publication of our road investment strategy, gave life to that investment plan. The plan will take us through to 2020-21, deliver improvements and put us on a path to achieving our long-term vision.

The scheme to improve our major roads will have a long-lasting and wide-ranging effect, but, as we discussed when we debated the Infrastructure Bill, which I was honoured to take through the House, I was determined that the Government should amend their thinking—I like to bring fresh thinking to all the jobs that I do in government—to include a legislative requirement to take into account route strategies. They should take into account the plans of local highways authorities for the roads that adjoin the main arterial routes in places such as Kent, Lincolnshire and elsewhere, because it seems to me that we can improve the major roads, but unless we take account of the roads that feed them and that are fed by them, the character of the investment and the nature of the improvements that I have described will not be fully realised. So, it is through the route strategies that we will ensure there are operational investment priorities for all routes on the strategic road network, which are consistent and coherent in as much as they involve those more local plans.

The Kent corridors to the M25 that encompass the area we are discussing, for the period up to March 2021, will be included in the strategy. The Highways Agency published a set of evidence reports developed directly from the work that we have done, and a number of routes in Kent are being considered as part of that work. Those studies are being finalised, and the Highways Agency aims to publish the second part of the route strategy shortly, which will include a number of schemes in Kent.

As part of the spending round in June 2013, the Government committed to funding the M20 junction 10A scheme, subject to finalisation of options and agreement being reached on developer contributions. The existing M20 junction 10 south of Ashford, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford knows, suffers from congestion and delays, especially in peak periods, mainly due to conflict between strategic and local traffic. That is precisely why the relationship between the route strategies and our road investment plan is so vital. Improved access to and from the motorway via the proposed junction 10A is seen as a key part of delivering the proposed development in Ashford. As my right hon. Friend has made clear a number of times, the development in Ashford, which is substantial—31,000 homes and 28,000 jobs—will, under the local plan and the growth area agenda, lead to significant extra demand on the road network there.

In November, we changed the charging method of one of the worst performing parts of the strategic road network anywhere in the country, the Dartford-Thurrock crossing, leading to an immediate improvement in the performance of the crossing. I know that this is only a medium-term measure to alleviate the congestion that previously afflicted the crossing. In the longer term, a new Lower Thames crossing is needed to provide additional capacity. Without going into detail, the House will want to know that we are considering options. We are listening to local stakeholders, and we will say more about that in the next Parliament when the Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and in which I will play a central and vital role, will, I hope, be able to put into operation an exciting new scheme there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised specific issues and I will deal with them in the way that he asked me to. He has, as other Kentish MPs have, made a strong case for Operation Stack. When Operation Stack is in place, great disruption and inconvenience are caused to the citizens of Kent, and we need to find a long-term solution. I hear what he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford say about there not being a single solution. There is a strong argument for a series of measures across the county, which alleviate the congestion that arises from those occasional but none the less important happenings that were described.

When I had the meeting that included my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), the point was made to me that a regional solution was required precisely because the reverberating effect—the ripple effect—was so significant. Any solution must include managing the traffic better and minimising the effects of traffic as increased numbers of vehicles use the network. The proposal that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover makes regarding the use of Stop 24 in Folkestone as an advance check-in for Dover port is interesting and it will be given further consideration. I give him that undertaking today.

I recognise that Operation Stack must be a last, not first, resort and that the solutions are likely to include a mix of private and public sector actions. I commend all parties involved in this work for taking on this difficult task. I expect the public to see a real difference in the coming months and weeks. The issue has plagued the people of Kent intermittently for many years, and the Government have resolved to ensure it is addressed.

However, Operation Stack is a last resort, not a first resort. I want to see long-term solutions proposed and steps taken to prevent Operation Stack from being needed in the first place. The Government recognise the value of the port of Dover and Eurotunnel to the national and local economies, but we need to ensure that the communities of Kent are not inconvenienced by them. Those involved need to understand that, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover suggested.

I will deal now with the exciting news that I promised. In principle, the Government could, through a traffic order, support any request made to Kent county council to introduce a clearway along the A20. That is something my hon. Friend has asked for. He made his case responsibly and clearly, and it is something I am keen to take forward. I understand that the A20 is a Highways Agency road, not a Kent county council road, and it would put the traffic order in place. However, I have been advised that the creation of a clearway would not necessarily solve all the problems of traffic queuing on the A20.

On the advance check-in lorry park at Stop 24, as my hon. Friend has suggested, this could be done through revenue raised through the HGV road user levy. I am not a great supporter of hypothecation, as I know he is not, either, because we have talked about that on other occasions in other forums. None the less, I think we would need the Department to take action alongside, as he has also suggested, the port and ferry companies to develop a funding strategy for investment in traffic management in the Dover area. We will continue those discussions, but I think we will do more than that.

As my hon. Friend says, we need to look at IT systems. We certainly need to look at lorry parks, and I will ensure that the various groups looking into the issue of traffic management in Kent take his proposal into close consideration. I am prepared to make funding available for this. I will say more than that. There are additional measures emanating from a different Department, which will have an effect on traffic movements in the near term, so we cannot afford to let the grass grow under our feet. We need a solution that will ensure that those additional measures that emanate from Government do not have a deleterious effect on the interests of the people of Dover and other parts of Kent, or on other people using the port.

We will introduce further proposals as a direct result of those considerations—stimulated by this debate, inspired by my hon. Friend’s commitment, informed by him and other Kentish Members—to address the issues, and I plan to do so before the end of this Parliament. I put this on the record: we will introduce those proposals in good time, in good order and in good shape.

WB Yeats said:

“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”

My hon. Friend described me in extremely complimentary terms—perhaps even more complimentary than I deserve—but I am the kind of Minister who makes the iron hot by striking.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Single Source Profit Rate

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am today announcing that the Secretary of State for Defence has accepted the revised profit formula allowances recommended by the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO). The new profit rates for 2015, which are lower than those currently in force, will be published in the London Gazette, as required by the Defence Reform Act 2014 and will come into effect from 1 April 2015 onwards. The table below shows the change to the profit rate.

Town and Parish Councils

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

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

The Government believe that neighbourhoods, and the communities that live in them, are the most fundamental element of localism. Neighbourhoods are where local democracy begins and where people are often most ready to get involved. Working at the neighbourhood level can transform local services, with better collaboration between agencies and services more flexible and responsive to local need. We want to see communities more in control of the decisions, assets and services that affect them; to build different relationships between people and services—with interaction, engagement and ownership accepted as the norm; and for people to have an understanding of how they can make a difference. Our support for neighbourhood planning is helping over 1,400 communities shape the future development of their area; the delivering differently in neighbourhoods programme is helping local authorities redesign services around the neighbourhood level; and we have supported 100 areas in using the our place approach to enable communities to have a greater say in how services are delivered in their area. On 17 February 2015 I announced a £6 million funding boost to the community rights programme for 2015-16, to help give even more people greater control and influence over what happens locally.

Parish councils are a vital part of this picture, as the tier of local government closest to their communities. Parish councils provide communities with a democratically accountable voice and a structure for taking community action. Currently only around two fifths of the population is covered by a parish council, so the Government want to make it easier to set up new town and parish councils by changing the rules around how community governance reviews are triggered and carried out.

The draft Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2015 was laid before Parliament on 11 December 2014. The order aims to make it easier to set up new town and parish councils by proposing a reduction in the percentage of local government electors required to sign a community governance petition, to trigger a review, from 10% to 7.5% in larger electorates—the proportions required for smaller electorates would be reduced in line with that change. It also proposes a reduction in the period for the relevant local authority to conclude a community governance review, from 12 months from the date the review begins, to 12 months from the date of receipt of the petition or application. Finally, it proposes that those neighbourhood forums which have a neighbourhood development plan that has passed a referendum should be given the right to trigger a community governance review without the need for a petition.

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended, in its 15th report, that the order follow the super-affirmative procedure and sought some additional information about the nature of the burdens in relation to the changes to reduce the time period for a community governance review and to give neighbourhood forums the right to trigger a community governance review. The Committee also raised the issue of the proportionality of the changes proposed. Following consideration of additional information provided by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Committee has reported, in its 19th report, published on 6 March, that it is now satisfied that the order meets the tests set out in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and is not otherwise inappropriate for the Legislative Reform Order procedure. (The correspondence between the Committee and the Secretary of State is published in its 19th report.)

The House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the draft order be approved subject to the outcome of the further deliberations of the Lords Committee.

No other representations have been made to the Department for Communities and Local Government in connection with this order. I therefore propose to proceed with the draft order without any revisions.

[HCWS369]

Marine Management Organisation (Triennial Review)

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

Today I am publishing the report of the triennial review of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), which was launched by DEFRA’s then Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on 10 September 2013. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.

The MMO exists to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine areas and to promote the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The purpose behind its creation was to bring marine management activities from across Government into one place, to provide a more integrated approach to fisheries management, marine planning, licensing and conservation.

The review has concluded that the functions of the MMO are necessary for the UK Government’s vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The function should continue to be delivered by a non-departmental public body; and the MMO remains the right body to deliver them.

The review also considered the MMO’s governance and control arrangements. It found many positive features and concluded that it has shown improvements in service delivery since 2010. However, the review has made some recommendations.

The full report of the review of the MMO can be found on the website at: http://www.gov.uk and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS366]

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 March and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 17 March. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Latvian presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

Bosnia Herzegovina (BiH)

During her introduction, Ms Mogherini will update Ministers on progress of the EU initiative on Bosnia. Now that the BiH Parliament has approved the written commitment to reform we expect Ms Mogherini to recommend that the Foreign Affairs Council give political agreement for the EU/BiH stabilisation and association agreement to be adopted at the April General Affairs Council. The UK will fully support this approach.

Africa

Ministers will have a strategic discussion on Africa, which was rescheduled from the February FAC. The UK will stress the link between trade and development and peace and security, and underline the importance of the EU retaining its role as a key player on the continent. The UK will also emphasise the importance of a partnership of equals: the EU should welcome the African Union’s developing capacity to respond to African crises, while encouraging the Africans to speak out constructively on global issues. The UK will also use the FAC to focus on Nigeria’s 28 March presidential elections and will want to signal continued support for supporting regional efforts to tackle Boko Haram. The UK will also encourage the EU to capitalise on the successful high-level Ebola conference on 3 March, stressing the primary objective of getting to zero new cases and the immediate need to fund the $400 million of critical activity to achieve this, as well as other priorities such as improved regional co-ordination and a safe transition to a sustainable recovery.

Libya

We expect the discussion to focus on the role that the EU should play in Libya. The UK will seek agreement from member states to a twin-track approach that includes providing support to the political process and improving the security situation. A further discussion on Libya will take place at the European Council on 19 March.

Eastern Partnership

Ministers will discuss preparations for the Eastern Partnership summit, which will take place in Riga on 21-22 May 2015. The UK will argue that the summit should send a strong message endorsing the sovereign right of Eastern Partnership countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine—to make their own strategic choices without third party interference. The EU should also confirm support for the implementation of real reforms on the ground for the benefit of citizens of partner countries, including through the implementation of the EU association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Migration

Ms Mogherini has proposed a review of policies on migration, arguing that the challenge of migratory pressures needs both a political and operational response, with migration being linked to external affairs and other engagements with third countries. Ministers will consider this review and have a strategic discussion on the proposed migration agenda. The UK broadly supports this initiative but we look forward to further detailed information about the proposal and how it may impact on our broader interests.

AOB: Iraq

The Hungarian Government have requested that member states contribute financially to an appeal by Archbishop Wardh of Erbil for Christian families displaced by ISIL. The UK remains deeply concerned by the persecution of all communities, Muslims, Christians, Yezidis, Turkmen and others, by ISIL. The UK is providing £39.5 million in humanitarian aid and supports the commitments made by Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi to inclusive governance and protecting the rights of all minorities.

General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 March is due to focus on: preparation of the European Council on 19 and 20 March 2015; and the European semester.

Preparation of the March European Council

The GAC will prepare the 19 and 20 March European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The March European Council agenda is expected to include: energy union; economic issues (including the 2015 European semester); and external relations issues (likely to include preparation for the Eastern Partnership summit in May, Ukraine and Libya).

European Semester

The GAC will consider the synthesis report on the 2015 European semester exercise. This is a policy discussion and there are no anticipated outputs at this stage. We welcome the focus of the annual growth survey on jobs and growth and emphasise that the semester should not be diluted by the inclusion of other agendas.

[HCWS368]

NHS Charges

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, Earl Howe, has made the following written ministerial statement.

Regulations have been laid before Parliament to increase certain national health service charges in England from 1 April 2015.

This Government have made tough decisions to protect the NHS budget and increase it in real terms, but health charges remain an important source of revenue to support the delivery of high-quality NHS services. This is particularly important given the increasing demands on the NHS, with spending on medicines alone doubling since 2000. It is therefore crucial that these charges increase to keep up with rising costs.

This year, we have increased the prescription charge by 15p from £8.05 to £8.20 for each medicine or appliance dispensed.

Ninety per cent of prescription items are already provided free of charge.

To ensure that people with the greatest need are protected, such as those who are not eligible for free prescriptions but who have long-term conditions, we have again frozen the costs of a prescription prepayment certificate (PPC). The three month certificate remains at £29.10, and the cost of the annual certificate will remain at £104. An annual certificate means that a person can have all the prescribed items they require during the year dispensed for £2 per week.

Regulations have also been laid to increase NHS dental charges from 1 April 2015. The dental charge payable for a band one course of treatment will increase by 30p from £18.50 to £18.80. The dental charge for a band 2 course of treatment will increase by 80p from £50.50 to £51.30. The charge for a band 3 course of treatment will increase by £3.50 from £219 to £222.50. The small increases this year are lower than in recent years.

Dental charges represent an important contribution to the overall cost of dental services. The exact amount raised will be dependent upon the level and type of primary dental care services commissioned by NHS England and the proportion of charge paying patients who attend dentists and the level of treatment they require.

Charges will also be increased, by an overall 1.6%, for wigs and fabric supports.

The range of NHS optical vouchers available to children, people on low incomes and individuals with complex sight problems are also being increased in value. In order to continue to provide help with the cost of spectacles and contact lenses, optical voucher values will rise by an overall 1%.

Details of the revised charges are in the following tables.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 11 March 2015.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Good afternoon, my Lords. I should start with the announcement that if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Approved Regulator) Regulations 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:45

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

The Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Approved Regulator) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2015.

By way of background, as noble Lords will know, the Legal Services Act 2007—the 2007 Act—governs the regulation of legal services in England and Wales and established a new regulatory framework for legal services. The 2007 Act enabled the widening of the legal services market to allow for different regulators to regulate legal services and for different types of legal businesses to provide those services.

The intention of the 2007 Act was to put the consumer at the heart of legal services and deliver a more effective and competitive market. It established a number of regulatory objectives which the Legal Services Board and the approved regulators must promote, including protecting and promoting the public interest and the interests of consumers, encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession and promoting competition in the provision of legal services by authorised persons.

The Legal Services Board was established under the 2007 Act to be the independent oversight regulator with responsibility for overseeing the approved regulators. Under the 2007 Act, approved regulators are under a duty to act in a way that is compatible with the regulatory objectives set out in the Act. Where acts or omissions of an approved regulator are likely to have an adverse impact on these regulatory objectives, the LSB has a range of enforcement powers that it can exercise, including issuing performance targets and directions, public censure and imposing financial penalties.

Where an approved regulator’s acts or omissions cannot be adequately addressed by these other enforcement powers the LSB can, in appropriate cases, issue an intervention direction providing for certain functions of the approved regulator to be exercised by the LSB or a person nominated by it; or it can recommend to the Lord Chancellor that he cancel the approved regulator’s designation. Similarly, the LSB may recommend that the Lord Chancellor cancel an approved regulator’s designation as a licensing authority in relation to one or more reserved legal activities, but only if it is satisfied that it cannot address the issue through its other enforcement powers. This is intended to ensure that the power to issue an intervention direction or to cancel a designation remains reserved for the most serious or persistent infractions.

Where an intervention direction is made under Section 41 of the 2007 Act or an approved regulator’s designation is cancelled under Section 45, the LSB or a new regulator will assume some or all of the approved regulator’s functions. In order to provide continuity of regulation in these circumstances, the LSB, or a person nominated by it, can apply for a search warrant for the approved regulator’s premises under Sections 42 or 48, as appropriate.

Section 79 makes similar provision for licensing authorities to that made by Section 48 for approved regulators, in that it makes provision for search warrants which may be issued following the cancellation of a designation. It applies where a body has had its designation as a licensing authority cancelled, either automatically under Section 75 of the Act because its designation as an approved regulator has been cancelled under Section 45, or by an order made by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Act.

The 2007 Act permits the LSB to apply for a warrant in certain circumstances authorising it to enter and search the premises of an approved regulator or licensing authority and take possession of any written or electronic records found on the premises. There are two separate powers under the 2007 Act which are set out in Sections 42 and 48. These allow search warrants to be issued for an approved regulator’s premises, and one power in Section 79 which allows search warrants to be issued for a licensing authority’s premises. Regulations must be made by the Lord Chancellor under each of those three sections specifying further matters which a judge or justice of the peace must be satisfied of or have regard to before issuing a warrant, and also regulating the exercise of a power conferred by the warrant. That is the purpose of these two sets of regulations before the Committee, one of which relates to approved regulator warrants and one to licensing authority warrants.

The intention in exercising a warrant under Sections 42, 48 or 79 will be to provide continuity of regulation in specific circumstances of regulatory failure by an approved regulator or licensing authority. If both sets of these regulations come into force, they will enable the LSB or a person appointed by it to apply for warrants as part of its enforcement strategy. As required under the 2007 Act, the Lord Chancellor has also formally consulted the LSB about the making of these regulations.

Finally, I regret to say that there is a small error in the version of the approved regulator regulations before the House—the result of a computer glitch. In Regulation 1(2) the paragraph lettering is incorrect in that it runs through from (a) to (g) rather than restarting for each definition. I take it that no confusion has been caused. This error will be corrected in the final “made” version of the regulations.

In conclusion, these regulations enable the LSB or a person appointed by it to apply for a warrant as part of its enforcement strategy, enabling the LSB to assume effectively the functions of the relevant regulator. Overall, this has the potential to act as a deterrent against poor regulation, to improve the standard of regulatory practice and to strengthen the LSB’s regulatory powers, leading to greater consistency and better protections for consumers. I commend both sets of regulations to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I can say at the outset that we are not opposing either of these two sets of regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has outlined for the Grand Committee, the Legal Services Act 2007 permits the Legal Services Board to apply for a warrant in certain circumstances authorising it to enter and search the premises of an approved regulator or licensing authority. The Lord Chancellor must make regulations specifying further matters which a judge or justice of the peace must be satisfied of, or have regard to, before issuing a warrant and regulating the exercise of a power conferred by a warrant.

I am aware from the guidance that a previous draft of these regulations was originally laid in February 2010 and then withdrawn. That was at the end of the last Parliament and here we are, five years and one month later at the end of this Parliament, with another set of regulations that we are seeking to put through. Quite a lot of time has elapsed. I understand and accept that sometimes when things are drafted, that can highlight problems and defects, but it would be useful if in his response the noble Lord could outline in some detail why have we waited so long for these regulations to be brought back. We are literally in the last few days of this Parliament. It would also be helpful if he could say something about the nature of the problems which have been uncovered.

In looking at the regulations and the helpful Explanatory Memorandum, it appears to me that they have been quite tightly drawn up to limit the circumstances in which they can be used and to ensure that the issue of these warrants is a matter of last resort. That seems right and sensible to me. However, is the noble Lord satisfied that the regulations are proportionate and strike the right balance? Have any problems been caused to the Legal Services Board in exercising its regulatory duties over the past few years by not having these powers? If he is satisfied that there are no problems, perhaps he would inform the Committee of how he has come to that conclusion. With those points, I am happy to support the regulations.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration of these regulations and for his observations in general about them. He asked why there has been effectively a delay in these matters and also asked me to say a little more about whether I was satisfied with the various safeguards which exist.

In a sense both those questions have a common answer, which is that these powers are very much ones of last resort. They follow from the Act; Parliament expressed the view that there should be this residuary power but the circumstances in which the super-regulator—if one can call it that—would actually wish to step into the shoes of the regulator are very hard to foresee. I believe Parliament felt that there should be that power at least, hence the existence of the regulations. This is not, I think, something the absence of which has caused the LSB any difficulty at all in the delay during the five years since the replacement regulations were drafted.

The powers are not to be used, of course, until after all the other LSB powers have been utilised, and the noble Lord and the Committee will realise that there are a range of other powers short of these last-resort powers which the LSB can exercise. It was in those circumstances that these powers were prioritised below other more immediately required orders such as those required in the implementation of the Act and subsequently those recommended by the LSB. As outlined in the memorandum accompanying the regulations, we have produced 11 other legal services statutory instruments since 2013, which perhaps gives the Committee an idea of the scale of recent work. We have therefore prioritised our resources.

Progress on the approved regulator draft has continued steadily. For example we have consulted twice on the content of the regulations with the stakeholders—and there are a considerable number of stakeholders—who will be affected by them. We have made numerous changes as a result and taken their comments into account. The licensing authority regulations have also been drafted during this period allowing the two sets of regulations to be consulted on and progress through Parliament together, given how similar they are. I think the noble Lord will understand that regulators were likely to express a view as to whether the super-regulator should be allowed these powers and if so the appropriate restrictions on them. There is perhaps, one might say, a healthy tension between the interests of the regulators and the super-regulator, which, I think, provides some explanation.

In terms of the safeguards, the word “necessary” or “desirable” is an important one for the exercise of a regulatory function. A judicial officer must be satisfied before issuing a warrant. Specifically, the regulations allow a judicial officer to issue a warrant only if satisfied that the LSB has made reasonable attempts to obtain the records sought by other means. This would be likely to result in the records being removed, hidden, tampered with or destroyed. There is also provision to prevent repeat applications where another of the same substance was refused. There are other safeguards providing for the return of seized documents. A key safeguard is that a warrant may not be used to take possession of or copy records subject to legal professional privilege. That matter was drawn to the attention of the regulators by the Bar Standards Board as a matter of importance and that finds its way into the regulations, as the noble Lord will have seen. Any such record which is taken or copied in error must be returned.

These regulations were drafted in consultation with the approved regulators, whose suggestions were incorporated in the way that I have indicated to achieve the desired balance. I hope I can satisfy the Committee that there are these appropriate safeguards. I do not think it could be said that the LSB is champing at the bit to exercise these regulations—it is unlikely it will do so—but Parliament has envisaged that it should have its power. By providing these regulations, albeit they have taken a little time to produce, we are acting in a way that is faithful to Parliament’s intention. In those circumstances, I hope the regulations can be approved.

Motion agreed.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:59

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Warrant) (Licensing Authority) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:00

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2015.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

The draft rules amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—which I will call SIAC—rules of procedure, giving effect to two provisions contained within the Immigration Act 2014. These are straight- forward—being consequential to the new Act—but, none the less, important amendments. One will amend a current right of appeal to SIAC and introduce a new power of statutory review to ensure that all cases that should be dealt with by SIAC remain there, while the other will tighten up its bail processes.

Your Lordships will be aware from previous debates that SIAC is a specialist tribunal dealing with the most serious immigration and asylum appeals where there are issues of national security or other matters of public interest. For instance, it has heard cases under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by persons certified as suspected international terrorists. SIAC heard the deportation case of Abu Qatada, for example. Unlike other immigration tribunals, it has processes in place designed to control the disclosure of material which, if released into the public domain, could be damaging. These are its closed material procedure and its use of special advocates, whereby some of the Home Secretary’s evidence is withheld from the appellant and his representatives. The purpose in both instances is to avoid compromising intelligence sources and the UK’s national security. The appellant’s interests are instead represented by a special advocate—a lawyer of the highest experience and ability and who has access to all the material withheld from the appellant.

The Immigration Act 2014 is being implemented by the Home Office on a phased basis, starting last July, with full and final implementation on 6 April this year. It contains a number of provisions to improve and streamline immigration processes. We have already considered and debated all of the Act’s provisions during its passage last year, so today is not about revisiting those, but rather about the consequential procedural rule amendments that are now required.

The Immigration Act provides that there will be a right of appeal to a tribunal only where fundamental rights are involved. From next month, the Act will remove the current right of appeal to SIAC against deportation decisions where the individual does not claim that removal would breach their human rights. Although it is likely that an individual will claim deportation would breach their human rights, there may still be cases where an appellant does not want to challenge their deportation on that basis, but rather that the reasoning behind the deportation decision itself is flawed. The Act allows for that by introducing a further power of statutory review to SIAC’s jurisdiction.

The number of cases that we are talking about is likely to be very small indeed. SIAC is a low-volume jurisdiction: it currently has only 17 appeals, although it has some other work. Although this does not represent a significant extension to the use of the closed material procedure, we must still make provision to allow SIAC to continue to consider these cases. Without the new review, the only route of challenge once the statutory appeal is removed would be by way of a judicial review to the High Court. This would not be satisfactory for two reasons. First, the High Court has only limited provision for the closed material procedure. Secondly, SIAC is the tribunal with the greatest judicial and panel member expertise in immigration matters and national security cases, and is the specialist in deciding and using closed material procedure.

SIAC is a superior court of record. It is presided over by a senior and experienced judge of the High Court, so this is not a lesser option. SIAC already deals with two other types of statutory review: to set aside a direction by the Home Secretary to exclude a non-EEA national from the UK and to set aside a decision by the Home Secretary in relation to naturalisation and citizenship applications. In both instances, SIAC is required under primary legislation to apply the same principles that would apply in judicial review proceedings; namely, the principles of natural justice and general public law. This further statutory review will also apply these principles, so SIAC will, as it does now, give full and proper consideration to any request for the closed material procedure.

In mandating those two statutory reviews in SIAC, Parliament has decided that it is the appropriate forum for all immigration challenges involving matters of national security or other public interest. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we would not want to go back on that decision when deciding whether to approve this amendment today.

The Immigration Act also tackles repeated bail applications, which are often made in an effort to delay someone’s removal from the United Kingdom. Before the new Immigration Act there was no limit on the number of bail applications that someone could make, and an identical application could be filed the day after one had been refused. These all currently require a hearing, which can be costly and time consuming. From April, these draft amendment rules will allow SIAC to dismiss a repeat application without a hearing if it is made within 28 days of an earlier unsuccessful application and there has been no material change in the applicant’s circumstances. Similar rules are in place in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, as required by the Immigration Act provisions which were commenced in October last year, so these amendments provide parity in the rules of procedure.

The draft rules have been produced on behalf of the Lord Chancellor following a short period of consultation by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice with several of the bodies most familiar with SIAC, including the Law Society, the Bar Council, special advocates and the SIAC chairman and judiciary. We are therefore satisfied that they meet the needs of SIAC users and adjudicators.

The rules before us represent straightforward changes but, as I have outlined, they are critical in preserving our national security. Decisions made by the Home Secretary in reliance on sensitive and potentially damaging material should continue to be challenged at SIAC rather than the High Court. SIAC’s hearing time is best saved for dealing with such matters and for the appellants who genuinely need it, rather than being spent on unmeritorious applications for bail. I therefore commend these rules to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has outlined, these rules make amendments to bring the 2003 rules into line with the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014. The first change to the rules is the removal of the current right of appeal to SIAC against deportation decisions where there are no human rights grounds and the application of a new section of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 allowing SIAC to deal with these by way of a statutory review. Appeal rights properly and rightly remain for human rights matters. Will the Minister comment on whether any thought has been given to whether the restriction of these appeal rights is likely to increase the number of cases claiming human rights as a reason? Has any further work been done on the potential cost in that case? Have the Government taken account of those costs when they looked at the savings they think they will make?

On the forum for appeals, we are always concerned when there is an extension of the use of closed material procedures. Will the Minister say something further about the matters that will be dealt with by SIAC rather than the High Court by a process of statutory review rather than by judicial review? I assume that the terms will be of a similar effect. I was pleased when the Minister confirmed that asylum will be looked at on human rights grounds, using the same criteria as the High Court. I agree with his comments about the members of the judiciary who work in that court.

On the question of bail, some concerns have been raised as to what constitutes material change. Could the Minister say a bit more about that as well? I get his point about renewed bail applications being permitted only when there has been material change. I assume that I am right in thinking that a procedural defect would be a very serious material change. Could he outline any further things that would constitute material change? With that, I accept that these are important and serious matters and matters of national security and I am happy to support the rules.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations and for his acceptance, for the most part, of what lies behind these rules. He makes a valuable point in asking whether there could be a perverse incentive for somebody to claim that there were human rights violations and therefore get themselves within SIAC. That is, with respect, a little unlikely. In fact, the purport of the regulations is to embrace those cases where national security is an issue but the person is not relying on human rights grounds. Classically, that would happen on the grounds of Article 3 or Article 8 of the European convention. It has to fall within SIAC because of the national security arguments; it is not a simple incantation of a human-rights based challenge.

I caused some inquiries to be made as to precisely what cases might come within the regulation when somebody was not claiming human rights grounds and would therefore be covered by this measure. I was given to understand that the likely applicant would be someone who was before the court in relation to espionage, who would not want to rely ex hypothesi on Articles 3 or 8 but might want to challenge the underlying assertion that they were, in effect, a spy. In that way, they would still come within the national security ambit of SIAC, involving all the closed material procedures with which we are familiar—the special advocates and well travelled range of things—and not rely on human rights matters.

The noble Lord asked about costs. I do not believe that the human rights element of itself would cause additional costs. In relation to the rules amendment costs, there are minimal costs on the work of drafting and laying the amendment rules and no costs to the SIAC administrator or Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in introducing this new statutory review. They already deal with other statutory reviews, so forms, guidance and IT are not affected. The bail amendments will reduce costs for SIAC, because they will save hearing time from being used on unmeritorious applications.

The question of material changes is a fairly well travelled doctrine in terms of bail applications generally, and judges will be familiar with that. It involves something material, as the adjective suggests, not just a minor change that warrants an application—something that may have an effect on personal circumstances, such as their address, giving the court grounds for thinking that the risk was somewhat less than originally appreciated. It might be a matter for SIAC to give further guidance, but of course material change of circumstance is the sort of thing that courts are used to addressing in a number of circumstances. Indeed, the noble Lord may be familiar with it in his guise as a magistrate, with frequent bail applications—although I may be wrong in thinking that he is a magistrate. It might be something that affects the range of considerations which the tribunal thought important when the previous bail application was decided. I would be reluctant to specify precisely what might constitute material circumstances, but it does not mean de minimis matters, things that do not really alter the basis of the application. It would be a matter for the court on the particular facts of the case to decide whether there had been a material change.

I hope that, with those assurances, the Committee is content that the rules should proceed, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:14

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this order is to bring into force a revised code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, setting out the manner in which police officers are to record, retain and reveal to the prosecutor material obtained in a criminal investigation.

The revised code that this order will bring into force replaces the current one that was introduced in 2005. The changes to the code are not extensive but they are a crucial element in an initiative that is designed to make summary justice more efficient. This is the transforming summary justice programme—TSJ for short.

The objective of TSJ is to enable guilty plea cases to be dealt with wherever possible in one hearing, and contested cases to be properly managed at the first hearing and actively progressed and disposed of at the second. One of the elements of TSJ is that summary cases that are likely to be guilty pleas and those that are expected to be contested should be treated differently, the former being listed for a hearing after 14 days, the latter after 28 days.

Last May, the senior presiding judge received the report of a review that he had asked His Honour Judge Kinch and the chief magistrate, Senior District Judge Riddle, to carry out into disclosure of unused material in summary cases. This magistrates’ court disclosure review made several recommendations that complement TSJ, including that the relevant code of practice should be amended to enable a streamlined but proportionate procedure to be used in disclosing unused material in summary cases.

The review endorsed the separate treatment of likely guilty and not guilty cases. It recommended that the code should be amended to remove any implication that a guilty plea might be expected simply on the basis of the defendant not having denied the offence. However, where a guilty plea was expected with good reason—typically because the defendant had admitted the offence—then a schedule of unused material need not be served.

Even in these cases, however, there remains a duty on the prosecution at common law to disclose any material that might assist the defendant in a bail application or in preparing his case. This is often referred to as “ex parte Lee disclosure”, after the case in which the principle was set out. It is perhaps unlikely to be required in a straightforward summary case, but the review recommended that in the rare cases where the need for such disclosure arises, the police must draw the material to the attention of the prosecutor. Where on the other hand there is nothing to disclose, as will ordinarily be the position, that fact should be declared.

These recommendations are reflected in the revised code. Annexed to the code are three forms, the first of which is for use in cases where a guilty plea is anticipated, declaring that there is nothing to disclose at common law.

The review noted the intention of the CPS,

“to replace the unused schedule with a short disclosure report in anticipated not guilty plea summary cases”,

which it observed would require an amendment to the code of practice. This, too, is reflected in the new code and in the second and third forms annexed to it. These are streamlined certificates for use in anticipated not guilty cases, one certifying that there is nothing to disclose under the 1996 Act or at common law, the other certifying that there is disclosable material and specifying what it is. These forms are quicker, simpler and less bureaucratic than the ones they replace.

The amendments incorporated in the revised code were drafted in consultation with the national police lead on unused material, as well as with representatives of the Law Society, HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the office of the senior presiding judge. In accordance with the process set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the revised code was published in draft for consultation in October last year. Six responses were received, and the draft was further slightly revised in the light of them.

The resulting revised code was laid on 28 January and the draft order to bring it into force, which your Lordships are considering today, was laid the following day. This slightly unusual process is in accordance with Section 77(5) of the 1996 Act. The order was subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and has been amended slightly in the light of it. The code will come into force on the day after the day on which the order has been approved by whichever House approves it last.

The revised code introduced by the order under consideration today does not alter the criteria for disclosure. Rather, it seeks to help to ensure that defendants receive the disclosure to which they are entitled earlier than at present, including an assurance that the prosecution’s obligations at common law have been met. As the review observes, late compliance with disclosure obligations, or failure to comply with them,

“frequently leads to ineffective trials, delay and the incumbent costs in both financial and human terms … Many practitioners observe that there is a procedural rather than substance difficulty in most cases. The material listed on the unused schedule (and often any items disclosed) frequently has limited, if any, bearing on the outcome of cases tried summarily. With that in mind, it is all the more frustrating for procedural failures in the disclosure process to lead to a case collapsing, or suffering delay”.

The purpose of the revised code is to prevent such procedural failures and to reinforce the effect of the TSJ programme in speeding up summary justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the order before us today replaces the code of practice issued in 2005 under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. I understand it is being brought forward following the Magistrates’ Court Disclosure Review in 2014, which recommended the adoption of a streamlined procedure in summary cases and, I think, in those either-way cases that are likely to remain in the magistrates’ court, so that a schedule of unused material need not be served in such cases, when it is anticipated that a guilty plea is going to be entered.

The present procedure is outlined in the magistrates’ court review, which I have looked at, with particular reference to paragraph 49. The recommendation that this order is seeking to bring into effect is listed as point 220 in the summary of recommendations. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, could just set out for us how we get to this position of an anticipated guilty plea. Clearly, someone can admit, at the first opportunity, that they have committed the offence and are guilty, but what about other cases? What sort of assessment will actually take place? Is there an expectation or assumption that, on the evidence already there, they will be getting legal advice from their own solicitor that the wisest course of action for them would be to submit a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity? I just want to be clear on the process that will be followed.

It would also be helpful if the noble Lord could just outline for us what will happen if the anticipated guilty plea does not materialise after all that. As the noble Lord said, I have served as a magistrate. I was on the Coventry bench for many years, and most cases that come before you, especially summary offences, result in a guilty plea and there are very few trials. However, things do not always go to plan, and it would be useful for that to be outlined for the Grand Committee.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming when he spoke earlier that material that is of assistance to the defence and that meets the appropriate tests must be disclosed to the defence. As he said, that is the rule of common law disclosure. He referred to the ex parte Lee case, which is helpful in this respect. With those few points, I am very happy to support the order.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful consideration of the order, informed of course by his own experience as a magistrate. He is quite right that the question of a plea is not simply a binary one or an automatic process at a particular juncture. People change their minds, and it is important that their right to do that is respected by the procedure rules and that we do not become too much a servant of process, at the risk of in any way jeopardising the important choice that a defendant has. Of course, it is important to stress in that context that defendants, whatever their intended plea, are entitled to know the case against them. They receive that in the form of the initial details of the prosecution case. Under the proposed arrangements they will receive that information earlier.

This is about disclosure of unused material. However, as I have endeavoured to stress, defendants are still entitled through the ex parte Lee case to the disclosure of material by common law which might potentially assist them. If, for example, a witness had a previous relevant conviction or had refused to give a statement, the police would have to reveal that before or at the first hearing. Such information is vital for the defence in making a bail application—quite apart from anything else—and the amended code reminds the police of the importance of making such disclosures even in a guilty plea case.

The noble Lord asked what would happen if an expected guilty plea did not materialise. In those circumstances the appropriate certificate must be prepared and served as soon as possible. The procedure is outlined in paragraph 6.4 of the code, which embraces the possibility quite reasonably and sensibly suggested by the noble Lord. Experience tells him that defendants sometimes get cold feet for one reason or another.

The importance of the order is that the defendant will be protected by this process. Important material which may assist will still be disclosed, but not a considerable amount of unused material which would have no relevance to a decision or to the outcome or strength of a case. Such material would simply slow up the process, causing additional expense and inconvenience, not only to the court but, importantly, to the defendant.

This order meets the desire to streamline the process —the transforming summary justice programme. It means that there will be fewer hearings but none the less protects the defendant and his or her freedom to choose whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

Motion agreed.

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Revenue Information) Regulations 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:27

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The Grand Committee do consider the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Revenue Information) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations represent the sixth occasion on which the data sharing powers in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 have been used. They are designed to meet demands for the development of a single official house price index, as well as work being taken forward by the Census Transformation Programme to improve population and housing statistics. Statistics on house prices are of key importance to policymakers, including those setting interest rates, carrying out economic analysis and developing housing policies. Statistics on population and housing underpin resource allocation, policy formulation, decision-making, research and outcome monitoring across the public, private and voluntary sectors.

The feasibility work undertaken by the Office for National Statistics has provided the basis for identifying the information that is needed for research and analytical purposes. The data will be taken from information collected by valuation officers and held by the Valuation Office Agency for the administration of council tax. The information required for each residential property in England and Wales includes the following: the address of the property, the date of allocation to a council tax band, the date of the last inspection by the Valuation Office Agency, and property attributes such as total floor area and number of rooms. These details are required to create, for the first time, a single official house price index and to support the programme of research for the census and future provision of population statistics in England and Wales.

The ability to take forward work on a single official house price index will satisfy requirements identified by the National Statistician and provide a better basis for understanding and monitoring changes in house prices. The new index will be able to represent the prevailing market price of residential property at completion of sale, measure both house prices and house price inflation based on the price paid for transacted properties, have UK coverage, provide a consistent index to enable trend analysis, offer robust sub-regional estimates, and provide comparable estimates for subsets of transactions or properties.

Access to data on residential properties will contribute to the comprehensive programme of research, testing and evaluation being taken forward as part of the Census Transformation Programme. It is anticipated that the data will be used for the following purposes: to help develop an address register; to replace or supplement characteristics information traditionally collected in the census such as statistics on type of accommodation, number of rooms and central heating, and to produce new statistics such as information on the age of buildings.

The 2021 census will be online first. The address register will be central to a successful operation. The physical attributes of properties such as floor level and type of use will be invaluable in building the address register. Census statistics provide objective evidence to support decision-making processes and funding allocations across the public, private and voluntary sectors. For example, housing data from the census play a part in prioritising approximately £4 billion of annual capital spend by local authorities on housing. Furthermore, planning decisions on housing are frequently underpinned by the use of census data to ensure that optimal decisions are made based on local need.

In accordance with Regulation 4 of the instrument we are debating, the information may be used only by the Statistics Board, which is now referred to as the UK Statistics Authority, for its statistical functions. The ONS is committed to safeguarding all the data it uses to carry out its statistical functions, and perhaps I may assure noble Lords that full account has been given to specific statutory obligations, including those in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. A privacy impact assessment for this proposed data share has been published. This confirms that the proposed disclosure is lawful and will not breach any statutory requirements in respect of the processing, transfer or handling of the required data. In all cases, the ONS complies with government standards for data transfer and handling. No data will be transferred to the ONS until both the Valuation Office Agency and the ONS are satisfied that appropriate arrangements have been agreed and confirmed in a data access agreement.

I hope that the need for and benefits of the proposed regulations are clear, and for those reasons I ask the Committee to support and accept them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I must thank the Minister for that. I tried very hard to get hold of the Statistics Board to ask it to send me information and completely failed to get anything from it, so I am delighted by the clarity with which he explained these regulations. This is a slight but sensible measure, which we are happy to agree to. As he said, it will allow Valuation Office Agency to pass house price data to the UK Statistics Authority. We are supportive of any better use of government data because we understand the benefits that can bring. We certainly need to be able to draw upon as accurate a picture as we can of the housing market, partly because of the incredibly important role it plays in the lives of a huge number of people but also because the market can be dysfunctional.

I shall ask the Minister a couple of questions. He answered quite a few as he was going through, but there are a couple left. In his introduction, he mentioned some of the safeguards about privacy. Clearly, data anonymity is crucial. The last thing homeowners want is any data being allow out there which would enable them to be identified. Although the Minister said there would be agreements, I was not quite clear what will be in them that will ensure that the information remains anonymous, particularly if the data sent over, when combined with other data, could become more identifiable than when they exist on their own. Perhaps he will be able to confirm that there is absolutely no way in which anyone’s data could be identifiable.

We are aware of the importance of the housing market to the lives of people who live in the homes and to the macroeconomic health of the nation. We know, as I am sure the Minister knows, that housebuilding is probably at its lowest level since the 1920s. If we are returned to office, we are committed to increase housebuilding to 200,000 a year, so we will need to get this right before we build all those new houses. We are therefore very interested in the supply side of the housing market. One of our criticisms of the Government’s current measures is that they have been aimed at the demand side of the housing market rather than supply side, which might fuel inflation rather than housebuilding. Therefore, these attempts to get better data on existing housing have to be to the good because they will help a concentration on the supply side of housing.

We also need, as I think the Minister suggested, government policy to keep a close eye on supply and prices. The future housing market turning into a bubble and collapsing is something on which we need better data, and I think we probably did not have it at the time of the last recession. It sounds as if this will help us towards that. Indeed, the lack of a definitive official index for house prices has been a problem. We have tended to have to rely on information provided by private companies, such as Halifax or Rightmove, or partial government statistics, so a much better official index will be of considerable use. We note that when the consultation on this measure took place, the majority welcomed the proposal for a single house price index and the clarity it would bring to the use of house price statistics. We agree strongly with that, but perhaps the Minister can say whether other datasets such as the Land Registry’s price-paid dataset will be used alongside this or is it going to be subsumed in it? I think, from what he said, it was going to be subsumed, but maybe he could just confirm that for me.

The Minister also said that this is part of the process of looking at whether part of the census could be undertaken electronically. While I completely understand the idea that this might help the address register for the census, I was slightly less clear on how the details regarding the amount of floor space, if it is unrelated to the number of people living there, were going to play a part in the census. I assume the aim is not to improve the comprehensiveness and quality of the census, but if it is, perhaps the Minister can spell out how those improvements could be made.

The population and housing statistics are obviously subject to an enormous amount of churn so again this index is going to be welcome, though it may have some of the statisticians running to keep up with change. We wish them luck in that. We support the statutory instrument and hope that it will contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive house price index, which will therefore be—as the Minister indicated—of much greater to use to policymakers in the future.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her broad support for these measures. She is absolutely right that these are sensible measures and it is very important—to use her words—that we make better use of data and create an accurate picture. These regulations are designed to ensure that. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of safeguards. The data access agreements will specify that the information is to be used for statistical purposes only. The ONS is not authorised to disclose personal information—indeed, that is a criminal offence under Section 39 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. The safety and security of personal information is of paramount importance to the Office for National Statistics. It has stringent procedures in place to protect confidentiality and to safeguard the security of personal information on addresses.

As I have said, the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 contains a confidentiality obligation, with a potential criminal sanction for revealing or sharing personal information unlawfully. Anyone found guilty of unlawfully disclosing information will be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, a fine or both. The body responsible is absolutely clear about the need for safeguards, and I emphasised the importance of that in my introductory words.

The noble Baroness also asked about the Land Registry. The Land Registry’s price-paid data will be used in the new index, so it will be subsumed into that. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about formulation of policy. The whole purpose of this is to help us with policy formulation. I am not going to engage in trading statistics on housing, but clearly the housing of people who live in this country is of huge importance, and a range of housing units needs to be available for people around cities and in rural areas. I feel very strongly about rural housing and that villages should continue to be vibrant.

How will all this help and support the census in 2021? Census field operations are underpinned by the address register, with coverage checks and quality assurance. Details of property attributes will inform design and processing arrangements, particularly through requiring the identification of mixed-use properties: for example, obviously, shops where there are also dwellings, flats and other properties with restricted access, and communal establishments such as nursing or care homes.

The noble Baroness asked about the details of floor space and how that will play a part in the census. Details of total floor area will be provided to inform work on the house price index. The size of a property, for instance, influences its price, which is one reason why that was included. I recall from filling in census forms before—if I remember rightly—that the number of rooms has always been part of the census on property and that certain rooms should be included and others not.

I will obviously look at Hansard to see whether there are any outstanding points, but I think that I have covered all the issues raised and I hope that the Committee will agree to these regulations.

Motion agreed.

Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:45

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

The Grand Committee do consider the Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, this instrument is being made to include amphetamine with a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood in the new drug-driving offence of driving with a specified drug in the body above a specified limit. The new offence was made in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which inserted a new Section 5A into the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 were made on 24 October 2014 and specified 16 other drugs and their limits, and the new offence came into force in England and Wales on 2 March. As noble Lords are aware, the Report on the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law by Sir Peter North concluded that there was,

“a significant drug driving problem”,

and recommended the new offence and the inclusion of amphetamine. The expert panel, in its report published in March 2013, also recommended the inclusion of amphetamine in the new drug-driving offence. It quoted the Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines project—the European DRUID project—suggesting that amphetamine represents a medium to high risk of a traffic accident. The DRUID researchers did not find an impairment effect at therapeutic doses, but a negative driving performance could be detected at high doses.

As noble Lords are probably aware, the Government have considered carefully what the appropriate level should be for amphetamine. The expert panel recommended a limit of 600 micrograms per litre of blood if we were to take an approach where the risk of a road traffic collision is most likely to occur. However, while amphetamine has significant medical use, the Government had concerns over the amount of illegal use. The expert panel described it as,

“an illicit substance, a long standing member of the drug scene”.

The approach to setting a limit for this drug was therefore not as clear cut as for others. A zero-tolerance approach to illegal drugs such as cannabis and cocaine was taken, while a road safety risk approach was taken to drugs more associated with medical use. The Government therefore used the consultation in summer 2013 to seek further views and evidence on what a suitable limit might be.

Many of the responses proposed a limit much closer to the zero-tolerance approach, so we reconsulted on a limit of 50 micrograms per litre of blood from December 2013 to the end of January 2014. However, we received several objections from the medical profession to the proposed limit. In particular, specialists in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, more commonly known as ADHD, for which amphetamine is a recognised treatment—many have told me that it is a primary treatment—argued that the condition affects the ability to concentrate, and while patients represent an increased road safety risk when unmedicated, they are just as safe as the general population when taking their medication. These respondents backed up their arguments with research. Their concern was that prescribers and ADHD patients must not be discouraged from prescribing medication or taking it. We recognise that adult ADHD often goes undiagnosed or treatment of it is stopped after having it as a child. This represents real road safety risks, which need to be addressed through treatment. We therefore concluded that the proposed limit of 50 micrograms might discourage those with ADHD seeking or continuing with treatment. It is therefore much more appropriate to set a limit that is above the therapeutic range that ADHD sufferers are most likely to be prescribed and below the level of those most likely to be abusing medication.

After holding extensive informal discussions with specialists in ADHD and with the Secretary of State’s honorary medical advisory panel on alcohol, drugs and substance misuse and driving, we have agreed that a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood is the most appropriate limit. The advisory panel quoted the analysis of 2,995 blood samples taken between 2008 and 2012 across the UK in suspected drug-driving cases showing that median and average concentrations of amphetamine were 270 and 456 micrograms per litre of blood respectively. The Government have, therefore, concluded from their consultation with the above ADHD specialists and the advisory panel that the level of 250 micrograms would successfully balance the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes against its abuse by those who represent a risk on the road as a result of taking amphetamine.

I recognise that in July and September last year, during the debates on the regulations that specified the other 16 drugs and their limits, the Government indicated that they intended to reconsult on a limit for amphetamine, but given the extensive discussions that we have held with medical stakeholders, we take the view that we have now had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of all of the relevant parties and that conducting a third formal consultation on a limit for amphetamine is no longer appropriate or necessary.

As the new drug-driving offence commenced on 2 March, the Government believe that it is important that amphetamine is added to the list of drugs as soon as possible so that those who abuse amphetamine and who continue to drive and put lives at risk can expect to be caught and prosecuted for the new offence. I acknowledge that there is not a roadside screening device for amphetamine, only for cannabis and cocaine, but should there be any suspicion of the consumption of this drug or any other specified drug, a blood test can be administered and a blood concentration level of above the specified limit will result in prosecution. Specifying amphetamine will create certainty in the market and enable manufacturers to consider research and development of roadside screeners for this drug, which is one of the more prevalent drugs in drug-driving cases. I urge noble Lords to agree to include amphetamine at the limit proposed so we send a strong message that this House, Parliament and wider society will not tolerate those who persist in drug-driving and the threat they pose to other road users. I therefore recommend approval of these regulations. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, all of us will welcome these new regulations, which my noble friend presents. We know already that there are two patterns; the first is that of those who have been prescribed amphetamine medically, whose level will almost certainly be under 200 micrograms per litre of blood tested; the second is that of those taking illicit drugs, normally in excess of 270 micrograms per litre of blood. Therefore, it makes sense, as my noble friend points out, and as the regulations stipulate, to have a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood—below the second measure and well above the first.

On saving lives and reducing road accidents caused by drugs, other recent interventions are also to be welcomed. These include the recent publicity campaign as well as new screening devices for drugs. However, there are still far too many road accidents. As we are aware, a high proportion is caused by drivers between 18 and 25 years of age. Will my noble friend say what action she and her colleagues might be prepared to take? One such, which has proved to work well in Australia as well as in a number of other states, is a restriction on carrying passengers applied to those in their early of years of driving.

Will the Minister also say what plans we have to help raise road standards, both here and internationally? In the World Health Organization, there is now a technical consultation committee on drugs and driving. Might its focus be widened to include drink as well as drugs; and apart from those substances, could international scrutiny be developed to compare notes on all pragmatic measures to help reduce accidents?

In Europe we have the DRUID project, to which my noble friend referred. What has this achieved lately? Which further steps, initiatives and co-ordination may be desirable to improve its results?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the regulations, which specify amphetamine as a controlled drug for the purposes of drug-driving and sets a limit above which it will be an offence to drive. We support the regulation but I have one or two questions about the Explanatory Memorandum—which, before I go any further, I accept may reveal that I have not understood it.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Fewer than 2,200 proceedings were brought in 2013 under the existing section 4 impairment offence, with the proportion of guilty findings from the proceedings at only around 54%. This is compared to the 44,700 proceedings for the section 5 drink driving offence and the 96% proportion of guilty findings”.

However, the Explanatory Memorandum for the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No 2) Order 2015, which deals with penalties and was debated on 24 February, contains other figures. I am not clear on this. Can the Minister indicate whether I am comparing apples with apples or apples with pears? Paragraph 7.1 of that Explanatory Memorandum says:

“Fewer than 1,200 proceedings were brought in 2013 under the existing section 4 RTA ‘impairment offence’”.

It goes on to refer to the proportion of guilty findings from the proceedings of being unfit through drugs as being only around 72%, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations quotes a figure of 54%. Today’s regulations refer to a comparison of 44,700 proceedings for the Section 5 drink driving offence, whereas the February order said this is compared to the nearly 47,000 proceedings in relation to that RTA offence. I fully accept that I may not be comparing like with like, but I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the different figures and whether I am making a fair comparison—in which case I am asking why they are different—or whether the figures relate to different issues, in which case it would be helpful if the Minister could explain in what way they differ.

In her detailed and thorough explanation of the background to these regulations, the Minister made reference to the increase in the original intended limit of 50 micrograms per litre of blood to 250 micrograms, and gave the reasons for it. The reasons for it, basically, were to address the point of not discouraging the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes. Bearing in mind the original limit of 50 micrograms, which I think the document says was favoured in a majority of responses, I am not clear about to what extent one would expect an individual’s driving to be further impaired if they were at the new proposed limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood rather than 50 micrograms. I appreciate that the Minister sought to address this in her introduction, but I would like a bit more clarity.

17:00

What I am trying to get at is whether there is not a great deal of difference between 50 and 250 micrograms when it comes to the level at which driving may be impaired or whether, in fact, there is a considerable difference in the effect that it would have on the individual’s driving. Obviously, if it is the latter—I do not know, which is why I am asking the question—the increase to the higher limit increases the risk to other road users, including pedestrians, as well as to the individual himself or herself. Although the Minister sought to comment on the issue in her introduction, I am not sure that the evaluation of the increased risk is dealt with in the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on what effect the increase from 50 to 250 micrograms could have on an individual’s driving. How much more is it impaired while still being within the limit?

The Minister also raised the issue of the further consultation. It would have been the third formal consultation, I think, and was intended for September last year, but it did not proceed on the basis that extensive discussions had already been held with medical stakeholders. So when was the decision not to reconsult on a limit for amphetamines made, as had originally been indicated would happen, and why has it taken so long since September 2014 to bring forward this order? A formal consultation could have been held since then and we could still have this order today, as we are six months on from September 2014.

I think this is being said slightly with tongue in cheek, so no doubt the Minister can take it in that regard, but paragraph 10.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The cost will be offset by casualty savings where we estimate 84 fewer fatalities, 331 fewer serious injuries and 843 fewer slight casualties over a 20 year period”.

Those are remarkably precise figures for somebody making an estimate of what is going to happen over the next 20 years. I simply ask the Minister what credibility she attaches to figures that are quite so precise as to what will happen over that period.

One other thing I wanted to do was to ask for clarification as much as anything on Paragraph 8.2, which says:

“The Government informally consulted with the medical community, particularly those specialising in the treatment of ADHD based at Kings College London, regarding what amphetamine blood concentration levels would typically result from legitimate medicinal usage and based on that advice has concluded that a limit of 250 micrograms,

per litre of blood, should be the limit. That does not actually say what answer was given to the question that was asked of the medical community regarding what amphetamine blood concentration levels would typically result from legitimate medicinal usage. What was the specific answer to that question, on which the Government came to the conclusion that the limit should be 250 micrograms? Was the answer 250 micrograms, or was it a different figure to the one that the Government have now fixed the limit at?

[Viscount Simon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister gave a very interesting outline to the order and, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked some very interesting questions. I do not intend to ask any further questions but, purely out of academic interest, it may amuse the Minister to learn that last week I happened to be in the garage of a police traffic centre where they were giving instructions on the use of the drug-screening equipment. I was present for the whole course, and the inspector said that I had passed. He said that each kit cost £16 and therefore that they would not be used very often, because they cost so much. So who knows when they will be used. However, if they are used and they fail, they can still be used under the old legislation.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, thank you very much. I shall talk through the questions in reverse order, with the latest being freshest in my mind. I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that the cost of these screening devices is around £16 or £17—obviously there is some variation in price. He will be glad to know that at this point 35 of the 43 forces have purchased mobile screening devices, with 5,000 purchased in total. He is right that it is more expensive than testing for drink-driving, which costs something around 17p or 18p per device. I think that the normal pattern will be to test for drink-driving but, in those cases where drink-driving is not established as the cause of concern, police forces may well choose—on many fewer occasions—to then do a roadside test for drug-driving, the penalties being identical. They can of course always require the individual to go to the police station for a blood test. Indeed, the blood test is always a necessary step when there is a prosecution. With that kind of gradation, police forces should find this to be an affordable strategy. In fact, the feedback that we have is that they are very pleased to have a tool to help them to deal with drug-driving, which is an issue of very significant concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised several issues. I think he has heard me speak many times on the issue of precision in forecasts. I do not think that there is any such thing as precision in forecasts, and I sometimes wonder why we do not generally round numbers up, although in this case we did not go to the right of the decimal point. However, a forecast enables people to get in the ballpark, to use an American term, of what we think that the impact will be. That is an important piece of information to include when we do an assessment.

The noble Lord asked why we have not had a third consultation. I am afraid that I cannot tell him the exact date we decided that it would be too frustrating to go ahead with the third consultation. There was a general awareness that, having asked people the same question twice, we were unlikely to get a different answer when we went back for a third time. Informal consultations had been happening on an ongoing basis, making it even more redundant. However, more to the point, as he will know, the offence came into force under Section 5A on 2 March, and going through a round of consultation and then creating a much greater gap before amphetamines came on to the list seemed the greater evil. A third consultation would essentially confirm the information that had already been extensively received. It strikes me that it was a rather logical decision of the kind that government sometimes does not make.

[Lord Rosser]

My point was that if the conclusion was reached in September 2014 or shortly afterwards that there was no need for a third formal consultation, why have we waited until now to have this order? The second consultation was apparently conducted between 17 December 2013 and 3 January 2014, in something like six weeks over the Christmas and New Year period, so a further consultation could presumably have been completed in something like a month if it was not being held over Christmas and New Year. That is the bit that I cannot quite follow. It seems to have taken a very long time to conclude that a third consultation was not necessary, yet presumably all the information was available.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber so the Committee will stand adjourned for 10 minutes.

17:10

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:19

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why we were not at 50 rather than 250 micrograms, what risk there is because we are going with the higher limit and how we got there. Having consulted on these issues twice, it became very evident that there were complex issues involved in setting a limit for amphetamine, more so than with other drugs that we have been working on. If people with ADHD drive unmedicated, and are not therefore trapped by any of these regulations, there is a very high risk that they drive unsafely. That is very much associated with that condition. However, research shows that if they are taking proper medication, they are as safe as the rest of the population. Therefore, it is very important that people with ADHD are entirely comfortable with the idea that they can take their medication and not be excluded from driving and that their doctors know that they can prescribe medication and that those individuals will not be precluded from driving. That was an added degree of complexity in setting these limits.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the argument that if one fixes the limit at 50 micrograms, one is liable to be in a situation where the driving of an individual who is sticking to that limit is likely to be more impaired, for the reasons the Minister just mentioned, than if the limit is fixed at 250 and they are driving with, say, 249?

[Baroness Kramer]

It is only part of the argument because that would be true for ADHD patients. We took the issues back to the expert panel, which clarified that the point at which driving risk becomes significant with amphetamine is 270 micrograms. We did not want to set a line at 270. We wanted to have a little bit of a margin. The medical community felt that doctors could safely prescribe within 250. With 270 defined by the expert panel as the level at which risk would significantly increase, the Government coalesced around the 250 number. Obviously many people looking at enforcement discourage the use of amphetamine at all, and that is one of the attractions of using the lower number. In the process of pursuing all this, we recognised that setting it at 50, which had been one of our early thoughts in this process, was too low. We were not gaining anything in terms of safety, other than the deterrent effect, and we were potentially encouraging wrong decisions by people who have ADHD and need to take medication. They might end up not taking it because of their concerns over the benchmark.

Going back to the expert panel that advised the Secretary of State took a significant amount of time. That is what brought us much closer to this deadline. With the law going into effect on 2 March, it is appropriate for us to come forward with the decision rather than go through a consultation that we have no reason to believe will yield any information that we have not already received in the course of the first two consultations and the informal work that has taken place.

I agree very much that that has been a complicated process. It is difficult to describe and sometimes frustrating to have to listen to, so I apologise for that.

I also have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that—as always—he has picked up on a genuine typo and error within one of the explanatory memoranda, although I am now uncertain which one it is. We can confirm it later. He was talking about the percentage of convictions. The figure 72% applies to 2013—it is a typo in whichever document that said it was 2012. The figure 54% applied to 2012, so it was a failure to change the date from one document to the other. If he would like, I am happy to ask officials to write to him just to provide some clarification. This has been a very good lesson in the need to double check numbers although I have to say that, given the complexity of this, officials have done some brilliant work.

I have covered the key questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I now come to those from my noble friend Lord Dundee who raised the question of how to improve road safety standards here and internationally, with drug-driving as an element of that. In the Deregulation Bill we removed some loopholes around drug-driving and drink-driving provisions that allowed people to disregard roadside screening and insist on a blood test, during which time their levels could have changed. Loopholes like that have been removed within by Deregulation Bill.

I have spoken in debates in the House about whether we should be taking further actions to limit the circumstances in which young or new drivers can drive. It has also been a difficult balancing act because access to training, education and jobs frequently requires young people to drive. Indeed, we also want them to participate in the workplace more generally. The direction that we have chosen to go in is that rather than restricting the passengers they can carry or various other kinds of restrictions, we are looking at trialling work going on now with the insurance companies looking at the use of telematics. I can send the noble Lord all the details. As I have described in the House, telematics is a gizmo which sits in the vehicle and communicates with the insurance company to give an ongoing, running assessment of the quality of driving. Is it speeding, is it rough, is it erratic? All those kinds of behaviour can be fed back into the car itself. Anyone looking to purchase insurance and going on to the various insurance websites will find that if they permit telematics to be installed in their car they will in fact nearly always get a much cheaper insurance package. That looks to be the direction. We are trying to verify that there is a genuine relationship between the feedback from the telematics and safer driving. As we get the answers to that, that may well provide us with the direction to go so that we let young people have their freedom but yet have ways of ensuring that driving standards improve.

[The Earl of Dundee]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I am interested to hear about that process from which, as she points out, sooner or later there will some analysis. That will help us to know what is good about it. Are any other states doing the same or are we the first country to do this?

17:29

[Baroness Kramer]

I cannot properly answer that question. Certainly we are one of the leading countries in telematics. I will be glad to write to my noble friend to cover these issues, which are of interest, significance and importance.

My noble friend Lord Dundee also raised the question of international standards and the role that the Government play through international organisations to impact on those standards. Departmental officials are part of the WHO technical consultation group on drug use and road safety, of which representatives of the DRUID project are a part. This group first met in December 2014 and the WHO now recognises that more needs to be done globally to combat drug-driving. It has informed the DfT that this new offence and our extended THINK! campaign—which I will mention in a safety context in a moment—are excellent examples for other countries. Approximately 20% of countries have no drug-driving offence whereas virtually every country has a drink-driving offence. This offence is not yet internationally accepted.

Our THINK! campaign is targeted particularly at those groups of the population which we know from historical experience are more likely to take the risk of drug-driving—young men, I am afraid—and communicates with them through their chosen media and the way in which it focuses its messaging. We are using that important mechanism of communication so that people know that this is an offence and that they are a risk in that sense, and to help them understand the risks associated with drug-driving.

[The Earl of Dundee]

On the issue of international efforts, comparisons and best practice, the technical committee of the World Health Organization is to do with substances. The DRUID project’s focus may be wider—I do not know. It might simply be to encourage a comparison of notes to reduce accidents in whatever way that can be done. Apart from the DRUID initiative in Europe and the World Health Organization’s international one for substances, there could even be a third process internationally that seeks to bring together representatives from a number of countries to talk through what they think could work best and how there might be convergence. Can my noble friend say what is happening in this way and distinguish between various endeavours?

[Baroness Kramer]

I think we have exhausted my capacity for guidance. However, these are important issues. My noble friend is right, the international exchange of information is always significant: we learn from others and share what we learn with others. There is satisfaction in being praised by the WHO for the direction that we have taken. I am sure that others will watch this process as closely as we watch their processes. If my noble friend will indulge me, I will follow up with a letter. That will be more appropriate and will ensure that I am not misleading him or leaving out important information.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may establish whether I have understood the point correctly. We support the order and are not opposing it. We have discussed the issue of amphetamine being taken for medical reasons, but do I take it that the Government’s position in relation to people who are not taking it for medical reasons but are taking it illegally is that increasing the limit from 50 to 250 micrograms does not represent a significant worsening of the impairment in the driving of the individual?

[Baroness Kramer]

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has accurately reflected the circumstances. The advice that we received ultimately from the expert panel after sifting through all the evidence it received is that 270 micrograms per litre of blood moves an individual into the serious risk environment. Therefore, setting the limit at 250 met the test of falling below that level but still allowed doctors to prescribe appropriately to patients with ADHD. We were looking at 50 micrograms but got it wrong. That is why one goes through consultations, to learn and understand. The noble Lord will know that the enforcement community is attracted by 50 micrograms because of its deterrent effect. However, after putting all the pieces together, there is no additional significant risk associated with going from 50 to 250, as we understand it from the expert witnesses.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.35 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 11 March 2015.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Pensions: British Pensioners Overseas

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to uprating fully or partly the state pensions of British pensioners currently living overseas whose pensions are frozen.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, there are no plans to change the current arrangements for payment of state pension to those recipients who live outside the UK. The policy of this coalition Government is to uprate UK state pensions where they are legally required to do so under the terms of EU law or through a bilateral social security arrangement which covers uprating. Changing the policy as suggested would incur significant costs—moneys which are currently just not available.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but it is unbelievable that British pensioners who have paid in their full contribution do not receive their full pension when they retire to many parts of the world, including to the Commonwealth. If full uprating is thought to be costly and a liability for back-payment claims, will the Government adopt the solution of partial uprating of frozen pensions at their current level, since this involves neither of these barriers? It is affordable, it is cost effective and it will stop the gradual decline of pensions year on year. I beg the Government to include a partial uprating option in the Budget and put an end to this injustice once and for all.

[Lord Freud]

I regret I cannot give my noble friend any comfort. Full uprating to today’s levels would cost us more than £0.5 billion and while partial uprating—in other words, just starting to move current levels of pensions up by the increases—would start off being much less than that, those costs would rise in the medium term to a level similar to the full uprating.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not really rather unfair? I have a relative who retired to South Africa, where there is no reciprocal agreement. He is very upset that he paid the appropriate contributions before leaving this country and his pension will nevertheless be frozen. Should not people who have made some contribution at least have some gesture from the Government in favour of fairness, which is, apparently, not available at the moment?

[Lord Freud]

This policy has been running now for 60 years. It has been upheld in the European Court of Human Rights. We have made pensions available to many pensioners abroad, which is different from many OECD countries which do not do so. Most pensioners migrated well before they became pensioners and have built up rights in their adopted countries.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that, with my Australian origins, I have been approached many times about this, and successive Government after successive Government have given me exactly the same reply over the 30 years that I have been asking this question—that it simply cannot be afforded. But when I followed this up at the Australian end, I was assured that they top the pensions up, or did so. Does my noble friend know whether it stills happens that a number of the Commonwealth countries take on and give the extra pension?

[Lord Freud]

This is the reason why this is a complicated area: it is about a bilateral agreement with another country. In practice, to take the example of Australia, I estimate that for any extra amount that we paid to ex-UK pensioners or UK pensioners living in Australia, more than 25% of that money would go straight into the Australian Treasury.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully accept the position that the Minister is in by answering this Question, but how often do the Government check and audit that the recipients of these pensions who are thousands of miles away are still alive?

[Lord Freud]

The noble Lord will be very pleased to know that we now have a system, which has been introduced reasonably recently, of checking that rather more regularly than it used to be done.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, could I add to my noble friend’s example of Australia that of Canada, which uprates the pensions of its pensioners who are living in the United Kingdom? Given also that in some countries in the Caribbean pensioners from the UK have uprated pensions whereas in other countries in the Caribbean they do not, does the Minister not agree that it really is time to get this sorted out and that the partial pensions uplift route is the way to go?

[Lord Freud]

The reason for those differences in Caribbean countries and elsewhere is that we have historic bilateral agreements. Interestingly, to pick the Canadian example, no Canadian pensions were paid in the rest of the world when we were looking to do a bilateral in the 1960s. That is the reason that we do not have one today with the Canadians.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not a difficulty because, while I accept that there has been an iterative process over time, what we now have is a situation of fundamental unfairness? A number of British citizens who worked in this country all their lives, making a considerable contribution, are going to be treated differently if they choose to return to the countries of their birth. For example, if someone from the Caribbean was, happily, a Barbadian or a Jamaican, they would be treated in one way; if they were not, they would be treated in another way. Does the Minister not think that there is now absolute necessity for us to address this unfairness, as opposed to allowing it to continue?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, bluntly, this is about money. The approach in this policy has been in place for 60 years —effectively, the current structure dates from 1955—and, as far as I am aware, during the discussion that we had on this during the passing of the Pensions Act 2014, both the Government and the Opposition confirmed that they had no desire to change current arrangements.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I think that the House is signalling that it would like to hear from my noble friend Lady Hooper.

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us about the situation for British pensioners in the overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Gibraltar and so on? Would it be possible for the scheme of partial uprating described by my noble friend Lady Benjamin to apply at least to the small number of pensioners who live in our overseas territories, which are, after all, a very special case?

[Lord Freud]

Of the 14 overseas territories, two are uprated—that is, Gibraltar and Bermuda, where we have bilateral agreements—but the other 12 are not. The reason that we cannot go ahead and treat them differently is that that would open the door for us having to do it elsewhere.

Fracking

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:15

Asked by

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to carry out a full assessment of, and public consultation on, the environmental, landscape and community impacts of any schemes that take place for exploratory fracking before granting any consent for commercial shale gas extraction.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, the environmental, landscape and community impacts of any exploratory hydraulic fracturing for shale gas are already taken into account through the UK’s regulatory and planning regimes. These regimes also provide opportunities for the public to be consulted.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, there are two very broad arguments against fracking. The first is that the carbon should be left in the ground, because to remove it will contribute to climate change. The second concerns the whole range of environmental, social, cultural and landscape issues around fracking. We simply do not know what the effect of fracking will be, in all circumstances, on this densely populated country with our regulatory regime. Surely it is sensible to have two or three pilot schemes and to evaluate those properly and officially before going ahead with any more.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the economic impact of shale, both locally and nationally, will of course depend on production. However, there will clearly be opportunities for the UK to benefit, particularly through being much more self-sufficient in energy production. On the wider issues that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned, we need to make sure that, during the process, communities—the public—have opportunities to partake in the consultation at many junctures.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, since the Infrastructure Bill went through this Chamber a few months ago, there have been changes with regard to both Scotland and Wales and that control over on-land fracking will be devolved? Indeed, in the National Assembly in Cardiff, an indicative resolution was passed supporting a moratorium, supported by Members of all parties. In these circumstances, can she give an assurance that all those approaching the department with regard to fracking will be notified that the situation in Wales and Scotland may be different?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we have made it clear that onshore exploration will be devolved.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

It is the turn of this side. Given that there is agreement—

[Lord Judd]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord is not going to give way, it is actually the turn of the Labour Benches, and then I am sure that the House will want to hear from my noble friend Lord Lawson.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while fracking may have a vital contribution to make to our economic future and our energy resources, we are not seeking to generate energy as an end in itself? We are seeking to generate energy to have a United Kingdom worth living in. The richness and preciousness of our countryside is one of the most invaluable assets of that society worth living in. Therefore, is not the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, absolutely fundamental to the kind of Britain that we want to live in?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we have been fracturing for many years. It is nothing new. We are making sure, through legislation recently enacted, that there will be protection for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, but we need to explore potential so that we do not rely on overseas energy that spikes up in price and whose supply can be dictated by geopolitical events. I think that this Government have approached it very responsibly.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, given the agreement on all sides of this House, and indeed more widely, on the desirability of boosting the development of the economy of the north of England, and given that American experience suggests strongly that the greatest single contributor to that could be the successful development of the Bowland shale in the north-west, is it not deplorable that Labour-led Lancashire County Council is doing its best to prevent this happening by turning down every single application for exploratory drilling?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, while my noble friend of course makes a very helpful intervention, we need to be mindful that development needs to take account of local communities. Therefore, it is absolutely right that the processes in place are followed properly so that community benefits reach out to those people. We should ensure that the case for fracking is made properly and that businesses, suppliers and operators are all engaged with local communities.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, it was incredibly gratifying to see Ministers in the other place finally relent and accept that, far from being fine or perfectly capable, the regulatory regime for fracking in this country needs a massive overhaul. When do the Government plan to consult the public on bringing in the new regulations that were won by Labour in the House of Commons?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness recognises that this Government have been responsive to concerns raised by the public. That is why we have taken those decisions to look carefully at legislation that is going through both this House and the other place. However, to say that our regulatory organisations are not robust would be unfair, because we have among the most stringent regulatory frameworks in the world.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, could my noble friend contemplate for a moment what our Victorian forebears would have said if those who are now opposed to fracking had been present in those days to oppose coal mining? It would of course have avoided the coal miners’ strike, which was about keeping open our uneconomic pits to dig more coal.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has made some very important points in that contribution. On going forward and ensuring that we become less dependent on external factors, I agree with my noble friend that we need to make progress.

Immigration: Regulations

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received in the past year from organisations dealing with the welfare of immigrants expressing concerns about the current immigration regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are determined to ensure that people in all parts of our immigration system are treated with dignity and respect. Regular engagement with external partners takes place through the national asylum stakeholder forum and is an important part of ensuring that issues about migrants’ welfare are raised and addressed.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, has the Minister read the all-party report on immigration detention, published in the last few days? If so, does he agree with that committee that the system that we have at the moment is totally unworthy? There have been protests in both Yarl’s Wood and Harmondsworth in the past couple of days. Will the Minister work to remove the injustice whereby those affected are detained indefinitely, with indefinite deprivation of liberty and of human rights? Is it not hypocrisy to celebrate 800 years of Magna Carta while we allow this sort of situation to continue?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I have read the report which came out last week. The Home Office will, of course, give a proper response to such an important and thorough piece of work. As to the noble Lord’s point about detention, he will be aware that 93% of those who are actually detained in immigration removal centres are there for less than four months. They are the most serious of cases—people who have come to this country clandestinely. We need to establish their identity because it would be a dereliction of duty not to identify those whom we are letting into this country. There are foreign national offenders and people whose appeals have been exhausted. However, we are keeping this under review and that is why the Home Secretary has asked Stephen Shaw to undertake a thorough review.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in its recent report on violence against women and girls, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, expressed concern about how current Home Office policies leave some people destitute during the immigration and asylum process. This can lead to women being at greater risk of violence and sexual exploitation. Will the Government now amend the very welcome action plan on violence against women and girls to stop this happening?

[Lord Bates]

There is rightly support available for people who are in severe states of destitution. There are differing levels for those who are seeking asylum and for those whose asylum cases have been refused. These amounts are kept under review. There are additional facilities to provide accommodation, to help with food and access to legal and health care. These are all very important and we need to continue with them.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, when this point was raised last week, the noble Lord indicated that he might be willing to meet some of us who took part in that APPG. Could we not meet him so that we can discuss our real concerns about that report?

[Lord Bates]

The noble and learned Lord is right. We need a few days to get that in place but, on Tuesday 17 March, a notice will go out through the all-party Whip for all interested Peers to attend a meeting with officials. I know there is a great deal of concern on all sides of the House. We will also offer some reassurance about actions and steps which have been taken.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, does the Government accept that, because the number of migrants who come here perfectly legally from the EU is much higher than expected, the downward pressure from the authorities on non-EU immigrants is onerous, aggressive and leads to the sort of report we have just heard? There is now such a disparity of treatment between EU and non-EU immigrants that it is producing all manner of injustice.

[Lord Bates]

We have to look at the reason why we have seen pressure on immigration; we have to take it seriously. The right reverend Prelate will recognise that uncontrolled immigration, which we have had in the past, puts intolerable strains on our public services. In this country we rightly have a proud tradition of offering asylum to those who are in fear of persecution and that will continue under the present regime.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, in the Channel 4 undercover filming at Yarl’s Wood there was terrible language and treatment of women and black people. Was my noble friend also struck, as I was, by a particular comment about older people with disabilities being held there? What is the policy concerning the welfare of such people in detention centres? How are they being cared for? As the guard said in the footage, why are they here? It is not as if they can abscond.

[Lord Bates]

A number of issues were raised in that very distressing report by Channel 4 which we are investigating. Stephen Shaw will also be investigating them as part of his independent review.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I also raise the Channel 4 documentary, which, as the noble Lord said, shocked and distressed us all. On 8 March, my noble friend Lady Bakewell asked about female staffing levels in Yarl’s Wood. The Minister reminded your Lordships’ House that Serco was contractually committed to delivering a level of 66% by 2015—that is, now. Following that debate, the chief executive of Serco, Rupert Soames OBE, wrote to me to say that the number of female officers was being increased. His letter says that Serco is working to increase this to 60%—not 66%—and “aim to achieve it” by the end of 2015. Will the noble Lord confirm the correct figure? Is it a contractual and therefore legal obligation to increase the number of women officers and what happens to Serco if it fails?

[Lord Bates]

Serco was offered that contract. One of the principal concerns which many people have had, and which the Women for Refugee Women report also identified, was that there were insufficient female detention officers in that facility and that their numbers needed to be increased. One of the conditions put out before renewing the contract to the tender organisation was that it needed to increase the proportion of female officers. The figure I gave was 65% or 66%; the chief executive may now be saying 60%. I will certainly look into that; I will speak with him and of course will write to the noble Baroness and ensure that she gets the right information. However, the principle is that we need more female detention staff to look after female inmates.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that if every other European country imposes a time limit on the length of detention, there is something wrong with our system? We should find some means to grant temporary status to people who are not going back to their own countries through no fault of their own—sometimes their countries will not accept them.

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend will recall that that was discussed during the passage of the Immigration Act; the proposal was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and was rejected by the House. We continuously keep that under review, but I reassure the House that 96% of female inmates are there for a period of less than four months—we want to keep detention to the minimum period possible.

Data Protection: Legislation

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:31

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the case for updating domestic data protection legislation in the light of the reported comments by the Information Commissioner that European Union law requiring notification of data breaches is three years away.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government do not have any plans to update domestic data protection legislation in respect of data breach notification in advance of agreement and implementation of the proposed EU regulation. The Government take the protection of personal data very seriously and believe that a strong system of breach notification will be an important element of a revised EU data protection framework, but that the changes should be made only once the package has been agreed in full.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, should the Government not act with greater urgency to incentivise organisations, from which we have seen a series of major scandals of lost data—whether through lost discs or laptops, or hacking—such as from HMRC, Sony, or health organisations? Would it not be salutary for them to have to report major breaches to the regulator and to customers, who might suffer fraud or identity theft? We cannot wait possibly three years until we get EU law. We need to prioritise this so that we encourage companies to get their act together on security.

[Lord Faulks]

In fact, companies, conscious of their reputation, do—and quite rightly, should—report any breach of security, as indeed Sony did. That would be good practice. The proposed regulation would provide an obligation to notify the breach no later than 72 hours after it occurs to the ICO or equivalent in the relevant country or the subject, but only where there has been a serious breach. I entirely accept the noble Baroness’s concern, but these things must be approached as a whole, which is what the Government intend to do.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, have we become incapable of organising our own data protection? Why must we wait for the famous and inevitable incompetence of the EU to make a mess of it for us?

[Lord Faulks]

Data do not respect boundaries in quite the same way that the noble Lord does. We do indeed take a number of steps to protect our data—the ICO has a number of powers which it exercises regularly to control data. However, it is appropriate that our data protection legislation should be in harmony with that of the rest of the European Union.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Would my noble friend not accept that it would be quite difficult to explain to companies which work all the way across the European Union that we were so fed up with the European Union that we did not do the sensible thing for them, which is to do through Europe the things that are best done in Europe?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend takes a slightly different view of this country in Europe. Certainly that is the approach that the Government take, although of course they make a major contribution themselves to the development. Indeed, I shall be attending on Friday a meeting at which we will discuss the final version of European data regulation, or at least the partial general approach to it over the forthcoming year.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, last year 81% of firms above SME level lost data and had data breaches, primarily by cyberattack, and the average cost to each firm was about £1.5 million to get that sorted out. Our voluntary agreement in terms of telling people that they have been attacked seems to be working well, but at board level there are still companies that do not have a CIO or board responsibility for data. Does the Minister not agree that that absolutely has to be done in every company if we are to stop this sort of thing happening?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes a valuable point. He will know that the ICO monitors security breaches, and that if it finds that an organisation has failed to put in place measures to avert a security breach, it has powers to issue monetary penalties of up to £500,000. None the less, I entirely accept the essence of what he says.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as professor of surgery at University College London. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the potential implications for biomedical research of the proposed revision to the data protection regulations from Europe?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes a valuable point. One of the difficult tasks that have to be performed in assessing the appropriate stance to take on data is ensuring that medical research is not in any way compromised, while at the same time making sure that individuals’ data are adequately protected. This issue does not have a simple answer, but it is very much a relevant consideration.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen the interesting data published today entitled Government Expenditure & Revenue Scotland, which shows exactly what I predicted in this House a few weeks ago—that if we had voted for an independent Scotland it would by now be bankrupt?

[Lord Faulks]

A fascinating insight, but a little way away from the Question.

Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Advisory Committees on Pesticides) Order 2015

Motions to Approve

15:37

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 15 December 2014 and 21 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th and 21st Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21st and 23rd Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 March.

Motions agreed.

Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:37

Bill passed.

Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:38

Bill passed.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Report (3rd Day)

15:38

Relevant documents: 11th, 13th and 19th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.

Clause 122: Abolition of requirements to hold meetings: company insolvency

Amendment 57B

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

57B: Clause 122, page 98, line 31, leave out “prescribed proportion of the” and insert “minimum number of”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to Clauses 122 and 123 which remove the requirement for face-to-face meetings in insolvency proceedings.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Leigh for their questions about when face-to-face meetings should be held and the position of small creditors. I have also met R3, the trade body representing insolvency practitioners, as I promised to do in Committee, and am grateful to it for the valuable insight that it provided.

After further consideration, the Government intend to expand the thresholds so that a face-to-face meeting may be requested by 10% of the total number of creditors or contributories, as well as 10% by the value of their claims, which was, of course, the Government’s original proposal. This would mean that on average three or four creditors could trigger a meeting in a liquidation case. Moreover, to account for the larger insolvency cases with lots of small creditors, a further threshold of an absolute number of 10 or more creditors or contributories—a third 10—has also been introduced.

I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its recommendations on this part of the Bill. We have listened to its concerns and moved the various thresholds to the face of the Bill so that they will appear in the Insolvency Act as amended. Any changes to these thresholds will also now be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Before I sit down, I should like to comment on another insolvency issue raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Flight. This was the temporary exemption from the scope of the no-win no-fee reforms in Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 for insolvency officeholders to bring civil proceedings. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in this House and elsewhere. As a result, we announced on 26 February that we would defer commencing the no-win no-fee reforms for proceedings brought by insolvency officeholders beyond April 2015.

I am most grateful for the input of noble Lords on all sides of the House and I hope they will agree that we have found a sensible solution on all these issues. I beg to move.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the various concerns in this territory and for the government amendments. I am aware that the insolvency industry is comfortable with the legislation as it now stands. It understandably has the view that it hopes creditor meetings will not disappear as they can be extremely useful. However, a most satisfactory compromise has been achieved, for which I thank the Minister.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, in Committee we were concerned that, rather than increase creditor engagement, the original clauses in the Bill would reduce it. We reported that the Federation of Small Businesses believed that the proposal would be detrimental, the British Property Federation had concerns and that R3, to which the Minister referred, wanted the Government to think again about the issues.

We take the view that creditor engagement is a core part of a strong, transparent, fair and trusted insolvency regime. Indeed, we have such a regime in our country. Creditor meetings are an essential part of that and build trust and confidence in that regime. Although the clauses also included proposals on virtual meetings—we are not against that—we wondered whether it was a bit previous to suggest that they might entirely replace face-to-face meetings. I am delighted that the Government have listened to the arguments from all around the House and have agreed to come forward with these amendments, which we support. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, has been assiduous in his attendance and has pressed amendments without number. There were so many, it was hard to keep track of them. I think that only one has landed, but I am glad it is this one on no-win no-fee conditions, which will make a big difference. I am grateful to him for his support for this.

Amendment 57B agreed.

Amendments 57C to 57J

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

57C: Clause 122, page 98, line 32, leave out “of the”

57D: Clause 122, page 99, line 7, at end insert—
“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (3) the “minimum number” of creditors or contributories is any of the following—
(a) 10% in value of the creditors or contributories;(b) 10% in number of the creditors or contributories;(c) 10 creditors or contributories.(6B) The references in subsection (6A) to creditors are to creditors of any class, even where a decision is sought only from creditors of a particular class.”

57E: Clause 122, page 99, line 12, leave out “In this section references” and insert “Except as provided by subsection (6B), references in this section”

57F: Clause 122, page 99, line 36, leave out “prescribed proportion of the” and insert “appropriate number of”

57G: Clause 122, page 99, line 37, leave out first “the”

57H: Clause 122, page 99, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (4) the “appropriate number” of relevant creditors or relevant contributories is 10% in value of those creditors or contributories.”

57J: Clause 122, page 100, line 10, at end insert—
“246ZG Power to amend sections 246ZE and 246ZF
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 246ZE so as to change the definition of—
(a) the minimum number of creditors;(b) the minimum number of contributories.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 246ZF so as to change the definition of—
(a) the appropriate number of relevant creditors;(b) the appropriate number of relevant contributories.(3) Regulations under this section may define the minimum number or the appropriate number by reference to any one or more of—
(a) a proportion in value,(b) a proportion in number,(c) an absolute number,and the definition may include alternative, cumulative or relative requirements.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may define the minimum number of creditors or contributories by reference to all creditors or contributories, or by reference to creditors or contributories of a particular description.
(5) Regulations under this section may make provision that will result in section 246ZE or 246ZF having different definitions for different cases, including—
(a) for creditors and for contributories,(b) for different kinds of decisions.(6) Regulations under this section may make transitional provision.
(7) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

Amendments 57C to 57J agreed.

Clause 123: Abolition of Requirements to hold meetings: individual solvency

Amendments 57K to 57Q

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

57K: Clause 123, page 101, line 10, leave out “prescribed proportion of the” and insert “minimum number of”

57L: Clause 123, page 101, line 22, at end insert—
“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (3) the “minimum number” of creditors is any of the following—
(a) 10% in value of the creditors;(b) 10% in number of the creditors;(c) 10 creditors.(6B) The references in subsection (6A) to creditors are to creditors of any class, even where a decision is sought only from creditors of a particular class.”

57M: Clause 123, page 101, line 27, leave out “In this section references” and insert “Except as provided by subsection (6B), references in this section”

57N: Clause 123, page 102, line 8, leave out “prescribed proportion of the” and insert “appropriate number of”

57P: Clause 123, page 102, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (4) the “appropriate number” of relevant creditors is 10% in value of those creditors.”

57Q: Clause 123, page 102, line 24, at end insert—
“379ZC Power to amend sections 379ZA and 379ZB
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 379ZA so as to change the definition of the minimum number of creditors.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 379ZB so as to change the definition of the appropriate number of relevant creditors.
(3) Regulations under this section may define the minimum number or the appropriate number by reference to any one or more of—
(a) a proportion in value,(b) a proportion in number,(c) an absolute number,and the definition may include alternative, cumulative or relative requirements.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may define the minimum number of creditors by reference to all creditors, or by reference to creditors of a particular description.
(5) Regulations under this section may make provision that will result in section 379ZA or 379ZB having different definitions for different cases, including for different kinds of decisions.
(6) Regulations under this section may make transitional provision.
(7) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

Amendments 57K to 57Q agreed.

15:44

Amendment 58

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

58: Before Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—
“Equal pay: transparency
(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as possible, and no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act, make regulations under section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 (gender pay gap information) for the purpose of requiring companies to publish information showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees.
(2) The Secretary of State may consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate on the details of such regulations prior to publication.”

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking all supporters who have put their names to the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friends Lady Prosser and Lord Young—and also those who failed to put their names to it, because there were many others who wished to offer their support and were keen to support the purpose of the amendment.

I thank the Minister for the two meetings that we had to discuss the amendment and the issues it raises. I welcome the amendments that she has put to my amendment and congratulate her on doing so. I inform the House from the outset that as long as the Minister intends to accept my amendment, as amended by her, the proposers of the amendment are happy to accept her amendments.

I thank my colleague Gloria De Piero MP for her leadership in this recent campaign. I also thank the TUC and Unite the union for their briefing and continuous commitment over many years and pay tribute to Frances O’Grady and many women trade unionists who have worked without cease and done a huge amount to support women in the workplace against discrimination. I also thank Grazia magazine for its inspiring campaign and petition, reflecting always what its readers have had to say about equal pay and the injustices that they have experienced. Finally, I thank the unsung heroine Nicola Jayawickreme in our Labour Party office here who had the idea that the Bill might lend itself to bringing forward this amendment. She has done a great job.

One of the strengths of this House is that we can and do seize the moment on issues. I suggest that this is one of those times. We were wise to put the powers on transparency in Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 and I hope that we will now be wise to enact those powers. It is 46 years since the machinists walked out of Dagenham’s Ford plant in protest over the pay divide which prompted the Equal Pay Act. Overall, women in the UK are still earning just 81p to every pound that men earn. According to the new figures based on the Office for National Statistics annual survey of hours and incomes, the pay gap between men and women in their twenties has almost doubled since 2010, from 2.6% to 5%, and it has also increased for women over 50.

We are falling down the international scales on equal pay. Women across the world still earn only 77% of the amount that men earn, a figure that has improved by only three percentage points in the past 20 years, according to the United Nations International Labour Organization report this week. Frankly, I do not think we can wait another 40 years to get equal pay.

The most exciting moment for me in the recent equal pay campaign was meeting the Dagenham women last December. They were right to be astonished and dismayed that we still do not have equal pay. At the time, I wished we had better news for them. Perhaps after today’s business we can say that we are absolutely on our way to delivering the equal pay that they fought for all those years ago.

It is without doubt true that under this Government some progress has been made by exhortation and encouragement, but the truth is that it is not nearly enough when one considers that, despite this effort, a mere five companies actually publish their gender pay scales: PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, is one of them. The company says that it has had only a positive impact, because it is tangible proof that it is a fair employer. Why would our large employers not wish to embrace such a programme and have such a reputation with their employees?

Amendment 58 calls for the enactment of Section 78 of the Equality Act within a year. Last week, my noble friend Lady King mentioned some of the examples that Grazia has so usefully collected from its readers. Shannon, aged 25, works in advertising and felt too insecure in her job to ask for a pay rise, despite knowing that her male counterpart was earning more than she was. To make matters worse, for an end-of-year bonus he was given £2,000 in cash while she received a £100 Liberty voucher. Erin, 30, is a lawyer who was asked to take a pay cut to avoid redundancy, only to find that none of her male colleagues had been asked to do the same. Amanda, who works in the media, was stunned when two of her male colleagues drunkenly boasted about their salaries as she realised both were being paid an average of £10,000 a year more, despite having the same experience as her.

Last autumn, an overwhelming majority of 258 MPs voted yes to the implementation of Section 78 of the 2010 Equality Act, so we know that there is support for this in the Commons.

We do not believe that this new clause will place a disproportionate burden on British business. Of the 4.9 million private sector employers in 2013, 7,000 employ more than 250 staff and will be affected by this legislation. These are data that these companies already routinely collect and which they would publish with their annual reports. That will make a difference to women, because close to 50% of the employees in the private sector in Britain work in these large firms.

What of the EHRC? During the passage of the Equality Act 2010, it said in relation to Section 78 that if a voluntary regime,

“is achievable, then there would be no need for the clause to be brought into play”.

It made it clear that over time it would,

“be looking for an increase in the proportion of employers measuring and sharing information on the differences between men’s and women’s pay”.

Indeed, during that time the EHRC has supported the Government’s Think, Act, Report initiative to encourage companies to improve gender equality on a voluntary basis. However, can the Minister confirm that only 270 employers are involved in the Think, Act, Report initiative, compared with 7,000 companies with more than 250 employees in the United Kingdom? Indeed, of those, only five have signed up to publish their gender pay gaps. This suggests that a voluntary approach on its own will not deliver the transparency needed to achieve a change in companies’ behaviour. This is what the EHRC says:

“The persistence and extent of the pay differences between women and men suggest that considerably more needs to be done to reduce the gender pay gap. In light of the low impact of voluntary gender pay reporting and the recent increase in the size of the gender pay gap, the Commission believes that the time is right for implementing section 78 of the Equality Act through this New Clause. By having to publish information about their gender pay gaps, companies will be encouraged to address those gaps in order to demonstrate that they are complying with equal pay legislation and to attract and retain talented women in their workforces”.

Closing the gender pay gap is a priority for all political parties—possibly with the exception of UKIP, but who knows—so I think we need to get on with it. I beg to move.

Amendment 58ZZA (to Amendment 58)

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

58ZZA: Before Clause 147, line 6, leave out from “requiring” to end of line 7 and insert “the publication of information showing whether there are differences in the pay of males and females”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment and all her supporters, including Grazia magazine. I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning on gender equality. This is a very timely debate, following International Women’s Day on Sunday. I am pleased to confirm that it is the Government’s intention to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, subject to changes that I am proposing by way of government Amendments 58ZZA and 58ZZB.

Before turning to the amendments, I remind the House of some key facts about the pay gap and the work that the Government have already been doing to close the gap and improve transparency. First, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that, according to ONS figures, the gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever. It has been virtually eliminated among full-time workers under the age of 40, which is a more positive way of looking at the statistics. We are broadening the career aspirations of girls and young women by encouraging them to get into STEM-related careers through the Your Life campaign. Opening up these highly skilled areas ensures that women are less concentrated in sectors that offer narrower scope for reward and career progression.

We have also championed the voluntary, business-led drive by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to get more women on boards. Women now account for around 23% of FTSE 100 directors, up from 12.5% in February 2011, and there are now no all-male boards in the FTSE 100. It is a huge step forward. Last night I attended the fantastic dinner for women on boards, hosted by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and sponsored by Lloyds Banking Group, encouraging this key group of women to drive forward further progress, which I believe is very important.

We are modernising the workplace to give women a fair chance to get to the top. Last June, the right to request flexible working was extended to all employees, and from April we will introduce a new system of shared parental leave. Further, almost 2 million families could benefit from our new tax childcare scheme from autumn 2015, which is worth up to £2,000 per child.

In January we published new guidance for employees on the gender pay gap. Research has shown that organisations perform better when they have a good balance of women across teams and in senior roles. Our guidance helps women to check if they are being paid fairly and encourages good practice of the kind the noble Baroness mentioned. Furthermore, new EU software to help UK employers analyse their pay data can now be downloaded for free. We are already encouraging greater transparency about pay. We have banned pay secrecy clauses, changed company reporting on boardroom diversity and introduced mandatory equal pay audits for companies that lose equal pay claims. We have also been working in partnership with business to tackle the root causes of the gender pay gap and promote culture change and greater transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative, which the noble Baroness mentioned.

Because of Think, Act, Report we now we have a powerful business community of best practice with more than 275 leading companies—the figure is right—employing more than 2.5 million people, leading the way on gender equality. Of course, Think, Act, Report was never intended as a substitute for Section 78; it is so much broader and has achieved a lot. We said that we would keep Section 78 under review and that is exactly what we have done. We now want to build on the progress we have made. We need to take into account that one size will not fit all and that is why the Government feel strongly that we must consult on how Section 78 is taken forward. I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I am proposing two amendments to it—Amendment 58ZZA to ensure it fits properly with the Equality Act provision, and Amendment 58ZZB to require consultation before implementation—which the noble Baroness has graciously indicated that she will accept.

We know that business is particularly concerned about being required to report more information, so we also want to ensure that the Government actively engage business during a proper consultation. This will ensure that we find the best way of implementing Section 78 in a business-friendly way, making use of information employers already have available and without being bureaucratic. In order to bring forward tailored, workable regulations, it will be essential for the Government to consult business properly, as well as others with interests and expertise in the area. We want to ensure that the requirements on business can be fulfilled and that the data published are of real use. I am therefore grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing to these important adjustments to her amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I was glad to put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I am equally delighted to support the government amendment that essentially accepts the noble Baroness’s amendment but makes some minor modifications to the text. In view of the welcome degree of consensus that is breaking out, I will endeavour to speak quite briefly.

The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970—all those years ago—but 45 years on there is still a significant gender pay gap. In 2014, women in full-time employment earned 9.4% less than men in full-time employment. The gap was wider for part-time work. Female part-time employees earned 37.9% less than male full-time employees. For all employees, the gender pay gap was 19.1%.

16:00

The Government’s equality strategy, published in December 2010, stated that they were working with business and others to develop a voluntary scheme for gender pay reporting in the private and voluntary sectors, and that, while they were doing so, they would not commence, amend or repeal Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. They committed to annually review the number of companies releasing information and the quality of that information to assess whether this voluntary approach was working. The Government have accordingly been pursuing a Think, Act, Report initiative to encourage companies to improve gender equality on a voluntary basis. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, told us, only 270 employers have taken part in this initiative, compared with 7,000 companies with more than 250 employees in the UK. Of those, only five have signed up to publish their gender pay gap. This suggests that a voluntary approach on its own will not deliver the transparency needed to achieve a change in companies’ behaviour.

The EHRC surveyed 900 private and voluntary sector employers in 2011. The survey suggested that employers might be reluctant to report and to address pay gaps voluntarily. Most employers, with no apparent or planned analysis of their gender pay gap, said that they would consider measuring the gap only if employees complained or took action against them, or if legislation required it. Of the 23% of organisations which had conducted a formal gender pay review, very few reported the findings. Of all organisations surveyed, just 3.7% reported their gender pay gap internally to their own staff, and only 1.3% reported it externally.

Five years on from the passing of the Equality Act in 2010, more action would seem to be needed to improve transparency about differences in the pay of men and women by shining a light on the issue to encourage companies to take steps to close their gender pay gap. The persistence and extent of the pay differences between women and men suggest that considerably more needs to be done to reduce the gap. By having to publish information about their gender pay gap, companies will be incentivised to address those gaps in order to demonstrate that they are complying with equal pay legislation and to attract and retain talented women workers into their workforce.

In the light of the low impact of voluntary gender pay reporting and the recent increase in the size of the gender pay gap, the case is very strong for implementing Section 78 of the Equality Act through this proposed new clause, and there is a very strong case for doing this now. I support the amendment.

[Baroness King of Bow (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Government for fiddling with Labour’s amendments so that they now feel able to embrace this area of gender equality. Anyone who has followed this debate closely cannot help but be aware that this is Labour policy, tabled by Labour Peers and others. Our amendment has been on the Marshalled List for weeks. In the debate on International Women’s Day last Thursday, I made this the main focus of my remarks, but not a single Liberal Democrat or Conservative Peer spoke in favour of it. But rejoice—a week is a long time in politics. I am absolutely thrilled that suddenly the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are all over this like a rash, as they should be, and I have come to heap praise upon them for this most athletic U-turn.

My noble friend Lady Thornton has given the requisite thanks to organisations such as the TUC, but I, too, must come back to the role played by Grazia magazine, which has shone a light on this issue. Ordinary women up and down the country are being paid less every minute of every day in Britain in 2015. It is a scandal. I take on board what the Minister said about being able to look on the figures in a more positive light. However, the case of Shannon, 25, who is getting a £100 Liberty voucher when her male colleague is getting £2,000 in hard cash, shows that we need pay transparency. This amendment on its own will not solve the whole problem but it is a first step in the right direction. Therefore, I thank all those involved.

I hope that this will encourage Grazia to continue its campaigns. It is possible for ordinary women to change the law even though there are not enough ordinary women in Parliament. The voices of those Grazia readers who bothered to write on this subject have now been heard in Parliament. The result will give women in companies with more than 250 employees the right to pay transparency. We cannot continue to hide blatant and illegal sexism under the cloak of darkness. I very much welcome this amendment.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate wholeheartedly the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on her amendment and on raising this issue. I also congratulate the Minister and the Government for agreeing to bring forward the amendments, to which I added my name and which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has agreed to accept. It is a good move. My group has been committed to equal pay for a number of years. We accept that there is still a long way to go in terms of culture and practice to achieve it. This measure will publicise more widely gender pay gaps in companies and will be a step in the right direction, so I welcome it immensely. It builds on some of the Government’s other policies, in particular to improve the gender balance on boards. It also shows the benefits of cross-party agreement to achieve better legislation that is likely to be more effective and more influential in its impact in the country.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton and their decision to take it slightly further by changing “may” to “must”. That is an improvement and it is to be welcomed as well. I am not quite sure that I would go as far as my noble friend Lady King who was rather effusive—perhaps she was indulging in irony—in saying that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were now all over this like a rash. Having been involved with various aspects of this Bill through its passage, I suspect that the driving force in this is in fact the Minister herself and that some of her colleagues may not be entirely signed up to it. I suspect that the word “burdens”, which we have already heard today, will be one that will appear more than once this afternoon in terms of zero-hours contracts, fixed-term contracts, internships and so on—and yet the burdens will always be the burdens on industry and never the burdens on the individual workers who have to work those hours.

This particular amendment is about women. I hope that we can hear a bit more about the burdens that people have to suffer. Earning only 81p in the pound is a burden that no woman should have to suffer. If the amendment opens things up and exposes companies that for whatever reason are paying at different levels, that is a real step forward. I welcome the amendment—and the amendment to the amendment

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that there is widespread support for the approach. It builds on the Equality Act 2010 and the progress that I believe has been made since 2010. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and thank him for what he said about culture, since culture and transparency are very important in promoting gender equality. I ask noble Lords to support these amendments.

Amendment 58ZZA (to Amendment 58) agreed.

Amendment 58ZZB (to Amendment 58)

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

58ZZB: Before Clause 147, line 8, leave out “may” and insert “must”

Amendment 58ZZB (to Amendment 58) agreed.

Amendment 58, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 58ZZC

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

58ZZC: Before Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—
“Employment: compensation for shift cancellations
The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring employers to pay compensation to workers, including zero hours contract workers, whose shifts are cancelled with short notice as defined in the regulations.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, there are many benefits to a flexible labour market but I believe, and I am sure your Lordships believe, that exploitation of staff by employers should not be one of them. One woman who worked in hospitality on a zero-hours contract said, “I never worked no hours in a week but couldn’t find out until the Sunday before the working week began how many hours I would have in the coming week—never more than 30, sometimes as few as 13. My hours were often changed on very short notice and you would be sent home if it was quiet”. She would turn up for work and be told that, “It wasn’t busy enough for me to be needed, even before I could take off my coat”. She went home unpaid. She could not complain as she would be punished with fewer hours the next week. You could not call in sick even if you were because you would be punished with fewer hours the next week, and you could not risk leaving the job without fear of being sanctioned by the DWP.

Let me remind the House that under ZHCs you have no guaranteed hours of work. People on such contracts include cooks, cleaners, call centre and customer services staff, drivers, waiters, hotel and shop workers and domiciliary care workers—there are 300,000 of those. They are mostly women. Over 1 million people on or around the minimum wage are on ZHCs and do not usually know on Friday what hours they will be working on Monday. Three-quarters of those on ZHCs find their hours vary every week. Nearly half are given no notice at all. As one SportsDirect worker said, “Shifts are changed and cut without any notice. Shifts vary week by week”. Another call centre worker never knows whether she will work 48 hours or no hours the next week.

We all want people to work. It is right that they should but insecurity and exploitation from ZHCs can sabotage the rewards of work, including people’s efforts to build a job, a home and a life for their family. These are not temporary jobs: one-quarter of people have worked in their job for 10 years or more. Without a steady income, they cannot buy, or sometimes even rent, a home. They cannot replace a broken washing machine because the next week they may have only five hours instead of 25 hours of work. They cannot get credit or enter into a financial contract, even for a mobile phone. Instead, of course, they go into debt.

As the Government rightly remind us, ZHCs work for some—students, obviously, or the recently retired supplementing their income. But let us just imagine what it is like for the rest, particularly those with children, who work on ZHCs for hours on end and really do not know from one week to the next what they will earn and what they can feed their children, for five, or even 10, years.

I am very pleased that, in the Bill, the Government are banning exclusivity contracts, under which you are tied to an employer 24/7, whether there is work or not. That is good and right. However, there is one minor but deeply unpleasant issue that we could and should address today, if your Lordships agree. Nearly half of ZH workers get no notice when their shift is cancelled. A further 10% get up to 12 hours’ notice. Only 4% have one week’s notice.

16:15

A Domino’s Pizza driver reported that he had such unstable hours that, as he said, “I never really know how much money I will make from week to week. The worst part is, if I come in to work for an evening and the shop is quiet, my boss can send me home after just one hour’s work. This means that I get paid only for that hour, so I actually end up losing money in the evening as it costs me more than an hour’s pay to get to work”.

A door steward, working for a security company, said, “I never knew where I would be placed, how far I would have to travel or how many hours I would get”. He could be sent home early, getting three hours’ work instead of the five promised, having spent almost two hours-worth of pay in petrol to get there for his three hours’ wage.

A lone parent expected to work on a Friday. She had arranged and paid for childcare in advance, as she must. Her shift was cancelled at an hour’s notice and she was told to work on the Saturday instead. She had to pay for the childcare that she did not need on Friday and could neither find nor afford the childcare that she needed on Saturday. She had to refuse the Saturday job, and her hours were cut the next week as punishment.

This exploitation of people called in and turning up for work, having incurred costs for travel and childcare—and, increasingly, elder care—only to find themselves denied work and then sent home without any compensation, is surely wrong. Bluntly, as the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee said, it is,

“unacceptable and a symptom of lazy workforce planning”.

At the evidence sessions on this Bill in the other place last October, the CBI and the independent Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development both called for compensation for lost pay and travel costs incurred. The Minister for Employment confessed:

“Late-notice cancellations are clearly an issue for some individuals, as we heard in the evidence sessions, so I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment and the thinking behind it”.—[Official Report, Commons, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee, 6/11/14; col. 553.]

I hope that we can turn her sympathy into policy today.

The amendment is modest, simple and fair and, of course, it has no cost for the taxpayer. It makes clear that it is wrong that people plan or turn up for work as required by the employer but then find their hours suddenly cut or scrapped without compensation—as one woman said, before she even had time to take her coat off. Then, to add insult to injury, they have to fund their work-related costs—for travel and child or elder care—from their own pocket, without any pay to cover them. They are penalised and poorer simply because they have come to work as required. They have done what they were asked to do. They have kept their side of the ZHC and then find themselves worse off for doing so.

The right to modest compensation is not only fair to the worker but just might—this is what I hope—encourage employers to plan their staff needs properly. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to that effect. He could consult as widely as he wished and include in the regulations whatever content he thinks appropriate if he needs that power.

I cannot believe that anyone would defend this practice of cancellation without pay, when the worker has turned up as required—often summoned overnight by text—and then finds themselves having to pay for the privilege of being denied work by paying for their costs out of their own pocket. I cannot believe that anyone in your Lordships’ House today would defend this practice. Along with the CBI, we all know that it is not right. With your Lordships’ help today, we could change that. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, the drive behind the amendment is to encourage employers to give workers reasonable notice before work which has been offered is withdrawn and to require, where a shift is cancelled at short notice, that workers have the right to compensation.

The recession in 2008 led to lower levels of unemployment than anticipated, due in part to employers responding by using more flexible employment to manage the consequences of the downturn. Their response heralded significant changes in the UK labour market, including a sharp increase in the use of zero-hours contracts. The ONS annual business survey of employers conducted in early 2014 estimated that there were 2.7 million zero-hour contracts on employers’ books, of which 1.4 million provided work to people and 1.3 million did not. By August, those figures had risen to 1.8 million and 1.4 million respectively. Those contracts are now common among larger employers, with 50% of those with at least 250 employees using them.

Those findings are consistent with a survey conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. The Labour Force Survey estimated that in the last quarter of 2014, there were 697,000 people on zero-hour contracts in their main job, up from 586,000 in 2013 and 250,000 in 2012. Increased awareness following media coverage may partly explain that rise, but, as the ONS concedes, the survey may also significantly underestimate the true level because it is based on interviews with workers who often lack awareness of their type of contract. Whatever the qualifications about the data, the trend is undeniably upwards. With concentrations in sectors such as education, accommodation and food, and health and social care, women accounted for 55%, and young workers 50%, of those on those contracts.

The advantages for employers are clear: managing peaks and troughs in demand and cost-efficiencies from a supply of workers available at short notice. Zero-hours contracts may give some people choice, but others are offered them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The ONS Labour Force Survey confirms that zero-hours workers’ average weekly earnings were just £188, compared to £479 for permanent workers. One in three has no regular amount of income and is far more likely to want more working hours compared to other types of staff.

In 2008, 19% of zero-hours contract workers reported that they were in temporary work because they could not find a permanent job. By 2014, that figure had jumped to 41%. For those in the 25 to 29 age group, more than 58% said that that was because they could not find a permanent job—a depressing statistic.

Although there is a place for such contracts in the modern economy, their misuse causes real concern. In some sectors, they are becoming the default setting. True flexibility rests in a genuine reciprocal arrangement, but the increasing body of evidence reveals an imbalance in the employment relationship, not least when the promise of work is withdrawn at short notice, leaving the worker high and dry. The imbalance means that the employer reaps the benefit of flexibility and the risks and insecurity are transferred to the worker. Employers are required to pay zero-hour contract workers only for the time that they actually work. They are under no obligation to pay an individual who, at the behest of the employer, prepares to go to work or turns up but for whom work is not provided. The employee loses the chance to earn wages and may have paid for fruitless travel costs or childcare.

Findings from the survey revealed that 46% of zero-hour staff receive little notice or find out at the start of a shift that work has been cancelled. The CBI and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recognise these problems. In its March 2014 zero hours briefing the CBI stated:

“An intervention which creates a simple formula for compensation … when a shift is cancelled at short notice … would be better targeted.”

Peter Cheese, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development told the Bill Committee that people on zero-hours contacts had concerns,

“if they were called in to work at short notice and that work was then not subsequently provided. So, for example, they had to travel for half an hour … and then be told, ‘Really sorry, but the shift is not available’. We think there should be some form of compensation for that … a reflection of what we saw as good practice”.—[Official Report, Commons, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14/10/14; col. 65.]

This amendment is not challenging flexibility or making the UK labour market uncompetitive; it addresses a real and deep unfairness. When an employee is offered work which they accept and then at short notice that work is not subsequently provided, they should receive compensation. Many zero-hours workers already face a pay penalty. The unpredictability of their earnings makes it difficult to access credit or secure mortgage and tenancy agreements. Constantly varying hours impacts on families, making it difficult to organise childcare and have a social life. Compensation for employees who are offered work which at short notice is not then provided is a most modest correction to the imbalance in the employment relationship, one which my noble friend Lady Hollis has confirmed that both the CBI and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development say they support.

An uncertain employment status can make it difficult for zero-hours contract workers to complain. If they do, they may be “zeroed out”, meaning they receive even fewer hours. This makes it even more important that regulations should require employers to pay compensation to workers whose shift is cancelled at short notice. This is not a challenge to flexibility but a call for simple fairness.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, no one wants to see exploitation of zero-hours contracts, but we need to see the wider picture. There are obviously some particular issues which need to be addressed but we need to have a wider view of the benefits of some of these practices. I obviously welcome what the Government are seeking to do on getting rid of the unwarranted exclusivity aspects of zero-hours contracts, but let us not forget that we are recovering from a recession and the most important thing in a recession is to find jobs for people. That gives them confidence and well-being. In previous recessions we found it much more difficult to get flexibility and enable jobs to be created at the pace that they have been in the last couple of years.

We may have certain concerns about the growth of zero-hours contracts, but they have certainly provided flexibility both for employers and employees in the labour market. As the labour market tightens, as we hope it will as growth picks up and productivity improves, we expect that the growth of these contracts will probably slacken because employers in a tighter labour market will have to offer permanent contracts to keep people in the jobs that they have offered them. They will obviously have to do that; that is the nature of the labour market at the moment and there has been a huge benefit to people in it remaining flexible.

We have had certain statistics about people on zero-hours contracts and we have to understand the nature of people who are doing this work. Some 17% are in full-time education, 6% are over 65; people on these contracts work more than 25 hours per week: there is no great resistance to them, in fact. We have already heard that a lot of people on these zero-hours contracts have been on them for some while. Maybe it is convenient to them as well. Some 60% have been on these contracts for more than a year, 66% do not want more hours, only 3% want additional jobs and only 10% want to change jobs to get more hours. So there are some benefits on both sides.

By all means, we should consult and review what is happening with zero-hours contracts, but wait a year or two and see whether we can maintain the growth of employment that we have had over the last couple of years and whether the economy is genuinely moving ahead before we start to interfere with these contracts in a way which could be detrimental to the growth of employment.

There are lots of other things we should be doing, such as looking at public sector contracts which are forcing some of these zero-hour practices in the public sector. I declare my interest as a director of Housing & Care 21, which is involved in the care sector, so I understand that we need to work on that area. We want also to look at the living wage but you cannot at the same time put your costs up, unless productivity is rising and we can sustain employment. There was quite an influential article in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago by David Smith, who said:

“People need to be safeguarded against exploitation but clamping down too hard on zero-hours contracts would risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

I ask the House to be very cautious about supporting this amendment.

16:30

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I very often find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as she knows very well, but on this occasion I strongly support her powerful and very moving speech. We are talking about a disadvantaged section of the workforce. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has just said, the wording of the regulations is a matter for the Government of the day, who could therefore keep regulations in such a way as to allow the maximum flexibility. However, I felt that he was not thinking about the single mother or the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, such as the woman who gets somebody to look after her child on Friday, then finds that she has not got the job on that day but has still had to pay for care. She is then expected to turn up on Saturday and cannot afford the care for the child or to go to work. She is therefore penalised the following week. That cannot be what the noble Lord thinks that we should be cautious about.

I absolutely recognise that in a time of austerity—a time when the GDP is at long last rising and we want the utmost flexibility in business—we should not generally be putting curbs on business. However, speaking as a woman, we have to look at this. As a mother and grandmother who had to play my job as a barrister, and then as a judge, against the care arrangements when the nanny did not come in or the au pair was sick, I just said, “What do I do? How do I get to court?”. I was very lucky—I was very privileged—but these women are not. To suggest that we should keep the flexibility at their expense is something that I feel very concerned about. I am speaking rather passionately about this because of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said.

For goodness’ sake, the CBI, which cares about improving the GDP and having flexibility in business, supports some form of compensation. That is very significant support for what, to me, is a modest amendment. I hope that the House agrees.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I must confess that I find myself in a very difficult position. Your Lordships will know that I usually have views on things and people will know pretty clearly which side I am on. I find this one of the most difficult things to come to terms with because, for example, having some experience of employment in France I am perfectly clear that the unemployment rates there are very strongly affected by the stupidity of French employment laws. We in this country have had a much more open way of dealing with employment and, although we may think that zero-hours employment is not the ideal form of employment, it has certainly provided people who would otherwise not have a job with one.

As an employer who does not use this employment in any circumstance, I can honestly say that that is because I am privileged to run businesses which have been able to hold their head well above water during this depressing time. Businesses which have not been able to do that would not have been employing anybody if they could not have managed their way through recession in the way that they have done, through the use of employment practices of this kind. My concern is that this House should be very careful about making decisions that replace a form of employment with these disadvantages with no employment at all. I am sorry, but that is the issue. We are, I think, in danger if we say to ourselves, “This is what we would like to see, and we don’t see why we shouldn’t see it, and therefore we must see it”. I have a problem with that.

On the other hand, I accept very strongly that there is a difficulty for the single parent who has to make all sorts of arrangements in advance if they are to do a job at all. This Government have been absolutely right in trying to find ways in which we could encourage such women back to work. They do that not only because it contributes to society but because it also contributes to the women themselves. There is nothing as depressing as trying to live on a very small income and not being able to get out of that very closed-in situation. Those of us who have been lucky enough to bring up children in relative comfort and with two parents know how important it is for one or other of you—usually your wife—to hand the child to the other and say, “Look after it, I just have to have a moment”. That is the nature of bringing up children, and I have every sympathy with that.

I wonder, though, whether we should be careful and mindful of what the amendment says and whether the Minister will think on this: we do not want to do something that replaces less than good employment with no employment at all. The issue that the noble Baroness raised is very important. I am not sure that the amendment is right, but it is not an issue which we can just leave and let it go on. We really do have to see whether we can find proper evidence for a way of doing this that is not going to have the downside that I suggested. Is it possible for the Minister to give us some suggestions as to what she might do to meet the gravamen of the case in a way that does not have the downside that my noble friend Lord Stoneham has put forward? Is there a way in which we could get better evidence and find a more precise way of helping people, particularly the women concerned?

I think that it is very difficult for young people. But, in the end, young people are normally resilient enough to overcome those difficulties and I am not sure that I would risk anything to remove that. However, there is a specific case here for a specific group of people. I wonder whether the Minister can find a way through that, because otherwise I, along with my noble friend Lord Stoneham, think that the balance is just too dangerous for us to step over. But I would still like us to do better than that. Perhaps the Minister will find a way of helping me, for a rare time, find a clear answer to what seems a very difficult problem.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

Does the noble Lord recognise that all that this amendment does is force the Government to make regulations? In making those regulations, they can find a way of doing precisely what he is asking the Minister to do—to meet this problem in those areas where it needs to be met without damaging the principle of zero-hours contracts.

[Lord Deben]

I think that I am being tempted to answer in an uncharacteristically charming way. The people who are going to make these decisions are, if I may say so to an old friend and civil servant of mine, civil servants. I want this House to be a little bit careful about that, because very few civil servants have ever run any business in their life. It is one of our biggest problems that we have a system in which business is not understood by those who make most of the decisions. I want to know much more about what this regulation would be. If we agree to an open-ended provision that regulations shall be made, I am not sure that I would be happy to trust such regulations without a closer understanding of what they would be.

[Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who seems to have got to the nub of this issue: the amendment is not about abolishing anything; it is about abolishing exploitation at the lower end of this employment policy. I could not disagree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, which seemed to be a hagiography of the system. He seemed not to recognise that vulnerable people are regularly and deliberately exploited by it. I believe that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis is aimed at correcting that exploitation and nothing more. It is not about abolishing the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, seemed to imply—I apologise if I have misinterpreted his comments. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has got this absolutely right. That is why I urge the House to support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and I do not share the difficulties which it is obvious are felt by the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Deben. If those difficulties have any force, they were surely answered by my noble friend Lord Butler.

I support the amendment on the simple grounds of fairness. It is not confined to zero-hours contracts, but one imagines that those will be the most frequently affected. The facts in relation to them have been clearly set out by the two noble Baronesses who introduced the amendment. If an employee on a zero-hours contract is given notice by his employer that there will be work for him the following morning, and if he turns up having incurred expense and finds that his shift has been cancelled, it seems only as a simple matter of fairness—I think that that was how it was put—or of justice that some compensation should be payable.

I suggest to your Lordships that that is how we would all behave in our private lives. If I had a gardener, which I do not, and they turned up hoping for work and found then that the weather was against them or that the ground was too hard, of course I would offer them any expenses that they might have incurred in coming for work which in the event was not available. If that is the way in which we would behave in our private lives, is it not sensible that that is how we should require employers generally to treat their employees? I can see none of the difficulty seen by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in terms of employment drying up as a result. This is a simple matter of fairness to avoid exploitation—a word which was also used. That reason seems to me to be enough to persuade the Government to accept the amendment.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment, which I appreciate might make me rather unpopular in this House today. First, I declare an interest: I run a large public company, TalkTalk. We do not in TalkTalk use any zero-hours contracts today, but I have worked for a number of organisations which do, one of which is very much in my thoughts today—Cheltenham racecourse, where I imagine some noble Lords are today. Many people in the entertainment industry will work on zero-hours contracts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke powerfully and emotively about the evils of zero-hours contracts, and I am sure that there are individual instances that would deeply shock us all in all forms of employment across this country, but I want to put some facts into the debate. The CIPD did a study in 2013, asking people on zero-hours contracts whether they enjoyed their job and whether they felt they were being well treated. The results were quite interesting, compared to the comments we have heard in the debate so far. Those on zero-hours contracts were just as satisfied as people in more standard contracts—60% said they were satisfied, versus 59% in more standard contracts. They said that they had a better quality of work-life balance—65% versus 58%. They believed that they were less likely to be unfairly treated by their employer—27% playing 29%. So we have to be careful not to make assumptions about people who are making choices to lead flexible working lives in a way that we might not. Those are the facts, as opposed to my personal opinions.

16:45

In general, I do not think that zero-hours contracts are evil. Actually, they allow businesses to serve an important constituency that has not been mentioned yet—their customers. Businesses that have highly seasonal, highly variable demand need to be able to react quickly; hence my thoughts about my friends at Cheltenham racecourse today.

I am also troubled by the specific wording of the amendment. I do not know how a group of civil servants, however well trained or smart, can define what “late notice” is in every single walk of life in this country. For example, in racing, I do not know whether late notice is the night before. What happens if there is a frost overnight and there is no decision to race until 7.30 in the morning, or perhaps midday when the jockeys decide it is not safe? Which is late notice? I know a lot about horseracing and I could not make that judgment. Yet, in this amendment, we are giving the Government the ability to define that detail in every industry. We are likely to get highly perverse results because of it. We would be much better encouraging different sectors to develop codes of practice, publicise how they are doing it and ensure that the very people who say they really value these contracts get the chance of more jobs. I oppose this amendment.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

My Lords, I want to follow the powerful points made by my noble friend with a small point which has occurred to me while listening to this debate. We heard the very moving thoughts of the noble Baroness about the single mother on a zero-hours contract who has to pay her babysitter when she turns up and then cannot afford her the next day. I, too, have been a working mother who has needed to use babysitters for my children if there was a sudden crisis and one of them was ill and could not go to school on the day that I was due to work. Like that single mother’s babysitter, my babysitter was also on a zero-hours contract. She was able to be paid for the day she turned up but, when she was not needed the next day, she was cancelled. We need to think more broadly about the needs even of single mothers who use a babysitter on a zero-hours contract just as much as we think about the needs of those on zero-hours contracts in other kinds of jobs.

My noble friend made the point that there is a varied range of employment positions and a wide range of ways in which people are employed. The way in which people are employed in domestic situations is usually on zero-hours contracts. We use our babysitters when we need them, not when we do not. Sometimes we cancel them at the last minute because we do not need them after all. We need to stop trying to see everything in terms of good and evil, right and wrong; there are shades. Trying to make regulations across that range would be a very dangerous thing.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to be brief. My noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Drake have given a forensic examination, based on factual analysis, and I do not feel I need to go through it again. I want to address some of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

On the UK labour market, the first thing we need to understand is that it is probably the most flexible labour market in Europe. Nobody could say that we are like France, Italy or Spain or that we have something that makes it almost impossible for employers to hire people flexibly. I will leave noble Lords with the following thought. On grounds of fairness, are we going to say that a zero-hours contract means zero rights? Just to remind us, under zero-hours contracts there is no sick pay, no holiday, no national insurance contributions and nothing towards a pension—that is a pretty demanding contract as it is, and it is hardly weighted against the employer.

Nobody on this side who has supported these amendments has suggested that we want to do away with zero-hours contracts in their entirety. We accept that, for some people, they are a valid and necessary means of employment, both for the employee and the employer. However, there ought to be some reasonable ground rules. If you are running a business, yes, there will be changes in circumstances; that is undoubtedly right. However, this amendment aims to lay down a principle which it says will be interpreted in regulation and which will not just be dealt with by the spectre of solitary civil servants, who apparently between them have never experienced an hour of work in industry at all. From my brief ministerial career, I know that that does not necessarily apply to all civil servants, so I do not accept the idea that they will work in a total vacuum—that is an unnecessary fear.

Are we really putting forward the basic argument that, if I am being contacted and told by the employer, “I want you to turn up for work”, and I turn up, honouring my side of it, the employer has no responsibility whatever? I listened carefully to the noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Harding, and there might be other circumstances, but that is a question of taking into account how we phrase the regulations, so we can take those into account. That is not an argument for saying that there should be no control over this situation at all.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reinforced the point, which my noble friend Lady Hollis had made, that it is curious that the CBI supports this. That is hardly an organisation that would support something it thought totally inflexible. Surely this is about basic fairness, is it not? If we are enjoying the services of somebody who is working under those conditions, surely it is right that they should have some fairness applied in the way they are summoned to their employment.

Surely we are seeking to encourage reasonable standards of management. I will give another statistic from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development: only one in five British managers has any training at all. I point that out to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, because it is as important as some of the other statistics she quoted. Of course, people will declare that they are satisfied—they need the money and are glad to get into work. However, when we are being served by those people, do we not feel that there should be certain basic rights? This is one of them.

We commend the Government for getting rid of the exclusivity provisions in such contracts, which was clearly unfair. However, because of the way this amendment has been made it ought to attract cross-party support. We are not taking a political stance here, but a stance on responsible and effective management—that is what it is all about—and on giving a reasonable right to the employee. It can be dealt with very effectively in regulations, and I hope that the House will overwhelmingly support it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his intervention. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Drake, for their amendment and for allowing us the opportunity to return to the important provisions on zero-hours contracts in the Bill, and specifically to the matter of compensation for late-notice shift cancellations.

We had a debate in Committee, but I see that the noble Baronesses’ amendment now seeks to apply their proposal much more widely across the workforce. I also listened to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, both of whom brought the benefit of their own experience of this matter. I have some myself, as I have four children —although the noble Baronesses are right to say that that is not necessarily relevant to the debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Cunningham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I was also pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Deben comment on the dilemma of replacing less good employment with no employment.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, rightly reminded us of the need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We in this country have done a lot with our flexible labour market, which has helped us to create 2 million jobs in this Parliament. I was also glad to hear from my noble friend Lady Harding, who came at the matter as a practical business person and thought about customers and the detailed definitional issues that we always get into on these matters.

Perhaps I should remind those who were not in Committee of what we are already doing about zero-hours contracts. Our consultation identified exclusivity clauses as the biggest issue. We have acted, and as a result of Clause 151, no zero-hours worker will be forced to be exclusive to an employer that does not guarantee them any work. There is also new information. The Government have published today our response to the consultation on zero-hours contracts, Banning Exclusivity Clauses: Tackling Avoidance. We have also published draft regulations that illustrate how the Government intend to use this power in the Bill.

The draft regulations propose that those employed on a zero-hours contract will have protection against suffering detriment on the grounds of working for another employer, and will be able to make a complaint to an employment tribunal. If a complaint is upheld, they may receive compensation. I know from our Committee debates that this is something that noble Lords opposite were keen to see, and I hope it will be welcomed.

In addition, the draft regulations propose to widen the ban on exclusivity clauses to all contracts of employment or workers’ contracts where the individual is not guaranteed a certain level of income. I hope that this, too, will be welcomed by the noble Baronesses, and will improve the situation. The regulations will extend the protection and ban exclusivity terms for other vulnerable groups in the labour market, beyond zero-hours contracts alone. People will be able to work more hours and boost their income if they so wish. This is in line with the responses we received.

What is more, the Government are updating the guidance on zero-hours contracts, and we intend to publish this on GOV.UK before the end of the Parliament. This is in addition to any sectors producing their own codes of practice on the responsible use of these contracts, as some noble Lords suggested.

We consider that a business-led approach is the best way to ensure a lasting culture change in the treatment of zero-hours workers, which the whole House wants. I hope that that demonstrates that we are listening to the concerns raised in this House and are acting to protect vulnerable workers—because I take the point that it is the vulnerable workers whom we are concerned about.

Amendment 58ZZC seeks to provide compensation for short-notice shift cancellations—but it proposes that the rights should apply to all workers, not just zero-hours workers. So it is not, as the noble Baroness suggested, a modest amendment, and I am not sure that the CBI supports the proposal. In March 2014 it said that a simple system of compensation might work for some zero-hours contracts. That was before we introduced the changes in this Bill—and the CBI’s comment did not apply to all workers. More recently, it has, I think, come round to the idea of regulating zero-hours contracts, and has said that the Bill’s,

“ban on exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts … is a proportionate response to tackling examples of poor practice, and strikes the right balance between flexibility for both employers and workers”.

All those in work in the UK will have an employment status, which determines the protections to which they are entitled. Most commonly, individuals are “employees”, “workers” or “self-employed”. As the “worker” category includes all “employees”, this means that this amendment would potentially extend to the vast majority of the labour market. It requires the Secretary of State to make regulations—the wording is “shall”—and requires employers to pay compensation to workers whose shifts are cancelled without notice.

17:00

As we set out in previous debates, we have sympathy with the intention of the amendment, but have great concerns about how it would work in practice and the risk of potential unintended, negative consequences for the individuals affected. We all agree that individuals deserve to be treated fairly, regardless of what type of contract they are on. The noble Baroness referred to some very bad individual cases. However, legislating for a one-size-fits-all solution is not the right answer and could lead to some very perverse effects. Like my noble friend Lady Harding, I have been a business executive in a small and a big company, and I worry that the proposal could lead to unscrupulous employers attempting to circumvent the rules. Most obviously, this could be done by avoiding planning shifts too far in advance and calling individuals at short notice instead to avoid compensation payments.

For instance, those who currently receive a week’s notice of their shifts could find themselves being informed at the last minute, resulting in them having to stay in, waiting for the phone to ring. This would increase insecurity for those individuals whom the amendment aims to help. What is more, an attempt to deal with this kind of avoidance by introducing compensation for late-notice rostering—a logical next step—could also impact heavily on workers who rely on late-notice call-ups for work or employers who need to call in cover for the unexpected absence of others. The obvious example of that is locum doctors.

In addition, given the breadth of this provision, covering all workers in the labour market, it would be almost impossible effectively to define key terms to make the regulations meaningful. There would be considerable complexity legislating for a universal approach that covers a multitude of different sectors and work patterns. While the Government have a role in delivering clear guidance, we also believe that the answer to ensuring that employers deal with cancellations fairly lies with sector-specific codes of practice and the sharing of best practice on the responsible way to use casual arrangements such as zero-hours contracts.

I hope that I have assured the noble Baroness that we have sympathy with her case and the examples that she has given and are taking steps to address it, in part through clearer guidance. As I said, in the case of compensation for late-notice cancellations, legislation of this kind is not the answer. Rather, we should encourage lasting culture change, led by business, on the basis of the clear new legislation we have brought in on zero-hours contracts.

Given the actions already taken by the Government, the response we published today and the commitment to update our guidance, I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that we are listening and will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all my noble friends who took part in the debate—my noble friends Lady Drake, Lord Young and Lord Cunningham. Indeed, I am grateful for all the contributions from around the House. However, what has puzzled me a little about the contributions from around the House is the fact that most of the argument seems to have been about the need for, and virtues of, zero-hours contracts as such, and the need for a flexible labour market. I had hoped that we had been at pains to establish that of course customers, consumers, passengers and patients now live in a 24/7 economy. The issue is not about ZHCs; it is not even about codes of practice, because good employers such as Marks & Spencer do not abuse ZHCs, whereas Boots does. Pret a Manger does not abuse them, although McDonald’s does. Good employers can already decide how best to employ their staff. Whether a company does or does not have ZHCs is not the issue.

The issue is that there are some people with ZHCs, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, rightly said, who are exploited and suffer because although they are summoned to work by text, often overnight, they turn up and are then sent home again without a penny. What is more, they may have spent £5 or £8 in travel costs to get there and back. They may have spent £15 or £20 in childcare to get there and back and they get not a penny of recompense for the expenditure they made to uphold their side of the ZHC contract.

All that I am asking for is fairness, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said—fairness between the employer who can dispense with the services of somebody and the employee. He may need to do that—I can see the point—but it should not be the worker who exclusively and solely bears the cost of the cancellation. That is what is unfair; not ZHCs, not flexible labour contracts, but the fact that only one party, the most vulnerable, the poorest, the weakest, should bear the cost of a zero-hours contract when they turn up to work and the work is taken away from them, even though they are doing exactly what the employer requests.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was worried. I thought that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was admirable in putting the simple point that the amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations, but keeps the content entirely open. However, we expect them to reflect the spirit of the discussion in this House tonight that zero-hours contract workers—the people we are concerned about—should be able to be protected in this way.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Secretary of State already had powers to do that. This was followed up by a letter saying that that was not the case. The order-making power does not extend to other issues around ZHCs such as compensation for late-notice cancellations. I repeat that the Secretary of State has no power presently to regulate this anomaly at best—this exploitation, bluntly, at worst—that we all agree is unfair. He has no such power. The amendment would give him that power. After consultation with the sector—it may take months, I fully accept that—he can then introduce appropriate requirements for codes of practice or whatever may be proper to defend the people of whom the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so eloquently reminded us: the lone parent who may be £20 or £30 out of pocket because at five minutes’ notice her shift is cancelled. At the moment, the Secretary of State does not have the power to do that.

This is not about ZHCs or the flexible labour market, I am asking your Lordships to do what this House is always at its best in doing: say to the Secretary of State, “We are willing to give you the power, we expect you to handle it sensibly, in consultation with industry, but it is not fair, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, that the most vulnerable should pay the cost of the employer’s requirements”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The noble Baroness’s amendment goes beyond zero-hours contracts. She is emphasising the zero-hours aspects, but this is compensation to all workers, as I sought to explain—and I sought to explain the perversities.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the noble Baroness is worried that the technical quality of the amendment is insufficient, it can be overturned in the other place and replaced with an amendment that embodies what she and the Secretary of State would wish to see. There is no problem about that. When I was a Minister, I accepted amendments all the time that were technically defective but which reflected the spirit and will of this House, because it was the right thing to do. If they needed tidying up, that could be done perfectly easily in the other House. That is not a reason not to accept the amendment today.

We are talking about ZHCs; all of us have been talking about ZHCs. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, this is fair and the right thing to do. Workers who keep their side of the contract should not then find themselves out of pocket, because the employer does not. The CBI agrees. I hope that your Lordships will also agree tonight. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

17:09

Division 1

Ayes: 221

---

Labour: 154
Crossbench: 54
Independent: 4
Green Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 235

---

Conservative: 153
Liberal Democrat: 69
Crossbench: 10
Independent: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

17:23

Clause 147: Protected disclosures: reporting requirements

Amendment 58ZA

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

58ZA: Clause 147, page 127, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) In section 43K(1) (extension of meaning of “worker” etc. for Part 1VA), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) is or has been a job applicant.””

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 59 and Amendments 59A to 59F. All these amendments seek to provide additional protections for whistleblowers, and they follow on from discussion of these issues in Committee.

I shall take Amendment 59 first. It arises from the Government’s response to the amendment that I moved in Committee seeking to place a code of conduct for whistleblowing on a statutory basis. I shall not repeat all the arguments that were made in Committee, but a statutory code of conduct would send out to all organisations a powerful signal about the importance that Parliament attaches to providing adequate protection for whistleblowers, and it would help to drive cultural change within organisations to encourage whistleblowing.

In Committee, the Minister engaged with this very constructively—I repeat my thanks to her for doing so—and she did not reject the case for this. However, she felt that the voluntary code that the Government are developing would offer sufficient protection. She said:

“We will keep this under review, and if this is not bringing about the change that we expect to see, we will consider introducing a statutory code of practice”.—[Official Report, 26/1/15; col. GC 9.]

All Amendment 59 seeks to do is to ensure that such a review does indeed take place.

The government measures in the Bill to improve protections for whistleblowers are welcome, and I congratulate the Minister and all her colleagues on them, but I am sorry that I could not convince her in Committee to go further. Loopholes remain in these protections and, where loopholes exist, all history suggests that the powerful take advantage of them.

The action that the Government are now taking on whistleblowing is being driven by terrible recent scandals, which might have been prevented had better protection for whistleblowers been in place. This is a clear lesson from, for example, the Francis reports into the NHS and the recent inquiry into the Rotherham abuse scandal. Despite this, the facts of Westminster life are such that scandals fade as time passes. Unfortunately, Ministers and officials come and go, collective memory is increasingly eroded and there are always new pressures on new Ministers and officials. In these circumstances, we should not wait for another scandal to be revealed to introduce any necessary new whistleblowing protections.

Continuing scrutiny is required to ensure that whistleblowers receive all the protections that they need to prevent such scandals recurring. This amendment seeks to set up a regular review process to do just that. It is not onerous. It simply puts in place a system to guarantee delivery of what the Minister has said that the Government will do. I accept, of course, the Minister’s good faith in offering reassurances, but because of the circumstances that I have just described future delivery of those cannot necessarily be guaranteed and relied upon. In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment.

Amendment 58ZA provides improved protections for whistleblowers who are job applicants. Unlike other areas of discrimination law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 does not currently consider job applicants to be workers and so they do not receive protection for whistleblowing. Your Lordships’ House discussed the case for tackling this anomaly in Committee. Again, I do not intend to repeat all the arguments, but the Minister said then that, while she appreciated the amendment that I moved, she rejected it because,

“there is work to be done to get this right and it will take time, beyond this Parliament, to reach a suitable solution. It would not be right to add this half-cooked work to a Bill designed primarily to help small business and not to introduce new burdens for employers”.—[Official Report, 25/1/15; col. GC 10.]

The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, expressed from the Government Back Benches her concern that this important Bill should not be held up. I am delighted that, between Committee and today, the Government have reconsidered the situation and have decided that after all there is time to introduce new protections for whistleblowing job applicants. I congratulate them. I particularly congratulate the Minster on their change of heart and I thank her for her characteristic courtesy in alerting me of it in advance.

But—I am afraid that there is a “but”—the Government’s amendment covers only the NHS. There is no logical reason why it should be so restricted. That is why Amendment 58ZA is still necessary. It extends the Government’s proposals for protecting whistleblowing job applicants in the NHS to all workers. The risk of the sort of informal blacklisting that government Amendment 58A tackles occurs far more widely than just in the NHS. For example, in the construction industry there have been notorious instances of workers failing to find new work after raising concerns about safety. No Government have adopted such a piecemeal approach to other legislation that outlaws discrimination. Actionable offences of sex and race discrimination are not restricted to the NHS, so why should discrimination against whistleblowers be so restricted?

This is a short, simple amendment. It will prevent what I assume is the unintended consequence of the government amendment in creating what would be a two-tier system of protection, with NHS workers, important and valuable as they are, privileged to enjoy protections not extended to all other workers who seek to protect the public by whistleblowing. Such a two-tier system would be unfair to individual workers and would hinder the development of the culture of transparency, which I think all your Lordships would agree has been shown in scandal after scandal to be so critical in protecting the public. I hope that the Minister will finish today the work which her own amendments have started and accept Amendment 58ZA.

17:30

Finally, Amendments 59A to 59F follow up discussions in Committee about an amendment I moved then to set up a whistleblowing ombudsman. At that point the Minister felt such an institution would be too broad in its remit but, in my view, the need for some such institution remains. Again, I am delighted that, between Committee stage and today, the Government have reconsidered their position and have said that such an institution should now be set up in the form of a national review officer. This is welcome news but, again, the Government are restricting this new approach to the NHS, and, again, there is no good reason to do so. The problems that the Government seek to tackle with the establishment of the national review officer are not confined to the NHS. There is no reason to restrict it in this way.

All large organisations which serve the public in both public and private sectors are powerful institutions. Many are driven by a potent internal culture. Every case of whistleblowing challenges the powerful interests who run such organisations. After a scandal has been revealed, the abuses tackled, the guilty punished and the words about whistleblowers spoken, there is always the risk that it is too easy for those vested interests to find ways to carry on much as they did before. The powerful never like being challenged.

There is a gap in the legislative framework. The Minister identified it in Committee. It was identified also by Sir Robert Francis in his recent report on whistleblowing in the NHS. That is the gap created by the fact that the Public Interest Disclosure Act protects whistleblowers by compensating them when they are dismissed or forced out of their job, or victimised by the employer in some other way, but that Act does not address failures to investigate the public interest concerns, which so often lie at the heart of such employment disputes. That is why the establishment of an institution such as the national review officer, which has been proposed by Sir Robert Francis and is now endorsed by the Government, or the establishment of an ombudsman which was proposed in Committee, is so important.

These amendments do not follow the ombudsman model which I proposed in Committee. Instead, they adopt the Government’s concept of a national review officer and they apply it more widely than the NHS. The national whistleblowing review officer in these amendments is a role that could be set up in any sector by the Minister or by the relevant prescribed person. This means that the power to review this vital issue can be flexible. It could be set up, for example, to review whistleblowing in the financial services sector, or in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children in the education system, or in relation to health and safety reporting within the construction industry. I hope that the Minister will today at least agree that all these are vital areas where whistleblowing can be critical in protecting the public.

Recently in the NHS and elsewhere, we have seen that regulators have too often not done enough to encourage and protect whistleblowers. These amendments provide that a national whistleblowing review officer can be created for any industry or sector where there is a need to challenge an overly defensive or hierarchical or fractured regulatory environment. The review officer will have the power to investigate complaints over a failure to investigate issues of wrongdoing or malpractice by the employer or the regulator. From there, the review officer can advise the employer or the regulator how to follow best practice and be responsible for providing guidance on best practice for investigations. Where that review officer believes there is a problem with a system, an industry regulator or an oversight body, they can recommend that the relevant authority address any continuing risk, correct any failure in investigation, correct non-compliance with good practice and recognise the contribution made by the whistleblower in raising their concerns.

These are proportionate and modest amendments. The Government have already accepted the principle behind the approach. These amendments simply ask them to accept that it should not be restricted to the NHS and should be applied more widely, wherever the public interest is sufficiently involved to require a regulatory mechanism. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I have put my name to all these amendments, which have been spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I will speak very briefly to them in the order in which they were grouped.

I very much welcome the Government’s speedy response to the recommendations of the report by Sir Robert Francis on speaking up, or whistleblowing, in the NHS. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I am concerned that too narrow an approach has been taken to the issue of protecting whistleblowers in the job application process. Surely it is not right to adopt such a piecemeal approach to the development of legal protection for whistleblowers. This is why I support Amendment 58ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, which calls for the protection of anyone who, in applying for a new job, is discriminated against for making protected disclosures or for blowing the whistle in a previous job. I emphasise anyone, not just workers in the NHS. The Government’s movement on this issue and their recognition of the principle is very welcome but, like the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I cannot for the life of me see why they should confine their approach to the NHS. Surely what is good for workers in the NHS must be just as good for workers in any other sector. This is an issue that many whistleblowers have said results in real hardship, as is evidenced in the Francis report. I believe that anyone who is not employed because the potential employer knows about their whistleblowing activity in a previous job should be able to remedy such discrimination in law.

I also support Amendment 59, as I believe that it will assist the Government in taking a cross-sector, strategic view of the UK whistleblowing framework. As the noble Lord has indicated, now is the time to put in place a structure that will collect and analyse not just the reforms in this Bill but recommendations from other inquiries that will impact on the whistleblowing framework, whether these come from the banking sector, the NHS, social services or the police. There is real value for employers, regulators, the Government and society as a whole in reviewing these issues on a regular basis. I hope very much that the Minister will see this amendment, which provides for a regular review of the whistleblowing framework, as a useful mechanism not just for identifying what is missing from the framework but also for helping to spread and encourage good practice among employers.

Turning finally to Amendments 59A to 59F, which give power to the Secretary of State to establish a number of national whistleblowing review officers, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that a role such as this will help to plug the regulatory gap that exists in the whistleblowing framework. This would make it possible for such a national whistleblowing review officer role to be created, by order of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in any industry, not just in the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said. This role complements the regulatory reporting provisions contained in the Bill that the Government intend should drive change in relation to whistleblowing across all industries. It will enable a review officer to be created in any sector or industry, whether that is financial services, the health and care sectors, or services in relation to vulnerable adults and children.

Given the very many scandals brought to light by whistleblowers in recent years—in our care homes, our schools and our local authorities—I consider that such a role could only do good in driving forward the development of good practice in whistleblowing across all sectors. What is more, a role that has the features described in this amendment will provide a quick and simple warning system for regulators and organisations where there is a failure to deal properly with a whistleblowing issue. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these amendments, which I am pleased to support.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, my name is also to this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Low of Dalston, for making most of the points that need making, and making them forcefully.

It seems extraordinary that the Government should have introduced Amendment 58A in the wake of the 200-page report by Robert Francis QC, entitled Freedom to Speak Up and published only last month. It is bizarre that they confine the provisions in the amendment to the National Health Service, for reasons which have been touched on by the two Peers who have already spoken. The need for the protection of Amendment 58A is universal.

I should perhaps say that in my long legal career I have dealt with a number of whistleblowing cases, and was charged back in the 1980s with trying to register a charity which had as its principal purpose the support of whistleblowers. That was successful—not, I may say, without vast and prolonged effort, because at first the Charity Commission viewed the very idea as bizarre. In 1993, the charity Public Concern at Work was formed and is still operating with huge effect. All of us here tonight are grateful for the work that it has done and the information which it has provided to us under the leadership of Cathy James. Its work leads it even now—or perhaps more than ever now—to advise about 800 people a year who have personal, direct, often plangent problems in relation to their employment and their attempt to try to get those who employ them to take seriously malfeasance—sometimes corruption, sometimes wilful and terrible illegality.

Public Concern at Work is, as I said, better informed than any other agency in this country as to just what whistleblowers have to go through. Our point is that whistleblowers are not some little sideshow. If we are serious about attacking the widespread and growing corruption and criminality that, I fear, infects so much of what we value in this country, we have to support whistleblowers. Frankly, they are the only people who can uncover criminality at source, often at a time when, if it can be dealt with, doing so will save vast loss and suffering. One has to look only at the collapse of the financial markets of the world, led by the City of London in 2008, to realise just what terrible losses we have all suffered—trillions rather than billions—by reason of the fact that there were virtually no whistleblowers from within the City of London, or indeed the other financial centres, who were able to get the facts relating to what was going on in their entities to the authorities in time for them to take action.

Again, I have a certain amount of personal experience of this. One thinks, for example, of Paul Moore of HBOS. He blew the whistle, except that he blew the whistle to his own board, saying openly and clearly that the measures taken in that bank to balance risk and opportunity were unsustainable and were leading the bank, and had led the bank, into the most dangerous of situations. He not only got no succour when he took this matter up the scale in the bank but has not had a job in the City of London since then—we are talking about 2007 or 2008—despite his huge experience as a former partner at KPMG and senior financial officer at HBOS.

17:45

I can think of another person. Wendy Addison was one of the youngest female chief executives of a major corporation in South Africa. She found that the two owners of the company were engaging in fraudulent activity and confronted them with it. They sacked her and because it was South Africa they were able to square the police and the authorities. She had to leave in danger of her life and came here only to find that the whispering machine that operates, I fear, within financial markets had put her name on the blacklist in London. Despite being a qualified accountant and a very senior and successful executive she failed, over 11 years, to get a job. She was driven, because she had a young son, to live on the streets, begging.

Noble Lords who know about whistleblowing, of which there is far too little, will have to agree with this key finding of Robert Francis QC, which appears in the letter he wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and included in his report. It says that in the course of inquiries within the health service,

“over 30% of those who raised a concern”—

namely, whistleblowers—

“felt unsafe afterwards. Of those who had not raised a concern, 18% expressed a lack of trust in the system as a reason, and 15% blamed fear of victimisation”.

This is not a story confined to the National Health Service. It is, I suspect, to be found in the majority of large entities in this country. The larger the entity or corporation becomes, the more impersonal, the more distant, the more depersonalised and bureaucratic. The reason we feel so strongly about this set of amendments is because they build on changes that I commend the Government for having introduced into the Bill. They build on sound reforms that are included now, by amendment, but extend them to the whole business sector; and not just the business sector because some of these things, I fear, go on in the public sector. We only have to think of child victimisation among many other sectors.

Finally, the issue of public trust seems to me to be perhaps the greatest issue of our times. It has steadily diminished, let us be honest about it, in virtually every quarter of our national life, including, I fear, in this place. Frankly, public trust is to society what oxygen is to our bodies: we cannot do without it. I make no pretence that the group of amendments we are debating will solve the problem. The only thing that will solve the problems we are grappling with—grappling is the word—is the restoration of good values and a remoralisation of our society. However, what I and my colleagues are saying is that part of that—a small but crucial part—is to give protection to those extraordinarily brave people who will speak out when faced with a corrupt culture in the institution or company in which they work. They must be given fair protection and frankly, if we do not give it to them we are encouraging the sort of conduct that we all utterly deplore and which is utterly self-defeating and self-destructive. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look kindly on these amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments. The government amendment, which the Opposition are supporting, clearly comes on the back of the Francis report on Mid Staffordshire. I also point noble Lords to the very recent report by Dr Bill Kirkup and an expert panel of members, who looked into maternal care at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust.

That report, as the Statement which we had last week in this House said,

“found 20 instances of significant or major failings of care at Furness General Hospital, associated with three maternal deaths and the deaths of 16 babies at or shortly after birth. It concludes that different clinical care would have been expected to prevent the death of one mother and 11 babies”.

It described,

“major failures at almost every level … mistakes by midwives and doctors, a failure to investigate and learn from those mistakes, and repeated failures to be honest with patients and families, including the possible destruction of medical notes. The report says that the dysfunctional nature of the maternity unit should have become obvious in early 2009, but regulated bodies”,

including the north-west strategic health authority, primary care trusts, the CQC, Monitor and the PHSO—that is, the ombudsman,

“failed to work together and missed numerous opportunities to address the issue”.—[Official Report, 3/3/15; cols. 158-59.].

For the purpose of our debate, the report also showed that the drive for a transparent and open culture in the NHS has some way to go. Notes were destroyed and mistakes were covered up. Dr Kirkup’s assessment is that it was,

“possibly because of a defensive culture where the individuals involved thought they would lose their jobs if they were discovered to have been responsible for a death”.—[Official Report, 3/3/15; col. 160.].

It seems from Francis, the Morecambe Bay report and our general experience of the NHS that there is a pressing need for a transparent and open culture, in which the protection of whistleblowers is an important element.

Ministers in this Government and the previous Government have from time to time issued various edicts about the importance of the protection of whistleblowers. There has been guidance on this, but it is clear that a whole swathe of staff in the NHS still do not feel confident about raising concerns on patient care. That is why the Opposition very much support government Amendment 58A but I, like other noble Lords, do not think that we can stop at the NHS. That is why I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Phillips.

As my noble friend Lord Wills said, there are “significant gaps” and loopholes,

“in the current protections for those making disclosures in the public interest”.—[Official Report, 26/1/15; col. GC1.]

While we have at least had a lot of debates about failures in the NHS, one has only to think of the issues following the Hillsborough football disaster, as my noble friend said in Committee, more recently in Rotherham with child abuse and then recently in Oxfordshire, again with child abuse. I am not sure whether this has been corroborated by an independent inquiry, but the point has certainly been put that a junior member of staff in Oxford City Council was subject to discouragement for raising concerns because of approaches made by Oxfordshire County Council, which was responsible for childcare, to senior officials in Oxford City Council to try to stop this person raising what seemed to be eminently sensible concerns about the way that these cases were being dealt with—or not being dealt with—in Oxfordshire.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned the banking world and my noble friend Lord Wills mentioned the construction industry, which is a great example. If a construction worker raises health and safety concerns, there are very good companies in the construction world where they are taken seriously. Overall, my noble friend knows that there has been considerable improvement but there are companies where, if employees raise those concerns, they are blacklisted and cannot get work in the industry. Again, where is the protection for those people?

What about education, a notorious sector where if teachers raise concerns they can look for very little protection? In education, the principal or head often has a dominant role in the governing body. In schools and colleges, there are often no procedures whatever for whistleblowing. At least in the health service there are procedures and very strong corporate governance, with a tradition of company secretaries who should be able to make sure that the procedures work. In the education sector, there are no such guarantees at all. It seems to me that my noble friend and his colleagues are absolutely persuasive. We need protections which go far beyond the National Health Service. I very much hope that the Minister will listen to these arguments and agree either to support these amendments or come back with amendments on Third Reading which would meet the point raised by my noble friend.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Phillips for these amendments. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on whistleblowing. I am not sure that we would be where we are, if not for him. I also thank others who have been involved. The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Stoneham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, were involved in Committee. It is good and right to hear also from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given the health aspect of this problem.

I make it absolutely clear that the Government share the widespread support in this House for whistleblowers and will continue to make strides in strengthening the whistleblowing framework, obviously not least because of the scandals at Mid Staffordshire and Morecambe Bay, which have been so eloquently referred to. That is why we are taking action through this Bill and elsewhere. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, acknowledged that. First, we are protecting whistleblowers from being discriminated against when applying to work in the NHS. The noble Lord described some graphic examples. Secondly, we are taking action to improve transparency in the way that regulators handle whistleblowing concerns.

On the first point, the Government have tabled an amendment in response to the recent Francis review. This recommended that the Government,

“review the protection afforded to those who make protected disclosures, with a view to including discrimination in recruitment by employers”.

Based on Sir Robert’s findings, we are convinced that blacklisting applicants for NHS jobs because they are whistleblowers causes a very serious injustice. They are effectively excluded from the ability to work again in their chosen field. When NHS staff raise concerns, they can save lives and prevent harm. That is why we are taking the opportunity, very much at the last stage of the Bill, to protect whistleblowers seeking employment in the NHS.

Amendment 58ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, seeks to protect all job applicants who have blown the whistle. I have listened to his arguments around other sectors; I think that this evening people have mentioned policing, social care, construction, banking and education. I sympathise. No job applicant in whatever sector should be disadvantaged by being a whistleblower but—I have to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Wills—when we debated this in Committee, I expressed my concern about the lack of evidence that there was a widespread problem right across the board. We do not have the level of evidence for other sectors on the nature of the gap or the scale of the problem.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Is the point not that for all the NHS’s failings, it probably has a more open culture than many other sectors? That is why we know more about the problems of whistleblowing there. In education, it is much more difficult to have central government intervention in cases where staff have clearly been intimidated. In a sense, some of these other sectors need much more attention. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, talked about the banking industry. Does anyone have any confidence at all that if someone working in the City raised concerns, even after the failures, they would be taken seriously? I rather doubt it.

18:00

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We have very good evidence from the Francis review. We do not have evidence for all other sectors and, of course, the amendment would apply to the private sector and the coverage would be very wide-ranging. Several noble Lords asked why it is a two-tier system and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked why we are not doing it universally. Sir Robert’s findings were health-specific. He reported that he had seen evidence of individuals suffering serious detriment in seeking re-employment in the NHS after making a protected disclosure. That is what we are talking about. The health sector has one of the highest instances of whistleblowing reporting, perhaps for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested, and, consequently, has the greatest potential for discrimination against whistleblowers, who therefore cannot get another job. The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world, I am glad to say, and should operate to the very highest standards of integrity in its recruitment practice.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She makes the case that we have particular evidence in relation to the health service and so she wants to act on the health service. With regard to all the other sectors that we have asked the Government to take into consideration as well, would it not be better to put a system in place to stop the scandal before it happens rather than wait and close the stable door after the horse has bolted?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his intervention. We have to legislate in an informed and evidence-based way. We have brought forward the provisions on the NHS and it is very good that noble Lords opposite support that at this late stage. We are not in the same situation in relation to other sectors. There are various arrangements and we are making general improvements on whistleblowing.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to interrupt. I just want the Minister to clarify something. She said that our support for her amendment was at a late stage. I point out that that is not the case. We saw the amendment at noon one day and I signed up to it as soon as it appeared. It was certainly not at a late stage. We are very supportive of what she is doing. Our problem is that she is not doing it in nearly enough other cases. Her case that more evidence is required really does not stack up.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am sorry if I caused confusion. What I was saying is that this is a relatively late stage in this Bill and that what we have done is taken steps to bring forward some of the actions that follow from the Francis review. Noble Lords opposite have been extremely helpful about supporting that and supporting it instantly. I am very glad to have been able to end that confusion.

[Lord Wills]

I am very sorry; the Minister is gracious in giving way yet again. Before she leaves this amendment, will she clarify the points that she is making about process? Just to be clear—she can indicate with a nod, if she wishes, rather than getting to her feet yet again—does she accept that whistleblowing can be essential in protecting the public interest and the public in other sectors apart from the NHS, such as the financial sector, the police, and adult and child social care? That is my first question to the Minister.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills. Of course whistleblowing can play a vital part in all areas. I said that right at the beginning. As far as this Bill is concerned, we are taking specific steps in relation to the NHS. Perhaps if I could make a little bit more progress, I could explain some of the other things that we are also doing.

[Lord Wills]

I wonder whether I could just push the Minister a little bit further on this process. She says that the Government do not have the evidence to take the measures for other sectors that they are currently taking in relation to the NHS. She said that the Francis report has produced the evidence that the Government feel they need to proceed. I accept that. It is a perfectly reasonable approach. However, if she accepts that whistleblowing is so important in all these other vital sectors and that there is a loophole in protections that the Government are seeking to plug—clearly they accept that there are loopholes because they are seeking to plug them in relation to the NHS—why will the Minister not commit now to launching an inquiry to see whether such evidence exists? The Government did it with Mid Staffs; they have done it with other scandals; they know that there is a problem here; they know that it is important to tackle this problem. Why do the Government not commit now to collecting the evidence to see how best they can move to plug these loopholes?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am not sure that we are going to agree this evening on extending to other areas the provisions that we are very happy to include for the NHS. I have made clear that we need an evidence base and that we are doing things in other areas. The things that we are doing in other areas, to which I hope to move on, will also help to show what is happening on the ground. The debates that we have had in the House, which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has encouraged us to have, will also change the culture in relation to whistleblowers. The very fact of the disastrous circumstances in the NHS has shown how important whistleblowers are, which is why we are making the changes that we are in relation to recruitment in the NHS.

If I may make progress, I will turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 59, which seeks to introduce a rolling statutory review of the whistleblowing legislation. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that it was only last June that the Government reported the findings from their call for evidence that reviewed that legislation. The Government have also carried out an extensive employment law review during this Parliament. Looking to future review processes, we see that post-legislative scrutiny is applied to all changes to legislation five years after the measures have come into force. We have an impressive rolling programme. The changes that we introduced to the whistleblowing framework in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, and the changes in this Bill, will be included in the rolling process. Considering the steps that we have taken to review employment legislation, and specifically whistleblowing legislation, I do not believe that it is necessary to introduce another review next year.

I turn now to Amendments 59A to 59F, which seek to create a national whistleblowing review officer. The Government fully understand the intention behind the proposed new clauses, which is to ensure that concerns raised by whistleblowers are acted upon. We know from research carried out by the University of Greenwich and Public Concern at Work that 75% of whistleblowers believe not enough is done about the concerns that they report. We want employers or the relevant authority to take action. That is why we are introducing the important measures in this Bill to require prescribed persons to report on how they handle whistleblowing concerns. That will increase transparency and reveal any circumstances where whistleblowing concerns are not addressed. The Government will want to allow time for this measure to take effect before they consider yet further measures. Introducing a body that has oversight of all investigatory action in response to whistleblowing concerns would be one way of going further, depending on what the need for further action was. But of course there could be other options for the Government to consider, based, as I have said, on evidence. Before introducing legislation, the Government will want to carry out a proper assessment of all available options to ensure that they are not introducing a body that was duplicating the existing functions of the regulators. This is a complex area.

Evaluation work will begin by the Department of Health publishing a consultation, which will explore the case for creating an independent whistleblowing guardian for the NHS. The Government will be able to use the evidence gathered from that consultation to look at the situation in other sectors. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of having a proper evidence base and the fact that we have been able to fast-track the Francis recommendations because of the very powerful work that he has done.

The Government are committed to addressing the barriers that whistleblowers face. In addition to the measures in this Bill, we have made significant progress. Perhaps I could mention some other measures that we have taken forward. We are updating a set of comprehensive guidance for whistleblowers and employers as well as introducing a non-statutory code of practice for employers. The Government intend to publish this shortly. We have carried out work to update the list of prescribed persons. This is a list of more than 60 individuals and bodies, which includes all MPs, that a whistleblower can approach to raise their concerns. The Government have recently introduced separate legislation, which comes into force in April this year, to extend the scope of the whistleblowing framework to student nurses and student midwives.

The whistleblowing framework is improving and robust processes are in place for future work and the continuous review of the legislation that we have introduced. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that much further exploratory work would be required before proper consideration could be given to his proposal for a national whistleblowing review officer and for extending legislation to cover all job applicants, whether in the public or the private sector.

We have made a major change in relation to the NHS. Perhaps that has eclipsed the other important changes in this Bill and other progress that we have made on whistleblowing. I commend the Government’s amendment and invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My noble friend the Minister said a number of times that there is insufficient evidence for extending what the Government are doing in this Bill vis-à-vis health to other sectors. Let us think again of the financial centre of this country. The collapse that we had in 2008 was perhaps the greatest financial collapse in our entire island history. It involved extensive and universally accepted huge breaches in the criminal law: the LIBOR fixing, the forex fixing, PFI—the list goes on and on. How can my noble friend say that there is insufficient evidence to warrant extending to this sector, if none other, some of the requirements that we are now extending to the health service?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we are bringing in the new process provided for in the Bill which will allow greater review and engagement in those other sectors.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, this has been a short but worthwhile debate on some important issues about improving protections for the public through whistleblowing. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Phillips, for adding their names to the amendments and for their compelling arguments in support of them. I also thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for his powerful support. I am grateful also to the Minister, who throughout our discussions, both in Committee and again today, has engaged thoroughly and thoughtfully with all these complex issues and has been helpful and constructive.

In view of everything that the Minister has done so far, it is all the more disappointing that she has so summarily dismissed all the amendments. I accept the case that she made about review; I accept that there is a review process in place. Personally, I would like to see rather more frequent review, which may be a matter we can return to—although I reassure her that it will not be at Third Reading. I also accept the arguments that she made about the national review officer. This is a big and complex issue. There is a case to be made for seeing how the Francis recommendation beds down to learn the lessons from that, but I hope that it will remain on the Government’s agenda because it would be well worth pursuing.

However, I can see no good reason for the Government not to accept Amendment 58ZA. There is no good argument for confining protection for job applicants to those working in the NHS. The Minister made great play of the need to acquire more evidence. There are two problems with that approach. The first was identified by my noble friend Lord Hunt, which is that, by definition, it is extremely hard to find evidence of the harm that is done in advance of a scandal happening. When people working in professions such as the NHS, the financial sector and the police look at the examples, perhaps the rare examples, of their colleagues who have blown the whistle, they see the acute detriment that they have suffered as a result. Who is going to come forward and suffer in that way—which is actually the evidence that the Minister appears to be asking for? We know that there is a problem; we should be tackling it.

If we persist with the desire for more evidence and if that is what the Minister needs to make progress in tackling the loopholes that the Government have conceded exist, why has she just rejected my plea for her to commit to seeking out such evidence? The only reason that we are discussing the government amendment today is that a scandal happened with Mid Staffordshire, and Sir Robert Francis conducted his exhaustive and excellent inquiry and came up with the evidence. Do we have to wait for another such scandal in the financial sector finally to get to the bottom of all the skulduggery that lay behind the crash of 2008 and subsequently, or another scandal in the police such as Hillsborough, before the Minister acquires the evidence that we need to plug the loopholes?

I want to encourage the Government to think again. They have already shown themselves to be extremely flexible between Committee and Report. To encourage them to be similarly flexible between today and Third Reading, and in the hope that they will move forward in some of the ways that I have suggested today, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 58ZA. If I am successful, may I assume that the Government will accept my Amendment 59A as consequential, as it so closely mirrors the Government’s Amendment 58A on the creation of a national review officer?

18:17

Division 2

Ayes: 174

---

Labour: 146
Crossbench: 14
Independent: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Green Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 231

---

Conservative: 146
Liberal Democrat: 68
Crossbench: 12
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 2

18:30

Amendment 58A

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

58A: After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection for applicants for employment etc in the health service
(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 49A insert—
“Part 5Aprotection for applicants for employment etc in the health service49B Regulations prohibiting discrimination because of protected disclosure
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prohibiting an NHS employer from discriminating against an applicant because it appears to the NHS employer that the applicant has made a protected disclosure.
(2) An “applicant”, in relation to an NHS employer, means an individual who applies to the NHS employer for—
(a) a contract of employment,(b) a contract to do work personally, or(c) appointment to an office or post.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), an NHS employer discriminates against an applicant if the NHS employer refuses the applicant’s application or in some other way treats the applicant less favourably than it treats or would treat other applicants in relation to the same contract, office or post.
(4) Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a) make provision as to circumstances in which discrimination by a worker or agent of an NHS employer is to be treated, for the purposes of the regulations, as discrimination by the NHS employer;(b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals or the Employment Appeal Tribunal;(c) make provision for or about the grant or enforcement of specified remedies by a court or tribunal;(d) make provision for the making of awards of compensation calculated in accordance with the regulations;(e) make different provision for different cases or circumstances;(f) make incidental or consequential provision, including incidental or consequential provision amending— (i) an Act of Parliament (including this Act),(ii) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(iii) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, or(iv) an instrument made under an Act or Measure within any of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii).(5) Subsection (4)(f) does not affect the application of section 236(5) to the power conferred by this section.
(6) “NHS employer” means an NHS public body prescribed by regulations under this section.
(7) “NHS public body” means—
(a) the National Health Service Commissioning Board;(b) a clinical commissioning group;(c) a Special Health Authority;(d) an NHS trust;(e) an NHS foundation trust;(f) the Care Quality Commission;(g) Health Education England;(h) the Health Research Authority;(i) the Health and Social Care Information Centre;(j) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence;(k) Monitor;(l) a Local Health Board established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(m) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service;(n) Healthcare Improvement Scotland;(o) a Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;(p) a Special Health Board constituted under that section.(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before making regulations prescribing any of the following NHS public bodies for the purposes of the definition of “NHS employer”—
(a) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006; (b) an NHS trust established under section 18 of that Act;(c) a Local Health Board established under section 11 of that Act.(9) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations prescribing an NHS public body within any of paragraphs (m) to (p) of subsection (7) for the purposes of the definition of “NHS employer”.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a)—
(a) “worker” has the extended meaning given by section 43K, and(b) a person is a worker of an NHS employer if the NHS employer is an employer in relation to the person within the extended meaning given by that section.”(3) In section 230(6) (interpretation of references to employees, workers etc) for “and 47B(3)” substitute “, 47B(3) and 49B(10)”.
(4) In section 236(3) (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) after “47C,” insert “49B,”.”

Amendment 58A agreed.

Amendments 59 to 59F not moved.

Clause 148: Financial penalty for failure to pay sums ordered by employment tribunal etc

Amendment 60

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

60: Clause 148, page 127, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
“(2) “Financial award”—
(a) means a sum of money (or, if more than one, the sums of money) ordered by an employment tribunal on a claim involving an employer and a worker, or on a relevant appeal, to be paid by the employer to the worker, and(b) includes—(i) any sum (a “costs sum”) required to be paid in accordance with an order in respect of costs or expenses which relate to proceedings on, or preparation time relating to, the claim or a relevant appeal, and(ii) in a case to which section 16 applies, a sum ordered to be paid to the Secretary of State under that section.(2A) Subsection (2)(b)(i) applies irrespective of when the order was made or the amount of the costs sum was determined.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, our penalty measure provides incentives for full and prompt payment of employment tribunal awards and creates sanctions for non-payment. This is supported by our non-legislative work to improve guidance to help individuals understand how to enforce their rights.

In Committee I agreed to consider an amendment to include costs in the relevant amount on which the financial penalty is to be calculated. We have been persuaded by the principle that the penalty should incentivise workers receiving all that they are owed by their employer, and that where a tribunal has decided that costs are to be paid, an employee is entitled to receive them. Our amendments do exactly that.

The amendments also allow the Government to make changes by regulation if, in practice, waiting for costs to be finalised before financial penalties can be issued causes too much delay. These amendments also deal with some other minor and technical issues. For example, they make it clear that penalties which are payable to the Secretary of State are not included, and clarify technical points such as when an award is considered paid in full.

I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that the Government have listened to the concerns raised in Committee and that we are creating the right environment for a worker to be able to receive their full employment tribunal award promptly. I thank noble Lords for the debates we have had on this subject, and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her contribution. If I may paraphrase, “Never look a gift horse or a gift concession in the mouth”. However, in this case I will make a slight exception. We had a useful meeting with the noble Baroness—who has disappeared out of sight now, but not, I hope, out of hearing—and her civil servants. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Low, to make his apologies. As the noble Baroness knows, he has been a frequent participant in this debate, and he regrets that he cannot be here tonight, so I said that I would apologise on his behalf.

In the meeting that we had with the Minister I raised the disparity between two cases. If an award is made for a failure to pay the national minimum wage and the employer does not respond after having been contacted by HMRC, and does not pay the outstanding national minimum wage, an enforcement officer takes action against the employer. In the case of somebody who has struggled, probably for a significant period of time, gone through enforced mediation, and who has been successful at an employment tribunal, if the employer still fails to pay, it is true that they now incur penalties—and the Minister has told us about the improvements made in that area. However, we suggested that the successful claimant ought to have first recourse to those payments—but the Minister rejected that, saying that for a variety of reasons it could not be done.

I then suggested in the discussions we had that if that were the case, why at that point in time—which could be anything between a year and two years —should the cost of enforcement fall on the claimant, who will have been through mediation and an employment tribunal, been successful, and won an award? I suggested that the Government should examine the possibility of enforcement, as they are doing with the national minimum wage. That was what I hoped the Minister would take away.

That has not been the case. I am not expecting a detailed response this evening, but I make a plea that she might take that away, and between now and Third Reading perhaps we can meet to see whether any further progress can be made. However, with those few comments, we are happy to support the amendments.

Amendment 60 agreed.

Amendments 61 to 74

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

61: Clause 148, page 127, line 30, leave out “In subsection (2)”

62: Clause 148, page 127, leave out line 33 and insert—
“( ) a decision to make, or not to make, an order in respect of a financial award (including any costs sum) on the claim,”

63: Clause 148, page 127, line 34, leave out second “the” and insert “any such”

64: Clause 148, page 128, line 6, leave out “subject to subsection (4),”

65: Clause 148, page 128, line 10, leave out from “17(3))” to end of line 26 and insert “together with any costs sum, and
( ) in any other case, the sum or sums of money ordered to be paid (including any costs sum).”

66: Clause 148, page 128, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) when the worker could make an application for an order for a costs sum in relation to—(i) proceedings on the claim to which the financial award relates,(ii) proceedings on a relevant appeal,( ) when the worker has made such an application but the application has not been withdrawn or finally determined,”

67: Clause 148, page 128, leave out line 31 and insert—
“( ) a decision to make, or not to make, a financial award (including any costs sum) on the claim,”

68: Clause 148, page 128, line 32, leave out second “the” and insert “any such”

69: Clause 148, page 129, line 24, at end insert—
“( ) The provisions of this Part apply where a financial award consists of two or more sums (whether or not any of them is a costs sum) which are required to be paid at different times as if—
(a) it were a relevant sum to be paid by instalments, and(b) those sums were the instalments.”

70: Clause 148, page 135, line 20, leave out from “in” to end of line and insert “particular cases”

71: Clause 148, page 135, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for this Part to apply with modifications in cases where a financial award has been made against an employer but is not regarded as outstanding by virtue only of the fact that an application for an order for a costs sum has not been finally determined (or any appeal within section 37B(5)(a) so far as relating to the application could still be made or has not been withdrawn or finally determined).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may in particular provide—
(a) for any provision of this Part to apply, or to apply if the enforcement officer so determines, as if the application had not been, and could not be, made;(b) for any costs sum the amount of which is subsequently determined, or the order for which is subsequently made, to be treated for the purposes of this Part as a separate relevant sum.”

72: Clause 148, page 136, line 19, at end insert—
““costs sum” has the meaning given by section 37A;”

73: Clause 148, page 136, line 24, at end insert—
““relevant appeal” has the meaning given by section 37A;”

74: Clause 148, page 136, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of this Part a relevant sum is to be regarded as having been paid in full when the amount unpaid in respect of that sum on the date of payment has been paid.”

Amendments 61 to 74 agreed.

Clause 151: Exclusivity terms unenforceable in zero hours contracts

Amendment 74A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 74AA

Moved by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

74AA: Clause 151, page 140, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) An employer must offer a fixed-hours contract to a worker who has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods, of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State.
(4B) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the determination of “regular hours” under subsection (4A).”

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, we have again had a long debate this afternoon about the flexibility of zero-hours contracts and what constitutes fairness in such contracts. The last Division was on an amendment which looked at the question of cancellation; unfortunately, we were not successful on that. Again, in this area there is an unfairness to zero-hours contracts. The House will note that we have not specified the period; we just wished to draw attention to a serious problem.

A number of contributions this evening talked about the need for flexibility in those contracts. As my noble friend Lady Hollis—who I see is in her seat—made clear, we are not opposing the principle of zero-hours contracts, but trying to lay the foundation for what we believe to be fairness in the arrangements. In a situation where regular hours are being worked for a continuous period or even a series of continuous periods of employment, surely that does not constitute the kind of flexible zero-hours contract that workers ought to expect. In those circumstances, we believe that the employer should be bound to offer the employee a fixed-hours contract.

If we look at the statistics behind the number of workers employed on contracts that last for a year or even two years, we find that they are not the kind of thing that we envisaged, or what was described today by noble Lords who talked of the need for a very flexible contract. That is, we believe, the justification for injecting fairness into a contract that in previous circumstances would probably have been a standard contract of employment. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution, and to hearing about the Government’s attitude to the amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for tabling the amendment and giving us the opportunity to return to the matter of zero-hours contracts. I know that he genuinely wants the new regime to work, and I am grateful for that.

The amendment relates to a right to request fixed hours. However, it goes beyond zero-hours contracts and would introduce a right for all workers to demand a fixed-hours contract. This means that it would extend the right to the vast majority of the labour market. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s intention, but I am afraid there is a clear risk of negative consequences for the individuals affected, with some unscrupulous employers finding relatively simple ways to circumvent the legislation. For example, some employers could be incentivised simply to let people go before the qualifying period. That would impact negatively on the very people the amendment seeks to help.

None the less, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that the spirit of his amendment has already been addressed. The amended flexible working regulations, brought in on 30 June last year, give all “employees” the right to make a request to change their pattern of working after 26 weeks’ continuous service. The amendment would go further, by extending this right to all workers, but it is possible that individuals on zero-hours contracts who can prove a requisite qualifying period of 26 weeks may well be considered to be “employees”, and therefore be entitled to this right.

The Government’s approach has been proportionate in ensuring that employees have the right to request a change to their working pattern, while ensuring that businesses retain the flexibility they need to help drive economic growth. This flexibility will sometimes include a legitimate need to hire someone on a casual contract.

By extending the provision to all “workers”, the amendment could end up capturing many contractors and freelancers who may not want or need this right. What is more, many businesses rely on these individuals and other casual labour to provide specific tasks, and do not expect to hire them on a permanent contract at the end of their contract. A right to fixed hours after a certain period would obviously restrict this ability. I believe that the amendment could open a loophole, and might encourage employers simply to let individuals go before the end of the qualifying period. That is clearly not the outcome that any of us wants. I hope that on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. If the wording of the amendment is not perfect, that does not stop her accepting the principle contained therein: and proposed new subsection (4A) does end with the words,

“to be determined by the Secretary of State”.

Yes, there will be a need for regulations, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about freelancers and so on; there will be some exclusions. However, I return to the basic principle of fairness. We are talking about people who are not necessarily in a traditional freelance role but who, in a significant number of cases, are employed on a zero-hours contract for a year or even two years. We therefore feel that this is an important enough issue to test the opinion of the House.

18:44

Division 3

Ayes: 133

---

Labour: 120
Crossbench: 4
Independent: 4
Green Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 208

---

Conservative: 134
Liberal Democrat: 57
Crossbench: 14
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

18:56

Amendment 74B

Moved by

[Lord Mitchell]

74B: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause—
“Growth and impact of unpaid internships
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the growth of unpaid internships within the United Kingdom labour market over the past five years.
(2) The report shall include details on, but is not limited to—
(a) the incidence of unpaid internships by industrial classification;(b) the average and median length of unpaid internships;(c) an analysis of those who undertake unpaid internships including details on age; gender and ethnicity;(d) the impact of unpaid internships on social mobility;(e) the impact of unpaid internships on graduate prospects; and(f) current legislation and provisions available to address the exploitation of unpaid internships.”

[Lord Mitchell (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I restate my interest as the chairman of Instant Impact, a graduate recruitment company.

In speaking to her amendment in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lady Donaghy asked the Minister to respond to several questions. Some were addressed and some were not. I aim to push these points a little further. Whether we like it or not, intern experience is a key component of many CV statements. Competition for top jobs is fierce. In my time, I have looked at many CVs and found that each one seems to be more impressive than the last. Much time and energy are expended by a candidate to show himself or herself in the best possible light. In my day, you could wing it and hope that it would be all right on the night; today, that is no longer the case. These days, organisations look for the brightest and the best. They look at not just the quality of their degree or of the university they attended, but at the kind of person they are. Is he or she well rounded? Will they fit into the team? Do they have resilience? Can they articulate an argument? Will they make a positive contribution to the organisation? And perhaps the most important question of all: what is their employment experience?

We on these Benches support internships, much as we support schools’ work experience. The relationship between schools and business needs to be much improved and there is nothing better than sixth formers spending time getting to understand the work environment. In such situations we understand that it is unrealistic to expect payment. However, this amendment is concerned not with work experience but with internships, which often become quasi-employment or, indeed, actual employment.

A couple of weeks ago, I read an article in the Sunday Times which highlighted a recruitment company that charges young people a fee of up to £3,000 to secure unpaid internships in the City. I have been present at a charity auction which raised tens of thousands of pounds by offering internships at a major fashion magazine. Such extreme examples illustrate the lengths to which people will go to spice up their CVs. The media, fashion, advertising, PR as well as high-tech and, indeed, our Palace of Westminster, are the prime offenders. They have bright young things working for them free of charge simply because they can. They get away with it because people are desperate for good jobs and they want the kudos of good names on their CVs. In some ways it resembles the unpaid pupillage that used to exist in the legal profession. It was banned there; it now ought to be banned in the wider world.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development estimates that there are 20,000 unpaid interns. I bet that it is significantly more. The Sutton Trust says that the cost to a young person of being an unpaid intern in London is nearly £1,000 a month. A poll has said that 70% of the population say that unpaid internships are unfair and 65% of businesses want to end them. Many have suggested that the full minimum wage should come into effect after a four-week internship. Intern Aware, to which I pay tribute, has lobbied hard on this issue and I have much sympathy with this position.

19:00

In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister stated that mechanisms are in place to ensure that there should be no unpaid interns. However, I think she knows—I know this for certain—that the powers available are rarely enforced. I would love to hammer the Government harder on this issue, but the truth is I do not have the data in my hands—hence this amendment.

I suspect that the Government are sympathetic to our position. After all, both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats believe in meritocracy and equal opportunity for all our young people, but they, too, do not have the data in their hands. Getting the best job available is the first and possibly most important step on a long career path. Surely, we owe it to our young people to ensure that artificial barriers are not put in their way. We need the level playing field that compulsory payment for work would introduce.

The amendment asks the Secretary of State to engage a study that reports on the growth of unpaid internships in the UK labour market over the past five years. The report should include: the incidence of unpaid internships by industrial classification; the average and medium length of unpaid internships; an analysis of those who undertake unpaid internships, including details on age, gender and ethnicity; the impact of unpaid internships on social mobility; the impact of unpaid internships on graduate prospects; and current legislation and provisions available to address the exploitation of unpaid internships.

Unpaid internships benefit those whose parents can afford to support them and detrimentally affect those whose families simply cannot afford to do so. This is a problem we need to solve, but we need the data available to do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder who would collect the data. Could we be assured that the data would always be fully acknowledged? I can see companies saying, “Well, I’m not going to fill in that form”. Many is the time one gets questionnaires and just throws them out. I am slightly concerned about the way in which this could be done. I agree with the noble Lord that there is an awful lot of difficulty in this whole area, partially because careers advice is not great in schools. As a result, people are really desperate to know what sort of jobs would be available. If they are offered an unpaid internship I can see them being tempted to take it, but I absolutely agree that it creates yet more haves and have-nots. But how does the noble Lord think that it would actually work?

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, that is the important issue. Let us be quite honest about this: a number of MPs, for example, have unpaid interns with parents who can afford to bankroll them. But if a young person is living on a council estate in Newcastle or Liverpool, how on earth would they be able to come to Westminster and have that experience? If we talk about social mobility, opportunities for all, the raison d’être of internships should be about providing those opportunities for every single person. It does not happen, which is very sad indeed.

I am pleased to say that some internships are paid and one applauds the businesses and individuals who pay interns at the minimum or living wage. Many internships are unpaid and there are businesses—advertising, for example—where the whole ethos is to take on unpaid interns who fight their way to the top. That is true of other businesses as well. It is interesting to look at America, where legal action is being taken against those companies that do not pay internships. In many cases, those businesses are putting their hands up and saying, “Right, we are going to pay our interns”. The same should happen in this country. We have work experience, which is about helping not the employer but the person gaining that short work experience. We have volunteering which, as the name says on the tin, is about volunteering because you want to do something good for a particular cause. Maybe for the first few weeks, an internship should be at your expense, but if it is any longer, you should be paid at a living wage.

I know the Government are sympathetic to this. I think right across this House we are sympathetic about it. There are issues to do with taxation and salaries that we need to understand. I realise it is very late in the day and the Minister cannot give any commitments. I guess nothing can change now, unless we push this to a vote, and I perhaps hope we do not. However, perhaps the Minister can meet us to go over in our own minds about how we might take this forward. I have talked to Ministers and I know that there is a degree of wanting to support this move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for giving us the opportunity to come back to the important subject of interns, to my noble friend Lady O’Cathain for her helpful and insightful comments, and to my noble friend Lord Storey for reminding us that this is a complex subject. I will begin by answering his first question. Obviously, I would be entirely happy to meet him to talk through this issue. I do not think it is possible—as I will come to explain—to do anything in this Bill, but that does not mean that we should not be exchanging comments, knowledge and evidence on this very important area, which I am also passionate about.

I think we all agreed in Committee that we wanted to encourage internships and that they should be fair, open and transparent in order to encourage candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds. The flexibility of our labour market is a great source of pride, as we discussed earlier. Of the growth of 2 million jobs in this Parliament, nine out of 10 were employees and nearly eight out of 10 were full-time jobs, so there are a lot of opportunities for young people, the unskilled and the long-term unemployed. Youth unemployment fell in the past year by 188,000, so that is good news.

Obviously in any part of the labour market, not just internships, we have to take action where there is any exploitation of individual workers. The use of internships is relatively new in the UK labour market. There is a lot more practice elsewhere, especially in the United States, and there is no definition of internship in our legislation. Individuals undertaking an internship will be workers, employees, or volunteers, depending on the reality of their employment relationship, and not their job title or what an employer decides should be set out in a contract.

Where the intern is an employee or a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage from day one and all other rights attached to their employment status. The Government are very clear that employing unpaid interns as workers to avoid paying the national minimum wage is illegal. Through tougher enforcement measures, such as increasing the maximum penalty fourfold, and naming and shaming employers, we have shown that we will crack down on employers who break that law. The Bill will also ensure that the maximum penalty is calculated on a per-worker, rather than per-notice, basis, as we discussed in Committee. We have also increased HMRC’s enforcement budget from £8 million to £9.2 million and we will increase the enforcement budget by a further £3 million in 2015-16.

[Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)]

While I recognise that it cannot be done now in the Bill, it would be helpful to investigate the difference between work experience and internships. All of us are absolutely committed to work experience; the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, and I have discussed this on several committees recently. Work experience cannot go on for ever; it cannot go on for week after week or month after month. There is a real difference. We need to encourage work experience, but that is, in essence, very different from the sorts of internships one comes across. One talks to people who are on their third unpaid internship and are clearly working. They can reach the age of 25 or 26 before they get paid employment. That is in particular sectors of the economy. Collectively, around the House, I think we are anxious to make sure, in encouraging social mobility, that we differentiate properly between work experience and internships.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. She is absolutely right: we need to think about work experience and internships. I will come on to mention the work we are doing. We should certainly look at both aspects.

Before I finish on enforcement—this is an important point and I was asked about it in Committee—in this financial year alone HMRC has identified more than £41,000-worth of arrears for 21 interns who were underpaid the national minimum wage, so enforcement is taking place in this area.

One of the issues that we believe may make some interns uncertain is determining their employment status, which is obviously an essential precursor to understanding what their rights are and whether they are entitled to the national minimum wage. Determining an individual’s employment status can be difficult, as the noble Baroness showed so clearly. There is no one single test to determine whether a contract of employment exists and therefore whether an individual is an employee. We understand that, at times, this is very confusing. It affects various employers, but it also affects interns. Therefore, my right honourable friend in the other place the Secretary of State announced a review in October of employment status to consider these issues. The review will conclude soon.

I understand the concerns raised about pay and social mobility. Some young people probably do not know about opportunities or have access to internships that already exist. That is why the Government fund the Graduate Talent Pool to ensure that all young people have access to internships. That service is on GOV.UK. It is free to employers and graduates, and provides information on all aspects of internships. I am sure that we can do more, but I think it is good that we have done that. We want to encourage social mobility in particular and the Government’s Social Mobility Business Compact, which was launched in 2011, gets employers to commit to fair and open work experience and paid internship opportunities. I know from personal experience that many employers provide such internships and not just for the privileged few. We need to encourage that and keep it going.

My noble friend Lady O’Cathain mentioned career advice. We have recently committed new resources to career advice. That is an interesting addition to the debate.

I turn to the amendment. Internships are not formally defined and therefore the Government do not collect reliable information on a consistent basis that would allow the robust provision of data sought in the amendment. The Government have undertaken research on wider issues that may relate to internships, such as social mobility. We need to be properly informed of the issues around internships to ensure that policy is set appropriately to maximise flexibility and prevent exploitation.

As part of our employment status review, the Government are gathering information through consultation with stakeholders to understand both the current position of groups in the labour market and whether future changes are appropriate. This includes internships and will no doubt provide useful information and data for future discussions.

In summary, I understand and share some of the concerns raised in this debate. We take exploitation of interns very seriously and we already try to act through national minimum wage enforcement to prevent exploitation. Other employment measures in the Bill, such as changing the penalty regime, will of course be helpful. There must be more that the Government can do—that is why we have undertaken a review of employment status—but I hope that the noble Lord will support what the Government are doing and will be content to withdraw his amendment.

19:15

[Lord Mitchell]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. What she has said is certainly very helpful. If I detect the mood in your Lordships’ House at the moment, everyone seems very supportive of improving the situation regarding internships, ensuring that these young people are paid and taking the necessary action on it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for the supportive comments that she made. She made a fair point about how the information will be gathered. I suspect that lots of companies are deluged with information; one more piece of information is probably not a good thing, but all the same, it has to be obtained otherwise decisions cannot be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has been very supportive on this all the way through. I thank him very much for that, and for the helpful comment from my noble friend Lady Morgan.

As I said, there is unanimity in the House on this issue, for which I certainly feel very grateful. I will of course withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74B withdrawn.

Amendment 74C

Moved by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

74C: After Clause 151, insert the following new Clause—
“Workers: inclusion within national insurance system
All workers shall be eligible for inclusion within the national insurance system where the relevant worker’s annual earnings reach or exceed the annualised level of Job Seeker’s Allowance.”

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive an amendment that superficially seems nerdish, but it is an issue that will make or break many people’s lives. Please bear with me.

National insurance is a contributory system entitling you to sick and holiday pay, and, above all, the state pension. You come within it if, in any one waged job, you earn £5,700, which is about 16 hours a week’s work at minimum wage, which is the lower earnings limit—the LEL—although you do not actually pay national insurance until you earn £7,500. Over the years, all parties have rightly recognised that people in unwaged work—primarily women caring for children or elderly people—should be credited into NI and not lose their right to the state pension because they put their family first. All around the political spectrum, we have also respected the position of disabled people with difficult work prospects, who are also credited in, and those who are unemployed on JSA—assuming, of course, that they are properly searching for and training for work. They, too, get credited into national insurance.

Who, then, is left out? It is workers with part-time jobs, which includes two groups in particular. The first is middle-aged women. They have juggled a portfolio—to put it grandly—of part-time jobs, such as cleaning and shop work, with family care. It is a splintered workload, none of which separately qualifies them for national insurance. At least in the past married women could rely on the 60% dependency pension from their husbands. That disappears from 2016, so they will then not get a pension from their husband and currently they do not get one from their own waged and unwaged work. Depending on their back history, they will not get much from the state either. That is how we will reward them for doing what most of us believe is right: fitting their work around their family responsibilities. As a result, they lose years of state pension.

The second group is young people. They may be on JSA. They do everything that is required of them. They apply for countless full-time jobs and do not even get their application acknowledged. Going to Jobcentre Plus, nearly all of the jobs available are part time; many of them are also on ZHCs. It has been estimated that one-third of young people under the age of 30 are in short-hour or ZHC jobs. They do what we should be cheering them on to do. They come off JSA and cobble together a portfolio of perhaps three part-time jobs such as a sandwich job at lunchtime, security work in Boots of an afternoon and bar work in Wetherspoons of an evening. It is hard, risky, expensive and tiring work travelling to and maintaining several insecure jobs whose hours may change and clash with each other every week. They just hope that one of those jobs may lead to secure work but with the portfolio work they lose the NI rights they had when they did nothing but remain on JSA. Stay passively on JSA, come into national insurance and get your pension; come off JSA into several part-time jobs, work 30 hours a week or more but because no one single job is above the LEL lose your national insurance rights, holiday pay, sick pay and, above all, pensions. Can you imagine anything more morally perverse?

The national insurance problem is not exclusive to ZHCs; it affects perhaps up to 6 million people, largely women, with part-time jobs, but ZHCs make it far worse. On ZHCs you may work 20 hours in week one, 10 hours in week two, 20 in week three and, because that is all your employer wants, 10—back down the snake—in week four. So in weeks one and three with 20 hours a week you seek tax credits from HMRC to top up your wage. In weeks two and four on 10 hours you cannot, so instead you turn to the DWP for JSA, only you will probably not get it because you are not fully available for work and, as your 10 hours may suddenly become 20 hours, if that is what the employer requests, you are excluded from JSA. Simultaneously you are dealing with HMRC for tax credits, the DWP perhaps for JSA and the local council for fluctuating housing benefit payments and council tax support. It is a nightmare. It is a full-time job just applying for benefits.

Universal credit will help, and I support it, but it will take until 2020—another five years—before it is fully rolled out, if then. It should help that lone parent but not the older woman whose partner’s earnings float them off universal credit, nor the young man with the sandwich shop job, security job and bar work. Even for the lone parent, UC is paid monthly and in arrears, so what does she do in a low-pay job in a low-hour week? She goes for payday loans.

I could not do it. I could not cope, especially if I had children to care for, with not knowing my hours or my wages each week, or what the three bureaucracies of HMRC, the DWP and the local authorities might do about it either. Nor could I cope with not knowing when any or all of the money may come in and when it does, whether it is even correct. These are years when you may lose all entitlement to accrue a state pension. Lose seven years of NI and you lose £30 a week for the rest of your life. Have 10 years on a set of ZHC jobs and lose NI and you lose £45 a week for the rest of your life. What to do?

In a vote a few months ago, your Lordships agreed to allow two jobs below LEL to be aggregated to bring someone into NI. A number of Conservatives—although I do not think any Lib Dems—spoke in favour of it. I am not sure of that. The coalition Government, however, said no and overturned it. I then suggested that we should treat such people as self-employed. That was not accepted by the coalition Government. Could a part-time job or three be regarded as meeting JSA conditionality and, as with JSA, get you into national insurance? That was not acceptable to the coalition Government either. I tried in Committee on the Bill to reduce the LEL, bringing it down to about £3,000; I calculated that the cost would be trivial. That was not acceptable to the coalition Government either. So what then?

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

What was the noble Baroness doing for the 13 years of the previous Government, if she is accusing this Government of doing nothing?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

That is a perfectly fair question. I point out to the noble Lord who sat opposite someone like me throughout the passage of the Welfare Reform Act from 2011 to 2012, with something like 17 Committee sittings, that I believe that the phrase “zero-hours contract” was not mentioned once—certainly not by me nor by the noble Lord, as far as I am aware. Therefore, in that context, the issue did not arise.

I tried to reduce the LEL but I could not. This time I suggest we again lower the LEL—the cash threshold at which you come into NI—to the cash value of JSA, which is £72.40 a week or near enough £3,750 a year. On JSA, at £72.40, you are currently credited into NI. With this amendment if you are earning £72.40 per week in any one job, 11 to 12 hours per week at minimum wage, you also get your NI stamp. It is simple and fair. If it is good enough for JSA, it should be good enough for part-time work. Get JSA and get your pension, work hard in three 12-hour jobs, each below the LEL, and do not. What sort of message is that?

The question is do we want social security to support a flexible labour market, to abate some of its risks, to ensure for workers some of its rewards such as the state pension or do we simply not care what happens to them down the line? If so, what are we saying to people about wanting to come off benefits and go into work? Why, under the system we now have, would they want to? It is not rational to do so. Too many people have more to lose than to gain and this amendment would help overcome that moral dilemma. I beg to move.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support Amendment 74C. It is an argument that many in this Chamber are familiar with. As my noble friend Lady Hollis so clearly explained, there is a group of workers caught by the rules whereby someone has to earn in a single job an amount above the lower earnings limit—the LEL—currently £5,700 a year, to come into the national insurance system. If, however, someone has two jobs, both of which pay below £5,700, but which may still involve them working, say, 30 hours a week, they cannot add the wages of those jobs together to get above the lower earnings limit and into the national insurance system. If they are not in the national insurance system, this affects their eligibility to statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay and the accrual of the state pension.

In the past it was thought that perhaps 50,000 people, mostly women, were affected, but the scale of the problem is now far greater because of the increase in the use of minimal-guaranteed-hours contracts in the economy, particularly over the last five to six years. It is the scale of the increase in the problem in recent years that has made this such a significant issue on the agenda—not that it was not always significant for the 50,000 people who were previously affected.

Contracts with minimal guaranteed hours deliver little or no wages in some weeks, if little or no work is offered. Workers may need several casualised jobs to get an income and may then find that not one of them pays above the £5,700 entry level for the NI system. It is estimated that two in five zero-hours contract workers earn less than £111 a week, which is the approximate weekly equivalent of £5,700. The incidence of working zero-hours contracts, agency working and limited-hours contracts has, as I said, increased since the recession and brought with it the incidence of low and unpredictable pay. As I quoted in a previous debate, in August 2014 there were some 3.2 million zero-hours contracts on employers’ books, of which 1.8 million provided work to people in the period when the survey was undertaken.

A modern welfare state has to be responsive to the realities of the contemporary labour market. In the earlier debate on zero-hours contracts we heard arguments from the Benches opposite that one has to keep flexibility in the labour market. However, if that is the case, the welfare system has to be responsive to the realities of that contemporary labour market.

19:30

Over the years, Parliament has recognised the unfairness of locking certain groups of people out of the national insurance system and has been willing to amend the rules accordingly. Thus, mothers of young children under 12, disabled people, carers, a grandparent caring for a child while the mother works and the unemployed on JSA are credited into the national insurance system.

As my noble friend Lady Hollis convincingly argued, the Government give a certain value to those who have the misfortune to be unemployed and are available for work. They are eligible to receive £72 per week—approximately £3,750 per year—in JSA and are credited into the national insurance system. It therefore seems unfair and inconsistent to rule that someone who then finds work with a job paying £5,400 or two jobs both paying below £5,700 is not credited into the NI system.

It is now suggested that the Government will raise the threshold before income tax is paid to £11,000 to make work pay for modest earners—a policy with some merit. If that is correct, it makes it even more inconsistent that a group of workers whose pattern of employment and earnings does not deliver wages of £5,700 in any one job is not credited into the national insurance system. One hundred pounds a week, which is below the entry point, equates to almost 16 hours on the national minimum wage, so a person with more than one such mini-job could work a significant number of hours but still be excluded, which is not fair. Increasing the personal allowance may not be a tangible benefit to those on limited hours and low wages because they do not earn enough to gain from the increase, but at least they should be let into the national insurance system.

I acknowledge, as my noble friend has done, that under universal credit 800,000 more people will be credited into the NI system. That is great, but significant numbers will still be excluded. For example, universal credit is income-based. Therefore, if a single person earns more than £4,000 a year in any job, they are above the level for universal credit and so do not get credited into the NI system. But £4,000 is significantly below the lower earnings limit of £5,700, and if none of their mini-jobs pays above this level, they still cannot get credited in.

My noble friend powerfully described the situation of many women who are impacted, and I will not repeat that detail. However, I stress, as she did, that their position is made even more urgent because from April 2016 women will no longer be able to gain a state pension through their husband, as the married women’s dependency pension will cease. It is intended that women will accrue a pension in their own right, which is a good thing—I have campaigned for that for more than a decade—but you cannot accrue if you are not in the NI system.

The Secretary of State, Vincent Cable, and the CBI argue that zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market and that employers need flexibility in today’s economy. If that is correct, the issue of workers who accrue wages across one or more contracts but cannot enter the NI system is here to stay. And if it is here to stay, that means that it is here to be addressed, too. Indeed, the persistency of zero-hours contracts is evidenced by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which finds that, of the workers affected, 65% have been on such contracts for two or more years, 40% for five or more, and 20% for 10 or more.

The Government will ban the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Again, that is a good thing and it is welcome, but it will not provide a definitive solution to this problem. The freedom to have several contracts does not provide entry into the national insurance system if none of them produces a wage above £5,700. My noble friend Lady Hollis has argued this case for many years and has faced varied rebuttals from the Government on her proposed solution to the problem, which she described. However, persistent rebuttal is becoming increasingly hollow; we need to find a solution.

Over the years, Parliament has recognised the unfairness of locking certain groups out of the national insurance system and has amended the rules accordingly. This is another unfairness, and the amendment poses a solution. Basically, it says that if you are unemployed and looking for work, you can receive £72 a week in JSA and enter the NI system. So if a worker is employed and earning the annual equivalent of JSA—that is, approximately £3,750—they should be eligible for inclusion in the national insurance system.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is again bringing to our attention the issue of workers in multiple low-paid jobs. We debated this matter in Committee and the noble Baroness put forward a number of proposals then for dealing with the situation. We have before us today a proposal to include people with earnings at or above the annual value of jobseeker’s allowance. As contributory jobseeker’s allowance is payable for only six months and there are different amounts, I assume that the noble Baroness means to proxy the higher rate of around £4,000.

Just so that we are clear about the figures that we are talking about, I can confirm the characteristics of the workers that the noble Baroness is concerned about. They are people whose earnings in a single job fall below the threshold for paying or being credited with national insurance, that threshold being £5,700. That is the band of people the amendment is dealing with.

The noble Baroness has been very dogged on this issue and has suggested a number of other ways in which we might deal with it, such as changing the system to allow earnings to be aggregated; treating those people as self-employed and being able to pay class 2 contributions; treating them as unemployed and being able to receive NI credits; or lowering the earnings entry point for access to the NI system to £3,000 or, now, £4,000.

However, as I explained in our previous debate, I am afraid that none of those solutions is at all straightforward and there is a danger that they could all, to a greater or lesser extent, involve unnecessary administrative expenditure, perverse outcomes and possible new inequalities in the national insurance system. I know that such potential unintended consequences are not the noble Baroness’s intention, but they exist and they underline the reason for treading carefully in this area.

The proposal before us today would, for example, create a new cliff edge for those who earn below the threshold and increase the exchequer cost in terms of both administration and benefits paid, with little or no corresponding revenue. It would also bring in workers who might not need protection, such as students with weekend jobs working fewer than 12 hours a week. Such students are highly likely to gain sufficient years to qualify for a full state pension later in their working lives. The noble Baroness’s other solutions would increase the burdens on businesses, require a significant compliance regime to police people’s employment status or need to be extended to everyone with more than one job in a tax year to avoid unfair consequences.

The noble Baroness has expressed a view on the likely size of the group, the persistence of this type of work pattern and its effect on benefit entitlements. In February, the Department for Work and Pensions published updated estimates that around 50,000 people a year have multiple low-paid jobs and are not paying, or being treated as paying, national insurance that they would otherwise do if their earnings were aggregated —that is 0.2% of the workforce.

In response to concerns from your Lordships’ House during debate on the Pensions Bill last year, the DWP set up a forum of analytical experts last July, with an independent chair, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is a member. This forum’s remit is to consider the available evidence, the characteristics of this group, the effect of zero-hours contracts and the implications for state pension outcomes. The forum has looked at a number of alternative data sources, but none was found to provide more reliable information than that available from the Labour Force Survey on which DWP based its analysis. Having been party to the forum, the noble Baroness will be aware that it has yet to draw any firm conclusions, so in our view it would be premature to legislate now.

I accept that, of this group of 50,000 people, around 80% are women. However, this population is by no means static. Many of those affected are likely to build up their national insurance record in the future through paid or credited contributions. Under state pension reform, over 80% of people would be entitled to the full pension amount by the mid-2030s. There is also no evidence that this is a growing problem. The number of women working in two or more jobs has hardly changed for the past 10 years, remaining at about 5% of those in work. Furthermore, the recent Johnson review concluded that earnings change significantly over a lifetime and most low earners go on to earn more.

I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government are continuing work in this area, and the findings of the forum, once available, will help inform what, if any, action should be taken. However, I believe that it would be premature to pass this amendment now. In part, that is because the point of setting up the forum was to examine the evidence presented and then move to the next stage. Secondly, before taking any action in this very complicated area, we should undertake a full analysis of the costs and benefits of the various courses before us—something that, in general terms, I believe the noble Baroness has been in favour of.

I doubt that I shall have satisfied the noble Baroness, but none the less I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her superb contribution. She put it wonderfully well.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, intervened, I thought that he might make a fuller contribution. His basic charge was that we did not do anything about this. We did. I do not normally go around shouting about this, but we persuaded James Purnell that grandparents who were caring for children and carers of older people should come into the national insurance system and be credited at 20 hours a week. Previously, carers of older people came into the system only if they worked for 35 hours a week—effectively full time—for one person only. I persuaded the then Secretary of State that a carer doing more than 20 hours a week should get, not carer’s allowance, but national insurance credit. I also persuaded him that grandparents caring for their grandchildren and thus freeing their daughter to work should benefit from what was then HRP. This was effectively transferred from the daughter, who, since in work, would be in the national insurance system in her own right. I thank James Purnell, the last Secretary of State with whom I worked on this, who agreed both those changes.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Now that she mentions them, I accept that there are things that her Government did. Will she also accept that there is quite a lot that this Government have been doing to look at what is quite a complex problem?

19:45

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not accept that at all. We shall come back to that point when we talk about the forum. Apart from the wider issue of universal credit, the Government have not done anything to help these groups in the last four and a half years—I can think of not one thing. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, can think of something, then we shall see whether we agree on the evidence. Not only did we persuade James Purnell, who responded generously and positively, but also, as my noble friend rightly said, women had the safety net of a 60% dependency pension. The noble Lord’s party, through his right honourable friend, Steve Webb, has got rid of that 60% dependency pension for married women from 2016 so that a group of women who would have had some pension in retirement have now lost it. I should not be too keen on boasting about that if I were the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham.

At that time we were also told that the number of people with multiple jobs was only 20,000—mostly women, so they did not count. Now we have 50,000 and apparently they still do not count. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said earlier today that zero-hours contracts were a response to the recession. The increase in jobs has come largely since 2010 and has only been apparent for most of us since about 2012. We went through very many mostly happy hours in which this was never discussed when we were considering the Welfare Reform Bill.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

The zero-contracts did not come about—

[Lord Popat (Con)]

Order please. We are on Report. I am afraid that intervention is limited.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It is my fault, my Lords—I tempted the noble Lord and he could not resist. The point about zero-hours contracts and short hours is that they were seen largely as a middle-aged women’s problem, but there was some degree of protection. What has happened since the recession is that a third or perhaps a half of those under the age of 30 are cobbling together 30 or 35 hours’ work a week from splintered jobs, none of which, as far as we can see at the moment, would for many of them bring them into the national insurance system. That is the new dimension. It is the very dimension that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, mentioned in his speech on the previous amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that we should be introducing a new cliff edge for those below the JSA level who might be working only 12 hours a week. However, in this case, they would be better off on JSA, which they could still receive. The first £20, or the first £5 depending on their status, would be disregarded for these purposes. The rest of the hours would not be counted up until they hit JSA level, at which point the person would get JSA. That can already be done now. Therefore it is not true that there would be a cliff edge—it is not an adequate offer back. When people work 10, 12 or 14 hours, it is deducted off their JSA and if their JSA is higher, they keep it. The argument is invalid.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that many students will not need to be within the national insurance system since in later years they will go on to build their contributions. In that case there is no cost or problem to the Government at all. The problem now is that people only know at the end of their working lives whether they have got a sufficient contribution record. If you are poor and you have got missing years you are not able to fish your earlier years. If students are building up redundant ones they are no different from anyone who works for 40 years’ worth of stamp and only needs 35 to get into the national insurance system. What we are giving them is a measure of protection that they might not otherwise have. Therefore I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is worried.

The noble Lord’s third and final point was that this affects only 50,000 people, as if 50,000 people do not really matter. There were something like 25,000 or 30,000 women who were partners or spouses of people in the armed services who lost national insurance when they accompanied their partner abroad. I made this point. His right honourable friend in the other place, Steve Webb, conceded and brought those partners— mostly women but not invariably so—into the NI system. They were only half the number we are talking about today, but he deemed that it was appropriate and desirable. Even though it was far more complex than what we are dealing with today, he did it. I hope we are not being told that 50,000 is too trivial to bother about in one area but that 20,000 is fine in another. That argument simply will not run.

Finally, as I have said, the Minister says that we are talking about only 50,000. I reckon that that is a gross underestimate. He is drawing on the ONS and the Labour Force Survey in which people self-report their status. The CIPD figures we talked about earlier drew instead on a survey of employers who had far more accurate information about the employment status of their staff.

As he will know, the forum we set up, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member, recently has had information which suggests that if you look at the P14s, which is what the employers submit to HMRC, as opposed to what the employees submit, it looks as though something like 130,000 people additionally may come into this situation, as well as another 30,000 or so who we do not know about because the employers are too small. Therefore, the figure clearly is more likely to be 200,000 based on more reliable information coming from the employers through P14s than the 50,000 figure that the noble Lord offered us, which is based on incomplete and inaccurate information or on people simply not fully understanding their legal status as far as their contract of employment may be concerned.

Those are the arguments of the noble Lord. I do not think that any of them is true. The cliff edge argument is not relevant; the number argument is not the case; and the question of students making it unnecessary does not matter because there will be no cost or complication for us.

As for having to wait for the results of the forum, I have tried to get that forum to discuss the policy options. The civil servants have been most helpful. The forum was explicitly told by the Minister’s right honourable friend Steve Webb that we were not to discuss policy but only to try to get some accurate numbers. That is fine but we could have discussed policy on the basis of this; that was prohibited and therefore we were not able to do so. I am afraid that he attributes to this forum greater powers, greater range, greater extensiveness and greater capacity to encourage change, which is an assumption that I would have liked to share with him, than his right honourable friend permitted.

I am sorry but I do not think that anything the Minister has said tonight takes us one step forward. He does not rebut a single argument that my noble friend Lady Drake and myself made. None the less, given the time, obviously I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74C withdrawn.

Clause 152: Regulations in connection with public sector exit payments

Amendment 75

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

75: Clause 152, page 141, line 29, leave out “prescribed” and insert “qualifying”

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, Clauses 152 to 154 give Her Majesty’s Treasury powers to make UK-wide regulations with regard to public sector exit payments. Amendments 77 to 80 seek to address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that these powers are framed more broadly than is required for the stated policy intent. The Government are grateful to the DPRRC for its scrutiny of the Bill.

Since the Government have now consulted on the detailed use of the powers, we are able to narrow their scope to match our settled intentions for implementation. This intention is that exit payments may only be recovered within a year of exit from the employment or office in respect of which the payment was made. None the less, in order for the regime to work effectively, it is crucial that we retain sufficient flexibility in the powers to enable the regulations to deliver the policy intent. This flexibility may include the types of exit payments that can be recovered to circumvent any potential for avoidance by using new or novel types of payment. Regulations will also set out prescribed circumstances for recovery, so that subsectors can be adequately defined and in order to accommodate changes in the machinery of government. Both flexibilities will be subject to the overriding requirement of return to the public sector within a year.

Further to the DPRRC’s most recent report, I can also announce today that the Government intend to bring further amendments at Third Reading to enable the first set of the secondary regulations to be made by the affirmative procedure. This first use will be the substantive one, which establishes the exit payment recovery regime. Further regulations which make minor and technical changes, for example to the list of bodies covered by the regulations, will be made by the negative resolution procedure. I should take the opportunity to say that we have also published draft regulations which will provide a further indication of how these powers are intended to be used.

Amendment 81 is a minor and technical amendment to ensure that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body falls under the scope of Scottish exit payment regulations. The body has the duty to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is provided with the property, staff and services required. It controls its own remuneration, and the Government and Scottish Government always intended for it to fall within the Scottish exit payment regime.

Finally, Amendments 82 and 83 are further minor and technical amendments to correct potential ambiguity in the drafting of Clause 159. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the amendments. He will be pleased to know that at this time of night we do not wish to pick holes in them. We think that they address an understandable concern, which I suppose became apparent in the NHS reorganisation that we thought we would never see where people disappeared out of one door and came back through another. It is right that a hole is being plugged that needs to be plugged. I welcome the point made about flexibility to prevent any avoidance tactics and the assurance that some of the important further amendments will be the subject of affirmative resolution. We are happy to support them.

Amendment 75 agreed.

Amendment 76

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

76: Clause 152, page 141, line 30, leave out “qualifying exit payments” and insert “the repayment mentioned in subsection (1)”

Amendment 76 agreed.

Clause 153: Section 152(1): further provision

Amendments 77 to 80

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

77: Clause 153, page 142, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) For the purposes of section 152(1) circumstances are qualifying circumstances if—
(a) an exit payee becomes—(i) an employee or a contractor of a prescribed public sector authority, or(ii) a holder of a prescribed public sector office,(b) less than one year has elapsed between the exit payee leaving the employment or office in respect of which a qualifying exit payment is payable and the event mentioned in paragraph (a), and(c) any other prescribed conditions are met.”

78: Clause 153, page 142, line 22, leave out subsection (2)

79: Clause 153, page 142, line 31, after “(1)” insert “(a)”

80: Clause 153, page 142, line 41, after “(1)” insert “(a)”

Amendments 77 to 80 agreed.

Clause 154: Power to make regulations to be exercisable by the Treasury or Scottish Ministers

Amendment 81

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

81: Clause 154, page 143, line 24, leave out “an” and insert “—
(a) the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, or“(b) any”

Amendment 81 agreed.

Amendment 81A

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

81A: After Clause 155, insert the following new Clause—
“Concessionary coal
(1) This section applies to an entitlement to concessionary coal or payments in lieu of concessionary coal—
(a) arising in connection with employment by a company which on 1st January 2014 was carrying on the business of deep coal-mining in the United Kingdom, and(b) which is not being met otherwise than by virtue of this section.(2) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, make such payments as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of securing that an entitlement to which this section applies is met.
(3) Payments under this section may be made only with the consent of the Treasury.
(4) “Concessionary coal” means coal or other solid fuel supplied free of charge or at reduced prices.”

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 81A provides the Government with an enabling power under which to provide support to persons with an entitlement to concessionary coal, or cash in lieu of concessionary coal, in accordance with the rules on regular and proper expenditure. This entitlement arises in connection with employment at UK Coal Production Ltd, UK Coal Kellingley Ltd and UK Coal Thoresby Ltd.

In November 2013, the Government assumed responsibility and met the costs associated with the lost concessionary fuel allowances of a previous cohort of UK Coal under the Supply and Appropriation Act. Unfortunately, the same basis could not be used for concessionaires at Kellingley and Thoresby collieries because this cohort, when taken in conjunction with the last, exceeds the £1.75 million per annum threshold permitted by the Act. It is therefore necessary for the Government to take a new, bespoke power to enable this support provision to continue.

The persons covered by the power are employees, redundant persons, retired persons and in some cases, depending on the terms of contract, dependants of such persons. A dependant will not have direct contractual entitlement to concessionary coal or cash in lieu with the company. However, their entitlement would be referable to a right in the employment contract. These entitlements must be contractual entitlements. In particular, the company must have been carrying on the business of deep coal mining on 1 January 2014.

The UK Coal group has been restructured on a number of occasions. In January 2015, UK Coal Production Ltd submitted a request for support in relation to the managed run-down of its last two deep mines—Kellingley and Thoresby. Around 730 employees will be affected by the run-down. This important provision provides the reassurance that the Government are able to act quickly to meet the concessionary fuel entitlements of persons affected. Amendment 83A to Clause 162 simply provides that the clause will commence automatically, two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that noble Lords will support the inclusion of these important amendments and I beg to move.

20:00

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the amendment. Even if today the closure of a mine is not of the significance that it was a generation ago, it is still an important matter to the industry, to the local community around the pit and to the people directly involved. It is right that the Government should be able to provide appropriate support in this amendment through concessionary coal payments.

The amendments in this group are welcome as they can help to provide assistance at a time of great anxiety and stress to employees, who will appreciate the security that they can provide. In order that these concessionary coal payments can have some certainty as well, I ask the Minister if she can provide a bit more clarity on certain points with regard to subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 81A, concerning Treasury consent. I understand that her department is preparing to submit these proposals for clearance under state aid rules. Does this mean that this enabling power could never be needed should the Treasury refuse to sanction her department’s submission? What would be the scope of that decision? Is it likely to lead to a reduction in the concession?

I understand from my honourable friend Tom Greatrex in the other place that the Minister, Matt Hancock, has promised to submit the proposal before Dissolution. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm that commitment tonight and make the announcement before Parliament rises. For the comfort of the people who will be nervous of their situation in the coalfield, can she provide as much information as possible concerning how long she would envisage clearance to take on this state aid submission to the EU? Every week that goes by without state aid, the sum required actually increases. Should clearance be received before Dissolution, will she make the commitment that this will be announced to Parliament? However, should clearance not be received before Dissolution, can an announcement be made between Parliaments? Clarity and certainty in her assurances will be vital to those in these vulnerable communities.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his support for the amendments. He raised a couple of questions which I hope I will be able to clarify. The Treasury has confirmed that it will meet the entitlements, although the reinstatement remains conditional, as the noble Lord is aware, on the Government securing the necessary approvals, including one from the Commission. We can assure concessionaires that entitlements will be reinstated, as they have been in the past, on the same terms and conditions.

We will be discussing state aid aspects with the Commission at the earliest opportunity and will formally notify the concessionaires as soon as practicable. The state aid clearance processes can take time, as the noble Lord is aware, so it is difficult for me to provide your Lordships with definitive assurances at this time. We will discuss, of course, with the Commission at the earliest opportunity to ensure a prompt and smooth clearance process. I reassure the noble Lord that no concessionaries will suffer loss as a consequence of any inertia in the process. Entitlements will be backdated, as they have been in the past, should any delays arise. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his support and I hope that my response has satisfied him.

Amendment 81A agreed.

Clause 159: Supplementary provision about regulations

Amendments 82 and 83

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

82: Clause 159, page 146, line 36, leave out “made by regulations” and insert “included in an instrument”

83: Clause 159, page 146, line 39, leave out “made by regulations” and insert “included in an instrument”

Amendments 82 and 83 agreed.

Clause 162: Commencement

Amendments 83A and 84

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

83A: Clause 162, page 148, line 20, at end insert—
“(j) in Part 11, section (Concessionary coal) (concessionary coal).”

84: Clause 162, page 148, line 23, leave out “section 89D” and insert “Part 4A”

Amendments 83A and 84 agreed.

EU: Balance of Competences Review

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

20:04

Asked by

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, on completion of the European Union balance of competences review, how they will use the information gleaned.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I am on the advisory board of British Influence; a British member of the Anglo-German Conference, Koenigswinter; and a member of the advisory group of Demos, the think tank. I bring in the latter as I will comment on its evidence.

Before I begin my substantive remarks on this balance of competences review, I commend the Minister for the role that he has played both in the Cabinet Office and with the FCO Minister, David Lidington, in delivering the 32 papers. The House is truly in their debt. I should also note that the European Select Committee of this House—I am delighted to see that the chairman is here in his normal place—is conducting an inquiry into this exercise and I look forward to its report, which I understand will be published shortly.

In July 2012, in the Command Paper setting out the parameters of this review, William Hague said:

“Now is the right time to take a critical and constructive look at exactly which competences lie with the EU, which lie with the UK, and whether it works in our national interest”.

This Command Paper was the product of the coalition agreement, which pledged to examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences. As William Hague went on to say:

“It will ensure that our national debate is grounded in knowledge of the facts and will be a vital aid for policy making in Government”.

This has been a marathon. In fact, given that a marathon is 26 miles, the publication of 32 papers has overtaken that finish line by some distance. When the most contentious paper was delayed—that dealing with the free movement of persons—ostensibly due to coalition squabbles over its content, many wondered whether the exercise would and could be completed successfully, given that impartiality was to be a benchmark. But again, this coalition Government have confounded the sceptics in producing papers that are balanced, fact-based and widely contributed to, setting out clearly where the wins, the draws and the losses lie for the United Kingdom as a single state when the EU negotiates with and legislates for 28.

It is fair to say that after the initial incredulity in the media about quite how balanced the papers were, they have elicited so little publicity that one fears they might just quietly end up on a shelf. But this lack of media attention does not detract from their merit. I predict that, when and if a referendum gets under way, they may well get a bit of a dusting down.

Nevertheless, one objective of the review bears examination: the question of how many partners from other EU member states and EU institutions engaged with this exercise. I know that the EU committees of this House have a multiplier effect in terms of our scrutiny, but noting our reports is a different matter from that of actively participating in a shared analysis of common problems. A lack of engagement could signal how out in the cold the UK has been from the rest of the Union. So I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House which other member states and institutions contributed to the analysis of these reports.

However, the overarching question has to be about where we go from here. The White Paper stated:

“A final decision will be taken closer to the time on how best to draw together the analysis produced during the review in the light of the EU’s rapidly changing situation”.

With my noble friend Lady Ludford, who has extensive experience on the EU end of this relationship and now leads on EU matters in this House, I attended the evidence session that the EU Committee of this House conducted yesterday with the Minister for Europe, Mr Lidington. He was asked where we go from here and, unsurprisingly given that the election is a few weeks away, he was non-committal. It is clear that this was conducted between two parties with very different views of the UK’s role in the EU, and could have turned into a far more partisan exercise than it did. However, I did get the impression from yesterday’s session that there would be a little selective emphasis on the analysis, should the Conservatives win the next election and move towards their referendum.

What if Labour wins the election? We know that it has ruled out an in/out referendum. But, given that it has taken the Government some 42 years after the UK joined the European Economic Community to carry out such a thorough exercise, one would hope that if Labour were in power, it would not leave these reports to gather dust but would actively use the analysis to guide its policy-making. It is notable that the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon took place on its watch without it undertaking any such exercise to inform themselves about the British people. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will commit in her reply to build on that work.

What could be the useful purpose in practical terms? One way to build evidence would be to have a dedicated website hosted by the FCO or the Cabinet Office, which would be updated periodically as directives, regulations and case law developed. That could be accompanied by a refreshment of the analysis every now and then when the pace of change merits a different emphasis or conclusion.

We know that there is now a residue of EU expertise built up in each government department. Without very much additional cost, those roles could be maintained to keep a watching brief on changes. In other words, it could be possible to hardwire an area of EU analysis into each functional department.

I am aware that Liverpool University’s European law unit is undertaking detailed work on the methodology and statistical analysis of the evidence. That is important, as the data contained in the report are already at risk of being outdated, given that the research started in 2012. Liverpool has suggested a synoptic review of the reports, which is sensible, but I go further and suggest that they are periodically refreshed.

I turn to the substance of some of the reports—although, in the limited time, I shall have to be very brief. The report on foreign affairs was one of the early reports and is therefore somewhat dated. However, its evidence suggests that the creation of the External Action Service has understandably been challenging—as has been particularly experienced in the division of the responsibilities assigned to the high representative, who is as well the VP of the Commission. Some years on, the notable success of the high representative’s role in the E3+3 talks in Iran and the transition in Burma show that, when the EU has a clear focus, the sum can be greater than its parts. I should pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in that role. However, the real test will come here in Europe itself, where any divisions over Russia could have a disastrous impact on not only EU security but EU cohesion overall. A further point of potential disunity will be China, where we have seen selective attempts by the Chinese to play on bilateral relations to the cost of common EU rules, particularly in the area of competition policy.

I have a word or two to say on enlargement. The report commented on the use of conditionality after accession. It has been instructive to see that the co-operation and verification mechanism has been used for Bulgaria and Romania, because they did not conform to the Copenhagen criteria, but we have a fairly substantial slide into regression by Hungary and do not seem to be able to do anything about it. I accept that the Commission has been able to use limited infringement proceedings, but it seems rather impotent overall.

One wonders how egregious a state’s diversion from democratic values has to be before Article 7 of the TEU is invoked. That test is:

“a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values”,

but there seems little clarity as to whether the Commission can use EU law for a general failure to abide by the Copenhagen criteria.

I turn to a mild criticism by the EU Select Committee on the use of selective evidence in the free movement of persons report. In its letter of 22 October 2014 to the EU Minister, the committee states that,

“there was significant reference ... to evidence by Demos and Open Europe, evidence that was closely aligned with the position of the UK Government”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will know, I have the highest regard for the committee, but I respectfully suggest that when there are strongly held views about a subject matter, such as immigration, as opinion polls show that there are in this country, it is not only inevitable but important for a report to reflect that in its analysis. Otherwise, it would not be balanced and would not therefore command public respect as a serious exercise.

Moreover, Demos and its director, David Goodhart, should be taken seriously, as his book, The British Dream, is an important contribution to the debate from the progressive side of the political spectrum. Demos is no tool of the right, I assure him.

Finally, with about 10 days left of this Parliament, this is probably the last time that we will have substantively to discuss EU matters in this House. With one EU Act, two referendum Bills and numerous debates and Statements on the Floor of the House, I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his regard, courtesy and good humour over five years, when he has covered such a wide brief with such knowledge and insight. We wish him a happy retirement after the general election.

20:15

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with the statutory declarations as a vice-president of the European Parliament Former Members Association, chairman of its pension fund, a lifelong member of the European Movement and a member of the Conservative Europe Group—a flourishing group within the Conservative Party, let me say. Let me also say how much I appreciate the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has made to this House and the debate on Europe over many years.

This is of course a very traditional debate on Europe in that the party that makes them most noise—UKIP—has failed to appear. That is par for the course.

The balance of competences review is a mighty document, and we can deal only with selected parts of it. I want to deal with one or two issues within it—perhaps some of the more controversial ones. The first is the European Parliament itself. There are some fantastic suggestions in the document. Among them is one from a gentleman called Straw who lives down the corridor—or used to; well, he does for another 10 days. He suggests that the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament could be increased by abolishing European elections. I am not sure that that is correct. I do not think that you increase the democratic legitimacy of anything by abolishing elections to it. I do recall that he has a bit of form. He was the one who opposed open lists for the European Parliament in 1999. I would say that we need more democracy in the Parliament; we need more knowledge about it. If we wish to reform, perhaps we should move towards open lists for the Parliament. This would of course reduce the terrible power of the parties but increase the democratic legitimacy of the list; it would also increase the ability of the electorate to choose who they want to represent them in the Parliament.

I feel also that we should build on the mechanism that we have through COSAC and other arrangements by which this House participates in relations with the other Parliaments of the EU. The trouble with talking about how you legitimise or increase the legitimacy of the European Parliament is that that is not the problem. Developments are needed to develop the COSAC system and the system of interlinking our different countries. I am not particularly campaigning against the Commission, but the fact that the yellow card procedure has hardly been used and the orange card not at all is a weakness in the procedure. We need to look at things much more thoroughly, because the Commission needs to be pulled up by its national Parliaments, not just by the EU.

I move on from there, in the democratic tradition, to look at the issue of voting in elections. The competences review is very interesting on that, because that is where we really get to grips with what matters in countries. My view is that the voting system in the United Kingdom is a complete and utter mess. If you come from Bangladesh, you can be on the electoral register as soon as it is produced after you land. I have nothing against people from Bangladesh or any other Commonwealth country, but it seems to me ridiculous that citizens of France who come to London, work in London and pay taxes in London have no say. I am in a minority in this House—certainly in my present party and in my previous party.

I do not think that Brits who go abroad should be given the vote at all. I think that the essence of democracy is control over the state that you live in. The essence of democracy should be that we extend to all taxpaying citizens who live in this country a vote. If you pay tax into the British Exchequer, I am not really bothered whether you come from France, Denmark, Bangladesh or Nigeria, you should be given a vote in return for the money you pay for the society that you live in.

We have got part of the way with local councils and European elections, but I completely reject the notion in the competences review on voting, because I think we are going the wrong way. Surely it is ridiculous that if you are a Cypriot or Maltese citizen of the European Union you can vote here in the elections. So there are citizens of two countries in the European Union who can vote—but for the wrong reasons, you might say.

My third point concerns migration. A huge amount is said in all parties about migration. One party apologises for it, the other party wants to stop it and I think the third party may be half right in its policy. Look, we have a problem with migration because in 2004 Britain decided that anyone anywhere in the joining countries could come and live in Britain, so a lot of people in eastern and central Europe who looked at the future said, “Oh, we can go and work in Britain. We can’t go and work anywhere else, but let’s go and work in Britain”. So they came here and they have contributed enormously to the economy of this country. One of the reasons, I believe, that Britain is an expanding and booming economy–in the European sense, which is not much of a sense—is because of the people who have come to work here in Britain and are contributing to our economy. We should celebrate that.

We all know that patterns of migration tend to follow chosen paths. If people come here from, let us say, Poland, which has been a big contributor, more people will come from Poland, because they will know people here. So let us not start grumbling about a problem—if it is a problem, and I deny that it is—or about a situation that we ourselves brought about. We opened the borders. We said, “Come to Britain”. I would love to see the papers, because I do not believe that it was an accident. I like to believe that there were people in the previous Government who had the intellectual capacity to sit down and analyse the problem. They worked it out, probably correctly. There is probably something buried, which we will see under the 30 year rule, in which someone—it was probably the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, because he was one of the brighter members of the previous Government—sat down and said, “There are a lot of bright people in eastern Europe, how can we get all those people with degrees and PhDs and skills and drive to come and work in Britain? I know, we’ll open the borders”. I would love to see those papers, because I am sure that they exist. I do not think that this could have happened by accident and I do not think that we should be consistently condemning it.

My final point is on enlargement. Those who have known me for a long time will not be surprised that I wish to mention Turkey, a country I have had a lot to do with in the last 30 years, and a country which the European Union has consistently deceived. As long ago as 1961 we signed a treaty—or rather, the European Union did, before we joined—saying there was a prospect of membership for Turkey. We signed up to the common acquis when we joined in 1974. Ever since then we have been holding the carrot in one hand and the stick in the other. In the mean time, the European Union has enlarged and enlarged and enlarged again. It was six countries when that promise was made. It is now 28 and there is still no sign. I believe that we have to stop playing around with Turkey.

It is possible, as the EU develops, that we could actually have a three-circle union. We talk about a two- speed Europe, but there is a third Europe, the Europe of the Council of Europe, of countries that are neither considered nor probably will ever be considered for membership of the European Union. Then there are countries on the penumbra. There are the western Balkans. There is Turkey. If we have objections to a Muslim state, do we have objections to Albania? I do not believe that we do have objections to a Muslim state; I think we have objections to a big state. I do not think that big countries want another big country around, but I do think that we need to clarify our views on Turkey. Certainly, if we need and wish to influence it, we need to open the chapters on accession. Having opened the negotiations, to leave the chapters closed that we need to talk about to get the community acquis agreed on both sides is a dereliction of duty.

I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government will be putting all their efforts into this. Do not bring Cyprus up: we knew what we were doing when we let Cyprus into the EU. Everybody said, “If you let Cyprus in as a divided island, it will block all progress”—so let us not say that we did not know. We knew what we were doing and it is now up to us to get ourselves out of this jam.

20:25

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lady Falkner for initiating this debate. I declare an interest as a former Member of the European Parliament and now a pensioner of the said institution.

I was one of those who was a bit suspicious of the balance of competences review and its motives—not as much as some of my political colleagues, but I was mildly sceptical as to its value. I am happy to admit that I have been proved wrong, and I am in danger, indeed, of having the zeal of the converted.

I was already somewhat reassured by the statement in the Command Paper that launched the review in 2012 that it would not be asked,

“to look at alternative models for Britain’s overall relationship with the EU”.

That somewhat allayed one’s fears about it being the basis for a renegotiation exercise, but I do think that, in fact, many of its aims have been fulfilled. The objective was,

“a thorough and analytical piece of work … to take stock of the impact of the EU on our country … to … allow everyone, those in Government, in Parliament and, most importantly, the British people themselves”—

I shall come back to that—

“a far better understanding of an important part of the governance of the UK … ensure that our national debate is grounded in knowledge of the facts … and develop this country’s policies in relation to the EU”.

Like my noble friend Lady Falkner, I have taken an interest in the valuable inquiry by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I shall quote the evidence from Dr Thomas Horsley from Liverpool University’s European law unit, which gives a very positive view.

“I think that overall we would summarise our assessment as positive of the review. We would say that as a whole the individual reports are an impressive technical exercise in attempting to understand the current balance of competences across a range of fields, and to try to collate in a fair, synthesised and balanced manner the range of responses that were received as the evidence base. In result, the exercise has provided a very rich, unique resource that we suggest is greater than the sum of its parts”.

I think that that is a great tribute to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Office and, indeed, to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and other colleagues in Government, including the Europe Minister, David Lidington, who I am very pleased has kept his post throughout these five years.

The review is most certainly not a whitewash. Every one of the individual 32 reports has criticisms of aspects of EU policymaking. As those Liverpool academics said, the reports are a faithful synthesis of the full range of evidence and there is no sign of an attempt to prejudge conclusions and select evidence to fit those prejudged conclusions. So it has integrity as an intellectual exercise and it has certainly provoked debate.

We have seen more businesses in the last couple of years prepared to speak out on EU affairs. They have been mainly positive about the EU but ready to complain or criticise, where they saw the need to do so. It is almost as if the review has liberated people to talk, without it being politically loaded, about what the EU does and does not do well. Now we need to reflect on how the engagement with stakeholders at home and in other member states will be continued and built on, in particular to develop intelligent, well founded ideas for reform of the EU and refreshment of the way that it operates.

We learnt from the Europe Minister, Mr Lidington, yesterday that the paper which the UK submitted on the development of the digital single market, on the basis of the balance of competences review, was very well received in Brussels. His officials mentioned energy union as another topic on which the work done in the review could contribute reflections of value.

It is true that we need to wonder how we can move that interest from organisations in the private and public sectors and other Governments into the more popular public domain. I have no brilliant ideas on how to do that, but some of the businesses and NGOs that participated in the review are helping to disseminate their experience among their memberships. As has already been commented, media coverage has been relatively limited—but then the media on the whole only ever want to report sensationally bad things about the EU. The danger is that the value of the review will get overshadowed or squeezed out by the sloganeering of a possible referendum campaign, which would be a great pity.

I will mention a few of the themes that I felt were valuable in the review. The launch Command Paper in 2012 mentioned that,

“it is … important that the EU addresses the legitimate demands for greater accountability, transparency, efficiency and probity”.

In the light of the last few years, the contrast that the paper made between the EU and,

“the roots that sustain national democracies”,

may have been a bit complacent about the legitimacy of, for instance, Westminster. However, we need to look at questions of the EU’s legitimacy. Many people who do not really understand how their local council or town hall works, or how Westminster works, do not mind too much because they still think those are within their sphere of legitimacy. Unfortunately, the EU does not come into that category so it has to work even harder.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I do not accept that the EU is not democratic, because the European Parliament is directly elected, but for those legitimacy reasons we also need to bring in fully the national Parliaments. I was extremely disappointed when the European Commission did not respond in the right spirit to the yellow card put up by, I think, 11 national Parliaments to the European public prosecutor proposal. That was very arrogant of the Commission and extremely regrettable. Perhaps under the new Commission, that sort of arrogance will not be repeated.

The balance of competences review was particularly valuable in its discussion of subsidiarity and proportionality, and in its coverage of impact assessments and how we get better lines of accountability. Some other things were not covered very well, as I think was commented on. Enhanced co-operation, flexibility and inter-institutional relations, which were mentioned by the Minister yesterday, were not really covered and could have done with some attention. The paper on fundamental rights was very interesting, with a useful discussion on the value in particular of EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. That would mean that you would be able to take the EU to court when it tramples over rights.

When I was preparing for this debate and thinking of the legitimacy of the EU, one thing I read was the news that small cider and perry makers might have their excise duty break removed because it is seen as a contravention of state aid. I thought, “Must this really be the focus of a Brussels crackdown?”. If we really do not want to alienate people, given their attachment to the workings of Brussels, that does not seem to be going about things the right way.

I am running out of time so I cannot say anything about justice and home affairs, which is very close to my heart. I finish by mentioning that I felt that this report is very useful as a contribution to the ideas on reform, but it is a somewhat technocratic exercise. It is not the whole of the debate on the value of our membership of the EU. There is the question of how we prepare the EU for the pressing challenges to deliver prosperity and security for our 500 million citizens, and the influence that Europe’s voice can have in the world. The answer to that challenge inevitably goes beyond, and wider than, the balance of competences exercise. However, in its own right it is extremely useful.

20:35

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Falkner for initiating this useful debate. I also congratulate the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on having a meeting with the Minister for Europe, Mr David Lidington, on this subject as recently as yesterday. The Minister answered questions with great intelligence and wisdom but did not answer all the questions which were put to him, as the evidence will reveal in due course. That was almost inevitable, because the reports are so extensive in their coverage that it would have been impossible to reveal all the conclusions in that time.

When the exercise was launched, in mid-2012, it was expected, and indeed it was stated, that the review on who does what between the EU and the UK would form the basis of a United Kingdom bid to renegotiate the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It was also intended that it would inform a possible referendum on EU membership in 2017. In some ways, it has to be said, these objectives have not been met.

The Minister indicated that it was not feasible to have an overall analysis of the multiple volumes of the report, which were organised by different departments but not according to a particular structure; they vary from one to another. I understand that, although I would be much happier if the Government extracted from these reports the messages that have to be conveyed to the British public. The public are not sufficiently aware of what is going on in the European Union or of how our relationship with the institutions works. That could yet be an outcome of this series of inquiries. I hope that, after the election, there will be a reconsideration of these matters. No money was put aside to convey the messages of the reports to the general public. It scarcely sums up what the future policies of this country will be in respect of the European Union.

We have to recognise that, in many of the reports, there is no real conclusion. Many facts and many opinions are enunciated by those who gave evidence, but some of this is left up in the air. The report on the balance of competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union in respect of the EU budget illustrates this point very well. The operation of the multiannual financial framework has been advocated yet also criticised. The expenditure schemes are subject to different views among the different parties. There is different evidence: academic evidence; evidence from the devolved Governments in this country; evidence from Members of the European Parliament—evidence from all quarters. It is not surprising that there were not significant attempts to draw together the evidence.

What I think is missing from this review is what the Government think. Yesterday, the Minister, Mr David Lidington, was extremely cautious in making his points, so the case for change in the European Union was scarcely articulated.

I do not expect my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to come to any conclusions in the few minutes that he has to conclude this debate. It would also be, to some extent, untimely. We need an overall review of the evidence that has been given, to inform the public and enable them to know what the Government’s reaction to all this evidence is.

It seems sensible to use the review in the renegotiations on the relationship with the European Union. My personal view is that it would be sensible to have another convention on the future of Europe. I served on the previous convention, which percolated some of its ideas down through various treaties which my noble friend Lady Falkner mentioned. What was so striking about the convention was that it brought about a consensus. People started from different angles of vision, but they listened to each other. That sort of process should be reconsidered. It should not be concluded before the elections in Germany and France in 2017, but it could be started before then. The evidence from the reviews from the different departments could be put to other countries and other representatives at such a convention. It would enable, or stimulate, other countries to consider how they might evaluate the problems and the structures of the current situation. The work has been well done but it has not been concluded. We need an overview and we need the recommendations, in so far as they exist, to be made public, so that people will have a better understanding of how the European Union and the United Kingdom work together.

20:46

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I want to pick up briefly three themes: the European Union’s function to maintain peace in Europe; its task to assist the well-being of its citizens and their economies; and its external role of fostering international stability.

To achieve proper results, it is clear that the European Union’s competences should always be under scrutiny. Let alone at present, there is a case for that at regular intervals and at all times. It is also important that the performance and competences of its 28-state affiliation should be judged and reviewed in association with those of the Council of Europe’s 47-state affiliation.

Not least is this plain in considering the European Union’s function to maintain the peace of Europe. For the backbone of European peace is the consensus shared by Council of Europe member states on human rights and the rule of law; and the court’s ability, if need be, to uphold the rights of an individual citizen against a nation state. Until the Second World War, this would have been unthinkable. The fact that it no longer is, even if only symbolically, has exerted a powerful curb on nationalism and those of its policies which have led to European wars. Does my noble friend the Minister, therefore, agree that the European Union’s peacekeeping function and any adaptations of related competences must be closely allied to those of the Council of Europe?

Assistance to the well-being of citizens and their economies also requires the joint efforts of the European Union and the Council of Europe. We hear much about the democratic deficit: the alienation of people and voters from politicians and parliamentarians. Yet in the present Europe one great opportunity is that for grassroots democracy and the scope for flourishing regions and communities. Does my noble friend concur that this task is best accomplished by making full use of the respective competences of the European Union and Council of Europe together?

The same applies when fostering international stability; for this is done not just through trade and economic investment—the strengths of the European Union—but also through the moral authority and programmes of the Council of Europe.

Certainly, on all these fronts, whether internal or external to Europe, relevant adaptations to the European Union should be considered in the first place, as we rightly do today. For best results, however, the competences of these two complementary European institutions should be structured and reviewed together.

20:48

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for ensuring that this important debate has taken place. We are about to enter an election where the future of this country will be decided—not just domestically, but in terms of how we see our place in the world. The question we must ask is: are we going to pander to the hysterical, emotional and populist call to retreat from the EU, or are we going to take heed of the importance of the EU to our domestic economy and to our ability to have influence in the world?

What the balance of competences review has done has been to give us a comprehensive, thorough and balanced analysis of how the EU affects this country. Through analysing in detail 32 areas of policy in a systematic way, looking clearly to see if the principle of subsidiarity has been breached, the balance of competences review has given pro-Europeans valuable ammunition to tackle the sceptics with facts and figures. Labour will, of course, take these into account in its development of future EU policy when it is in government after May.

The publication of this study was one of the last gifts from William Hague to the country in his role as Foreign Secretary. When he took up the post he was not exactly known for his Euroenthusiasm but I am aware that the noble Lord opposite has steered the ship on this issue. We are grateful for his attention to detail on so many of these important issues. The European Union Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, is undertaking a review of the whole process relating to this review. We look forward to hearing the results of its deliberations.

While the reports on the various discrete areas of policy are thorough and give both positive and negative assessments of the relationship and its value to the UK, it is notable that there is no overall assessment or conclusion as to whether the EU as a whole is good for the UK or not. For example, there are no recommendations and no clear guidance on the possible repatriation of powers. The result is that there has been little or no coverage of the review which has been perceived by many as a dull, technical exercise. This is a shame because there are some important and clear lessons for the UK to learn. It would probably be overoptimistic of us to expect anything other than that when the facts do not chime with the views of many British newspapers. The Leveson inquiry made it clear that the UK media often make up stories about the EU. Debate on this issue would have caused further ructions within the Conservative Party.

I should like to ask the Minister what his department or, indeed, any other department has done to publish and publicise the review reports and their findings. How much money has been put aside for this? If no money has been put aside, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to engage with the public on these issues if there is no effort to publicise the results of the review?

What have we found out as a result of the review? I should like to pick out three points. One issue which the review has highlighted is how Europeanisation is often a reflection of the globalised pressures on the UK or takes on board the wider, western multilateral efforts in relation to trade and foreign affairs. It is also clear that universities in the UK are particularly enthusiastic about EU membership and what they have gained through the various research programmes where they have notably punched well above their weight.

The report on the single market focuses on article 114 of the EU treaty and concludes very clearly that our markets are so closely integrated that it is not possible to establish a clear division between member state and EU competences in the single market area. In the opinion of most, if not all, observers, integration has brought appreciable economic benefits to the EU and hence to the UK. It has also spread the UK’s liberal model of policy-making more widely across the EU. But there is a recognition that it has brought with it constraints on policy-making of varying kinds and a regulatory framework which some industries handle better than others. There is recognition that the EU could strengthen its own enforcement efforts, as could member states.

It is impossible here to list all the benefits and disbenefits of the single market. It is worth noting that, in 2005, Her Majesty’s Treasury estimated that trade between member states was boosted by 38% through membership of the EU and by a further 9% because of the single market programme, with only 5% of trade diverted from non-member countries.

What was the point of the review? It was partly to paper over divisions on Europe within the coalition—to kick the European issue into the long grass. It was also surely in part to inform a possible renegotiation relationship between the UK and the EU, one that reflects the UK’s national interest. The report provides a very good base from which to work in any renegotiation discussion.

Labour has a very clear view on what we would like to see in that renegotiation. We will seek to reform the EU budget and will initiate a zero-based review of spending on EU agencies. We will seek to reform welfare so that people who come to work in our country have to contribute before they are eligible for benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance. We will close loopholes in rules for agency workers so that they do not allow unscrupulous employers to undercut wages and conditions. We will work with Europe to give national parliaments more of a say in EU policy-making as part of bigger reforms of the way Brussels operates and the way Parliament scrutinises EU business.

Where, however, is the detail from the Conservative Party? It is worth asking why the review was published so near the election and therefore cannot fulfil one of the original purposes of the review, which was to promote a calm and informed debate on the EU. The balance of competences review stands in stark contrast to the ill informed, populist nonsense spouted by UKIP and Tory Eurosceptics. It might have been just as useful to have had a competences review of the coalition’s relationship with the EU over the past five years. The mixed messages, the tantrums, the vetoes, and the failure to build alliances have all done little to endear us to our closest allies in the EU. There was the 2011 veto, which achieved nothing, but which upset our fellow EU member states; Cameron’s failure to see that an increased bill from the EU was coming; his utter humiliation over the nomination of Jean-Claude Juncker; his insistence on pulling the Conservatives out of the EPP and reducing their political influence; his failure to present a comprehensive and clear view of what he wants to see in a reformed European Union. If this exercise was an attempt to pacify Tory Back-Benchers, it has back-fired. They do not want an objective assessment of the usefulness of EU— they want out, irrespective of the damage to our economy.

The question is: will the public and political parties be swayed by fact or emotion on the EU issue? If the public can be persuaded by fact, this will be a useful report. My hunch, however, is that, as Gordon Brown suggested yesterday, we need to appeal not just to the head but to the heart on the EU, and we need to make the emotional and patriotic case to remain a part of that great institution.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his work as Minister during this period and for injecting a note of sanity into the issue of the EU within the coalition.

20:58

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it is very good to hear a number of complimentary remarks at the outset of this debate. However, it sounded rather as if I was about to retire from the House and everything else as well. I do not intend to retire yet, thank you. Perhaps, like others, I hope to do so when I reach my 80th birthday—that is a hint to various other people who are not here.

This was a coalition exercise. It was agreed in the coalition agreement, and it was no secret that the two parties disagreed and had different approaches to Europe. This was set up as a means to find some common ground in the detailed evidence as to what stakeholders thought. We agreed that we would not produce policy recommendations at the end, because that would have been difficult—the two parties have widely differing approaches, or at least we do from the right wing of the Conservative Party. We therefore set out to provide an evidence basis for a more informed debate on the European Union. In that respect I think that we have been successful. I pay tribute to my Conservative colleagues in this exercise—David Lidington, who chaired the ministerial Star Chamber throughout, and Mark Hoban and then Mark Harper, who also took part. I thank the good-quality teams from the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office who supported us throughout.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that we did not leave publication until the last minute. The reports came out in four groups at six-monthly intervals, so this has been a two-year process. We are grateful that the weight of evidence has grown as we have gone on. Interest among stakeholders has therefore been sustained throughout that two-year period. There were some 2,300 submissions, and we held a whole range of meetings and seminars—across the United Kingdom, in Brussels and elsewhere—with substantial participation from the Community institutions, and other member states and governments.

Sadly, we heard rather little from the Eurosceptic side. I must, as I always do, pay a real compliment to the quality of the evidence produced by Open Europe throughout the whole process. The TaxPayers’ Alliance loyally put in a large amount of evidence, which was not, I think, always as expert as it hoped it would be. I said to one of my Conservative colleagues at one stage, “Why do we not have more evidence from the committed Eurosceptic side?”, to which he replied, “For heaven’s sake, William, these people are not really interested in evidence. It’s belief; it’s faith; it’s prejudice”.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My noble friend will, of course, be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was meant to speak in this debate, but then decided he was not going to. I made the effort to go through almost all the reports, including the parts on those people’s pet subjects—agriculture, the budget, fisheries and so on. Does my noble friend agree that they did not contribute a shred of evidence on the issues that they continue to go on about in this House and outside?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is exactly the point. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, being, it seems to me, cavalier with the evidence on many occasions in this House in recent years. I am sorry that he is not here, but I am not entirely surprised that he is not prepared to stand up and argue the evidence carefully with others when a lot of careful evidence is in place.

Following the slightly partisan speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I can tell her that one of my roles as this process went on was to keep the Labour leadership informed of what we were doing and encourage them to engage. I have to say that most of my interlocutors in the Labour Party were hiding in the long grass themselves. I welcome the Labour Party’s final commitment to the importance of staying in the European Union. It has been a certain time coming over the past three years, but it is very good that the Labour position is now clear. We look forward to the Labour Party spelling out its approach in rather more detail.

This exercise provides the basis for a reform agenda. We have the contributions of a wide range of businesses and business organisations, academics and various other bodies. It was interesting to me that the most negative evidence from business came from small business associations few of whose members export—those who therefore, obviously, have the least interest in the European single market. Some seem to have the impression that if we got rid of European regulation we would have no regulation at all, without understanding that we would then need to have national regulation, or to accept other international frameworks for regulation.

We have all learned a great deal from this process. Of the consistent themes that have come out of it, the first was the idea that although we talk about completing the single market, we shall never do that, because the single market changes as we go along. We did not have to worry about a digital single market 20 years ago, whereas now it is one of the central issues with which we are concerned. As new technologies and new services develop, clearly we must continue to move on.

Secondly, the European Union is not just the international body to which we belong and do not want to belong to, it is embedded in an intricate network of international organisations such as the OECD, the Bank for International Settlements and the World Health Organization, of which the European Union is almost a regional organisation. If Britain were to leave the European Union, that network of international organisations would still constrain us. Globalisation means that Britain has to pool a great deal of its sovereignty, and the European Union provides a very good way of sharing that within a relatively transparent and friendly network.

We also discovered—this was a common theme across many of the reports—that the Commission has often been much too enthusiastic in proposing legislation without being sufficiently concerned about its impact, implementation or enforcement. I am happy to say that that is beginning to change. I hope that we have contributed to that. Impact assessments are the flavour of the year in Brussels, both in the European Parliament and the Commission, and Frans Timmermans and others are very clear that the Commission should be careful about the weight of the new proposals it puts through.

Another common theme concerned the tendency of the Court of Justice of the European Union to support integrationist cases and to pay insufficient attention to subsidiarity and proportionality. I think that is also changing, although I may say that, of the 32 reports, the report on subsidiarity and proportionality is, I suspect, the most widely read in other countries as this is a key topic which many of us do not fully understand the European Union has to take fully on board.

The reports stand by themselves. We did not intend to have policy conclusions; they are to be dug out to inform the debate and to make sure that those who deny the situation as we have found it are properly corrected in debate. We found that the review feeds into the domestic debate, but it is bounded by time. In two or three years’ time, attitudes will be different because the policy priorities will be different. Therefore, I am not sure that we necessarily want to embed all this in stone. However, we hope that it provides a basis for what may or may not be a referendum debate in 2017.

One report—the fisheries report—provided an alternative model that might be used on competence, involving European regulation or less European regulation. Perhaps we might have tried that out in one or two other reports, but the evidence that came in did not support it.

I think that the least anticipated outcome of the review was the rising level of interest and engagement across other member states. It has been very impressive. For example, I am told that the French department of transport is now using the transport report and that it is one of the things new recruits read. There are a whole set of discussions. On various occasions I was detailed to phone Ministers in other Governments and was happily surprised to discover that senior Ministers in other Governments had at least read the summaries of the reports. There have been contributions from a number of other Governments. The French parliament’s Senate committee is now conducting its own review. I could go on at length about how many other Governments have drawn lessons from what they see as a particularly valuable and detailed review of the current state of competences, which feeds into the British Government’s reform agenda.

I stress that the reform agenda is a continuing process. Reform is not something that you start and then finish. As we have operated over the last three years, the fisheries regime has been changed quite substantially. The budget has continued to change in emphasis, with more going to scientific research and less going to agriculture. We are in no doubt that we will continue to press that reform agenda.

The Foreign Secretary has so far visited 24 of the other 27 capitals and he is discussing the UK’s reform ideas and finding a lot of like-minded Governments who have similar approaches to strengthening the role of national Parliaments, making sure that new regulations are entirely justified and investigating the subsidiarity and proportionality issues. They ask: do we need to do this at the European level or can we leave sufficient flexibility at the national level? This has fed into the British debate, the wider European debate and the Commission’s agenda in terms of the need for better consultation, more attention to impact assessment and all of that area.

I am clear that this has been an extremely valuable exercise. I will say in passing to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the relationship between the European Union and the Council of Europe is a matter for another time. The Council of Europe, which includes Russia, is not at the moment in the easiest state to deal with peacekeeping issues and other such matters. The EU itself, for security reasons, is becoming even more valuable for the UK than before.

What we have done, over the last year and more, as these reports have been absorbed in other national capitals, is to make progress on our continuing reform agenda. We look forward to doing that, whoever becomes the next Government—whichever parties form the next Government. I have said to some of my Conservative friends that I expect we might have to be a caretaker Government for some time in May, while the Conservatives and the SNP negotiate.

There is a basis here for an intelligent discussion. We have made an impression, not only on the debate here, on the readiness of Whitehall and on the willingness and expertise of the various business associations that have fed in, but we have also affected the debate in Brussels and around the European Union. That seems to me to be a great success and worth doing in itself. I am very glad that the European Affairs Committee will take this on from here.

House adjourned at 9.12 pm.