House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of the effect of the EU referendum on the UK’s diplomatic relations (a) within the EU and (b) globally.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Other Governments respect the fact that this is a decision for the British people. Our EU partners agree that many of the reforms that we have secured in the renegotiation will benefit Europe as a whole, and more and more of our friends and allies around the world are telling us that they value this country’s membership of the European Union.
Mr Speaker
Order. It would be a courtesy to the House to tell Members what I think Front Benchers know—namely, that the Foreign Secretary is away on ministerial business.
Mr Lidington
I apologise for not doing so at the start. My right hon. Friend is in the far east on the final leg of a tour covering several countries.
Mr Speaker
We are grateful, and we look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s imminent return.
David Warburton
Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the outcome of the referendum in June, the threats we face mean that our bilateral intelligence-sharing relationships with other European countries will remain vital, and that, working with those outside the EU, European relationships will continue unimpaired to ensure we remain as safe as we can be from external threats?
Mr Lidington
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to maintain strong bilateral relationships in intelligence sharing between the relevant agencies here, in Europe and around the world, while strengthening the intelligence sharing and sharing of information between our police forces. The recent renegotiation confirmed that responsibility for national security rests solely with national Governments, but EU membership enhances our ability to co-operate with other European countries to combat crime and terrorism and keep the British people safe.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What contingency planning is under way with our European and NATO allies for a new provocation from President Putin after our referendum? Putin is of course hoping and praying that Britain votes to leave the European Union and, as the Minister will know, there is a widespread view in security and foreign policy circles that Putin is planning just such a fresh provocation after the referendum, whatever the result.
Mr Lidington
Given the recent history of the Kremlin’s activities, not only in Ukraine and Georgia but the pressure brought to bear on the Baltic states and the use of the energy weapon against central European countries, we are right to be on our guard. This will be a matter of prime concern at the forthcoming Warsaw NATO summit, and it is important that NATO is prepared for hybrid aggression from the Kremlin that might involve information, the use of energy and the use of soft power, as much as conventional hard power.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Our EU partners will see the EU referendum as a question of our solidarity with them. What lesson will our Italian partners draw from our lack of absolute solidarity with the Italians over the case of Giulio Regeni?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend will want to know that the Minister for the Middle East recently saw the Egyptian ambassador about this case and emphasised that the British Government want to see a full and thorough investigation. Given Mr Regeni’s nationality, the Italian Government and authorities are in the lead, but we remain in very close contact with them and are giving every possible assistance to try to secure an outcome that will give some answers to Mr Regeni’s family.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
When the Prime Minister described European discussions as “abrasive” and “difficult”, he was not talking about other European countries; he was not talking about debate across the Floor of the House; he was not even talking about debate within the Conservative party. Rather, he was talking about discussions within his own Cabinet. What does that fractious disunity do to the credibility of this Government’s foreign policy in Europe and beyond?
Mr Lidington
Our counterparts around Europe are robust democracies and they recognise that this country’s membership of the European Union has divided politicians of all parties for very many years, and that it is possible for people on the right and the left to come to opposite points of view. What the Prime Minister has secured—a firm Government position to support our continued membership of the European Union but with licence given to Ministers to express their dissent in a private capacity—is a fair outcome.
Alex Salmond
Does the Minister not feel that the robust democracies in Europe and beyond—not to mention the people of this country—are crying out for a debate on our future in Europe that rises above the internal divisions in the Conservative party?
Mr Lidington
That is precisely what the Government are leading at the moment. I think that at the end of this week, when the Electoral Commission designates the two campaign organisations for remain and leave, we will indeed see that debate continue, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his party will wish to play a constructive part in it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
There has just been a referendum in the Netherlands, where the people overwhelmingly rejected the extension of privileges to Ukraine and its membership of the European Union. How will our Government recalibrate our policy on that?
Mr Lidington
The Dutch vote was a consultative referendum on a Dutch parliamentary decision to ratify the European Union-Ukraine association agreement. It is a matter entirely for the Dutch Government and the Dutch Parliament. The United Kingdom remains a strong supporter of the efforts being made by Ukraine to defend its national sovereignty and integrity in the face of Russian aggression, and to implement much-needed, far-reaching political and economic reforms that will benefit everyone in Ukraine.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the only thing that Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Vladimir Putin have in common is that they want Britain to leave the European Union? Does that not say a lot about the consequences of our possible departure from the EU?
Mr Lidington
There are indeed some strange bedfellows in that particular camp, and none of those three gentlemen is one from whom I would want to take advice about where the best interests of the British people lie.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of recent steps to reduce migration to Europe through the western Balkans.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Government believe that the EU-Turkey agreement will make a genuine difference to the migration flows into Europe and through the western Balkans. The plan disrupts the smugglers’ business model, and breaks the link between getting into a boat and settling in Europe. We continue to monitor the impact on the ground and help countries in the region to manage the pressures that they currently face.
Karen Lumley
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to help Greece to manage the pressures on its borders and avoid the distressing scenes that we have witnessed in the western Balkans?
Mr Lidington
Yes. To date, we have allocated more than £19 million to Greece for urgent aid such as food, water and medical assistance. We are also supporting organisations that are helping the Greek Government to build their capacity to manage arrivals and monitor borders. So far this year, for example, we have offered 139 months’ worth of screening and debriefing expertise to Frontex to help it to beef up the capacity of the Greeks to manage the very large number of asylum claims that they will need to process.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I understand that the British Government have also contributed eight judges, but I also understand that the shortfall in expertise amounts to 2,500 staff. What more can the Government do to support the Greeks?
Mr Lidington
We continue to consider whether there are ways in which we can help further. We are not members of the Schengen group, so under the group’s rules we are barred from providing some forms of assistance. However, the Prime Minister talked to Prime Minister Tsipras very recently about what more we could do, and we continue to discuss with Greece and our other European partners how best we can help to manage the pressures on Greece. It is in all our interests that European countries come together to manage the crisis in the Aegean and ensure that migrants are treated humanely but also fairly, and that if they do not have well-founded asylum claims, they can be returned.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
If a migrant claims asylum in Greece and then makes his or her way to the United Kingdom, we are unable to send that individual back to Greece because the Greek asylum system is deemed unfit for purpose. What steps is the Minister taking with his EU counterparts to ensure that Greece brings its asylum and detention systems up to the requisite standard?
Mr Lidington
Anyone in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes who was not a Greek national would need a visa to enter the United Kingdom from the countries to which asylum seekers are going from Greece. The whole purpose of the EU-Turkey agreement and of the assistance we are giving to Greece is to manage the situation in the region so that we do not face the pressures he describes.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Thousands of Yazidi women who have been kidnapped, tortured and raped by ISIS cannot come through the Balkans and are unable to access the medical and psychological support they need in the region. Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage our EU partners to follow the example of Germany by admitting some of those women so that they can access the medical support they need? Will he also talk to the Home Office about allowing some of those women access to Britain so that we too can assist them?
Mr Lidington
Each asylum claim in Greece has to be considered according to international law and judged on that basis. The United Kingdom is giving strong financial and political support to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, which are bearing the brunt of supporting the very large numbers of refugees coming from Syria, including the Yazidi women about whom the hon. Lady is particularly concerned. She is right to be concerned about those people, but the best way to offer them the help they need is to ensure that the money that was promised at the recent London conference on Syria is provided to give them assistance in the first safe country they get to, rather than encouraging them to make a perilous journey across the Aegean sea in the hands of the people smugglers.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
3. What discussions he has had with other members of the international coalition on improving diplomatic co-ordination of steps to tackle Daesh.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Britain has helped to create the global coalition against Daesh that now includes more than 60 countries. The last meeting of the smaller group of countries, which the Foreign Secretary and I attended, took place in Rome in January this year.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for his answer. As reports emerged of the genocide being committed by the Nazis, the allied Governments made a co-ordinated joint statement on 17 December 1942 to condemn those crimes and pledge to bring those responsible to justice at the end of hostilities. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that co-ordinating a similar statement today would be appropriate, given the evidence of similar crimes being committed by Daesh against Christians and other religious minorities?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. The regular images on our screens confirm the scale and the barbarity of Daesh’s inhumane treatment of minorities. We are now witnessing systematic and horrific attacks against Christians, Yazidis and others, based on their religious beliefs or their ethnicity. I too believe that acts of genocide have taken place but, as the Prime Minister has said, genocide is a matter of legal rather than political interpretation. We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury. Such matters are determined first in the international courts and in the United Nations Security Council, but we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account appropriately.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Daesh poses a particular threat to civilians in Syria, as does the ongoing besieging of communities across that country. With the Syrian regime continuing to block United Nations trucks, less aid is now reaching those communities than before the cessation of hostilities. Does the welcome news on Sunday that the World Food Programme was able to deliver 20 tonnes of aid to Deir ez-Zor in a successful airdrop demonstrate that the Foreign Office, along with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, should now re-examine the possibility of airdrops to all besieged communities in Syria?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Lady does in this particular area, and to her knowledge of these matters. She is right to recognise the extra work that is being done to ensure that aid gets through to those difficult areas. This is one of our focuses as the cessation of hostilities begins to endure. We must ensure that those who have been caught up in this horrendous war are able to receive the aid that they require.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
22. Tackling Daesh online is as important as tackling the menace on the battlefield. Together with the international community, what more can the Government do to ensure that social media is closed down when it poisons the minds of young people and opened up to promote tolerance, fairness and opportunity?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difference between Daesh and al-Qaeda or others before it is that this and future groups will use the internet to recruit, to fund themselves and to encourage people to fight. That is why we formed the coalition’s strategic communications working group. In London, we have formed a cell that shares best practice to ensure that we stop the movement of funds and fighters and that we challenge the poisonous ideology that Daesh puts out online.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Yesterday, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors met and carried out an assessment of its ability to face terrorism, stating that its capability to deal with the international terror threat was imperfect. Will the Minister indicate whether he will host a conference with Garda officers and draw up a plan to ensure that the threat does not permeate our border?
Mr Ellwood
That is a little bit off my beat, but it is something that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, the Home Office and I should want to move forward. We have been at the forefront of sharing best practice in recognising when extremism starts to embed itself, whether in universities, prisons or elsewhere, but if lessons are to be learned and if co-ordination can be better, we should absolutely look into that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The international peace agreement is effectively dead as a result of recent Russian action in Aleppo. What further action can the group of countries that my hon. Friend mentioned in answer to an earlier question take to tackle Daesh more effectively?
Mr Ellwood
I understand that my hon. Friend considers these matters closely, but I do not agree with his analysis. Russia is playing an important role in the cessation of hostilities given its influence over the Assad regime. He is right to identify the consequences and challenges facing Aleppo, which is Syria’s largest city by some margin. There has been an awful lot of frustration at the lack of humanitarian aid, which Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy, is focusing on to ensure that support can get in.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Daesh is trying hard to radicalise sub-Saharan Africa as well as the Maghreb. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that east African countries, such as Kenya, and the nations of the Sahel—Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Chad—do not fall prey to this malignant cancer?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on not only the challenges of Daesh in Iraq and in Syria, and we are also familiar with what is happening in Libya. Further afield, unless we are able to work and encourage local police and forces and local capability to recognise extremism, we will see it permeate other places, such as sub-Saharan Africa. That is exactly what we are doing with our local programmes in each of those countries to ensure that they have the strength and capability to recognise when extremist groups, such as Daesh, al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram, are trying to penetrate their areas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately, progress is rather slow today. I am keen to accommodate as many questioners as possible. A short sentence by way of question and a short sentence by way of reply will usually suffice.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the effect of the EU referendum on UK trade with countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Government believe that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union. Were we to leave, we should expect to lose our preferential access to not only the European single market, but the 53 markets outside the EU with which the EU has free trade agreements.
Richard Graham
The EU has preferential trade agreements with 53 countries, including high-growth Asian nations such as Vietnam and Korea, where I believe the benefits have boosted British trade by some £2 billion a year, and talks with Indonesia and the Philippines start soon. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether we would easily be able to replicate those 53 agreements in the case of Brexit and how long that would take?
Mr Lidington
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the ASEAN—Association of Southeast Asian Nations—region? I agree with him that the record shows that alternative trade agreements would take years to negotiate and there would be no guarantee whatsoever that we could obtain terms that were anything like as good as those that we enjoy through the European Union today.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Conservative Members do not like to hear this, but will the Minister confirm that he listened to the wise words of David Miliband on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning? Is what he said not absolutely true: our international trading partners are already postponing decisions on investment in this country and ceasing to hire in this country?
Mr Lidington
I missed that interview this morning, but I do agree with what Mr Miliband says. What I hear direct from businesses in this country is that they are concerned about the uncertainty, that some have indeed postponed decisions and that many more would consider reducing the levels of employment or of investment in this country if there were a decision to quit the European Union.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister really believe the guff and propaganda he is spouting?
Mr Lidington
I would point my hon. Friend to the fact that the Government’s case—that we are better off remaining in the EU—is supported by the overwhelming majority of business leaders and of trade union leaders in this country. I just wish he and others who advocate leaving the EU would, for once, come up with a coherent and consistent description of the alternative.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
As we know, the Government are in favour of the European partnership, trade and the benefits of remaining in the EU. The EU referendum provides the opportunity to display exactly that, so when will the Minister be inviting and, we hope, welcoming President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel to the UK, with the strong campaign message, “Shoulder to shoulder. It is better for the UK to remain in the EU”? Will he welcome and invite them?
Mr Lidington
Both Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande have made it clear that they believe the United Kingdom contributes a huge amount to the political and economic weight of the EU in the world, and they want to see us vote to stay within the EU. They are also clear that this is a decision for the British electorate to take, and they respect that fact.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In answer to the Minister’s question, our vision of the UK outside the EU is very simply that we would be like most other free trading nations around the world: trading as we see fit. I suggest the Government are playing with fire, because the more they wade in in favour of remaining during this referendum debate, the more the referendum will be seen as being unfair, and that could create further uncertainty, particularly if the vote is narrowly for staying.
Mr Lidington
The Government are not going to be silent or neutral on an issue that we believe is central to the future prosperity and security of the United Kingdom. I am glad that my hon. Friend seems to believe, on leaving, we should continue to be part of the European single market, but he is yet to say how that would involve not having to accept freedom of movement, agreement to all European rules although we would have no say or vote on them, and contributing to the EU budget. That is the situation Norway and Switzerland are in today.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Given the claims some have made about possible free trade deals outside the EU, is the Minister for Europe aware of any major trading partner that wishes the UK to leave the EU?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The key point here is of course that we have a free trade agreement with the European Union, as we have with other nation states. There is a question that has to be answered: why are so many of the states that have said we should stay in the EU the ones that the other side seem to think we can have some sort of agreement with?
Mr Lidington
The consistent message that we hear from friends, allies and partners, not just in Europe, but in the Commonwealth and around the world, is that they want to see us stay in the EU. I am still waiting for the advocates of quitting to come up with an example of a friendly international leader who supports their case.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
There are more cars manufactured in one city in the north of England in one month than that great car-producing country Italy makes in a year, and the vast majority of those cars are exported to Europe—and that is just one city in one region. We see that being replicated right across the country. Early assessment suggests that any post-Brexit deal would place a tariff of up to 10% on every single car manufactured in the UK and sent to Europe, and that, over time, that would damage both manufacturing and jobs in the UK. Will the Minister confirm the possibility of a tariff of at least 10% being placed on every car manufactured in the UK?
Mr Lidington
That is indeed the case. If we were outside the single market, and World Trade Organisation rules applied, we could expect that 10% tariff on every car exported to the rest of Europe from the United Kingdom, which is why exit would be such a bad deal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I made an appeal for a speed-up a few moments ago, but unfortunately, to put it bluntly, the Member concerned made a mess of it and did not speed up. We must now speed up.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
5. What steps the Government are taking to support other countries in tackling honour-based violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Tackling violence against women and girls—including so-called honour killings—and the promotion of women’s rights remain central to UK foreign policy objectives. We work closely with the most affected countries, including with the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Jake Berry
I support the work that the UK Government have done with the Government of Cameroon in tackling the abhorrent practice of breast ironing. Does the Minister agree that unless we seek to find ways for these so-called honour-based crimes to be prosecuted in their country of origin, we will struggle to pursue prosecutions here in the United Kingdom?
Mr Ellwood
I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he does in this area. He has called debates in Westminster Hall and in other forums to ensure that we recognise the important role that Britain and the international community must play in relation to female genital mutilation and breast ironing. As he says, those are abhorrent crimes, and we are working with other Governments in countries where such practices exist.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Karma Nirvana based in Headingley in my constituency does amazing work highlighting this so-called honour-based violence, which is a scandalous practice. It trains police officers. Will the Minister tell me what he is doing to work with foreign Government to ensure that they are also training their police forces?
Mr Ellwood
We have doubled our commitment to human rights and increased the Magna Carta Fund to promote better understanding of these issues. What we find is that states have the laws in position, but they do not apply them. That is where we need to work closely with Governments to make sure that they follow through the laws that are already in existence.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of a two-state solution in the Middle East.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in February and I remain clear that a two-state solution is the only credible way to resolve the conflict. We continue to work closely with international partners to preserve the viability of the two-state solution and to encourage a return to meaningful negotiation.
David Mowat
In 2016, there has been an acceleration of evictions and property destruction on the west bank. By these continuing actions, the Israeli Government are showing complete contempt for the notion of a two-state solution—a fact recognised by President Carter. When will the Government update UK policy to reflect reality on the ground in this area?
Mr Ellwood
During my meetings with the Deputy Foreign Minister and indeed with the Prime Minister, I found that they remained committed to the two-state solution, but my hon. Friend is right to recognise that measures are being taken and events are taking place that seem to take us in another direction. We need to ensure that people are able to come back to the table, and that we are able to make progress. There is no other solution to this. We cannot continue with the status quo.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Hezbollah is constructing a base in Syria to fire Iranian ballistic missiles into Israel. How seriously does the Minister regard that?
Mr Ellwood
Again, the hon. Lady highlights the challenges that the region faces. We need to ensure that we work with the international coalitions to prevent such events from taking place. Iran is starting to take incremental steps towards greater responsibility in the region. Unless it is able to control Hezbollah and have an influence, we will see that this nuclear deal will mean little.
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
There have recently been two initiatives in the region: the extension of fishing rights for Gazan fisherman with Israeli co-operation, and the naming of a basketball tournament after a terrorist who killed 36 people, including 12 children. Which of those two initiatives does the Minister think is more likely to bring about a two-state solution?
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend highlights the dilemma that we face. We need grassroots initiatives on a low level such as extension of fishing rights, for which I have pressed for some time. Oil and gas reserves can be tapped into off Gaza, which will also help the economy. At the same time, basketball courts and, indeed, schools and streets are being named after terrorists, which does not suggest that the Palestinians are as serious as they should be.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister will know that Israel is demolishing Palestinian homes and other structures at three times the rate at which it did so last year. I was in the region last week, with the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), and Lord Warner, and we saw that for ourselves. Given that a number of these structures are EU-supported and EU-funded, what are the Government going to do not simply to express concern but to hold Israel to account? What mechanisms are available to do so?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman highlights a challenge that we face. Britain has been working closely with Israel to change the approach that Israelis have taken on administrative detention. We have also funded and facilitated independent reports on the challenges that we face, and I raised this matter with the Deputy Foreign Minister, Tzipi Hotovely. I will continue to press Israel to move forward. Again, this takes us back —it is a retrograde step.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Will the Minister tell me if he managed to visit—
Mr Speaker
Question 7 would be a good start. No more today about the Israelis or Palestinians—the next question is about the Chagossians.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
7. What progress his Department has made on allowing Chagossian people to return to the Chagos Islands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
This is much more familiar territory for me.
Officials met over 500 Chagossians in their communities in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles. The public consultation we published in January received over 800 responses. I recognise that Chagossians have urged us to announce a decision soon, and we very much hope to do so.
Dr Mathias
Does the Minister agree that the £60 million estimate for the resettlement of the Chagos islanders, at 0.002% of the international development budget, is a price that the Government must pay this year so that the Chagos islanders can return home? Every day they are not allowed to do so is a day of shame for this country.
James Duddridge
Perhaps I might outline for the House some of the costs. We estimate that the initial costs would range from £55 million for a 50-person pilot on Diego Garcia to £256 million for a 1,500-person resettlement on Diego Garcia and the outer islands. In addition, operating costs would range from £5 million to £18.5 million a year on a potentially open-ended and escalating basis.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commit that financial resource, which is desperately needed, to recognise the human rights of this group of people who have suffered for so long under many different Governments?
James Duddridge
Following the detailed KPMG report and subsequent consultation, Her Majesty’s Government are looking closely at the matter. The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not come to a conclusion at the Dispatch Box, but go through due process, and I will try to do so as quickly as possible.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
8. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU, Africa and the middle east on steps to tackle the refugee crisis in the middle east.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Ministers have frequent discussions with both EU and non-EU partners about migration and refugees. Our focus is on securing a durable solution to the crisis which tackles the causes of migration as well as the consequences, and we continue to play a leading role in that work.
Chris Philp
The Libyan Government recently requested help to prevent illegal migrants from departing from their coast. When does the Minister think we will be in a position to begin returning those intercepted in the Med to the north African coast, rather than allowing them to make landfall in the EU?
Mr Lidington
We are ready to respond positively to requests for support and assistance from the new Libyan Government to tackle the criminal gangs of people smugglers and prevent tragic deaths at sea. We have not yet had a specific request for assistance on tackling migration as my hon. Friend described, but we are ready to take action if we receive such a request.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
21. What is the Minister’s current assessment of political progress in Tunisia, and what are the British Government doing to support the progress there? I do not mind if the Minister with responsibility for the middle east answers.
Mr Lidington
We continue to support the democratic evolution of Tunisia, and we are working actively to support the Tunisian authorities to ensure that they have control over their borders so that there can be checks against the risks of terrorists moving across borders and in order to disrupt the work of people smugglers.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
As we successfully engage Daesh in Syria and northern Iraq, what assessment has the Minister made of the threat of Daesh moving to Libya?
Mr Lidington
It is a very serious threat indeed. That is why we give such a high priority to international work to establish a proper system of government in Libya and very much welcome the work that has led to the creation of the Government of national accord. We are working actively with European and wider international partners to ensure that that new Government get the support that they need.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Many on the Opposition Benches strongly agree that there should be a strategy in which the UK is involved to strengthen countries in order to stop their people wanting to flee. However, far more should be done by the UK to allow more people in, and one process would strengthen the other. Does the Minister agree?
Mr Lidington
No. We have given a commitment, on which we are delivering, to resettle 20,000 vulnerable Syrian refugees from camps in the region during the lifetime of this Parliament. Let us not forget that we also pledged £2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance to support Syrian refugees, giving them help in the regions where they are present and trying to deter them from taking the appalling risk of putting themselves in the hands of the people smugglers.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
9. What discussions his Department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on employment.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed EU. More British people are in work than ever before, and nine out of 10 people in work in this country are UK nationals.
Mr Hanson
Airbus, which is based near my constituency, employs 15,000 people directly, has 100,000 people in associated businesses and has taken the unprecedented step of writing to all its employees urging them to vote yes to stay in Europe, because it says that
“we…don’t know what ‘out’ looks like.”
Will the Minister endorse that decision and tell the House what “out” looks like?
Mr Lidington
Airbus is typical of a large number of advanced manufacturing companies that are based across national borders within Europe but benefit from the European market, and which also give business opportunities to a host of small enterprises through their supply chains. That reinforces my view that it would be a severe blow to employment and hopes of growth for this country to withdraw from the EU.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Given the cross-departmental nature of the question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister could very helpfully agree to go before the Liaison Committee to deal with all these cross-departmental questions?
Mr Lidington
The Prime Minister agreed with the Liaison Committee that he should make three appearances during 2016. The next one is scheduled to take place before the summer recess. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also been at this Dispatch Box on many occasions to answer questions about European policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has taken ample advantage of the opportunity provided by those events.
Mr Speaker
I doubt that that will satisfy the Liaison Committee, but I note what the Minister says.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is not just those in employment, but pensioners who would suffer the consequences of Brexit. What can the Minister say about any British pensioners living in Europe who may be caught up in the “frozen pensions” scandal if we leave the European Union?
Mr Lidington
It is the case that British pensioners and other expatriate UK citizens who are resident in other EU member states get certain rights and benefits as a consequence of our EU membership. We cannot guarantee that in the event of a British withdrawal, the negotiations on exit would lead to those rights and benefits being retained.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
In the Minister’s publicly funded glossy brochure—I have a copy here—which claims to set out the facts, the Government state:
“Our EU membership magnifies the UK’s ability to get its way on the issues we care about.”
Will my right hon. Friend explain how that squares with the fact that the UK has been outvoted every time it has voted against an EU measure—72 times in total, and 40 of those defeats under this Government?
Mr Lidington
I suggest that my hon. Friend checks the footnotes to the leaflet, which have been published online so that everybody can see the basis on which those statements are made. We have been successful in roughly 87% of votes in the Council of Ministers, and most outside observers say that we have a better track record than most other member states in getting our own way.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Given that after 40 years the European Union has still not managed to negotiate a trade deal with the United States of America, surely if we left and regained control of settling our own trade deals, we would be able to make trade deals much faster than the EU.
Mr Lidington
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend speaks for that faction of the Brexit camp that supports the transatlantic free trade agreement, because not everybody on his side of the argument does. The United States, through its chief negotiator and the head of its chamber of commerce, has made it clear that it is interested in a deal with 500 million people, the biggest market in the world, but not terribly interested in giving priority to a deal with a country of just 65 million people.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Yemen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The level of fighting in Yemen has reduced in recent weeks, and I am pleased to welcome the cessation of hostilities, which began on 10 April.
Carolyn Harris
We finally have a fragile ceasefire in the region, but not before thousands have been killed and millions displaced. There have been wide accusations of serious war crimes. Will the British Government now finally support a full investigation into the allegations?
Mr Ellwood
I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the cessation of hostilities. The peace talks will begin on 18 April in Kuwait. A number of organisations have been created, including the Yemeni national independent commission of inquiry, which is the appropriate body to look into human rights issues in Yemen. The Saudis have themselves organised their own investigative committee in order to analyse and put their hands up when mistakes were made.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his tireless work in seeking an end to the horrendous conflict in Yemen. What steps are the Government taking to support the UN-sponsored peace talks in Kuwait in little under a week’s time?
Mr Ellwood
We have participated fully in bringing together what has been a very complex situation. Often people simply try to knuckle it down to one, two or three sides, but al-Qaeda is in Yemen, as is Daesh. There are not only the Houthis and other groupings, but many militias that are looking at which way the winds will blow. I have spoken on a number of occasions to President Hadi, and indeed to Ismail Ahmed, the UN envoy, to encourage the ceasefire. I hope that we will see real progress when the talks commence in Kuwait on 18 April.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the ceasefire, but since Sunday there has already been an attack on Taiz. Will the Minister confirm that he will be in Kuwait on 18 April and that he will do all he can to ensure that the ceasefire holds?
Mr Ellwood
I cannot confirm at this moment whether I will be attending, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to outline the breaches, which are taking place not only in Taiz, but elsewhere, including east of Aden, where 15 Yemeni soldiers were killed, and not by the Houthis or any other militia, but by al-Qaeda. It is important that we ensure that the talks work and that the international community supports them fully.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I just push the Minister on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) about the Saudi investigation into the conduct of the coalition campaign in Yemen? Does he have faith that the investigation will be thorough, independent and transparent? Does he expect the initial findings to be published? What follow-up will the UK take if allegations of war crimes are substantiated? Will he also outline the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the UK liaison officers supporting the Saudi military campaign have not been unwittingly involved in potential war crimes?
Mr Ellwood
As I have said in the Chamber a number of times, we have one of the most robust systems of arms export control licences in the world, and it is important to make sure that they are robust. We have been working closely with the Yemeni authorities, but also with the Saudis, to make sure they put their hands up when a mistake is made. We have frank conversations with them privately to make sure that the investigation will work as we expect it to.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is currently in Vietnam holding meetings with Vietnamese Ministers about trade and political relations. This follows visits to China, where among other things he pressed the Chinese authorities for action to bring greater stability to world steel markets, and to Japan, where he represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers.
Richard Graham
In the wake of the recent visit by Premier Modi to the UK and the current visit by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to India, can my right hon. Friend highlight the trade and investment benefits to both countries from these important high-level exchanges?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Indeed I can. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the current visit by Their Royal Highnesses, which is going extremely well. We have incredibly good bilateral relations with India, and the visit here by Mr Modi was a great success. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the soft power we have in our diplomatic armoury, from the BBC, to the British Council, the GREAT campaign, the Newton Fund and the Chevening and Marshall scholarship programmes. All those are part of the jigsaw that helps us to do business and to project British values right around the world.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said yesterday that all of Britain’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, apart from Anguilla and Guernsey, have now agreed to provide our law enforcement and tax authorities with full access to information on beneficial ownership. Why will there not be public access to the registers, given that the Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories on 25 April 2014 to say that making such information open would help “to tackle crime”, and given that, from June this year, the British register of beneficial ownership will be open to the public? If openness is good enough for the UK, why should we accept a different position in our overseas territories?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State does not congratulate the overseas territories on the enormous progress they have made on tax transparency and on opening up for law enforcement agencies. This is really superb progress, but as the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, it is not an international standard, and we need to move towards eliminating all corrupt, terrorist and money laundering practices across the globe. While there are states in the US where people can open companies and not have full public registers, it is only fair to say to the overseas territories, “Congratulations on progress so far.” Longer term, the Prime Minister and the Government are clear that we want greater transparency, and that will be about a move towards public access.
Hilary Benn
I do welcome progress; I was just asking why the overseas territories will not meet the standard Britain is going to set.
Our membership of the European Union helps us in the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and tax evasion—an example being the fourth anti-money laundering directive, on which the UK has taken the lead. The directive will, for the first time, oblige all member states to keep registers of beneficial owners and to make those open to tax and law enforcement authorities and to others who have a legitimate interest, including investigative journalists. Does that not show that leaving the EU could hinder the fight against financial criminality in Europe, because the best way to tackle such criminality is to work in partnership with our neighbours?
Mr Lidington
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are many ways in which we benefit, in taking action against crime, through this kind of European co-operation. What I hear from the police service is that almost all serious crime these days has an international dimension of some kind, and countries need to work together to tackle that. The current system, where we can choose whether to opt in to individual justice and home affairs measures, really does give us the best of both worlds.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T2. What more can be done to prevent vulnerable people from being indoctrinated to become suicide bombers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
The Koran actually forbids suicide, and if we look at the profile of suicide bombers from Sousse to Bali, we will see that martyrdom is sold by extremists as a fast track to paradise to people who have scant knowledge of the Koran. They are promised a ticket to heaven with little, if any, service to God. If we are genuinely to defeat extremism and stem the tide of vulnerable recruits, greater emphasis needs to be placed on duty to God in this life as well as the next.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
T3. The Minister will be aware of reports that Libya paid $1.5 billion into the US compensation fund for relatives of victims of terror blamed on Libya. Why have the UK victims of IRA terrorism that used Libyan Semtex not received similar support? The Minister recently indicated that he would support those victims of IRA terrorists who used Semtex. What is he doing and what support is in place for them?
Mr Ellwood
It is for a previous Government to explain why that opportunity was missed when the United States advanced discussions in that area. What I have done, in meetings both in Belfast and here in London with those victims of terrorism that involved Semtex or, indeed, that was supported by Gaddafi, is facilitate a visit to Tripoli when the security measures allow it.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
T4. Could a Minister update the House on the support we have given to the Government of the Ivory Coast following the terrorist attack in Grand Bassam in March?
James Duddridge
Last week I visited the scene of the attack in Grand Bassam in Côte d’Ivoire, which killed 19 people and injured more than 20, and laid a wreath on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. Furthermore, I met President Ouattara and discussed how the UK can support efforts to prevent the radicalisation of young people in his country. We all offer our condolences, support and, indeed, solidarity.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
T9. Developing countries lose three times as much to tax havens as they gain in international aid. Although yesterday’s announcement was a welcome, partial step in addressing that, registers of beneficial ownership will be ineffective unless they are public. Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption summit next month would be an appropriate deadline to insist that all of the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies adopt public registers of beneficial ownership?
James Duddridge
First, we should congratulate the Prime Minister. This is the first international conference on anti-corruption. We have already made great progress on beneficial ownership, but it is not the only issue of corruption. Having visited Ghana last week, I know that many other issues need to be tackled. Although beneficial ownership is an important issue, it is not the only issue for that corruption conference.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
T5. The huge Mosul dam is crumbling and might collapse. If it does, Mosul will be covered with up to 70 feet of water and 1.5 million lives will be threatened in Tikrit, Samarra and Baghdad. What work is under way to maintain the integrity of that structure?
Mr Ellwood
To use your superlative, Mr Speaker, this is one of the most serious things that Iraqis face, on top of everything else that is going on in Iraq. If a 14-metre tsunami along the Tigris goes through the Mosul dam, it will take out the city of Mosul and put Baghdad under 5 feet of water. The Iraqi authorities need to recognise the sense of urgency with regard to the dam, which is built on gypsum, and put in place emergency measures and alerts. We have already taken precautions at the embassy.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
T10. When did the Minister last make representations on the plight of the Baha’is in Iran?
Mr Ellwood
I raised the issue of the Baha’is and other minorities in meetings with the Foreign Minister when he visited in March. I also have regular meetings with the chargé d’affaires—the ambassador in waiting—in London.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
T6. Could we have an update on the Havana process, which is working to bring an end to the conflict between the FARC rebels and the Colombian military, and which should offer the best opportunity to focus much more on tackling the drugs trade?
Mr Swire
I do not think we need to get too hung up on the actual date; what is important is the result, which is the big prize towards which all have been working for a considerable amount of time. We again congratulate the negotiating team under President Santos, as well as the Cuban Government in Havana on the part they have played. I am also pleased to say that the United Kingdom has helped the process with advice and financially, with an EU trust fund and a UN fund.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Last week, the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, said that there is a greenhouse effect in terms of the extremist groups that are bringing their influence to bear in the wake of the Syrian conflict. Can the Minister confirm what the Government’s strategy is for defeating Daesh, as opposed to simply displacing it?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is right. Not only is that the case at the moment, but when the Bali bombing took place, there were 21 registered terrorist groups from a British perspective, and today that number is more than 50. It is important that we focus on eradicating Daesh in all its forms not only in Iraq and Syria, but where it is starting to spread, and its franchises, such as the Khorasan group, the Taliban, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. Those other groups are trying to get support from Daesh. Internationally, we must wake up and focus on the scale of the problem.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T7. Given that so many are now using the proper name for the terrorist organisation Daesh to defeat its ideology, propaganda and appeal, is it not unfortunate that the BBC still refuses to do so?
Mr Ellwood
I congratulate my hon. Friend, who, I think, got an award in your presence, Mr Speaker, for his campaign on that very issue. I am puzzled about why the BBC, from John Humphrys to John Craven, continues to use the term Islamic State. There is nothing Islamic and nothing state-like about it. I do not know what more we need to do. Perhaps we need to write to “Points of View”.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will join my condemnation of the human rights abuses, documented by the United Nations and Amnesty International, that have been committed by the South Sudanese Government forces, which included deliberately suffocating men and boys in a container and allowing government soldiers to rape women in lieu of wages. Following his recent visit to South Sudan, can the Minister tell the House what representations he has made to the Government of South Sudan and what process is in place for peace?
James Duddridge
I made a number of representations to President Salva Kiir and to Riek Machar during the African Union meeting. The UK Government secured agreement at the UN for a new commission on human rights, and the Government of South Sudan must now fulfil its commitment to co-operate with the commission, which is charged with investigating gang rapes, the destruction of villages and attacks on civilians that may even constitute war crimes.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
T8. Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the possible admission of Turkey to the EU. Is it still the Government’s policy to support Turkish admission? Bearing in mind public hostility, are they prepared to reconsider their position?
Mr Lidington
As the Prime Minister said the other day in the House, Turkish membership of the EU is not on the cards for many years indeed. That is not least because there would have to be a Cyprus settlement before Cyprus lifted its block on a whole number of the negotiating chapters. That is not something that we are likely to face in the lifetime of this Parliament or the next, and possibly not in the one after that.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The recently elected MPs of the new Hluttaw in Myanmar are acutely aware of the scale of the task that they face in building democracy in their country. On my recent visit, I was really quite touched by the extent to which they appreciate the support of the UK Parliament for the work they have to do. On that note, may I ask what dialogue the Government are engaged in to promote freedom of expression and political rights in Burma?
Mr Swire
I am glad that the hon. Lady called the country Burma towards the end of her question, unlike the BBC, which continues to call it Myanmar. We are hugely supportive, as she knows, of the new Government of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has just appointed herself State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, among other titles. She is basically running the Government. It is very early days.
We continue to support Burma across the whole range of issues, from human rights, to the issue in Rakhine, to the peace process and the ceasefires. I congratulate hon. Members from across the House who have taken the trouble to go to Nay Pyi Taw to try to teach some of the new politicians there the basic elements of how to run a democratic Government. There is a long way to go, but I believe that we are moving in the right direction.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This Government and the previous Labour Government have deliberately undermined authoritarian regimes such as those of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Assad, and they have unleashed totalitarian regimes as a result. Will the Government accept that Assad, however unpleasant, is not going to go? Will they accept realpolitik, pick up the phone and try to broker a deal between Russia, Assad and the other anti-Daesh movements in order to try to get some chance of peace in the benighted Syrian countryside?
Mr Ellwood
It is for the people of Syria to decide who should lead their country. The majority of people in Syria do not accept that Assad should be part of its long-term future. He has used barrel bombs, he has used chemical weapons and he should have no part at all in the long-term future of the country.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Will the Minister give us an assessment of how far away Libya is from having a stable Government? What is the strength of Daesh there, and are real steps being taken to bring in ground forces to push them out of the country?
Mr Ellwood
I am pleased that Prime Minister Siraj and the Presidency Council are now meeting in Tripoli. It has taken a long time to get the General National Congress and the House of Representatives to agree to support the Prime Minister. These are important initial steps, but the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that Daesh has a foothold in Derna and Sirte. That is why the sooner the Prime Minister is able to make the important decisions, the sooner the international community can come in and provide support to make sure that Daesh does not gain a long-term foothold.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
British exports to China have more than doubled since 2010, led by firms such as Havant-based manufacturer Colt. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Colt, and encourage other firms to follow its lead?
Mr Swire
Indeed, I congratulate all the companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Trade with China, despite the recent setback, is still doing extremely well. Our bilateral relations have been reset, following the successful state visit to this country of President Xi. The Foreign Secretary has just been in Beijing. We both encourage British companies to trade more in China—it is a huge market—and all of us, as local Members of Parliament, to do everything we can to encourage our small and medium-sized enterprises to trade with China. Equally, the United Kingdom still continues to attract huge Chinese investment in our infrastructure, which of course provides employment and jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but, as usual, demand has hugely exceeded supply and we must now move on.
Points of Order
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made the Minister for Community and Social Care aware of my intention to make this point of order. In an answer to my written parliamentary question asking for the number of deaths that have occurred in child and adolescent mental health units since 2010, the Minister said that only one such death had been recorded by the Care Quality Commission. However, freedom of information requests conducted by Inquest have found that at least nine young people have tragically died in England while receiving in-patient psychiatric care since 2010. In response to this research, the Minister stated in an interview on last night’s BBC “Panorama” programme that he did not know how many children and adolescents have died in psychiatric units in recent years. This discrepancy between the Government’s account of the number of child deaths and the data collected from FOI requests raises serious questions about how the deaths in psychiatric care of some of our most vulnerable people are treated, recorded, investigated and learned from.
Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether you have received any indication from Ministers that they intend to clarify for the parliamentary record what the accurate figure is for the number of children who have tragically died in all NHS-funded psychiatric in-patient settings since 2010?
Mr Speaker
Extremely important questions are raised by this matter and by the broadcast, although not for me. We cannot have Question Time on the basis of points of order, but as the Minister of State is in the Chamber and apparently willing to say some words, we are happy—exceptionally—to hear him.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for allowing me to respond. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave me notice of her point of order. Some very serious questions were raised by the “Panorama” programme last night. I have agreed to meet Inquest’s Deborah Coles, the lady who put in the FOI request. There is a discrepancy in the numbers. There are difficulties in definition in relation to this matter, but the present situation is not acceptable. I will look as quickly as possible at finding a way of correcting the record as soon as we know exactly what the figures are, and at making sure we have sorted out this data problem effectively for the future.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his courtesy. On a personal note, may I wish the Minister very well in that important meeting with Deborah Coles? She is a very formidable character, as I know myself, because we knew each other at university. She is very formidable indeed, and I wish him well.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just had questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We had an excellent team of Ministers here, but we did not have the Secretary of State. The Minister for Europe made the point that the Secretary of State was on the last leg of an overseas visit. I thought it was a convention of this House that Parliament came first and that Secretaries of State should be here for questions unless an emergency took them away from the House—clearly this trip was planned. Will you give guidance to the House on whether Secretaries of State should be on overseas trips when questions to their Department are scheduled?
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Things may have changed since I was paying attention to this—it is 25 years since I was a Minister—but in my day, a Minister for the Government spoke with the same authority no matter what rank of Minister they were.
Mr Speaker
Certainly the team communicate with the House as a team. That is undeniable. This is not within the power of the Chair. The Secretary of State did courteously write to me to notify me that he would be absent. My sense is that he is not likely to be absent on anything like a regular basis. If that were to happen, it would be strongly deprecated not just by the Chair but by Members across the House. Let us hope it does not happen again. If there are no further points of order, perhaps we can move on to the ten-minute rule motion.
Events and Festivals (Control of Flares, Fireworks and Smoke Bombs Etc)
Tuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Events and Festivals (Control of Flares, Fireworks and Smoke Bombs Etc) Bill 2015-16 View all Events and Festivals (Control of Flares, Fireworks and Smoke Bombs Etc) Bill 2015-16 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to be found in possession of, or to use, certain articles or substances capable of causing injury or behaviour likely to lead to injury at, or in transit towards, certain events, concerts or festivals or other public gatherings; and for connected purposes.
In plain English, this Bill proposes to prevent audience members at concerts and festivals from using dangerous pyrotechnics such as flares, fireworks and smoke bombs. There are places where items like these can safely be used, but not in the close confines of a live music audience.
Flares can burn at up to 1,600 °C; fireworks can be even hotter, at up to 2,000 °C. There is also the added danger of an unexpected projectile. Smoke bombs are also hot and pose particular risks at indoor venues and also for fellow audience members with asthma or other such breathing difficulties. The surprise throwing of pyrotechnics from within a crowd can also create dangerous and distressing crowd disturbance.
In 2014 there were 255 incidents involving flares at live music events, both indoor and outdoor, ranging from festivals such as Electric Daisy Carnival and T in the Park to popular city venues such as Brixton Academy. Like many right hon. and hon. Members and our constituents I enjoy live music, but no one should be seriously burned as part of a fun afternoon or evening. No one wants to see panic at the disco or any other music event. We want to get the number of these incidents down to an all-time low.
Gigs and festivals are particularly popular with young people. They and their parents have a right to feel safe both in attending and in sending their children. Unfortunately that was not the experience of an 18-year-old girl who attended an Arctic Monkeys concert and required three dressings to burns on her arms from a flare that had been thrown, or of the 17-year-old girl at the Reading festival who suffered a panic attack after being burned across her abdomen and thighs by a smoke bomb.
When I mentioned the subject of the Bill to other people, many outside the music industry were surprised that audience use of pyrotechnics was not already banned. Their surprise is understandable given that such protection has long been afforded to football fans by the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, which made it an offence to enter or attempt to enter a football ground while in possession of a flare, smoke bomb or firework. Courts have taken such public endangerment very seriously, and even those without previous criminal records have been given custodial sentences of one or two months and banned from football grounds for up to six years.
The numbers bear out the fact that that is an effective approach, both legislatively and judicially. By contrast with the 255 incidents at music events in 2014, there were just three incidents at football grounds.
In my capacity as chairman of the all-party group on music, I have found broad support for the Bill throughout the music industry. Live Nation, one of the largest concert organisers and ticket providers in the UK, has been campaigning on this subject for a considerable time, as yet without success. I would like to see that change sooner rather than later, because, with the right support, these injuries and incidents are absolutely avoidable. The Association of Independent Festivals, which represents many popular events including the Secret Garden Party and the Isle of Wight festival, has asked for the law’s support:
“It is the responsibility of organisers to provide a safe and enjoyable environment for fans and the Government should support this objective by creating a level playing field between music and sports fans.”
Concert organisers have every reason to want to protect concert goers. Unfortunately, with their powers basically limited to expelling someone from a venue, they feel rather toothless when it comes to deterring this kind of dangerous behaviour, despite their desire to do exactly that.
Unlike at football grounds, the current legal situation at festivals and music venues is as follows. Under-18s are banned from carrying fireworks, a classification that also includes smoke bombs, in public places. However, an overwhelming majority of concerts and festivals occur on private property. There is no such regulation for flares, which are not controlled under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 because they are not intended for entertainment use. There is no offence for adults carrying fireworks or smoke bombs, unless it can be proven that it is done with intent to cause injury. Concert injuries from these articles are usually a case of—I will be frank—bone-headed disregard for others and stupidity, rather than malice. Essentially, it all amounts to no rules or protection when it comes to audience possession of pyrotechnics at music events. When an industry wholeheartedly welcomes a proposed law not as a burdensome regulation but as an essential tool to protect safety surely this is one of the most clear-cut cases where Parliament should act. We would not be doing our duty if we ignored it.
The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims confirmed in a letter to Live Nation in March 2015 that in his view the matter required
“proper examination of how best to deter the misuse of these devices”.
That is a view I share and welcome, but little progress has been made. I believe that proper examination of the effective results achieved by the ban on the misuse of these devices at football grounds leads to the conclusion that a ban covering music events would be the best next step. Thus, in proposing the Bill, I believe the time has come to take that forward.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that I am not, by instinct, someone who likes to ban things. By and large, I believe people should have the right to choose to take risks and make informed decisions for themselves, even if they are not decisions we would make ourselves. However, audience members have not chosen to be exposed to the danger of flares and fireworks deployed in improper conditions, possibly by those who do not know how, or are in no fit state of mind, to use them. They have come to enjoy live music, and these incidents both endanger them and ruin their events.
To be entirely clear, my Bill would apply only to audience members and spectators at these events. There has been a little misreporting today online on the “billboard” website. Venues and artists would still be able to use pyrotechnics in their act and in their stage set-ups as they currently do. I certainly do not want to curtail the ability of trained professionals to put on a vibrant and exciting show. Having enjoyed many a gig myself, I know that “the fire has always been burning since the world’s been turning”, and that when tested properly and used safely it can be part of a great spectacle. I am not sure whether you are a fan of the Kings of Leon, Mr Speaker, but I am sure you would agree that we should ensure that nothing untoward is ever on fire.
There is support from the industry, venues, artists, fans and colleagues from across the House—I am grateful to my co-sponsors for showing there is cross-party agreement. This is a problem on which there is a consensus of concern among music fans and the music industry, and I am grateful for the opportunity to bring it before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Nigel Adams, David Warburton, Steve Rotheram, James Heappey, Mark Pritchard, Pete Wishart, Valerie Vaz, Byron Davies, Craig Williams, Kevin Foster and Nigel Huddleston present the Bill.
Nigel Adams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed (Bill 157).
UK Steel Industry
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Tata Steel’s decision to sell its UK steel operations; and action the Government is taking to secure the future of the UK steel industry.
Mr Speaker, may I place on the record my thanks to you for granting this debate under Standing Order No. 24? Such debates are rare, but the situation facing the steel industry cannot be categorised as anything other than an emergency. Today’s debate provides an opportunity for the Secretary of State to come to the House with a comprehensive plan to secure the future of our vital steel industry which is hanging by the thinnest of threads. Anything less from him will be an abdication of his duty.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said he was looking at the possibility of “co- investing” on commercial terms. I hope he will take the opportunity to explain to us in more detail exactly what this means. Call it what you like—“co-investing”, “part-nationalisation”, “temporary public stewardship” or “sheltering the assets”—it is clear that circumstances might require the Government to do this. They should spare their ideological blushes and just get on with it.
It is also important that today the Business Secretary hears directly from Members of Parliament who represent steelmaking communities. Between them, they have great expertise and knowledge that I hope will inform his response to the crisis from now on. Up until now, the Government and the Secretary of State have been found wanting. They have been behind rather than ahead of events. Their response to the biggest crisis in steelmaking for a generation has been warm words but little effective action. There has been what can only be described as an ideologically driven reluctance to get involved as the crisis has deepened. It has been a mixture of indifference and incompetence.
Simon Hoare
The First Minister of Wales has called on all parties to come together to work towards a future, rather than—for want of a better phrase—political point scoring. The hon. Lady is very passionate on this issue, as we are on the Government Benches—it is vital that we have a British steelmaking sector—but will she assure the House that she and her colleagues are taking that combined political approach between the parties to secure that future, rather than trying to drive a wedge between the parties?
Ms Eagle
We will judge the Government by their actions and their achievements rather than their words.
The complete absence of either a manufacturing strategy or an industrial strategy has hampered the Government’s ability to think strategically about what is needed, and never has it been more urgent that the Business Secretary does so. This is urgent because on 29 March Tata announced it would sell its entire steelmaking operations in the UK, leaving the future of the UK steel industry hanging by a thread and putting 40,000 jobs in communities up and down our country at imminent risk.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
As someone with a Tata presence in my constituency, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State shares my concern that although we knew about this on 29 March—people going to Mumbai knew it was going to happen—we have not discussed it formally until today, and yet three years ago, the Prime Minister reconvened the Chamber within two days, during an Easter recess, to talk about the death of Margaret Thatcher. What does that say about the Government’s priorities?
Ms Eagle
It is regrettable that there was not a recall of Parliament, but we are where we are, and we have this debate now, thanks to you, Mr Speaker.
It is imperative to underline the fundamental importance of this industry for our economy and our country. Steel is a foundation industry. While it might make up just 1% of total manufacturing output, that output is crucial. I believe that our world-leading automotive, aerospace and defence industries and our rail and construction sector all depend on a strong and sustainable domestic steel industry.
Our manufacturing sector is already facing tough times. The Secretary of State said yesterday in the House that manufacturing was up since 2010, but Office for National Statistics figures show a different picture. Manufacturing output in the last quarter of 2015 remained frozen at the level of five years ago, while output in January was actually lower than the year before and is still 6.4% down on the same period before the global crash.
In his 2011 Budget speech, the Chancellor espoused his vision of a Britain
“carried aloft by the march of the makers.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
But he has failed to match his rhetoric with reality, because since then the manufacturing sector has actually shrunk. His much promised rebalancing of our economy has in reality failed to materialise. In this context, the challenges facing the steel industry represent an existential crisis for the UK’s manufacturing sector as a whole. I do not believe we can safely allow it to shrink further. And I for one am glad that the Government appear finally to have realised this.
Now we need action. Beyond the impact on manufacturing, the crisis in the steel industry matters for the wider economy too. Much has been said about the cost of supporting our steel industry, but far too little has been said about the costs of letting it be destroyed. Recent estimates show that its collapse would lead to additional costs to the Government of £4.6 billion through reduced tax receipts and increased benefit bills. It would also suck demand out of the economy, reducing household spending by £3 billion in the next decade. There would be secondary shocks, too, especially in the steelmaking communities up and down the country. For example, Tata is the biggest business rates payer in Rotherham, with an annual bill of £3.2 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) pointed out today, the loss of this revenue stream to the local authority is equivalent to a 1.8% increase in council tax there.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the way forward was shown by the Labour Government before the 2010 general election, when they introduced the car scrappage scheme to support our automotive sector? It was supported by all parties in the House at a time of dire threat to the sector. As a result of intervention and an intelligent industrial strategy, the automotive sector was preserved and now prospers. Is not that the model we have to follow?
Ms Eagle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Secretary of State is taking note.
The loss of our steel industry would worsen our already record-breaking trade deficit, which is now the worst since 1948. The value of the goods and services we import now exceeds the value of those that we export by £32.7 billion. The loss of steel and our current exports of steel combined with the need to import far more steel would make this barely sustainable record deficit even worse.
Beyond the economic cost, there would also be an intolerable social cost. There are 15,000 jobs directly at stake in the industry and a further 25,000 jobs at stake in the wider supply chain. These are the kind of high-skill, high-paid jobs of which we need to see more. The end of steelmaking in the UK would be devastating for 40,000 workers and their communities. Some people have highlighted the potential costs of intervening to save the steel industry, but I believe the costs of letting steel fail are far greater.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I do not want to pre-empt what the hon. Lady may say, but will she confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition that the steel industry should be nationalised, and should remain in public hands until it can successfully go back into private hands?
Ms Eagle
What needs to be done is what is necessary to preserve, restructure and ensure the survival of our steel industry for the future. That is the Government’s job. We will be as supportive as we can—I shall set out some parameters later in my speech—but this is about the Government getting their act in order. The Opposition are holding the Government to account for their actions, rather than just their words. That is what this debate is about.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On that point, we heard nothing yesterday from the Secretary of State, either at the meeting of the all-party group on steel and metal-related industries or in the Chamber, about what action the Government will take on energy costs and business rates—costs that are burdening the steel industry, and on which the Government could act, yet we have seen no sign at all that they will change their policies in these vital areas.
Ms Eagle
I hope that we will have the chance to hear about concrete action from the Government in this debate.
I was talking about the costs to the community of letting steel fail. The costs to manufacturing and the economy are high, but the costs to the workers and their communities would be much higher. We very much welcome the recent commitment from the Business Secretary to do everything he can to protect steel-making and processing in the UK, but this Business Secretary has form. Warm words are all very well, but they are worthless, as the community in Redcar know to their cost, unless they are followed up with meaningful action.
Opposition Members are in no doubt that there are huge challenges facing the UK steel industry, but we believe that it can have a strong and sustainable future, and we know that decisions made by this Government now will ultimately determine whether it does. That is why I welcome the commitment the Business Secretary appeared to make in yesterday’s statement to what he called co-investment. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is considering co-investment to save the blast furnaces at Port Talbot, because we did not get an answer to that question in yesterday’s statement.
Will the Business Secretary confirm here and now that he will avoid a fire sale of these assets, and ensure that irreversible mistakes are not made in the way that they are sold? If Tata is to act as a responsible seller, it must consider only those offers that seek to maintain both upstream and downstream assets—that is, both the strip business at Port Talbot, and the specialist business based in and around Rotherham, Stocksbridge and the rest of south Yorkshire. The Government must also make sure that enough time is made available to ensure that an appropriate consideration of responsible offers can take place. It took nine months for the Scunthorpe deal to be developed, yet Tata has indicated that it wishes to exit the UK in four months. What is the Business Secretary doing to reassure the existing customer base that their current and future contracts will be fulfilled during this period of uncertainty? The plants cannot be saved if their order books disappear.
Let me turn to a number of areas where I believe the Government can make a positive difference. The most significant cause of the crisis facing the steel industry is the dumping of huge amounts of cheap Chinese steel on the market. It is priced below the cost of production; Chinese state-owned steel companies are making billions of pounds in losses, yet they continue to pour out more and more product. UK steel producers simply cannot compete with this state-subsidised unfair trade, which is threatening to destroy the European industry as well as ours. We are not calling for protectionism, but we are standing up for fair trade, and calling for quick and effective tariffs that will help to level the playing field. The Business Secretary must abandon his opposition to the abolition of the lesser duty rule and block unfair Chinese imports.
Granting market economy status to China must not be automatic. China meets only one of the five criteria that must be met if this status is to be granted, yet the UK Government support granting market economy status to China as early as the end of this year. Action to level the playing field using trade defence instruments, and on market economy status for China, would give potential buyers of Tata’s UK steel operations the surest sign that the Government stand ready to act.
On procurement, the Government should take concrete action to ensure that UK steel producers are able to benefit from large public sector contracts. The Ministry of Defence will spend £178 billion on defence equipment over the next 10 years, yet the Conservative-led coalition Government scrapped Labour’s defence industrial strategy, which made British jobs and industries the first priority in all decisions on MOD contracts. We are now in the deeply regrettable situation of an aircraft carrier, British surface ships and armoured vehicles all being manufactured in the UK with mainly imported steel, when, with more planning, our domestic industry could have supplied those needs.
The Government must also take action on infrastructure investment. Despite all the Government public relations about this, public sector net investment in the UK will in reality be lower as a percentage of gross domestic product at the end of this Parliament than at the start, and half what it was under the last Labour Government. Of the projects announced in the Government’s infrastructure pipeline, just one in five is actually under way. For the sake of our steel industry and the wider economy, Labour calls on the Government to bring forward shovel-ready projects that require a significant amount of steel, and to ensure that the changes to the procurement rules, which the Government keep boasting about, actually begin to make a difference.
Ian C. Lucas
I would like to share with my hon. Friend the fact that I received a letter from the Prime Minister yesterday praying in aid and praising an infrastructure project investment in the railway between Wrexham and Chester. However, this is being funded by the Labour Welsh Government and, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, it appears to be the only example that he could put forward of investment in rail in north Wales.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that certain major procurement projects, such as High Speed 2 and nuclear, are being given to the Chinese? My fear is that they will naturally want to use Chinese steel. Also, if these were British companies, they would be paying British corporation tax, national insurance and income tax, and would be developing supply chains and export capacity. Does my hon. Friend share my fear that there is no proper joined-up industrial strategy to protect our jobs and our future?
Ms Eagle
I agree with my hon. Friend, and when we see the Chancellor travelling around China and asking the Chinese to bid for all these contracts, it is hard to avoid realising what is happening.
Business rates represent a far higher cost for UK steel producers. There had been reports that the Government were planning to exempt plant and machinery from business rates, which EEF has described as a “tax on investment”. The Chancellor reportedly even costed this change with a view to including it in his now infamous Budget last month before dropping it at the last minute. It seems that the measure, which would have significantly improved the future prospects of the industry, was sacrificed in pursuit of his economically illiterate and increasingly unachievable surplus target.
I said earlier that part of the problem is ideology. Labour has been calling for a modern and intelligent industrial strategy, and I am pleased to say that in yesterday’s statement the Business Secretary actually uttered the words “industrial strategy” for the first time. Now that that Rubicon has been crossed, all we need is action to match the words. Today, let us spare a thought for the thousands of steelworkers whose futures hang in the balance. The Government ignored the warning signs for far too long, and now they must act to find a suitable buyer, and to work with the steel producers, the workforce, and the clients and customers to ensure that the industry is placed on an even keel. The cost of failure, both economically and socially, is unthinkable. We need urgent action to save our steel.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
The whole House will have been deeply concerned by the crisis that has affected the global steel industry over the past year. The facts are familiar, but they bear repetition. Around the world, steelmaking capacity is about 35% higher than demand. In China alone, excess steel capacity is 25 times the United Kingdom’s entire annual production. Demand has slumped in China as its economy grows, and demand here in Europe has yet to return to pre-crash levels.
That surge in supply, coupled with a fall in demand, has inevitably led to a large fall in prices, and the knock-on effect for steelworkers around the world has been, quite simply, devastating. Here in the UK, we have sadly seen the closure of the SSI plant in Redcar after its Thai parent company ran up unsustainable losses. Across Europe, some 70,000 steelworkers have been laid off since 2008. Last week we heard that the United States Steel Corporation, the biggest steelmaker in the United States, was laying off a quarter of its non-union workforce, and earlier this month, the owner of one of the two heavy steel mills left in Australia went into voluntary administration.
This is, of course, about more than just numbers. It is a human tragedy. When we talk about job losses in the abstract, it is easy to forget that each of them represents a person: a hard-working, highly skilled man or woman. Many of those men and women will have husbands, wives, children and other dependants to support, or there will be local businesses that rely on their custom, and the same pattern will be repeated throughout the supply chain. That is why, when job losses have happened in Britain, we have done everything we can to support the communities affected.
Mr Anderson
The Secretary of State said that we must not forget. I assure him that there are people in this House who do not forget. I am one of the people whom his Government did this to some 30 years ago, when they closed the coal mines. They looked at the economics, and they did not care about the social cost, which destroyed areas like mine. The Secretary of State needs to bear that in mind during this debate.
Sajid Javid
I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that when there are job losses and the Government can help, of course they must do so.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Sajid Javid
I will plough on, but I will give way in a moment. I am about to speak about Redcar, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in that as well. We have committed up to £80 million to helping people affected by SSI’s closure. That includes more than £16 million to help local firms to employ former SSI workers, and a further £16 million to support firms in the SSI supply chain and the wider Tees valley. Millions more are paying for retraining at local colleges. For example, there was a £1.7 million package to help former SSI apprentices to remain in employment, education or training.
Tom Blenkinsop
The Secretary of State said that the Government would do everything possible for the communities and people affected. As he knows, on the day of the liquidation at Redcar, he announced an £80 million total package—
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is £90 million.
Tom Blenkinsop
Oh, is it £90 million now? We have heard previously, from that Dispatch Box—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Shush, junior Minister. We do not need you to burble from a sedentary position. Be quiet! Your burbling is not required. Learn it. I have told you so many times; try to get the message.
Tom Blenkinsop
Not so long ago, at that Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State changed the figure to £50 million. Moneys on top of that have only been acquired because the Community trade union claimed a protective award from the tribunal to ensure that the workforce got what they were entitled to. The Government could have fast-tracked that some seven months ago.
Sajid Javid
I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman say “up to £90 million”. What we have always said is “up to £80 million”, and that has not changed. I agree that there is a long way to go, but so far, in respect of Redcar, nearly 700 jobs have been created, safeguarded or supported, and only a quarter of the more than 2,000 workers at SSI were claiming jobseeker’s allowance at the end of February.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to take up too much time, because I shall be speaking later, but the figure of 600 jobs relates to those who are in work or full-time training, not just those who are in work. That is important, because it is work that will be vital at the end of the training.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady has made a very important point: at the end of the day, it is about work. Training can lead to work, as can retraining, so it is important to invest in it. I know that, to the people of Redcar, this seems like a drop in the ocean. When a community is built around a single industry, the death of that industry takes away more than just the jobs. I do not want to see any other steelmaking community suffer the same fate, and that is why the Government have been taking real action to support the industry.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State begin to appreciate how this flows into the community? A medical centre on Teesside that I visited recently lost two nurses, who had to give up their bursary-funded training programmes because their husbands lost their jobs at SSI. The consequences and the ripples spread right out. It is not 2,200 people who have lost their jobs; it is up to 9,000 people, and the Secretary of State should understand that.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there can be a devastating effect on the community that goes way beyond the actual job losses at SSI. That is why we must do everything, together, to prevent the same thing from happening to any other community, and we must support the supply chain, because, as he says, there is a ripple effect throughout the community on many, many businesses.
Geraint Davies
The Secretary of State may know that I worked very hard with Members on both sides of the House to secure a proper pension for the Visteon pensioners from Ford when it had short-changed them. Given that Tata has almost fully paid up its pension fund, will the Government socialise that fund, so that the pensioners can be secure in the knowledge that they will have a pension in future, and so that prospective buyers need not be concerned about that?
Sajid Javid
I will move on to the subject of Tata in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify pensions as an issue, and we are considering all possible solutions.
Let me say a little about the action that we have already taken. We have taken action on power: £76 million has already been paid to steelmakers to compensate for high energy bills, and we expect to pay more than £100 million in the current financial year alone. In the autumn statement, just five months ago, we announced that we would go further. Energy-intensive industries will be exempted from renewable policy costs—a move that will save the steel industry more than £400 million by the end of this Parliament.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Surely my right hon. Friend agrees that, rather than compensating businesses for a tax that we levied, it would be far more sensible and logical to scrap the tax.
Sajid Javid
Given what my hon. Friend has said, I presume that our move towards exemption rather than compensation is exactly what he wants to see.
Mr Betts
Does the Secretary of State accept that the support that the Government are giving our steel industry in respect of energy costs is only a fraction of the support that Germany and other countries are giving their steel industries? It will still leave our industry with much higher energy costs than those of other European Union countries. Is the Secretary of State not prepared to consider going further to help our industry when it is in such a difficult position?
Sajid Javid
By calling it a fraction, the hon. Gentleman underplays the help that this support is providing to the industry. The manufacturers in the industry see this as a big game-changer in how they account for the cost of power. I can agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, in that I think there is still more to look at in this area, particularly with regard to Tata and securing a buyer.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
In a meeting with the Industrial Communities Alliance, which represents traditional industrial areas in the UK, the EU Commission reiterated its commitment to change the trade defence instruments, which would tackle the cheap steel issue. We are in line and the Commission is in line. Will the Secretary of State get in line to ensure that we can make these changes?
Sajid Javid
I will come on to trade defence instruments in just a moment.
I want to talk about the delivery of a new flexibility on emissions regulations. This was asked for by the industry and we have delivered, potentially saving the industry hundreds of millions of pounds. We have also taken action on procurement, and we have become the first country anywhere in Europe to take advantage of EU rules to make it easier for the public sector to buy British. That is on top of our proud record of procuring British steel.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State makes much of the changes he is making on procurement. The Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is sitting next to him, told me in answer to a recent question that the Ministry of Defence did not even have full records of where it was getting its steel from for UK defence projects. How can we be sure that the Secretary of State will follow through on his commitment on procurement when Government Departments are not even keeping records and when so many UK defence projects are being made in Korea, China and elsewhere?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman might hear more from the Minister for Defence Procurement in the coming days, but I can tell him that the two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are being built with almost 100,000 tonnes of British steel, that Crossrail, the biggest construction project in Europe, is using almost exclusively British steel for its 26 miles of tunnels, and that 96% of Network Rail’s spending on steel rail goes directly to British firms. It buys 1,500 miles of steel rail every year from Tata in Scunthorpe. That is enough to build a two-track line from London to Edinburgh.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I certainly agree that Network Rail provides a case study in how to do procurement, and it is to be commended. However, we need to ensure that the DONG energy contract for developing the North sea wind farm, which will be the second biggest in the world, will use UK steel. What progress is the Secretary of State making with his colleagues to ensure that that happens?
Sajid Javid
We have had meetings with that particular company and many others in a similar situation. The hon. Gentleman will know that many of them are private companies and therefore not subject to all the rules around procurement, but there are ways of trying to encourage them to invest more in British steel, and that is exactly what is happening.
The question of trade defence instruments was raised earlier, and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned the point as well. We have been working hard on this issue at EU level, and that work began long before this crisis broke. I hear a lot in this House about ideology, but I am just interested in one thing: what actually works. When evidence shows that tariffs against unfair trade will make a difference without harming British businesses or British consumers, I will always support them. That is why last July the UK voted to impose a 16% tariff on wire rod; since those duties were imposed, imports from China have fallen by as much as 90%.
In November, we voted to impose a 28% tariff on seamless pipes; since those duties were imposed, imports from China have gone down 80%. In January, we voted to impose an 11% tariff on rebar, and since then, imports of that particular steel product have fallen by a massive 99%. In February, we voted for a 15% tariff on cold rolled flat products, and that move has already reduced imports from China to almost nothing. This is real action with real tariffs and they are making a difference for British steelworkers.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The European Steel Association’s spokesperson, talking about the change to the lesser duty rule, has said that
“the fact that the UK continues to block it means that when the government says it’s doing everything it can to save the steel industry in the UK and also in Europe, it’s not.”
Is not that the truth about the Secretary of State’s efforts?
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Business Secretary for taking my intervention. I hope that he will also answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) has just asked him. On the question of procurement in relation to energy, the Government are intervening more than ever before in the energy market through contracts for difference. Has the Secretary of State looked into ensuring that when those often very generous contracts are negotiated, they contain a requirement to buy British-made steel?
Sajid Javid
I can tell the right hon. Lady that no stone remains unturned in our efforts to help sell as much British steel as possible. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) asked about the lesser duty rule, and this point is raised repeatedly by Labour Members, but Labour had no problem whatever with the rule when it was in government. Scrapping the rule altogether would cost British shoppers dear. It would raise prices on everyday items that we rely on. For example, the rule saves British shoppers £130 million on footwear in one year alone. However, I told the House yesterday that I would be more than happy to look at any ways of specifically helping the steel industry, and I hope that Members will come up with ideas during the debate. I will, of course, be listening.
Ian C. Lucas
I referred earlier to the Labour Government’s intervention on car scrappage before the 2010 election. They stepped up to the plate to support the industry at that time. May I suggest that the Secretary of State approach the aerospace and automotive sectors and ask the Automotive Council and the Aerospace Growth Partnership to place on their agenda ways in which they could assist the UK steel industry by stepping up to the plate at this time of great difficulty for the industry?
Sajid Javid
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have sector councils for both those industries, and we meet regularly and have a regular dialogue. This is exactly the kind of thing that those sector councils are designed to focus on, and it is exactly the kind of work that they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I have read some very interesting statistics in the past week. There has been a 43% decline in the foundation industries across the United Kingdom since 2000, but the figure across the other OECD countries is only 21%. Why does the Secretary of State think the decline across the UK since 2000 has been twice that of the other OECD countries?
Sajid Javid
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his numbers from, but this brings me to a useful point. The hon. Member for Wallasey said earlier that I had stated yesterday that manufacturing output in this country had gone up since 2010; she suggested that that was somehow incorrect. I can tell her that manufacturing output has gone up 2.2% in real terms since 2010 and that it is up 18.7% in current prices. Those are the official numbers, and manufacturing employment is also up. If she wants to hear about when manufacturing output actually fell, I can tell her that it was during the last Labour Government, when it fell from 18% of GVA to about 10%.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Steel companies are seriously concerned that the granting of market economy status to China will severely jeopardise their ability to take Chinese and other companies to court for steel dumping. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of that threat?
Sajid Javid
First, that will be a decision for the EU. We will, of course, have an input, but it will be a collective decision. Secondly, if any country wants market economy status, it must earn it. Whatever the country, it must show that it is behaving in a responsible way. Thirdly, we must remember that even when countries get market economy status, tariffs can still be imposed. Russia and the United States would be good examples.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that many on this side of the House believe that it is for this House and this Government to decide when a country such as China is dumping? We should decide whether to impose tariffs. Indeed, many of us think that if we had been outside the EU months ago, we would have imposed tariffs on Chinese dumping and would have solved the problem.
Sajid Javid
We have led the way in taking action, which has resulted in the right tariffs, which have helped the steel industry while protecting producers and consumers. My hon. Friend will agree that when action is taken through tariffs, we want to ensure that they are at the necessary level to help the industry without hurting consumers and producers.
Stephen Doughty
While we are still on tariffs, the Secretary of State mentioned the tariff on rebar and the drop in production. Increasing the tariff in that industry is obviously crucial, but other facts are at play. Rebar exports shunted up production before the tariffs came in, so we may have seen a drop-off due to that; there are also the exchange rate differentials. Does the Secretary of State still think that the rebar tariffs are high enough or should they be even higher to deal with the changes going on in that industry due to other factors?
Sajid Javid
We should always be driven by the evidence. The 99% fall in imports year on year, resulting from the tariff, suggests that it is effective, but we should always keep the situation under review and ensure that it remains effective.
Richard Fuller
My right hon. Friend mentioned the action that the Government have taken on procurement and their response on tariffs and power. Yesterday, he talked about Government co-investment. Will he please take this opportunity to clarify what is meant by that?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend will know that that comment related to Tata’s decision to sell its strip products business. What I said was really to show that when the Government say that we will consider all options to help create a long-term, viable business with a commercial operator, that would be such an option. The key point is that any co-investment would have to be on commercial terms. Investment can take a variety of forms, such as debt, but what I said was a demonstration of all the options that the Government are considering. I will move on to say a little more about Tata strip products in a moment.
Sajid Javid
Not now.
The action taken on tariffs, energy costs and procurement has sent a powerful message to investors around the world that the British Government are standing up for UK steel. That commitment is not new; I have been working with the steel industry from my very first day as Business Secretary, long before the current crisis made it on to the front pages. As I told the House yesterday, Tata contacted me several weeks ago to warn that it planned to sell parts of its strip business and to close its Port Talbot site immediately. Thanks to the groundwork laid by my team and colleagues over the past year, we were able to secure a reprieve while a buyer is found. I am leading the Government’s efforts to help to find a buyer for the strip business, and we will update the House on progress as soon as possible.
When that buyer is found, the Government stand ready, as I have said, to support it in any way we can to help to get the deal done. We have already set out some of the ways in which we can help. It would not be prudent to go into the detail, but the goal is to find a commercial buyer, with the Government helping to secure that transaction and a long-term, viable future for the business.
Tom Blenkinsop
I understand where the Secretary of State is coming from but, taking a broader view of co-investment, one option is R and D. The steel sector does not have Catapult status. Will the Secretary of State look at that as a potential route for co-investment in the steel sector, particularly in respect of organisations such as the Materials Processing Institute, to get an R and D link with our domestic steel industry?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will know that Catapult centres are a partnership between Government, business and academia. If that can help the steel sector, I am more than happy to look into it if a proposal comes forward.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
Hundreds of apprentices at the Port Talbot works receive on-the-job training while attending local colleges and universities. Swansea University has approximately £40 million in active grants to support research and innovation in the steel industry at the Materials Research Centre. If the steel-making facilities are removed and sponsorship is subsequently lost, future generations will be deprived and the UK will miss out on the potential to be at the forefront of materials development.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady makes a key point about the importance of skills and training, and I can assure her that we are already working with the Welsh Government on that. I have already started discussions with both the Minister for Universities and Science and the Minister for Skills to ensure that the issue remains front of mind.
We heard yesterday about the deal between Tata and Greybull Capital, and we will do everything we can to help finalise that transaction for Tata’s long products division. Yesterday’s announcement has also helped safeguard almost 5,000 jobs; alongside Liberty House’s acquisition of steelworks in Scotland and the west midlands, it is a real vote of confidence in Britain’s steel industry.
I would not have been able to do this work alone and I want to praise my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, who has been absolutely tireless over the past year in her efforts to protect steel, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I have also had the pleasure of working closely with the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Assembly. They have both proved to be positive, constructive allies in the fight to save Port Talbot. The steel unions, particularly Community, have been equally constructive, consistently coming forward with solutions rather than complaints. For that, I thank them once again.
Investors everywhere know that British steel is the best in the world and that British steelworkers are the hardest working in the world. They know that the British Government stand with the steel industry. We will do whatever we can to support it and to help it become more competitive. The challenges we face are great and the crisis facing the steel industry is global, but I am fighting for Britain’s steelworkers every hour of the day. I was fighting for them long before this crisis hit the headlines and will go on fighting for them as long as it takes. Britain’s steelworkers are the best in the world, and they deserve no less.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on securing this debate; I appreciate your discretion in permitting it under Standing Order No. 24, Mr Speaker. I will speak briefly from the SNP Front Bench, to allow colleagues from steel communities both in Scotland and in England and Wales to contribute to this short debate.
Yesterday, the Business Secretary tried to dig himself out of the hole he had dug by claiming credit for the news that Tata may have found a buyer for the Scunthorpe plant. He told us that this Government had done everything they could for the steel industry and that workers in England and Wales, with their jobs on the line, should be grateful to the Tories. It is welcome news that Tata appears to have found a buyer for its operations in Scunthorpe, and I hope that buyers can be found for Port Talbot and other sites. If the Government have been involved in the deal, I commend that, but I am concerned at reports of a possible erosion of workers’ terms and conditions as part of the deal. Is the Business Secretary aware of that? If he had discussions with Greybull Capital, did the changes come up? Will he now make representations to it on that matter?
I am also keen to probe a bit further the Business Secretary’s apparent flirtation with direct UK Government investment and the potential co-ownership of steel sites, including Port Talbot. He described it as co-investment in “commercial terms”. Perhaps he could clarify that, because it was as clear as mud yesterday and left more questions than answers. Indeed, it appears that this morning No. 10 was briefing against his flirtation, saying that nationalisation is not the answer. How unco-ordinated and shambolic!
Tom Blenkinsop
On what the hon. Gentleman said about terms and conditions, that ends up going to ballot, after being negotiated with lay reps on site, including those at Skinningrove in my constituency. The reductions in terms and conditions and the pension contributions are for 12 months only. In collective bargaining that is usually called a short-term working agreement, and I have negotiated those many times in order to save sites. It is also an industrial matter; it is not really a political matter for this place to discuss.
Neil Gray
I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention in the spirit in which it was clearly given.
As I said yesterday, the fact that the Business Secretary was literally on the other side of the world at the height of this crisis two weeks ago when Tata made the announcement is a perfect metaphor for the Tory approach to the steel industry. Yesterday, I believe, was the first time this Government have proactively engaged with the House on the steel issue, and even that was after a shambolic recess, when there were calls for a recall of Parliament. On every other occasion I have been involved in discussions—certainly on the vast majority of occasions when steel has been discussed in this House—it has been because the Government have been dragged here by Opposition parties, as they have been again today. It is clear that the Government have been comfortably behind the curve on the steel crisis.
Neil Gray
I have already said that yesterday was the first time the Government had proactively done this, and that was after a shambolic recess. They have clearly been comfortably behind the curve on the steel crisis; we have seen poor, defensive reactions, rather than proactive and practical support. That is in stark contrast with the proactive, professional and diligent way the Scottish Government approached the crisis facing the Scottish plants at Clydebridge and Dalzell. Nicola Sturgeon said her Government would leave no stone unturned in saving a crucial industry, and that is exactly what happened.
The Scottish steel taskforce was quickly assembled, and I am delighted to say that my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) contributed to that, and that Liberty House has now bought these sites, to maintain a crucial industry in Scotland.
Yesterday, the Business Secretary was noble enough to commend the Scottish Government for their actions and efforts, and I thank him for that, but the mask slipped later on in the exchanges when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West asked whether the UK Government had learned anything from the approach taken in Scotland. He said the only reason why Scottish steel has a bright future is the strength of the UK economy. That was utterly complacent, arrogant and ignorant of the facts.
SNP Members now stand in solidarity with the steelworkers of England and Wales as they struggle and fight for their jobs and their industry, alongside their union representatives. We now hope the UK Government can work more co-operatively with EU colleagues on anti-dumping measures, energy costs and the other issues facing this industry, so there can be a long-term future for a crucial part of the manufacturing sector.
There needs to be a credible strategy for manufacturing and heavy industry in the UK, as the shadow Business Secretary said. This Government are facing a massive, record-breaking trade imbalance. The only way of rectifying that is if we start making things and if this Government start supporting those areas of the economy, rather than relying so heavily on other areas. Imagine what could have been achieved had the Prime Minister spent the last year touring European capitals pressing for action on steel, rather than testing the patience of European colleagues on his EU referendum gamble.
Yesterday, I asked the Business Secretary a simple question and he dodged it. He now has the opportunity to hear it again and perhaps he will take the opportunity to answer it. Will he publish details of all the meetings, phone calls and correspondence with the EU and with international and trade counterparts that he, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other members of the Cabinet have made in respect of the steel industry, and any such visits they have made? If he has done the work he claims to have done and if he has indeed strained every sinew for the steel industry, he can have nothing to hide. Indeed, publishing would help to show if he really had the grip on this issue he claims to have had.
I suspect that the Secretary of State dodged that issue and question yesterday because the reputation he has gained for himself in steel communities across these isles is ringing true. What we needed to hear, today and yesterday, was the commitment of this Government to save this crucial industry, not just for the workers—saving their jobs, and their skills and livelihoods—but for the wider economy. I wonder whether we will ever hear that commitment from this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On account of the level of interest, there has to be a time limit. We will begin with a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who speaks for the Scottish National party. I have to say that I thought some of his remarks were more designed for party political purposes than to deal with what we are facing today. We are dealing with people’s livelihoods and with whether they have jobs, and I hope the tone of the House today will be about a solution and what we can do, rather than about making party political points. I also regret, Sir, that Parliament was not recalled last week, as this was a matter of such urgency that we could have come back to have a proper debate, and Members interested in this vital issue would have attended. It was quite right, Sir, that you allowed this Standing Order No. 24 application and that it was unanimously approved by this House—there was no opposition to it.
I know that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. I declare an interest, as some of my constituents work in the steelworks in the neighbouring constituency and have contacted me about their concerns. This is about not just the people who work directly in the industry but those who rely on the economic benefit from it. I also spent 13 years in south Wales, so I know how important the industry is there.
The shadow Business Secretary analysed the situation very well. There has to be a steel industry in this country, and I think Members on both sides of the House agree on that. We cannot be left without a steel industry, and there is one reason for that: if there is a war in the future—I hope there will not be—we have to have our own steel industry or we cannot defend ourselves. Everyone accepts that we need a steel industry and everybody wants to work towards a solution. I know that the ministerial team have been working very hard but I do think they are working with one hand tied behind their back.
The shadow Business Secretary’s analysis was absolutely right: the problem our steel industry has is the unfair dumping of Chinese steel, and now perhaps Russian steel, on to the market, backed by state-controlled companies, which can put millions of pounds into their industries with no problem at all. If I was sitting in China and I wanted to keep my industry going, the classic way I would do it would be by selling my product abroad at less than what it costs to produce. What then happens, as we have seen, and as the Secretary of State has made clear, is that businesses across Europe close. When those industries are knocked out, the main supplier—in this case, China—takes a bigger share of the market and can then bump the price of steel up and hold the whole world to ransom. That is just what happens.
Where do I think the one hand tied behind the back is? It is the European Union. We have heard from Members on both sides of the House that the problem has been delays in the European Union dealing with tariffs. If we were in the United States, the President would just impose a tariff of 266% and that would shut off Chinese steel coming into the USA. Whatever we think about the issue and whether we think the Government have been poor in pushing for tariffs or not, I hope the whole House can agree that if this matter was totally in the hands of this Parliament, the Government could make their decision and act, and the Opposition could criticise and vote against it if they did not agree.
Sir Edward Leigh
This is a vital national industry. Can my hon. Friend imagine any previous UK Government, in war or peace, allowing our steel industry to go down the tube? My constituency abuts Scunthorpe, and many of my constituents cannot understand the situation. If we had control of our own destiny, surely we could just stop this dumping overnight. This is unfair, unreasonable and ridiculous dumping, and we should stop it.
Stephen Doughty
I was in agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman was saying until he got on to his usual track about the EU. Celsa in my constituency is a Catalan company that operates across the whole of the EU. If we were to leave and to lose access to the single market, we would still be bound by World Trade Organisation rules on state aid and other issues. The uncertainty, damage and risk to jobs in south Wales, which he said he cared about, would be immense. It is grossly irresponsible to suggest that leaving the EU would benefit the steel industry in this country.
Mr Bone
No, I cannot give way, because other Members wish to speak.
It is interesting to note that, by the time this debate ends, a cheque for £7 million will have been written by the Chancellor to send to Brussels—that is how much money we send every three hours to the European Union. Just a fraction of that money could be used to protect our steel industry.
On the question of whether we should renationalise the industry or sell it off, I have to say that I have no problem in that regard. A partial ownership of the steel industry for a period makes sense, as this is a strategic industry, but there is no point in doing that if we cannot solve the overall problem of the dumping of steel in this country. Put simply, we must cut out the cancer first. I have not come here today because of the European Union—[Interruption.] No! I have constituents who are concerned and worried about their jobs. Let me tell the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that it is because of the European Union that they may lose their jobs. It is no good him smiling and laughing, because that is the truth. He should be ashamed of saying otherwise.
If we really want to solve the problem of the steel industry, we must stop the dumping. I know that some Opposition Members do not like this, but the only way to save the steel industry is to come out of the EU and make our own decisions in this House. If we had left the EU months and months ago, we would have imposed tariffs on China. If Members want to save the steel industry, they will have to vote to come out of the EU.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I wish to start today by thanking both the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), for securing this debate, and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
I also thank the Secretary of State for his statements yesterday and today and for attending the special meeting of the all-party group on steel yesterday afternoon. However, although I am grateful to him, l regret to say that those meetings and statements have done little to address investor and customer confidence, which are of paramount importance at this time. Alongside the efforts the Government need to make to find and support a commercial operator, the priority at the moment should be securing the order book.
Erosion of the customer base is the most pressing issue facing the British steel industry. If the customer base goes, it will not come back. Unless the order book is secured, it does not matter what else happens. No one will buy a business if it has no customers—it is as simple as that. That is why I was so deeply concerned by the Secretary of State’s response to my question at the APPG yesterday, when I asked him to outline the specific actions he was taking in that regard. He said that he would be happy to engage with customers as and when they approached him. That is simply not good enough. The Secretary of State should be on the phone. He should be reaching out to the chief executive officers of Honda, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover and others, making it clear that production of the world class steel that they have come to expect and to rely on will continue, come hell or high water.
This House and every steelworker in the country now looks to the Secretary of State to take action. He should set out precisely, and in specific detail, the representations that he intends to make in the coming days and weeks to the companies that comprise the customer base, which is the lifeblood of the British steel industry.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the companies in the supply chain and the customers, and he is absolutely right to do so. What I have said to him and to others is that we are engaging with many of those organisations—I know that the Secretary of State for Wales is, too—but what he must understand is that much of this is commercially sensitive. Many of those suppliers would not like us to discuss who we are talking to and what their concerns are. I hope that he understands that it would be quite improper for us to divulge that information.
Stephen Kinnock
I fear that the Secretary of State has misunderstood me. I am simply saying that it is very important to be on the telephone to the customer base. [Interruption.] We on the Opposition Benches and the steelworkers of this country would like a little bit more detail. [Interruption.] Ministers must forgive us for being sceptical about what they are doing or for thinking that there may be a lack of action.
The Secretary of State talked about co-investment yesterday. Although I welcome the fact that he has belatedly converted to the fact that the Government and industry can work in partnership, I am not entirely sure what co-investment means in his terms. I agree with him that nationalisation is not a long-term solution, but what customers need to know is that, come what may, they will still be able to purchase strip products from the Tata sites. Such security can be offered only if the Government commit to keep all options on the table. Can the Secretary of State make such an assurance to the House?
The men and women working in steel and connected industries across this country are among the most highly skilled and effective people in Britain. The Port Talbot workers are already turning the business around, with improved productivity leading to tangible improvements in business and financial performance. Their skill and dedication is matched by that of Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of Community, who was even praised by the Secretary of State yesterday.
The surprise announcement that we really needed yesterday was not that of a Conservative praising a trade union leader, but that of the Government announcing an end to their laissez-faire attitude. What we needed from the Government was a list of all the discussions that they have had with the customer base, but what we got was yet more prevarication and procrastination. What we needed from the Government was the announcement that all options were on the table, but what we got was ambiguity. What we needed from the Government was the announcement that they would put down their pom-poms and give up their role as China’s chief cheerleader in Europe; that they would end their championing of market economy status for China; and that they would end their campaign against trade defence reform, but what we got was more of the same.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State only confirmed something that we already knew—that the Government’s approach has been characterised by a dangerous combination of indifference, incompetence and a rolling out of the red carpet for Beijing.
Andy McDonald
Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear that, when the Chancellor went to China, he invited it to take part in the HS2 project and to bid for the steel? That would mean having Chinese steel in one of our major infrastructure projects.
Stephen Kinnock
I was not surprised. Let me remind the House that 80% of the Chinese steel sector is state owned. On what planet can that be considered a market economy? I leave that to the House to decide.
The Secretary of State’s claims that he has been working on these things for months simply do not stack up. Yesterday, both in this House and at the APPG meeting, he claimed to have been aware of Tata’s decision to sell before it was publicly announced. If that was the case and if he really knew what was coming, why on earth was he on the other side of the world when the board meeting was taking place? Why was he caught so unaware? If he really was in the know as he claims to have been, why did he have to rush back to the UK in a mad panic?
The Secretary of State also boasted yesterday that it was his actions and his actions alone that prevented Tata from closing rather than selling Port Talbot and the rest of its strip products division. I must admit that my jaw hit the floor when I heard that claim. I was out in Mumbai. I was there for the board meeting with Roy Rickhuss and Community. The Secretary of State was not. Tata has expressed deep disappointment and frustration with the lack of support that it has received from this Government. We have seen delayed action on energy compensation, with many companies still waiting to receive their money, and weasel words on procurement from a Government who got the steel for the latest set of Ministry of Defence frigates from Sweden. Above all, Tata saw a Government who refused to support the steel sector in tackling Chinese dumping by opposing trade defence reforms, while championing market economy status for China. Therefore, this supposedly pro-business Government's influence on Tata is very limited. What really made the difference was Community’s high profile “Save our Steel” campaign, and the fact that Labour MPs have raised the issue of steel on more than 200 separate occasions since the general election.
The clock is ticking. Tata has said that it will give the sale “all due time”. Yesterday’s news about Scunthorpe took almost nine months, and it is still not fully complete. The deal on Port Talbot and the rest of Tata’s strip operations may also take time. Let us therefore hope that today’s debate marks a step change in attitude and action by the Government. Let us hope that they work proactively to protect the entirety of the order book and that they save the future of the heavy end in Port Talbot,
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman will know that his colleagues in the Welsh Government have spent £80 million on a conference centre in Newport and £58 million on the airport in Cardiff. Does he think that the £60 million allocated to Tata in Port Talbot is sufficient?
Stephen Kinnock
There is a stark contrast between the actions of the Welsh Government and the actions of the UK Government. There is £60 million on the table, and the Welsh Assembly was recalled, and that should have happened in Westminster, so the contrast is clear.
Let us hope that the Government develop and execute a proper industrial strategy, so that the Opposition do not have to raise this matter a further 200 times in the weeks and months to come. Let us hope that they will stand up for steel.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), but it is unfortunate that his speech veered towards the critical, rather than the constructive. However, he can be forgiven, because he is one of many MPs speaking in this debate with a significant steelmaking presence in his constituency.
My constituency is not one of those constituencies, but in Parliament we talk as one community for all our constituencies, and discuss how different constituencies and communities can reach out to communities that are severely affected when things go wrong in an industry or because of a natural disaster. Let me repeat that the issues in the steel industry are not going to go away. We face many years of brutal competition in the global steel industry. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team can, over the coming months, successfully find long-term solutions for steelmaking plants in Motherwell, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, that will be a significant achievement in these times.
As someone who does not have a steelworks in his constituency, I believe it is important to discuss what the rules ought to be on what is fair for communities across the country. The OECD in its report last year on the steel industry said:
“In competitive economies, it is the responsibility of the steel companies themselves to identify ways to adapt to changing market conditions.”
We have to accept that many steel companies in the UK have failed to do that. The OECD goes on to say:
“The role of governments should be to allow market mechanisms to work properly and avoid measures that artificially support steelmaking capacity.”
The OECD understands the ways in which developed and developing economies can prosper, and it is important that the Government bear those words in mind. It is also important—and I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise on this in her closing speech—that while we prepare for the best we also prepare for the worst. I should like to know what the Government are doing to prepare support for Port Talbot if all their best efforts to save the steelworks do not come to fruition. May I make one point from my memory of the coal-mining communities in the 1980s? The Government can never give enough support to communities that rely on a single industry.
Richard Fuller
No, this is a lesson that we all need to learn. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady stops chuntering, I can make a point with which she might agree. Lessons have been learned from the 1980s, and in communities with a significant concentration of industries the Government always have to do more than they think they have to do.
Duties have been mentioned a number of times, so let us clear up the lesser duty rule. The point, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, is whether the duty is effective. We follow the lesser duty rule, and in the three instances that he mentioned, import penetration has all but disappeared. Giving up the lesser duty rule is not about stopping more steel coming in, but about raising prices on those products. If a 14% tariff is increased to 50% when imports are eliminated that will result in inflationary pressure from the steel industry to other markets, and might be regarded as supporting subsidies from one part of the steel industry to another. It is not right to give up the lesser duty rule, which is the underpinning of the World Trade Organisation, and to take the US approach of zeroing in on tariffs.
On the 267% tariff that America imposed on Chinese cold rolled flat, it was part of the same US decision that imposed a 31% tariff on Tata steel. Tit for tat on trade tariffs does not work.
David Mowat
Does my hon. Friend have a view about why Chinese dumping affects the UK industry much more than the German and Dutch industries? Indeed, Tata is trying to consolidate in Holland. Why have we been affected differently?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend speaks very intelligently. Private companies make decisions in different markets across the European Union. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), although we agree on Brexit, as I am not sure that the EU is pertinent to the decision that will affect the steel industry. The Government have taken effective action on procurement and power. Having served on a Bill Committee on the privatisation of Royal Mail, I think that a case can be made for the Government to take action on the pension requirements for members of the British steel industry, which was a nationalised industry. There is plenty of scope, for people like me who believe in the free market, to argue that the Government can take action on that basis.
The Opposition say that they believe in nationalisation. The hon. Member for Aberavon said that he believes in nationalisation, but that it is “not a long-term solution”. Opposition Members do not know when the crisis in the global steel industry is going to end. The global capacity glut is over 30%. I am afraid that if we nationalised, we could not determine when we could return the industry to the private market. If people nationalise, they do so for as long as it takes, and I believe, although I understand why my right hon. Friend will not do so, that the Government should rule out nationalisation, which is a step too far for the British economy in supporting the steel industry.
Finally, may I put the issue of the steel industry in context? During the time that most of us will spend in the House—I am looking at older Members—we will live though a global over-supply of capacity. That will be true not just of steel but of other sectors of our economy. We need to understand and abide by the rules that have created a free trade system that has been one of the biggest supports in improving living standards around the world. Supporting WTO rules on the lesser duty tariff is important, as is avoiding a tit for tat war on tariffs. Supporting communities with a significant industry that is affected and making sure that the Government do more than they think they need to do to support those communities are part of making sure that our economy supports them. I commend the Government on their actions, and I will continue to support them critically.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my colleague on the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. I do not agree with much of what he said, but the rigour of his analysis, both in his speech and in his work on the Committee, makes the Committee much sharper in what it does, so I commend him for that.
I welcome the emergency debate, because steel industry is facing a real emergency. It has faced it for some time. The Committee found, going back 40 years, that successive Governments failed to value manufacturing and domestic steelmaking capability as the foundations of an innovative economy. Other countries—and this is in reference to an intervention from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—value their domestic steel industry more than we do, which makes them more resilient to the perfect storm of over-production and low steel prices affecting global steel markets.
I want to put it on the record that the challenges facing all steel manufacturers around the world are vast. China produces more steel than all other steel manufacturing nations put together. In two years China has produced more steel than we, the inventors of modern steelmaking, have produced since the start of the industrial revolution, so even if the Government were doing all they could, those challenges would remain vast.
The Government could do more, because Britain does not face a level playing field in respect of steel production. One contributing factor is the high pound. I know that the Government will not do anything to affect that, but they can intervene directly on uncompetitive energy costs and business rates, which put British-based steel manufacturers at a disadvantage.
In December we on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee published our report on the Government response to the steel crisis. That was prompted by big turbulence, particularly the closure of SSI in Redcar in early October. It revealed the shocking absence of an effective early-warning system in Whitehall designed to detect and address mounting problems in the industry. Industry had been crying out for some time, with five asks concerning procurement, business rates and energy costs, but the Government had been deaf to such pleas. Had they been alert, they would not have had to resort to crisis management and preside over the tragic hard closure of an integrated steel facility, the second most efficient blast furnace anywhere in Europe, and the loss forever to the steel industry of jobs and skills.
The Select Committee’s report found that the Government recognised the vital importance of the steel industry, but the increased activity had not yet translated into a measurable impact on those in the industry and the communities that they sustain. Five months on from the closure of SSI, with other losses such as Caparo, and with the decision last month by Tata to sell its UK steel operations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that lessons have not been learned and that increased activity has not resulted in positive outcomes.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend talks about the absence of an early-warning system. In his capacity as Chair of the BIS Committee, does he have any concerns that there is insufficient capacity in the Department to respond to challenges as they emerge on world markets?
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should be looking out for the British economy, making sure that it is the Department for future economic growth. It needs the civil service capacity to do that, and the proposal for it to lose 30% to 40% of its headcount will have enormous consequences for those early-warning systems and for the expertise and knowledge of the steel industry and other key sectors that are needed to ensure that Britain can thrive.
Today and yesterday in his statement, the Secretary of State stated that he was aware that Tata was planning to hard close its steel operations in Port Talbot and elsewhere, but that he prevented that from happening. He was fully aware of the enormity of the crisis, yet he still flew to Australia rather than Mumbai. The evidence surely suggests that he was left blindsided by Tata’s decision, which again demonstrates that no effective early-warning systems were in place. The Secretary of State should have gone out with Roy Rickhuss and with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to the Tata board meeting to bat for British steelmaking. The fact that he subsequently went to Mumbai, days after that key board meeting, shows that he knew he had made an earlier error.
The contrast must be made with the events of 2012, when Vince Cable as Business Secretary went to New York to persuade General Motors to make a long-term commitment to the UK, despite overcapacity and loss making in car-manufacturing operations in Europe. As a result of close partnership between the Government of the day, trade unions and local management, GM closed a plant in Germany and committed to build the new Vauxhall Astra at its Ellesmere Port facility. Given the great industrial relations in steel, fantastic trade unions, exceptional steelworkers and committed local management, why cannot this model be adopted for the steel industry?
We must look to the future and ensure that we have a sustainable steel industry. I have mentioned the existential threat to British steelmaking, but it is important to recognise that steel should be seen not as an obsolete industry, but as one whose future is essential to much of British manufacturing. We should be honest about the challenges, but we should not talk the industry down, which would further hasten the signing of its death warrant. We all have a responsibility to ensure that customers do not take flight.
The Government can help significantly with that. They have brought forward welcome changes to procurement rules that should favour British-made steel and its products during the awarding of public contracts. Something similar was announced in October following the steel summit, but we have no tangible evidence in the form of new contracts flowing to British plants and mills. Not a single pound of value has been seen. I asked the Secretary of State yesterday after his statement how greater and urgent collaboration was taking place between the Government, the Steel Council and the strategic sector councils such as the Automotive Council, the Aerospace Growth Partnership and the Offshore Wind Industry Council. Will the Minister provide further clarity about that?
Steel plays a major part in the infrastructure of the country. On 23 March, six days before the Mumbai meeting, the Government published the national infrastructure delivery plan. It contains one reference to steel. Will the Government commit to talking to the Cabinet Office to make sure that more can be done? This is incredibly important for my constituency in respect of the steel pipe mills and for the future of British manufacturing. It is important that we move from warm words to tangible action to safeguard British steel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whose constituency has a downstream Tata production site. We share that similarity, and I share much of the sentiment that he expressed.
The present situation is of great concern to 600 families in Corby. As the local Member of Parliament, I think about them all the time in the work that I am doing on a cross-party basis in our area to try to support them and the steel industry in general. Margot Parker, the UKIP MEP, Tom Beattie, the Labour leader of the council, and I are working closely together to campaign on the issue. That is what local people and those who work at the local plant expect us to do. I was very pleased that the Minister was able to come and join us in those efforts last week.
I am also pleased to be working with Dougie Fairbairn and the Community union representatives at the Corby plant. That relationship is very important. Their feedback helps me to participate in debates such as this, ask questions and put their concerns to Ministers. That needs to be replicated nationally. There is far too much knockabout. I want to see us all getting round the table, working with the unions, Ministers, Back-Bench MPs and employees to make sure that we find solutions to these pressing problems.
The visit last week was useful not just to meet employees, but to get a briefing on where things stand in relation to the Corby plant. A clear message came across that both investment and time are needed. We should bear that in mind as we move forward. That leads me to the challenges that the industry so clearly faces.
The first one is so evidently the overarching challenge of dumping. The unfair, uncompetitive practices that we are seeing are unacceptable. We have heard a lot about Chinese dumping, but the particular concern in Corby is Russian dumping. We have all acknowledged that we have a brilliant steel industry. The product produced in this country is world-leading, but it currently cannot compete because the playing field is not level. That frames the whole of the ensuing debate.
The Chinese objective is clear. It is to dominate the world market and put other suppliers out of business so that the Chinese can raise the price and reel in the profits. For some industries, cheap steel at present might be an attractive prospect, but the longer-term consequences will be much more serious. Industry in this country and around the world needs to recognise that. We need to respond with strong tariffs and emulate some of the actions that President Obama, for example, is taking, although I do not agree with him on very much.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling point on anti-dumping tariffs. Does he agree that the issue is not just how high the anti-dumping duties are set? The Government have got the lesser duty rule completely wrong. It is not fit for purpose to deal with the scale of dumped steel from China. Also important is the speed with which decisions are taken. In vetoing that decision, the Government are blocking a more accelerated timetable for the imposition of anti-dumping duties.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We ought to take another look at the lesser duty rule. It makes sense to refresh our thinking on these matters all the time. However, speed is important. One of the frustrations that I was going to speak about later is the time it took in the European Commission last year to approve the energy compensation package. Those delays were unacceptable. It took far too long. We need quicker action.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know was at the Corby steelworks three times last week. Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who criticised the European Union for being slow and ineffective in dealing with the steel industry?
Tom Pursglove
The former Deputy Prime Minister probably knows better than most how inefficient the European Union is.
Tom Pursglove
I am not going to give way, because I am very conscious of the time.
As well as getting the tariffs right—I think we should have another look at them—we should consider the market economy status argument that is being made, which is very important. I happen to take the view that if the Chinese are not going to play by the rules, they should simply not be allowed to have market economy status, and I hope that the European Union reaches that conclusion as well.
On energy costs, we have heard a lot in recent years about climate change. We need to be thinking constantly about the consequences of the policies we introduce and the agreements we sign up to. The Government must not act with a silo mentality in relation to these matters; they must be looking constantly at the implications of changes in energy policy. We must always bear that in mind. I welcome the energy compensation package to which I alluded a little while ago, but it did take months and months to approve. Yesterday the Secretary of State mentioned the package of measures that the Government are seeking to introduce in relation to exempting, and we heard about potential delays in that. I would be very interested to hear in his final remarks today exactly where we are with the exemption package, because I think it is an important step forward.
I happen to take the view that we ought to get much tougher on procurement. We have seen some really positive steps, but it is simply unacceptable for any public bodies in this country not to be using British steel at this time. We are seeing big procurement projects and fracking is coming on stream, so we ought to be exploring all the possibilities and ensuring that our procurement policy reflects exactly that. The integrity of the order book is very important, but so too is the integrity of supply chains. We need suppliers to keep on supplying, as well as buyers to keep on buying.
On business rates, at a time when we are trying to find somebody to buy the Corby site and the others that Tata owns in this country, it makes little sense that we are asking investors to step up to the mark and consider buying plant or the portfolio but then penalising them the moment that investment is made. It makes no sense whatsoever. I advocated a business rates holiday for the industry before the Budget, and I would like Ministers to have another look at that, because this is about trying to show signs of confidence that the Government are backing the industry and that we are all coming together to do just that. It is a bizarre anomaly.
In relation to trying to find a buyer for the Tata sites, I take the view that all options must be on the table. We should not rule anything out. I know that people will say, “But you are a free market Conservative,” and I am, but the fact is that our steel industry is not competing on a level playing field at the moment, and that requires action that does not necessarily go with the normal grain. We should therefore not rule anything out. If a short period of public ownership is required in order to find a buyer for the sites, I think that is exactly what we should do.
Tom Pursglove
That is absolutely right. I want to hear a little more to be able to ascertain exactly what Ministers are thinking about that. In trying to find a buyer, we must not let state aid rules get in the way. If they get in the way, we should simply ignore them and do what is right by our steel industry. That is the message that my constituents expect me to convey as their local Member of Parliament.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this very important debate, particularly because I have 900 very good quality jobs on the line at Tata Speciality Steels in Stocksbridge. I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said earlier. I will not rehearse the usual arguments that have been articulated so ably by so many Members already, such as on energy costs and business rates. I will not talk about co-investment, because many comments have been made about that already, too.
Instead, I want to focus on confidence in the future of the steel industry. We risk seeing the industry undermined by people posing as experts in the field, such as commentators in the print media, and giving the impression that the industry’s day is done. It is not done; it has a great future. One example is the TaxPayers Alliance—let me make it clear that this is not an ideological attack—which stated last week:
“Unlike German plants which produce specialised products used in the car industry, UK plants have tended to produce basic products using out of date technology.”
I just want to put it on the record that every Formula 1 car made in this country, apart from Ferrari, has a bit of Stocksbridge steel in it, as does every aircraft in the sky. It is Stocksbridge steel that lands the planes safely, because it is used in the landing gear. It is Stocksbridge steel that makes up part of the Rolls-Royce engine that keeps the aircraft in the sky. We in Stocksbridge are incredibly proud of what we do, and the workforce are passionate about the industry’s future and they intend to have a long-term future, but they need the Government’s support.
I want to illustrate the other things that the plant in my constituency is doing. We have just secured £50 million of investment so that we can make the steel and remelt it to make even purer steel, at the VIM, or vacuum induction melting, plant, which the Minister knows about, so that we can go even further up the value chain, instead of just aerospace steel.
Just to correct the record, let me say that Stocksbridge is not a downstream operation. Tata Speciality Steels makes its own steel, remelts it and makes some of the best steel in the world. We have four projects at Stocksbridge, one of which involves making powdered steel, which is worth £30,000 to £40,000 per tonne. If we get the investment for that, with the atomizer plant that will go on the side of the VIM plant, our future will be spectacular. We must secure that future.
By the way, I make that point in relation to all the Tata plants at risk. People say, “Let’s go niche. Let’s specialise.” Actually, Stocksbridge is very specialised, but the steel made at Port Talbot is also specialised and very high quality. It is a different type of steel and it is made according to a different process—it uses blast furnaces, rather than electric arc furnaces—but it still makes fantastic, good quality steel. We make some of the best steel in the world.
In conclusion, too many commentators are focusing on steel as an industry of the past, but it is an industry of the future. I will finish by looking at the reports recently published by the Government’s chief scientific advisor, Mark Walport. He made it clear that manufacturing will be transformed over the next 30 years or so. The future of our manufacturing industry is focused on adaptability, in terms of the rapidly changing intellectual and physical infrastructure that we need. The steel industry is very well placed to do that. Tata has been completely focused on doing that; it just needs the support to get there—or rather, the new owner will need that support.
Mark Walport also made it clear that we need shorter and more integrated supply chains, because of issues relating to quality and safety standards. Our steel industry delivers that. Aerospace companies such as Airbus and Boeing know that they need those integrated, short supply chains, and they get nervous if the supply chains are disrupted. That is why we need to maintain confidence in the industry. I call on the Government to play their part by doing whatever they can to save our steel.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I, too, want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important debate. Steel is a huge part of the economy of my home town of Newport. In fact, my first job was at British Steel. I declare an interest as a British Steel pension holder, although what that pension will be worth after all this, I do not know.
Members on both sides of the House have spoken very well. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made the point that the fundamental problem is the vast amount of steel that has been coming into the marketplace from China since about 2008, and the fact that the demand for it is just not there. In reality, as he says, nobody can do anything about that fundamental problem, but there are certainly things the Government could do to help. Tata was losing about £1 million a day—we had the figures a few weeks ago. Frankly, the Government are not doing enough to help; I will not mince my words today.
One problem is that there has been a lack of consistency on both sides of the House. We need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: do we want heavy manufacturing industries in this country? Of course, people say the answer is yes, and I think the answer is yes, but if it is, one has to ask why, over the last few years, Governments of all parties—this Government, the coalition Government and certainly the Labour Government—have enacted policies that have made it much harder for heavy industry to continue.
Those Governments swallowed lock, stock and barrel the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that is causing runaway global warming, and they enacted a series of policies that made things very expensive for any industry that emits CO2, and made it expensive for heavy manufacturers to buy in energy. We have brought in renewables obligations and carbon floor prices, and as a result, we now have the highest energy costs in Europe. That point was made to us on the Welsh Affairs Committee by manufacturers and the unions. Dealing with the issue may not resolve the fundamental question, of course, but it could make the difference between an industry that is profitable in some areas and one that is not. It could also make the difference to companies such as Tata when they are deciding whether to maintain a plant here or in the Netherlands.
It is important that we think about things consistently. To be honest, I do not buy the argument that carbon dioxide is causing runaway global warming. I have spoken about this before, and I cannot deal with the issue in the next two minutes, but there is simply no correlation with the tiny increase we have had in temperature. Therefore, the Government need to rethink their policy.
Instead of deciding to get rid of the carbon taxes and energy taxes that helped to create the problem in the first place—taxes supported by Governments and MPs of all parties—the Government have brought forward a compensation package. The package is all right as far as it goes, although it had to go through a great big bureaucratic steeplechase in the European Union, which Members on both sides also support, and which I certainly do not. However, having got there in the end, and with the first cheques going out as we speak, what have we actually done? We levied a huge tax on an industry, and now we will give some of that money back, because the tax is having exactly the impact we thought it would, which is to punish the industry. I put it to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) that it would surely be much more sensible to scrap the carbon taxes in the first place. There is not much point having a tax if one has to compensate people for its effect.
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes an important point. However, if Members on both sides truly believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and is causing runaway global warming, they should stand up, take a bow and explain to steelworkers that those workers losing their jobs is a price worth paying to stop the minute increases we have seen in temperatures—although, in fact, we have not seen any increase in about 17 years. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.
We should say that of course we want heavy manufacturing industries in this country. It is not just steel that is threatened; this is also not just about Tata. The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will be aware that one other steel manufacturer in south Wales has said that it may face severe economic problems unless something is done about high energy prices. Sanjeev Gupta, a constituent who is head of Liberty House, has said that we need to scrap the carbon floor price. As I said, this is not just about steel; it is about glass, chemicals, cement and all sorts of other heavy manufacturing industries. If hon. Members truly believe that these industries are polluting the atmosphere and causing a great increase in temperature, although we have not actually seen any evidence of that for 17 years, they are doing exactly the right thing. However, I happen to think that all of them, and this Government, are doing the wrong thing.
It is high time we stopped trying to tax our manufacturing industries, stopped taxing companies that could be profitable, and stopped handing the money to expensive wind farms that generate electricity at two or three times market rates, particularly when the wind farm companies involved are not even willing to buy steel from this country, and import it all instead. In the Committee, the Minister described the policy as barmy, and she was right, although she was probably being far too polite.
I have no problem at all with CO2 being emitted. I want a viable heavy manufacturing industry in this country, and I want to see lots of jobs and low taxation. I am perfectly relaxed about CO2 emissions.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
This is not just about the obvious news stories about Port Talbot or the strip industry; it involves all Tata sites, including Aldwarke, Thrybergh, Stocksbridge, Shotton, Llanwern, Orb, Corby and Hartlepool; this is a UK steel crisis.
I reiterate that Tata has to behave like a responsible seller, and we need to remind it of its antics in 2010, when Kirby Adams, the then chief executive of Tata in Europe, tried to use skulduggery to shut Redcar. We solved that problem, but it took more than two years—two years in which there was not one hard redundancy. We need to remind Tata of its previous behaviour and not see it happen again.
British steel is not a basket case, a failed industry or a sunset industry; it is a very successful industry. We had evidence of that recently, when Liberty Steel bought Dalzell and Clydebridge—integral parts of any programme for Trident renewal. Teesside Beam Mill, Skinningrove, Scunthorpe, York, Blaydon and, indeed, Hayange in France, which is part of the long products division sold off to Greybull, are another success story of assets that investors want to buy into. They also demonstrate the European aspect of the previous Corus-British Steel envelope, and we still have sites in IJmuiden and Hayange.
British steel has always relied for its totemic name on its quality and its research and development. Places such as the Materials Processing Institute in Teesside at the old labs at Grangetown, as well as the research and development capacity in Rotherham and Sheffield, when linked with blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces, gives us the ability to control the destiny of metallurgy in our nation. That means we can innovate and create new products. That must be remembered.
I am interested in the notion of co-investment, whether that is in cash terms, or whether it is about an equity stake, a loan, R and D or, more importantly, Government policy. If we are to have a real discussion in this place, we have to look at the different options for co-investment. That is not about the individual commercial parties that may be interested in purchasing, but about putting ideas on the table so that we can actually plan an industrial strategy, because we have not done that in the last five years.
Let us take the issue of Chinese dumping. This is a new phenomenon; it has been going on for four and a half years. Before that, it was not happening. The circumstances have changed, and that is why the Government have to change the way they behave on the lesser duty rule and other legislation. There are no precedents, and that is why we cannot stick to rigid dogma, or even analytical argument around World Trade Organisation rules. On co-investment, I have to question whether we are properly looking at issues such as shale gas, and whether parties are being honest about the policy on that, because we are talking about gas-intensive industries.
On carbon capture and storage, the Government have to come clean. They have pulled the rug from under energy-intensive industries on carbon capture and storage. How will they maintain energy-intensive industries—whether it is chemical processing, shale, steel, light manufacturing, glass, cement or bricks—without a proper strategy on carbon? Taxes can be implemented under the EU emissions trading scheme or unilaterally, by bringing in the carbon price floor. They did that in the Budget some years ago, and they promised to give compensation. However, they did not calculate that if they wanted to compensate people for their own unilateral British tax, they could do so only via the European Union. They had not done the requisite work; they looked at the margins that a Treasury civil servant brought forward and just applied a rule, and they are now reaping the consequences of that.
Ultimately, Port Talbot, the strip and every single other site need time. In 2010, Redcar was saved over two years; SSI had six weeks and fell. We have to give British Tata sites time so that they can be saved. We need proper definitions of co-investment for the community to discuss.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense. On the issue of time and co-investment, the Government could provide a bridging loan that extends beyond the period for which Tata is prepared to subsidise the steelworks, until a future buyer is found. Is that the sort of co-investment that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?
Tom Blenkinsop
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for giving me some more time. I really appreciate his comment.
Continued production is another pillar. If we are to save these sites, production has to be continuous or skills will be lost. In Redcar in 2010, the then regional development agency, One North East, along with Government agencies in Whitehall, provided a £60 million package. That came from RDA and central Government budgets. It retained people in the area on training courses while we—I was a union officer at the time—negotiated with other parties, such as Marcegaglia, Dongkuk and SSI, to get that site bought. It is vital to look at continuous production, time and other elements of co-investment, not just the cash element.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this extremely important debate. I thank the Secretary of State and his team for keeping the House informed—in particular for keeping in continuous contact with me and other Members. I thank the Government for the extremely constructive and close way in which they have worked thus far with the unions and other parties.
I congratulate the Community union, whose evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee was very impressive indeed. Representatives were here yesterday. I am pleased that the Government have kept in contact and ensured that everybody has been kept informed at every stage, because this is about livelihoods. As someone who grew up and was schooled with many who went on to the local steel industry, I recognise how important the industry, the supply chain, the steel stockholders and the maintenance companies that look after the Port Talbot steelworks are to families in my constituency of Gower.
The Government’s interesting announcement yesterday about co-investing with a buyer highlights their commitment to the people who work at Port Talbot. That will help to ensure the survival of the steelworks, but it also demonstrates the need to work on a vast number of issues, many of which have been mentioned today and during the past week, to ensure a viable long-term future for the industry.
It is crucial that parties work with each other in this Chamber and go beyond party politics to ensure the survival of steelmaking at Port Talbot. I want briefly to discuss one of the areas that we need to consider as part of our long-term strategy: the use of British steel in infrastructure projects. I know that there are rules and guidelines, but we must think strategically about our use of steel.
The Government’s increased investment in infrastructure means that British steel has had more opportunities to be used, as a result of which our workers, their families and our communities have been supported. For example, 98% of the steel that National Rail has used has been British, while 95% of that used by Crossrail has been. Indeed, HS2 and Crossrail 2 will provide further huge opportunities for our steel industry. As we have heard, something like 94% of the steel used in manufacturing aircraft procured by the Government has been British and, of course, the Great Western Railway electrification to Swansea will provide a further opportunity to use steel.
We need to ensure that our infrastructure strategy and investment tie in very closely with the use of British steel. I was extremely pleased when the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up the National Infrastructure Commission, headed by Lord Adonis, to give this country the infrastructure to support future economic growth. Will the commission examine how projects could make use of British materials such as steel and support vital industries? Infrastructure projects support local families, local businesses and local communities.
From the coffee shop to the hairdresser and the baker, businesses across south Wales, particularly in the Swansea bay region, are deeply concerned about their future. We need to look at a wide-ranging and long-term strategy to make the industry viable for south Wales. A joint strategy that supports economic growth in the region could consider projects such as the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which is the type of infrastructure project that would not only add jobs, but continue to support those workers and families just over the bay in Port Talbot.
We must work together. Political grandstanding will not save jobs, provide a long-term viable future for steel production in Port Talbot or support businesses in the supply chain across south Wales. The history of steel in our communities runs deeper than political point-scoring, which causes confusion. Only last week, I spoke to a lady constituent who is a Tata employee, as is her husband, and both of them were appalled and disappointed by the political rhetoric from certain quarters.
We have a shared history and experience of steel in south Wales. Our communities, our social fabric and our lives have all been built or touched by the steel industry. Only by working as one can we provide the future we all want for steel in Port Talbot. Politicians who grandstand in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with steelworkers will not help. We need action, and that is what the Government are clearly providing, constructively and conscientiously. I applaud their actions to date and look forward to a positive outcome for the people of Port Talbot and the many employees who reside in my constituency of Gower.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Tata’s announcement that it would no longer support its operation at Port Talbot came as no surprise to Labour Members. We had been warning the Government for months that that was coming down the line, but they chose to do nothing. The Secretary of State was on the other side of the world when the announcement came, and he now clings to the claim that he somehow saved the plant while he was in Australia. As workers at Redcar found out, this Government do too little, too late, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has said, they offer warm words but no action.
This crisis now affects the whole of the UK steel industry, not only Port Talbot. The media have a habit of describing the whole UK steel industry as loss-making, but that is far from the truth for a lot of those plants that add value. Shotton steelworks galvanises and colour-coats steel. It is a profitable business that employs 800 people—quality jobs that are vital to the economy of Deeside. Profitable it may be, but that does not ensure its long-term survival. Shotton relies on steel from the Port Talbot operation. If Port Talbot closes sooner rather than later, it would not be long before Shotton would have to cease its operation due to lack of supply.
The idea that someone can just pick up the phone and buy in from China or anywhere else lots of cheap steel of the quality and quantity needed for a plant such as Shotton is far from reality. To ensure the future of Shotton—I made this point to the Secretary of State yesterday—we need a lot of time. That is a common theme of what colleagues on both sides of the House are saying.
Time is needed not only to find a buyer for the whole of the UK business that will invest and commit to the future, but to allow the downstream businesses to find an alternative steel supplier should the worst happen. I do not want to see that, but the Government have to plan for all scenarios. As many other colleagues have said, we have to reassure the customer base as well. If we do not do that, there will be no businesses to sell to, because the customers will start to leave and walk away. They need assurances.
Shotton, probably more than anywhere else, knows about the impact of job losses in industry. In 1980, despite the gallant efforts of my predecessor, now Lord Jones, and the trade unions, Shotton saw its steelmaking cease and more than 6,500 people lose their jobs. At the time, it was the largest number of job losses at a single plant on a single day anywhere in the history of western Europe. Although the area has recovered and new employers have moved in and grown, the scars of the events of 1980 remain.
On Deeside, nearly everybody has a family member or a friend who worked in the industry. Some people never worked again. The lesson is that such large-scale job losses affect not only the individuals who once worked the industry, but their families and the whole area. Such job losses destroy whole communities, which take many years to recover. The Government have an opportunity to save the industry and assure its long-term future, but they need to act—and they need to act now.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
We have two important debates this afternoon: this one on steel, and the debate later on the contaminated blood scandal. As a steel group member, I am incredibly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has been able to secure the debate. I gently reassure anyone who has come to lobby on the contaminated blood scandal that hon. Members will be here to speak for them in that debate later. It will be a very long day for those who have travelled from far and wide to get here. Both of the debates remind me of “Groundhog Day”, because we have to come back time and again to rehearse the same arguments and press for action.
Understandably, much of the focus has been on Port Talbot, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his efforts with the steel unions. As has been said, however, this is a UK steel crisis. Steelmaking may have ceased in 2001 in Llanwern, but slab has been imported by rail from our sister plant in Port Talbot ever since. Our steelworkers are proud to roll UK steel, and they want to continue to do so. They are looking to the Government to ensure that happens.
At Llanwern, we have taken a cumulative hit over the last few years. Hundreds of jobs have been lost, to the point where we have 700 left. It has been painful. Many of the Llanwern steel workers have transferred to Port Talbot, and they now face uncertainty there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) has said eloquently, steel could have a great future. At Llanwern, we have the Zodiac line, which is Tata Steel’s world-class coil galvanising line. The Zodiac line is doing well. Orb Electrical Steels, which produces a type of high-tech electrical steel, is in profit following a period of restructuring a few years ago. As is often said in debates such as this, steel is cyclical, and Orb demonstrates that. The order books are healthy.
We have had much in the way of warm words, with phrases such as “do all we can to help”—that has been said again today—but what do they mean in practical terms? The asks from the unions have been well rehearsed today, and I would like to add to them. The unions want fast action to protect the order books to ensure the businesses are saleable. It is crucial to the future of Llanwern and Orb that they are not undermined by seepage of business elsewhere before any sale or transferring of work. The unions want time for the sale, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) has said. It is important to know the timescale. Long Products took nine months, and Tata appears to be saying four months. As the shadow Business Secretary has said, we need time for an appropriate consideration of offers. What is the news on the Secretary of State working with Tata to ensure that it is a responsible seller?
I have many steelworkers in my constituency but also a large number of steel pensioners. Can the Government give those pensioners and future steel pensioners some reassurance about their pension fund, and can the Secretary of State outline the actions that the Government are taking?
The asks from the steel industry in recent times have been for action on Chinese dumping, on which the Government have failed. They have also failed to act on the lesser duty rule. It is ironic that while our Government have been slow to act on tariffs to protect our industry, the Chinese Government have just imposed 46% tariffs on electrical steel. Although Orb no longer exports to China, companies in other countries do. They will be looking for alternative customers in other countries, and that could mean issues down the line for our electrical steel industry sales.
We have asked for action on energy prices. That took two years to deliver, and is only just coming through now. That is too slow. We need real action on procurement, not simply the souped-up advice note that came out last week. Will the Minister tell us today what specific projects he has in mind? The Welsh Government have done all they can to help with the levers that they have had at their disposal. That has included setting up the steel taskforce to work on practical ways to help. I know from my union reps who came here yesterday how much that relationship is valued.
References were made yesterday to grandstanding, and they have been repeated today. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that steel group members have raised issues to do with steel time and time again in the Chamber. It is not grandstanding; it is personal. It is personal because our constituents are loyal, resourceful, highly skilled and incredibly hard-working. We understand what they are going through in tough times. These are valued jobs.
The issue is also personal because I look around the Chamber and see my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who worked at Llanwern, as did his dad; I see my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), whose dad also worked there. I see my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who worked as an industrial chemist in Llanwern. My parents met in the steel industry at Ebbw Vale. There are many others. We cannot let our steelworkers down, and I make no apology for speaking up for them.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank all those who managed to get your permission to hold this debate, Mr Speaker.
I was a member of the Scottish steel taskforce, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). The Scottish steel taskforce was a partnership of Tata Steel, local authorities, trade unions, political parties, the UK Government and Scottish Government agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and Partnership Action for Continuing Employment. The taskforce was put together by the Scottish Government to help to find a buyer for the threatened Scottish plants in Dalzell and Clydebridge. The taskforce did a great job, as some Members and the Minister may well know.
The handover took place on Friday, based on a back-to-back agreement whereby the Scottish Government bought the plants from Tata and sold them on to Liberty House. It was a wonderful day. We were surrounded by all the members of the taskforce, the steelworkers and their families and friends. It was an emotional day. Steel is an iconic industry in my constituency, and it is responsible for some of the specialised steel that is used in the defence industry and in the oil and gas industry. It could not be allowed to go under, and the Scottish Government did not allow that to happen. They took a very proactive approach to the threat. They put forward legislation that introduced a one-year relief on business rates for a prospective buyer. The assessor agreed to look at the state of the steel industry when revaluation takes place next year.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency worked closely with the taskforce to make sure that any prospective buyer or anyone who was interested got the best possible advice as efficiently and quickly as possible. The Scottish Government have produced a new responsible procurement policy, which echoes and, in some instances, betters that which has been produced by the UK Government. [Interruption.] The Minister chunters; I am sorry, but I have lost my place.
The Scottish Government are working to reduce overall energy consumption and energy cost. The Scottish Government were very pleased that the EU cleared the energy intensive package in December last year, after the UK Government were prodded into action by the UK steel summit. Skills Development Scotland developed an upskilling programme to help to retain key staff and to help them to move back into employment once a buyer was found. Those were the very people who were there on Friday. Sanjeev Gupta of Liberty Steel said that the transfer of ownership could not have happened without the efforts of the Scottish Government. He has also indicated that 150 jobs will be created to get the plants back up and running again, which gets us almost back to where we were.
The UK Government cannot rely on helping workers after the event. It is the Government’s duty to be proactive, and to be seen to be so, in securing buyers for effective plants, following the Scottish Government model. Scottish Government phoned prospective buyers, kept in touch with the customer base and, at the same time, maintained business confidentiality. They can do it, so the UK Government should be able to do it. The Scottish Government also launched a manufacturing strategy only this February, which proposes to boost the Scottish economy by investment and education in order for Scotland’s businesses to compete globally. What are the UK Government doing in that regard?
Finally, may I give the Secretary of State a piece of advice? He should speak to the Scottish Government to see how saving plants can be done using actions, not words. As the First Minister has said:
“The steps we have taken in Lanarkshire should give hope to those in other parts of the UK that with the right support and a strong Government there can be a future for steel.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
There have always been the strongest of links between the constituency of Torfaen and the steelworks at Newport. I speak today for not only the steelworkers in Torfaen, but the many more steel pensioners, including my father, whose time at Llanwern was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said: the steel industry can and should have a great future. There are so many great things about our steel industry. It is an industry that has always involved working together—between workers, management, unions and owners. It is an industry that has some of the most skilled and committed workers to be found in any industry anywhere in the world. It is also an industry that I believe is vital to our national security: we cannot have a country that is secure unless a native steel industry is available to us.
We should not forget that, over many years of change, the steelworkers have been a constant. The industry has gone through change—it was nationalised after world war two; most of it was reprivatised in the early 1950s; it was renationlised by the Wilson Government in the 1960s; it was privatised again under the Thatcher Government—but the steelworkers have always shown their central commitment and demonstrated their skills during that time. It is unthinkable that there should be no steelmaking at Port Talbot, just as it is unthinkable that we should not look at this as a UK-wide problem.
It seems to me that the Government have to look strategically at two things. They must look at what they are doing practically to support the sale process at Port Talbot, and at what they can do to support both the aspects we are now coming to: the expressions of interest and the due diligence period that will follow. There are far wider questions, however, in relation to how the Government will be judged on their actions and what they actually do to help the steel industry.
The lesser duty rule has been mentioned a number of times in this debate. Let us be clear: as long as it is in place, the duty imposed will always be lower than the margin of the dumping. The European Commission wants to scrap the lesser duty rule. The World Trade Organisation rules do not even oblige the European Commission to apply the lesser duty rule. It is for the UK Government to make the case within the European Union for it to be scrapped, but of course the fact is that they are not doing that. The European Steel Association spokesman said:
“The fact is that the UK has been blocking this. They are not the only member state, but they are certainly the ringleader in blocking the lifting of the lesser duty rule. The ability to lift this was part of a proposal that the European commission launched in 2013”.
What has the Secretary of State done on this since then? The answer is absolutely nothing. There is also the issue of market economy status for China. I thought that Mario Longhi, the chief executive of the biggest steelmaker in America, put it best when he said, about even thinking of granting market economy status for China,
“where you have all the evidence in place that denies them that right it’s just ridiculous”.
The Secretary of State should bear that in mind.
The Secretary of State does have a choice, particularly when it comes to the lesser duty rule and market economy status for China. Where do his loyalties lie: do they lie with Beijing, or with the steelworkers of this country? Would it not be the most supreme irony if a Secretary of State who is supposedly ideologically wedded to free markets ends up granting market economy status to a country where 80% of the steel industry is owned by the state? Is that seriously what the Secretary of State is going to do? It is time he put aside his obsession with Beijing and acted for our steelworkers.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for securing this hugely important debate.
We on Teesside are still reeling from the Government standing by and allowing steelmaking to die at the SSI plant at Redcar. People have very long memories, and it is a shame that it has taken another six months to discover the concept of co-investment, because that has come a little bit late. However, I very much welcome the securing of the long products division, and I congratulate the unions on their initiative in progressing the discussions to such a successful conclusion.
This is the most bizarre of circumstances: we are fearing the collapse of steel production in the UK, but we have the most superb industry, with a brilliantly skilled workforce and an excellent industrial relations history. It is therefore essential that we send out the message that we have a steel industry that is very much worth fighting for. We need to instil confidence in steel customers and suppliers alike that our steel operations are very much open for business. Steel has a bright future if we can get through these next few months.
On development, I am grateful to the mightily impressive Chris McDonald of the Materials Processing Institute for pointing this out:
“Two-thirds of the steels in use today were not even invented 15 years ago, and steel remains a vital ‘economic enabler’ for UK economic growth without which our successful high-value manufacturing sector simply could not exist.”
The automotive, aerospace, defence, nuclear and rail sectors all need the development of new steels in the pursuit of ever improving productivity, and our leading companies undoubtedly benefit from research partnerships with domestic steel producers. He went on:
“If the steel industry were to disappear altogether from the UK, reliance on overseas producers would not only mean the loss of thousands of jobs, but also slow the pace of development and risk the offshoring of the whole manufacturing supply chain”.
We should therefore grasp the opportunities presented by Tata Steel’s sale offering of its assets in the UK.
The debate is about more than just Port Talbot, but that is vital. There is an overwhelmingly strong case for the continuation of steelmaking at Port Talbot, with its advanced steelmaking equipment, its experienced workforce and its capability of making world-leading, high-quality steel for the most demanding applications. Labour Members are in no doubt that the plant can not only compete, but have a highly profitable future. In addition, there is a huge opportunity for new mini-mill operations based around electric arc furnaces, utilising 100% recycled raw materials and offering a step change improvement in carbon emissions.
I plead with Ministers to include all aspects of the future of UK steel in their thinking: the exploitation of, and commitment to, innovation and research and development will undoubtedly pay rich dividends. There is a research and development proposal on the table from the MPI, TWI Ltd and the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. The proposal will leverage recent and secured future investments, which have been used to upgrade materials, research and support facilities in Rotherham, Port Talbot and Cambridge, as well as on the two sites in Tees valley. I urge Ministers to look closely at that proposal. The automotive industry has been turned round to become an enormous success, and we can do the same with the steel industry.
The timescale is crucial, but it is ridiculously tight. The kindest thing to say is that the seller is incredibly ambitious to think that such a process can be undertaken in such a short space of time. Crucially, in the final analysis, the state will indeed step in. Call it temporary nationalisation, public sector stewardship or whatever we like, but let the customers, suppliers and workers know that the UK steel industry will endure, and it will not only endure but thrive.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
In the middle of 2014, Tata announced that it would dispose of its long products business. It has taken until this week for the conclusion of a process that involved first interest from one buyer, its pulling out and then the work that everyone—trade unions, the management team, Tata itself, Greybull Capital and suppliers, who have also had to contribute to the process—has done locally. The way forward is tough and the process is not yet complete. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday that he would do everything possible to ensure that those matters that still need to be resolved are resolved satisfactorily, so that the sale goes ahead and there can be a future—I believe that, although different from the past, that future will be a positive one. That will be positive for all the communities throughout the long products sector, including those in Scunthorpe—the site of the largest steelworks in England, which I am proud to represent.
When the Secretary of State was first appointed I wrote to him to ask for a meeting, because I knew that the steel industry was facing a crisis. Unfortunately there were other pressures on his diary at that time. Back in September I asked the Prime Minister for a steel summit. Eyebrows were raised by Government Members then, but to the credit of the Minister and the Secretary of State, we got a steel summit in Rotherham, which helped to focus on this issue.
Let us look at the issues that we have been arguing about—I have been arguing about them for four or five years now. The Government have moved on energy costs, but that movement has been slow and laborious. They brought in a unilateral carbon floor tax, then found themselves in a mess. It has been more than three years now and the money for mitigation is only just getting into the coffers of steelworkers. Frankly, that does not give the message of confidence needed to take the industry forward. However, I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments today that he is looking at doing that by exemption rather than through the current methods. We are seeing movement, which should be welcomed.
It is deeply disappointing that the Chancellor was unable to bring us good news about business rates. Listening to what Ministers have said in many speeches, I believe that they have been fighting their corner on that. It is deeply disappointing that the Government at the highest level were unable to move on that, as it would have made a real difference. Ijmuiden, a larger plant in the Netherlands, pays less in business rates than the Scunthorpe plant. That is not right. The playing fields need levelling.
I very much welcome the Government’s movements on procurement and the production of better guidelines but, as I have said all along, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when the guidelines are tested. I point again to DONG Energy’s development of the Hornsea project on the North sea. That is happening because of a very generous contract for difference that the UK Government have given to that private sector company. Public money is invested in that project, and the energy coming from the development will be paid for by UK taxpayers and UK energy bill payers. It will be outrageous if UK steel is not in those monopiles, blades and turbines going up in the North sea. I urge the Secretary of State to work tirelessly with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that private companies delivering public projects also deliver on procurement for our steel industry.
Finally, much has been said about Chinese dumping. The Secretary of State’s mood music has changed on that issue, which I welcome, but the change has been very slow. We have seen action, which should be approved. We have heard from the whole steel community—from Eurofer, for example, which represents steel communities and employers across Europe—about how important it is to tackle the lesser duty rule. That would give a signal about confidence, which is what the industry needs more than anything else—and confidence not just that we are getting warm words, but that those warm words are supported by actions. Such actions should be prompt, not laggardly. Save our steel.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Although I thank the shadow Business Secretary for securing this emergency debate, I find myself asking how many times, exactly, we are going to have to debate the crisis facing the UK steel industry before the Government take it seriously. That crisis has not arrived recently, unannounced, or sprung up overnight. The warning signs were there. There has been a constant siren of Opposition voices forewarning the Government that action was urgently needed. The steel industry has been crying out collectively for action to be taken. The all- party parliamentary group, of which I am a member, has made countless representations to the Government, spelling out exactly what action needs to be taken.
Although the Government have jumped into action recently, they are unfortunately still not going far enough. We are yet to see meaningful action on dumping. The steadfast opposition to scrapping the lesser duty rule has meant that little can be done to stem the flow of cheap Chinese imports. The Government have not only been reticent, but have apparently been leading the charge on a European level, actively blocking action. The UK Government are guilty of negligence in their approach to the dumping of cheap steel on world markets by China. While the UK is bending over backwards to accommodate Beijing’s request for market economy status—that would make anti-dumping cases much more complicated—our industry is suffering.
What has just happened in Scotland is testament to how a proactive Government, working closely with industry, unions and the workers themselves, can protect jobs and safeguard this vital industry. It is crucial that the UK Government now follow that example, and make a similar concerted effort to save steel plants in England and Wales. They must work co-operatively with the EU on anti-dumping measures. We need a credible strategy, not just for steel but for ceramics and all other energy-intensive and heavy industry in the UK. Make no mistake: the industry in Scotland still faces challenges, but the Scottish Government’s diligence in saving it has given a renewed confidence that steel has a bright future there.
On the Scottish National party Benches, we stand in solidarity with steelworkers in England and Wales. Despite all the warning signs, I want to see a bright future for steel right across Britain, and not just north of the border. For that to happen, we need a complete change of tack from the Business Minister. Throughout the crisis, the SNP has consistently called for a comprehensive and revised industrial strategy for heavy industry in the UK. The SNP recently launched a bold vision for a manufacturing future for Scotland, spelling out how industries such as steel are viewed as vital strategic assets in the Scottish economy. Although that might seem like a common-sense approach for any Government, it is visionary by comparison with Westminster’s strategy, or lack thereof.
Last Friday many workers, as well as many union representatives, attended the handing over of the keys from Tata Steel to new owners Liberty House at the Dalzell plant in Motherwell. The sense of relief, optimism and renewed hope for a better future was palpable. Beneath all that, however, there is a resilience—we can call it steely determination if we will. This is a centuries-old industry that has learned to adapt to many changes over the years. As Charles Darwin said, it is not the strongest of the species nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. The steel industry is up for the challenge, and the Government need to step forward.
I hope that the change for our steel industry in Scotland is a success, but I want a successful, productive future for all of our steelworkers throughout the UK. I really do hope that the Government are listening today and will leave no stone unturned—the phrase of today—to save our steel. Our highly skilled, dedicated steelworkers need a positive future—indeed, they truly deserve that.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
First and foremost, I praise my Front-Bench colleagues for securing this debate and Mr Speaker for granting it. I also want to praise the work of the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, who has worked constructively with the UK Government to try to find a solution. He has been head and shoulders above in speaking out, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and so many others. I am proud to have him as our First Minister in Wales.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), I want to underline the point that the steel industry in this country has a future, and that future is at the heart of our future infrastructure and defence projects. Just as she is proud of the steel produced in Stocksbridge, I am proud that steel produced at Celsa in Cardiff, in the heart of my constituency, is at the heart of Crossrail and so many other construction and infrastructure projects across the UK. We must never lose sight of that. This is not an industry of the past; it is an industry of the future—if the Government get behind it fully.
I want to touch on three issues. Regardless of the welcome announcements about Scunthorpe and, I hope, Port Talbot, we still need to address the market fundamentals that have brought us to this point in the first place. They affect the UK steel industry as a whole and will continue to affect it if we do not address them. I want to flag up some of the strategic choices and risks we face, and I want to debunk some of the myths that have, unfortunately, been propagated about the role of the EU.
First, I want to mention energy, which is at the heart of the debate. We have the highest industrial electricity prices across the EU. According to UK Steel, they are 89% higher than in other EU countries. Whatever nonsense we hear about the EU being to blame, the fact is that four of the main policies causing the higher prices for industrial energy users in the UK come from the UK Government. I welcome the steps talked about with regard to exemptions and compensation, but the fact is that those prices have come from the UK Government. The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) says we should not do anything about climate change, but that is not the issue. I have made the point repeatedly that offshoring our carbon emissions to places such as China and Turkey would be absolutely absurd. I ask the Government to continue to review every aspect of this tax regime and see what the net result is for industrial energy users in this country. Are they paying more or are they paying less? If they are not paying less, we will face this problem again and again and again. It is all very well talking about a compensation package, but when I went to Celsa in my constituency just a few days ago it still had not received the money. The Government have been far, far too slow to act.
On dumping and tariffs, we heard very powerful arguments about the lesser duty rule from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and others. I reiterate the question I put to the Secretary of State earlier about the tariffs on rebar. We need to consider whether they are still high enough. He says they have gone down by 99%, but other factors are at play. I welcome what he says, but we need to keep them constantly under review.
I absolutely agree that we should not grant market economy status to China. That would be an absolute absurdity. On procurement, we have to see concrete steps. I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about potential announcements with regard to the defence industry, but they should have happened a long time in advance. We have produced product after product after product without using UK steel. The Government talk about aircraft carriers, but what about the offshore patrol vessels, tankers and scout vehicles? They have not been produced using UK steel. We need to get in there and make sure that British steel is being used. I await that announcement with interest.
This is not just about the role of the Government in procurement, but construction companies. With other MPs, I have written to construction companies across the UK to ask them whether they will adhere to using UK steel in their products, and whether they will adhere to the BS 6001 standard, which uses high-quality British construction steel rebar. There is a responsibility for both Government and companies. I worry that unless we address these issues and maintain a diversity of production in our steel industry, using blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces to produce different products, we will lose capacity in certain areas. Once that is gone, it will be lost forever. Others, such as the Chinese, will come in and whack their prices up. That will also be a risk to our national security.
The EU is not to blame. It would be absurd if we took action now to save the steel industry and then dealt it another body blow by leaving the EU. The reality is that half of our exports go to the EU. If we lost the single market, they would be gone. State aid rules apply in the World Trade Organisation as well. We would have less capacity to act on dumping, working with others, than we have at the moment. The EU, working together, has delivered 37 EU measures to tackle dumping, 16 of which relate to China. It is the UK Government who have not done the work. It is with the UK Government that I place the blame, not the EU. We can save our steel, but only if we work together to do it.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Port Talbot is an industrial jewel in the crown of Swansea bay. Thousands of people in the community and beyond rely on it. Clearly, we are looking to the Government to support our steel industry in its time of need. The Welsh Government, under Carwyn Jones, have come forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has shown leadership. We want guarantees on the socialisation of pensions.
I am not here to criticise Tata. It invested £6.2 billion to buy the Port Talbot steel plant in 2007. It spent another £2 billion to cover losses and £185 million on a new blast furnace in 2013. It is a long-termist organisation. The reality, however, is that worldwide steel production has doubled because of Chinese production. As a result, world prices have halved. Tata cannot compete with the threat of China, which is 80% state owned. We need to hold on in there and do what we can to ensure a sustainable future. China is thinking strategically, whether through very low prices with HS2 and nuclear procurement, or by buying assets globally from its balance of payments surplus. We need to understand what it is trying to do and ensure that our long-term interests are sustained.
Swansea University is investing in new types of steel: multi-layered steel that generates its own electricity. It has a negative carbon footprint when it is used to clad major public buildings. We have high quality Margam coal, which is particularly good in steel production. I want guarantees from the Secretary of State. He talks about co-investment, but what co-investment are we going to have? Will the Government have an equity share in the short term? What guarantees can he give about a more level playing field on energy?
Christina Rees
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could see the current threat to the UK steel industry as an opportunity to change the way to do things, so that a structure can be established to protect the industry for many years to come? The Government could look to other sectors, such as the care sector, and to other parts of the world to learn from tripartite models of delivery involving public-private sector investment, as well as third sector involvement in the shape of a management-worker buyout.
Geraint Davies
We need to look creatively at company structure and procurement. We also need to think about the fact that we are in the process of displacing clean steel with environmental protection for dirty steel. There is a case for considering carbon tariffs on steel and other manufacturing products, because we share a common environment.
On procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon made it clear that we need to know who the Government are talking to and what reassurances are being given. We have been told that this information is commercially confidential, but what those consuming steel to build cars and so on want to know is whether, if they make an order now, in a year’s time the steel will be delivered at the price paid. We need to be able to give those guarantees to secure the future. We need to hold our nerve. The need in this case, and with any business, is cash flow sustainability. The Government therefore need to think about financial packages, so that the cash flow of the business can be sustained on the back of future orders at known prices.
It has been mentioned that half our exports go to Europe. It would be a complete disaster for us to leave Europe, with the extra tariffs that might be imposed. It is important that we move past the referendum period, so there is security for prospective buyers in knowing that we are still in the single market without more tariffs being imposed. Our first duty is to secure the livelihoods of our communities, as well as our strategic interests. It is important that the Government do not give the impression that they have given up and simply want a buyer. They need to come forward and offer any of the benefits they would offer to a prospective buyer to Tata Steel. If there is to be pension buy-out to provide security for a buyer and for pensioners, and if there is to be co-investment, it should be available to Tata as well as others. Tata showed before that it was there for the long run, but because the Government showed that they were not, it pulled out. We want a sustainable future, and it is important that Tata is brought back around the table, alongside other prospective buyers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We are running out of time, so I am afraid I have to reduce the limit to four minutes.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State pledged his commitment to the steel industry, which I welcome, but I would like him to spell out exactly why his Government are now willing to consider co-investment with a potential buyer for Port Talbot, when they ruled out anything like that for Redcar—at the time because they said that state-aid rules prevented their supporting SSI, and after SSI was liquidated because they refused to put any British taxpayer money into the Thai banks that owned the site. Why were the Thai banks not suitable for co-investment? It could have bought us time for a sale or enabled the mothballing of the blast furnace. I would like the Government to give us a full explanation of that decision.
In the weeks prior to closure, SSI asked the Government for a loan to enable it to restructure and keep the plant going. It was refused. I sat down with Ministers and potential investors—a company willing to run the coke ovens and run, or at least mothball, the blast furnace while a buyer was found—who did not want a single penny of Government money, but the Minister said it could not be done. What has changed? Does she now regret not listening to the people of Teesside, the unions and the companies we presented to them in order to keep steelmaking alive on Teesside? The cost of hard closure has been far greater than that of intervention would have been. I want to say something about that cost in the time available.
First, on the local economic cost, 2,200 direct jobs were lost overnight at SSI and over 900 further jobs were lost in the immediate supply chain, from those who provided the parts and maintenance to the companies that provided the gas or loaded the slab at the ports to those who cleaned the overalls and fed the workforce. Plus, there is no way of measuring the knock-on impact on local shops, hairdressers, builders, nurses—as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned—and childminders. We know they are all feeling the pain. Unemployment in my constituency has jumped by 16.2%. We now have the tenth-highest unemployment rate in the country. The steelworks were the foundation industry for many businesses large and small across Teesside. For 175 years, that industry powered the local economy, providing jobs and security for local people and a source of immense pride, as our steel built the cities of the world.
Secondly, I want to talk about the cost to the Exchequer and the state. It is currently understood that the Government are paying over £200,000 a week to maintain the site in its unrecoverable coma status. Recovery of the land for future use is expected to cost the state well over £1 billion. As for the British steel industry itself, we have lost Europe’s second-largest blast furnace and coke ovens, in which millions of pounds had been invested and which were in very good shape.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that trying to land a bill of £1.1 billion on the Teesside communities for the remediation of the site is totally unacceptable? I know that the Minister is ignoring it, but it will be a huge issue for Teesside if it is landed with that bill.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want a further commitment from the Government that they will maintain their support for the site as it stands, meet that cost and enable local people, businesses and representatives to decide the future of the site and how it can contribute to our local economy.
We have lost our blast furnace and coke ovens, in which millions of pounds had been invested—expensive national assets belonging to the British steel industry now laid to waste. We can add to that a loss to the Exchequer of the tax intake from those 3,000 workers; the £50 million—and it is £50 million, not £80 million—paid for retraining; and the further £30 million for redundancies and other costs. We must bear it in mind that the majority of workers are still awaiting payment of their protective award, on which I would be grateful for an update from the Minister. Finally, there is the loss to Redcar and Cleveland Council, which has already suffered a £90 million loss after six years of Tory austerity, of £10 million a year in business rates from SSI alone.
Thirdly and most importantly, I want to speak about the human cost. Six hundred workers are back in work or full-time training, according to Department for Work and Pensions figures. I pay tribute to them, my taskforce colleagues and all those in the jobcentres and colleges who have worked hard to achieve that, but 600 of over 3,000 workers six months after closure still leaves us with a lot of work to do. What about the thousands of others? They are signing on, many for the first time in their lives, and many are approaching the six-month cut-off point for contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance. Those with a partner with an income of more than £114 a week will soon lose their JSA entirely.
People are moving out of homes, cars are being given up and many are reliant on hardship funds to pay the bills. One worker can no longer afford to keep his rented house to have his children stay overnight because of the bedroom tax. He is having to be rehoused in a one-bedroom place and cannot have his children to stay. The effect on family relationships has been huge. There has been a widespread loss of identity, comradeship and pride in a skilled trade. Redcar and Cleveland Mind has seen a 91% increase in mental health referrals in the last year, and is doing a fantastic job, but many of my constituents are under the radar. One has not even left the house since he lost his job last September. Families have been destroyed and lives shattered. Our town has been through a tragedy. The financial and human cost of inaction is far higher than that of intervention would have been. I say to the Government: you let us down last year, but please do not let down any other steel town in the UK.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) for securing it when the steel industry is in crisis and it is so important to consider and discuss the issues today.
I am sure that all Members are keen to take all the steps necessary to secure the steel industry in our country. Today we have heard a number of options put forward—on energy, business tariffs and various others—but I would like to talk about defence. The last Labour Government had an industrial defence strategy, and at its heart was making British industry and British jobs the first priority in all decisions by the Ministry of Defence. The Government should perhaps reflect on implementing such a policy in this time of crisis for the steel industry.
Wherever and whenever possible, British steel should be used to build equipment, weapons, vehicles and ships that our armed forces need to keep us safe. [Interruption.] I can see that some Conservative Members find this funny, but sadly the current Government abandoned the industrial defence strategy, and we can see the implications of that decision today. Three new ships for the Royal Navy are being built in Glasgow with 60% of the steel bought from Sweden, 20% from other countries and only 20% from the UK. A £3.4 billion contract to build 590 Ajax armoured vehicles is also using Swedish imports for the majority of its steel requirements. The Government are refusing to guarantee that the Navy’s new Type 26 frigates will be built using British steel; the Defence Minister would say only that there would be an opportunity to bid. All that paints a picture of a Government who are willing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.
The MOD has a £178 billion budget for defence equipment over the next 10 years, and Labour will continue to press the case that that money should be spent, where possible, to secure British jobs and the British steel industry.
Kate Hollern
No. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will listen, because to avoid a fire sale, which would be an irreversible mistake, the Government must demonstrate to all stakeholders in the industry that they are taking a proactive approach to ensure that continued take-up of operations. The Government must look to reverse the decision to scrap the defence industrial strategy, and they must make a public statement—with haste—to make it clear that they believe in supporting British steel and British jobs.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I am pleased to participate in this important debate, and I am delighted that the Speaker granted it. As the son of a Teessider, I am a regular visitor to Teesside and to Redcar. I was there only a few weeks ago, and to see the site of that plant, now empty and derelict, with no flame after 175 years of steelmaking, is shocking. My thoughts are with the constituents of the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and the people in the surrounding Teesside constituencies. As has been said, when 3,000 jobs are lost, many more thousands of jobs and lives are affected. The Government are at least finally taking very slow action; what a shame that they did not take that action then, to try to prevent that closure.
As my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has pointed out, what a contrast there is between what this Government are doing and the industrial strategy of the previous Business Secretary, the internationally respected Vince Cable, who sought to ensure that we maintained our existing industry while transitioning to new technologies. That is entirely lacking now. The current Business Secretary was so proud to say that there was now a Conservative Business Secretary, but he simply does not have an industrial strategy for the United Kingdom.
What an extraordinary situation this is. The Conservative party, while preaching free trade, is rolling out the red carpet for, and seeking to do sweetheart deals with, a communist nation whose subsidised basket case of a steel industry is producing steel that no one in the world needs or wants. It is wrecking a perfectly viable situation. Let me read the House an interesting quotation:
“Redcar has already paid the price for this ultra-free trade ideology, and Port Talbot is about to follow. There will eventually be little left if the current drift in trade policy is allowed to continue.”
Who said that? Was it the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the leader of the Scottish National party? No; it was the international business editor of The Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. That is a damning indictment of the Government’s lack of an industrial policy, and of the fact that they have turned their back on steel.
All that the Chancellor is doing is saying to the Chinese, “Can you make a little bit less steel, please?” That is all that he is prepared to do, because of his desperation to court China over projects such as the Hinkley power plant. Although China is closing five steel mills, it will still be producing 1.13 billion tonnes by 2020, according to figures from the Library. That is still far more than the world needs, and it will cause devastation.
Only six months ago, when we were seeing inaction from the Government, the Liberal Democrats called for Ministers to set up a Minister-led steering group to look at the whole steel industry so that a strategy could be delivered to save that great British industry. The Government ignored the call, and failed to act. What we are seeing today is not leadership but panic; the Government are doing too little, too late.
Ministers must now at least do what they can to reverse the present position. They must keep the Port Talbot plant operational while a buyer is sought, and they must be a little less arrogant. They must listen and learn some of the lessons of the past, including the lesson of what Vince Cable did when he went to talk to General Motors. They must ensure that we have a steel industry in the future to support the UK economy.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Yet again, we have had a very good debate on the steel industry, featuring plenty of contributions from Back Benchers. I think that I counted 21 Back-Bench speeches during our short debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies), my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), my hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Redcar (Anna Turley), and for Blackburn (Kate Hollern), and the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland).
I join others in paying tribute to the Community trade union and the leadership of Roy Rickhuss and others. I also pay tribute to Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, who has been mentioned today, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, for all her efforts.
Our role as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue. Our industry has to have a future, and we must make sure that it has one. We are having to do this because immediately after the general election, the new Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills signalled, clearly and overtly, that he would not continue the consensus that had been emerging and growing over the last decade on the need for a UK industrial strategy. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the new Secretary of State for Wales wants to learn that his job is to sit there and shut up and listen during this debate. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let us stay calm. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) may wish—I would strongly suggest—to rephrase what he has just said.
Kevin Brennan
I think that the new Secretary of State needs to sit there in silence and listen to what is being said about a very important issue that affects Wales in particular, which is his responsibility.
The UK needs an active, modern industrial strategy that understands the importance of foundation industries such as the steel industry to the rebalancing of our economy. I understand why the Business Secretary, given his City background and professed laissez-faire philosophy about politics, does not want to use the term “industrial strategy”. He is wrong about that, however. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, I am being asked what my background is. I worked at the Llanwern steelworks for six months and my father worked there for more than 20 years, so I do not need questions about my background from a Secretary of State for Wales who cannot sit there and shut up and listen to the debate as he should do on behalf of his constituents in Wales.
I understand why the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills does not want to use the term “industrial strategy”, but I am afraid he is wrong not to do so. Unless the Government are prepared to support British industry strategically, the Chancellor’s so-called march of the makers will simply become a death march of the makers in this country. We will not stand by and let that happen. We believe that there is a future for the steel industry in the United Kingdom, and I put it to the Secretary of State that that future should not just be about steel recycling; we need to hear that he is committed to steelmaking, and not just to the recycling of steel, important though that is.
We have been asking the Secretary of State for months to make clear the Government’s view on the minimum strategic steelmaking capacity that they believe must be maintained in the UK’s national interest. They have not been prepared to give that information, which inevitably leads to a suspicion that they do not have a view on the minimum steelmaking capacity necessary for the UK’s long-term economic interest. That doubt at the heart of the Government is like an impurity in steel being poured at a steel plant. If we do not get rid of that impurity, it could lead to a disaster, and it will be a disaster if the doubt at the heart of the Government’s policy is not got rid of.
We need to make sure that the blast furnaces at Port Talbot remain. We also need to ensure that the ability to make new steel—not just to melt down old steel and reuse it—remains in the armoury of UK plc. That is why it is important that we have an industrial strategy, and not just an industrial approach. We need clarity on steelmaking, not just vague warm words. In short, we need strategic leadership, not the laissez-faire laxity now undermining UK plc.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
I begin by paying tribute to all those who have spoken in the debate. With few if any exceptions, everyone has rightly spoken with passion in their heart on behalf of their constituents and our great British steel industry. It is important that we look to the future and make sure that the message sent out from this place in all our doings is one of confidence in the continuing success of our British steel industry. Over the past seven days, I have had the real pleasure of going to Rotherham. I pay tribute to the wise words of the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), although I do not always agree with her. I went to Rotherham, and I now understand speciality steels, which are separate from the great work being done at Port Talbot; they are almost a stand-alone industry. I then went to Corby and had a great day there meeting excellent workers and excellent management, all of whom are rightly proud of the superb quality of the products that they make.
It is really important that this message of confidence should continue to unite us, for the sake of customers and suppliers alike. Despite the unfortunate remarks made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), there is much that brings us together on this important matter. We all agree that steel is a vital industry, and that this crisis is not confined to the United Kingdom. We should also agree that, unfortunately, the Government do not have a magic wand with which to control the price of steel. We agree that the industry is vital for not just our national economy but, as we have heard from many hon. Members, the important role that it plays in local communities, through the workers it employs directly and through the supply chain right the way through the regions. In South Wales, for example, the industry is a vital component of the continuing success of that part of our United Kingdom.
I want to pay tribute to my Secretary of State for his tireless work and his outstanding leadership throughout this crisis. One of the problems we have had since we were appointed to our positions last May is that so much has been commercially sensitive. I am looking forward to the day when I will be the first to stand up and talk about the sort of work that this Secretary of State has been quietly and privately leading. That work began as soon as we were appointed. The reason why we get so agitated on this side of the House when we have these debates is that we started delivering for the steel industry even before the tragedy of Redcar, which I will deal with in a moment. That is why I ignored the advice of my officials and said that this country would vote in favour of tariffs on dumped steel. That is what we did in July and again in November.
With losses of £600 million over some three years, the situation in Redcar was very different. Debts ran to tens of millions of pounds, and not only did the local company go bust, but so did the parent company in Thailand. The contrast between SSI and Tata is stark. We would all agree that Tata is an excellent, responsible employer, and we look forward to supporting it in all we do to ensure a successful sale and a successful future for our steel industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Tata Steel’s decision to sell its UK steel operations; and action the Government is taking to secure the future of the UK steel industry.
Backbench Business
Contaminated Blood
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the contaminated blood scandal was one of the biggest treatment disasters in the history of the NHS, which devastated thousands of lives; notes that for those affected this tragedy continues to have a profound effect on their lives which has rarely been properly recognised; welcomes the Government’s decision to conduct a consultation to reform support arrangements and to commit extra resources to support those affected; further notes, however, that the current Government proposals will leave some people worse off and continue the situation where some of those affected receive no ongoing support; and calls on the Government to take note of all the responses to the consultation and to heed the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood’s Inquiry into the current support arrangements so as to ensure that no-one is worse off, left destitute or applying for individual payments as a result of the proposed changes and that everyone affected by the tragedy, including widows and dependents, receives support commensurate with the decades of suffering and loss of amenity they have experienced.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate today. This same topic was the subject of the first debate that the Committee scheduled after its establishment in 2010; it is sad that, six years on, we are still fighting for justice for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal. Also in 2010, during the general election campaign, my constituent Glenn Wilkinson came to see me with his wife Alison. They told me about Glenn’s having been given infected blood during dental treatment at Hull Royal Infirmary and how it had affected his life, his health and his opportunities for work and how it had impacted on his family. From then on, I began to find out about the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Last year, my constituent Eddie Quigley came to see me in my office. Sadly, he has since passed away. On behalf of his son James and his widow Sally, I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for her persistence in bringing forward this debate and in ensuring that the issue is properly discussed.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I have received many emails and letters from affected families from all over the country. Sadly, I cannot refer to them all today. I want to set the scene and comment on the Government’s proposals, and I will try to be brief to allow time for the many other hon. Members who want to contribute and talk about their constituents’ views on the consultation.
Governments of both colours have introduced a patchwork of schemes and assistance over the years, but there has never been a complete package of support for those affected. That is in marked contrast to the response to other medical and treatment disasters, such as thalidomide, where full support and compensation has been put in place. I am sure that the whole House wants to pay tribute to all those who have fought for justice over many years and to the families and loved ones who supported them.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the various schemes that have been put in place, but does she agree that the process of applying and getting through those is very difficult, particularly for people who are so ill?
Diana Johnson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I shall come to it shortly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Diana Johnson
I will make a little progress and then take an intervention. I was paying tribute to all those who fought for many years. I think we would all agree that they have been fighting for too many years to get a just settlement for what happened to them. Let us be frank: they are weary from fighting. They want to resolve this once and for all, and to get on with their lives. Sadly, more and more people are dying without seeing that justice. Each individual affected has been robbed of many of the opportunities we all take for granted—the opportunities to work, to have a career, to buy a home and to grow old with the person they love. Family members have had to care for their loved ones, perhaps giving up careers to do so, and watch their health deteriorate.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has been tenacious in her pursuit of this issue, which has been going on for many years. Like her, I have constituents who have been affected by it, and it is about time this was brought to an end and action was actually taken. She mentioned thalidomide, but that took many years to address and it took a determined Minister to introduce the scheme. If he did that, I cannot see why this Minister cannot do the same.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. It is important to recognise that in this case there has never been an admission of liability from the Department of Health or the NHS in respect of what happened to these individuals; they have always taken the view that nobody could have known at the time about the problem with the infected blood. I want to make the point that this is not a court of law; this is Parliament, and we are being asked to deal with a clear wrong that has been done to our constituents. We know that these people were damaged and harmed by the treatment they received from the NHS—by the state. What we need to do now is put together a proper support package to ensure that those affected and their families are at the heart of what we do and whatever scheme is proposed.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I apologise for having to leave very shortly, but I commend the hon. Lady on her sterling work on this cause. In the case of my constituent Mr Tony Farrugia and his brothers, who are campaigning here today, the situation is exactly as she describes; it is about the complexity of all the schemes. Because his father died in 1986, before the trust was set up, his mother never received any money at all, and that remains the case today under what is being proposed. That seems very unfair to me.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, particularly as she has made such great inroads on this subject; I commend her for that. Does she agree that it is completely unacceptable, particularly in the context she has set out, that any reform the Government introduce should make sick people even worse off? That seems to be the height of injustice. One of my constituents will lose £500 a month, and another, Graham Manning, is in the Gallery today. They need to see that justice is being done. That has to be a bottom line.
Diana Johnson
I agree entirely. Let me return to the point I was making about liability and the need now to put in place a proper support package, recognising the wrong that has been done. For far too long, the Department of Health has not done that. It appears to me that it has been far more interested in protecting the institutional reputation of the Department and of the NHS than in looking to right a wrong.
In the last Parliament, a concerted effort, from all parties, was made to seek a lasting settlement for all our constituents. The all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood led the way in producing a report showing that the current financial arrangements were not fit for purpose, were ad hoc and were overly bureaucratic. The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) worked alongside the all-party group, with the Prime Minister’s office, to finally get an apology made in Parliament and an agreement that the Government would consult on a proper support package for all those affected. The Prime Minister’s apology a year ago and the announcement that £25 million would be made available for transitional support was very welcome. So, too, was the promise that there would be a full consultation on a comprehensive support package. I must say to the Minister that not one penny of that badly needed £25 million has yet been spent, and that the consultation on the new support scheme was announced only on 21 January this year—some nine months after the Prime Minister’s statement.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Like many Members, I have a constituent here today. Sue Sparks has been visiting the Palace and is now in the Public Gallery. Is it not the case that the consultation does not seem to chime with the apology? What is on offer in no way seems to reflect what I am sure the Prime Minister meant as a sincere apology.
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are now a few days away from the end of the consultation period. I understand that the Minister was advised—wrongly, I think—by her officials that she could not meet the all-party group during the consultation period. I know that that was not the case in Scotland: the Minister there met MSPs and individuals. We called for this debate so that the Minister could listen to the comments of her fellow parliamentarians about the Government’s proposals and then feed them into the consultation.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I have many constituents in Taunton Deane whose lives are blighted by this issue of contaminated blood. Although I applaud the Government for bringing forward this consultation, there are many who believe that it is only adding fuel to the fire. In fact, it could be making the situation worse and causing more pain, not least because, in Scotland, people may get a better deal than those in England. I urge the Minister to look very carefully at the consultation so as not to penalise people who are already badly suffering.
Diana Johnson
I wish to move on now to highlight a few of the problems with the consultation. First, as has already been said, many of the existing recipients will receive lower payments under the new scheme. The Government’s proposals would end all discretionary support, such as winter fuel allowance, child supplements and low income top-ups, which means that many people will lose out, potentially by thousands of pounds a year.
Secondly, most of the current beneficiaries have hepatitis C stage 1 and currently get no ongoing support. They are left begging for individual payments from the Caxton Fund. The Government proposals will provide annual payments for people in stage 1, which is welcome, but those people will be subject to regular individual assessments. That could result in fluctuating payments and reduced financial certainty for individuals. Assessments will also take only clinical factors into account. They will not look at the loss of education or employment, and decades of loss of amenity, ill health and loss of earnings. According to the information from the Government, those assessments will cost £500,000 a year to carry out. Would that money not be better spent on providing financial support to those people?
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her determination and her decision to champion this issue. She highlighted the decades of ill health from which many suffer. There is also the emotional stress and trauma. Does she agree that the consultation process itself has added to that burden for some of those people? That is certainly the message that I have received loud and clear from my constituent, Mike Webster, who came to see me on this issue.
Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I will proceed with my concerns with the consultation, because I would like other Members to speak in the debate.
My third point is about the inadequate provision for the “affected” community—the widows, the partners and the dependants of those infected. The proposals for widows appear to be extremely complex. They create six categories of widows, with big variations in what is offered within each category. Department of Health officials could not explain how they would work when they met the APPG’s secretariat and have not provided an explanation of these proposals as promised. There also appears to be nothing here for dependent children.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I have constituents who have been infected. I have also heard from infected partners who, because of the failure of the scheme, cannot get insurance for themselves. Those who have young children are worried about the long-term implications. Does my hon. Friend not think that the proposal adds extra stress to what is already a very stressful situation?
Diana Johnson
My right hon. Friend makes an important point.
Fourthly, there are concerns that under the plans money will be used to pay for new drugs to treat hepatitis C, which will be bought separately from the NHS budget, so will cost more. Under guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, everyone with hepatitis C should be eligible for treatment with a new generation of drugs from the end of February 2016, so when funds are allocated for treatment, that means once again that money does not go directly to those who need financial support.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, agree with my constituent, who is affected and feels that the changes are deliberately punitive and exceedingly cruel, as they use requests for changes to support schemes to affect people in that way? My constituent has had to use the ex gratia payment from the Government to fund treatment refused by the NHS, as many other people have had to do. His annual payment will decrease over time and he will lose the additional support that is currently provided. People such as my constituent are hit again and again, so how can the consultation on reform go ahead on that basis?
Diana Johnson
I shall move on and complete my speech.
Fifthly, there is concern about the fact that beneficiaries in England will be worse off than beneficiaries in Scotland. The Scottish proposals are far more generous to hepatitis C stage 2 and HIV sufferers, who will receive £27,000 per annum or £37,000 if they are co-infected, which is welcome, but are much less generous for hepatitis C stage 1s, who will receive an additional lump sum payment but no ongoing support. The Scottish proposals have been broadly welcomed, partly because of the way in which the consultation was conducted in Scotland, and the clear acknowledgement, for example, that the existing trust structure will be scrapped.
Several hon. Members rose—
Diana Johnson
I am conscious of time, and I am about to reach my allocated 15 minutes, so if hon. Members do not mind I will complete my speech.
Following the scrapping of the trust structure in the Scottish model, may I seek reassurance from the Minister that she will scrap trust structures in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have been subject to much criticism? There is no mention in the consultation of any proposals on lump sum payments, which would enable those affected to make real choices about their own lives, such as paying off a mortgage, clearing debts or helping their children. I reiterate my belief that the £230 million the Government are set to receive over the next few years from the sale of Plasma Resources UK should be earmarked for lump sum payments for those people. This is money from the work by the Department of Health to create blood products, and it would be fitting to use it in that way.
I am disappointed that there is no mention in the Government proposals of allowing those who have been affected to be passported automatically through to the new benefits that have been introduced—for example, moving from the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. There is no consideration at all of an Irish-style medical card to ensure that access to healthcare is as speedy as possible.
In conclusion, we have had a chance to consider the detail of the Government’s proposals. I am disappointed, as they do not deliver what we all want: giving people dignity and allowing them to get on with their lives, rather than constantly having to battle to get support. That means they have to campaign to ensure that their lives do not become even worse, let alone see improvements. They need and deserve action in a timely manner. They do not want to end their lives as campaigners. Many of those who are infected have told me that they believe that the Government are just delaying a proper settlement as more and more people die. After their long and bitter experience who can blame them?
Diana Johnson
I am happy to give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, who is the former co-chair of the all-party group.
Jason McCartney
That is the point I was going to make. I should like to thank the hon. Lady for co-chairing the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood with me, and with many others in the last Parliament. Does she agree that the Minister should accept that we have a framework with the settlement in Scotland, which needs tweaking, and the comprehensive APPG report, which looks at the fact that trusts and funds did not operate to support the victims? If we heed experiences in Scotland and our report, we can begin to help the victims.
Diana Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with wisdom on this matter.
It is now time for the biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS to be settled once and for all. I hope the Minister will look again at the proposals in her consultation and think about what is in the best interests of the group in question, who have been so badly treated for so many years.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
It is a privilege and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I commend her for her leadership in bringing Parliament together on this very important subject.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate on such a sombre and saddening topic. I speak as the representative of a number of individuals in my constituency whose lives and the lives of those they love have been grievously, unfairly and irreversibly affected by the terrible injustice we address this afternoon.
The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, has apologised for the infection of individuals with contaminated blood—an apology that is now more than a year old, for a scandal that is more than 20 years old. When he rightly addressed the matter last year, my right hon. Friend said that it was
“difficult to imagine the feelings of unfairness”—[Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1423.]
that those who have been affected must feel. My constituents and others around the country were let down, when they or their family members were at their most vulnerable, by the health service that was supposed to keep them safe. It truly is difficult to imagine.
I am sorry to say that the feelings of unfairness have not been lessened by the proposals in this consultation; if anything, they have been made worse. Lives have been changed and lives have been taken. So much has been lost, but the Government must now focus on lessening and mitigating this loss as much as can ever be possible.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
On mitigating the loss, I am here to represent several constituents, but one in particular—Andy Gunn. He is extremely concerned by the Health Secretary’s suggestion that the funding might come from the NHS budget. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be highly inappropriate?
Nadhim Zahawi
I have had similar representations from my constituents, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench take on board the comments of Andy Gunn and of others in my constituency.
The vastness of the loss we are addressing today is such that even the ideal solution cannot do much to address it, but what has been proposed does so much less. The proposals contained in the consultation are far from what the victims of this injustice expected or were led to believe they would receive. I know that many of my colleagues have similar stories to tell. I have had constituents visit my surgeries who have always been so incredibly strong about what has happened to them and hopeful for the potential of a good settlement from the Government, but have now been left in tears. They feel let down and fear that these proposals will make life even harder for them.
Those are people whose lives have turned out to be radically different from what they had planned, through absolutely no fault of their own. They struggle to get insurance or pensions—things we take for granted in this place—and have had their careers curtailed. Even worse, they have been unable to have children, or have seen loved ones die tragically soon. These people should be helped and need to be provided with a full and final settlement that allows them to move on, without being worse off.
There remains much misunderstanding about the medical conditions of the victims and the treatments available. The improvements in care for those with HIV/AIDS have been a blessing for many. However, the disease remains incurable, and haemophiliacs and those with other conditions such as hepatitis C cannot take the medication that could help them. We must also properly consider those infected by more than one disease. Those with both HIV and HCV have a threefold greater risk of progression to cirrhosis or decompensated liver disease than those infected only with HCV. We should not misunderstand, underestimate or underplay the dangers of these diseases.
My constituents, and the constituents of so many of us here today, have suffered a grave injustice. It is an injustice that they never expected to suffer, would never have been able to prepare for, and for which the blame rests entirely elsewhere. They or their loved ones have experienced terrible illness and their lives have been changed or ended. “Unfairness” does not seem strong enough to describe it, but that word is the best we can do.
The Prime Minister was right to apologise, but this consultation does not go far enough. When my constituents only have to look north of the border to see a better deal on the table, with talk about public monuments to those sadly lost, and are then faced with an option here that could leave them in an even worse position, anger and resentment are more than understandable.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger that the consultation will undo the good of the apology? The impact assessment states that the intention of the policy is to safeguard the interests of those who are chronically infected and receive an annual payment, but that annual payment is no longer index-linked, and people have made their assumptions on that basis. My constituent, Norah Tracey, has had to take early retirement because she has hepatitis C, and she based her projections on those financial assumptions. If it is no longer index linked, we are making a mockery of what the impact assessment says and we are undoing the sincerity of the apology.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have heard similar representations from my constituents. Indeed, the all-party group found that the representations were very similar across the board. I sincerely hope that those on the Government Front Bench are listening to these interventions today.
The Prime Minister said last year:
“As a wealthy and successful country we should be helping these people more. We will help them more”—[Official Report, 11 March 2015; Vol. 594, C. 289.]
I agree with him and support those words entirely. I hope that the Minister and the Department of Health will ensure that the settlement for the victims will meet the intentions of what the Prime Minister said last year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that we can get through this debate without a formal time limit on speeches. The debate is not contentious, on one side of the House or the other, so I trust that Members will be courteous to each other by keeping their speeches to around seven minutes. That will allow everyone who has indicated that they wish to contribute to do so.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I will do my very best to keep my speech within seven minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the all-party group for securing the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also pay tribute to those members of the campaign who have travelled to be in the Gallery today. I know that many were unable to stay because of the important urgent debate on steel, but many have stayed and I thank them for their patience.
I am speaking today on behalf of my constituents the Smith family and Lin Ashcroft. Janet and Colin Smith lost their son Colin in 1990, when he was just seven. Just a few months earlier, Lin lost her husband Bill Dumbellton. I have spoken about Colin before in these debates, which many hon. Members have called to consider what has been described as the greatest treatment disaster in the NHS.
Colin went to hospital when he was eight months old for a minor ear infection. As a haemophiliac, he received factor VIII, which, following a freedom of information request, the family later learned had come from a batch from an Arkansas prison. He spent his short life fighting illness and died aged seven of AIDS and hepatitis C, although the family did not find out that it was hepatitis C until three years after his death. No parent should have to go through what the Smiths have gone through. As they have said, they want justice so that their son can rest in peace and they want justice for those who remain.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
That story is just one of the many we have heard from constituents. I heard from a constituent, David, who similarly spoke passionately about his circumstances. He will not even be affected by the consultation that is going on. Clearly, this is a UK legacy issue and a UK historical injustice. We have heard about the difference in Scotland and elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure the UK Government lead on working with the devolved Administrations—in Wales, that means the Wales Office—to ensure that we do not end up with a postcode lottery, with some people potentially in worse situations and some not getting the same justice as others?
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valuable point, which I hope the Minister will listen to—I know it will be heard by the large contingent of Welsh campaigners who have come here today to listen to the debate.
Bill, the husband of another constituent, Lin Ashcroft, was one of the first haemophiliacs to treat himself at home with cryoprecipitate. He contracted HIV and hepatitis C from blood, and he lost his job with BT in the 1980s, after telling the occupational health department about his HIV status. Bill had no life cover, as no one would insure “people like him”, as it was put at the time. Following his death, Lin had to grieve and cope with the financial commitment she was left with. She eventually received some support from the Skipton Fund, but she found the process involved absolutely brutal—she felt she was jumping through hoops to get the money.
We have to keep telling these stories, because we have to remember what many people went through. We have to remember that they need a proper settlement because that can help to draw a line under this period, in so far as we ever can. These people have lost their loved ones, and they have lost great friends they have made during the campaign. As they have told me, it just becomes too difficult in the end to attend the constant funerals, as members of the community pass away. These people want proper support for those who are still with us.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s apology gave my constituent Sandra Molyneaux hope that the wrong done to her and her family would finally be righted. Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that subsequent developments fly in the face of that? Sandra and thousands of others are telling the Government through us today, “Don’t tell us you’re sorry. Show us you’re sorry.”
Jessica Morden
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point [Interruption.] And it is very well received. He anticipates the point I am coming to.
There was some hope last year when the Prime Minister made the much-needed apology for the contaminated blood disaster. He promised then to improve the financial support for the victims and their families. As he said, we are a “wealthy and successful country” and we should be helping these people more. There was some hope, and the consultation was launched into what the support should look like.
A year on, however, the victims have been let down again. Despite the headline announcement about the additional budget of up to £125 million in support, not a penny has been spent, as has been said. The majority of people currently receiving financial support will be worse off under the new scheme. Removing discretionary payments may mean that many lose to the tune of thousands of pounds a year. They will be significantly worse off than those affected in Scotland. Individual assessment could reduce financial security. Widows, partners and dependent children who have been bereaved will receive limited or no support. Lastly, the proposed reforms would just not deliver the sustainability and security the affected community so desperately needs. This is not the package that is needed. It is also not clear whether payments under the new proposals will be exempt from tax and benefit assessment.
What has been proposed is very different from what will be offered by the Scottish Government. For widows who have lost their loved ones, the difference is not just stark—the proposals are poles apart. I will leave it to SNP Members to elaborate on that, but the difference is very pointed.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady not accept that this is one occasion when there should be close working across the Administrations? I offer her the example of a constituent who was infected 35 years ago in Staffordshire. Although he has lived in Scotland for all that time, he will get compensation under the scheme devised by the Department of Health in England. Where is the sense in that?
Jessica Morden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right and I am sure he will get the chance to elaborate on that point later. For parents and families who have gone through the trauma of losing a child like Colin, there is nothing at all.
Nigel Mills is here from Wales today and he is now receiving a new treatment for hep C. He has been able to access that treatment, although, mercifully, his condition has not resulted in cirrhosis of the liver. All those in Wales who developed hep C and could benefit from those new drugs are now receiving them. The Haemophilia Society is very anxious that all those in England who could benefit should have access to them and that funding for new treatment should not be diverted to cover existing treatments.
How many times do we keep having to tell these very personal stories, and how many times do we keep having to call these debates and table questions? How many times do victims have to come to London to lobby MPs? The Haemophilia Society has responded fully, highlighting the weaknesses in what is being proposed and saying that the consultation should be withdrawn.
I ask the Minister please to reflect deeply on this, because what is proposed does not meet the needs of widows, partners, parents, children and those affected. But she should not reflect on it for too long: this has been an ongoing nightmare since the 1970s for thousands of families. The Government cannot bring back the dead or restore health, but they can award a package that will ensure that survivors and families are secure. The apology was a step forward, but let us not prolong the agony further for those who have suffered for far too long. Please listen to this campaign and give the campaigners what they deserve. Please right the wrong.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I welcome the Backbench Business Committee’s selection of this important topic, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on their efforts in securing this valuable debate.
I want to acknowledge the tremendous campaigning work of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Its efforts have helped to pave the way for the current Department of Health consultation to secure a lasting financial and support settlement for those thousands of people infected with HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated blood in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Let me say at the outset that my heart goes out to those people who have been affected by the contaminated blood scandal, both in my constituency of South East Cornwall and across the country. The devastating impact on patients and their families and friends is immeasurable and lasts for a lifetime. We must all do what we can to ensure that those affected have as secure a future as possible.
I have personal experience of trying to help one constituent who has sadly been impacted by this terrible tragedy. My constituent was infected with contaminated blood in 1985 at the age of 35 and subsequently contracted full blown hepatitis C, which has now developed into cirrhosis of the liver.
My constituent, who understandably has asked not to be identified, has undergone three courses of arduous interferon-based treatment. The last course caused a life-threatening infection that required a month in hospital and some invasive surgery and extensive abdominal surgery.
Now aged 65, my constituent suffers from severe fatigue, physical weakness, brain fog, which means that she is unable to read anything vaguely complicated, constant itching, fever, sweats, depression and total and permanent hair loss. The stress of living with those conditions on a daily basis for 30 years must be immeasurable. The Government must do all they can to support patients and their families.
My constituent wanted me to highlight her case as an example of where anomalies in support for patients suffering from cirrhosis of the liver have led to financial hardship and additional worry at a very distressing time. She was very grateful for the lump sum she received and an income of £14,760 per annum. However, that figure would be £26,000 in Scotland, nearly double the sum offered in England. That is iniquitous.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
A constituent of mine—Janis Richards of Sudbury—has written to me, and hers is a very tragic case similar to that highlighted by my hon. Friend. I am struggling to explain to her why there are such different arrangements for constituents across the United Kingdom, given that this problem originally arose under a UK Government.
Mrs Murray
I completely concur with my hon. Friend. My constituent is particularly concerned about proposals to withdraw index linking from annual income and to refuse to increase it by any meaningful amount. I understand that there is a recommendation to fix annual payments at a flat rate of £15,000 a year, which would leave my constituent with a nominal financial increase of about £240. There are also proposals to withdraw back-up services for emergencies and to withdraw support, which my constituent will certainly require, given the severity of her condition.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify the position, and to take my constituent’s concerns into account when formulating final proposals? My constituent previously enjoyed a successful career in the legal profession, but she became too ill to pursue it after her infection with contaminated blood. Her career was, sadly, cut short, as was her considerable earning potential and professional development.
Patients must be treated with fairness, and each case must be assessed and supported on its merits. I am grateful that the Prime Minister acknowledged the scale of the tragedy and apologised on behalf of the UK Government. I welcome the additional funding for England that was announced in 2015 to ease the transition to a reformed scheme and ensure its sustainable operation with patients at its core. That scheme must provide a robust and fair system that supports and compensates those who are affected and removes any unnecessary complexity and unfairness.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
At the start of her speech, the hon. Lady mentioned the excellent work of the APPG. It is right to highlight that, because it has shed a lot of light on the issue. In every constituency, there are heart-breaking stories like that of her constituent. I have two constituents who, through no fault of their own, received contaminated blood products, and one of them feels as though he has a death sentence hanging over his head. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should not, quite literally, add insult to injury, and that a just and fair settlement must be found as soon as possible? I know that the Conservative Government were not necessarily responsible for the blood products, but it is in the gift of this Government to sort the matter out once and for all.
Mrs Murray
I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and that she and the Government will take action to make it easier for affected people to live as good a life as they can expect to.
There are currently five different organisations funded by the Department of Health to which affected individuals can apply for support. It is encouraging that staff in those schemes have said that the system would be more efficient and consistent if the organisations were combined. Other concerns that have been raised should be addressed through the consultation and subsequent proposals. Those concerns include the fact that beneficiaries are not individually assessed, and that bodies operate different payment policies. The APPG is quite correct to state that the system is not fit for purpose. The consultation that the Department of Health is conducting, which concludes this week, is a helpful step. I am pleased that the Department of Health has reached out to, and sought views from, affected patients and their beneficiaries, and I congratulate the Minister on that. The outcome must lead to a fair and sustainable solution for my constituent and for impacted individuals and families across the country.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I want to express my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the sterling work that she has done in raising the matter. I know from personal experience that she is a formidable campaigner on this issue.
An MP has no greater responsibility than to give a voice to those who feel as though they are not being heard, and I want to use this opportunity to tell the story of my constituent Alex Smith of Chadderton. Quite a lot of the debate has been about finance, and that is important. It is evident from the consultation and from the Government that the driver from their point of view is to squeeze this for every penny they can. However, I want to talk about the real human cost—the everyday cost for those affected.
Alex is ill. He struggles to get out and about. He often feels worn out and unable to live the fulfilling life that we take for granted. Despite his physical difficulties, he is to many, including me, an inspiring man. He has shown great strength of character, resilience and a pride that is the culture of many in our town. His story is not just heart-breaking, but unjust. In a fair society, those who are wronged should have fairness and the wrong should be put right.
Alex and his wife Brenda celebrated the arrival of their son in 1980. To put on record how long the family has waited for real justice, let me say that during that period—from the blood contamination to getting answers, getting proper compensation and, now, fighting for enough money just to pay the bills—I was born in a hospital down the road, went to nursery, went to primary school, went to secondary school, went to college, went out to work and had two sons of my own, of whom the eldest will leave school in two years’ time. In the period that Alex has had to wait for justice, I have lived my life, and I have done so without many of the difficulties that Alex has had. That justice is no justice whatsoever.
A year after her son’s birth in 1980, Brenda was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She received treatment for that, including a blood transfusion. Separately, Alex, being a good citizen, gave blood in 1995, like hundreds and thousands of others. From the sample test, it was discovered that he had hepatitis C. To be honest, he did not really know what it was. He was told that, with treatment, it might well clear up. He went for treatment, and received most of it, but it was stopped early for other reasons. He thought that that was it.
Over the course of three years, Alex noticed he was becoming forgetful. He put that down to getting older and having a few senior moments, but it got worse and he became increasingly worn out, tired and lethargic. He struggled, but he had the support of his wife and family by his side. To fast-forward 10 years, the family had another tragedy when his wife Brenda passed away. The coroner ruled that the case was inconclusive and the cause of the death was recorded as “unascertained”. We can imagine the grief the family went through, and throughout this time Alex continued to struggle, each and every day, with things we might take for granted.
In 2011, Alex visited his doctor again and underwent a routine blood test. He discovered that the hepatitis C had not gone away and was still there. He went through further treatment, but instead of making him feel better, it made him feel much worse. At that point, he was determined not just to get treatment, but to get answers. His quest started at the hospital where he felt it all began. The records had been destroyed, so he realised that if he was to get real justice and to get answers, he would have to track down the people who were there at the time.
Alex’s mission led him to Bangor in north Wales, where the retired surgeon living there confirmed that Alex had had a blood transfusion with what was likely to be contaminated blood. That made him think, “If I received contaminated blood, could it be that Brenda, who received treatment in the same hospital, also received contaminated blood and may have had hepatitis C as well?” He went to the hospital to find the records, and the records said that Brenda had had hepatitis C. Cruelly and inexplicably, the hospital had not told Brenda and Alex that. It was only when he went back through the medical records years later that that was discovered.
Alex applied to the Skipton Fund and received compensation for himself and his wife, as a surviving stage 1 widower, but that did not make him feel any better physically. He describes every day—let us just imagine this—as waking up with aching flu. Imagine waking up every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with the flu and no end in sight. How would that drag us down and make daily life feel?
Alex and Brenda did not ask to be infected. Alex did not ask to spend his life in pain and poverty, or to be made to feel, during this consultation, as though he is begging for something that he is not entitled to. His life has been taken away. He wants justice, fairness and closure. He wants to be able to stop the campaign that has been necessary to get justice, and to live a decent lifestyle.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman is making a very serious and sympathetic case. As well as people’s suffering, is there not also the issue of their unrealised potential—the hopes dashed, the dreams never lived, the potential never reached? It is on that account that we really owe it to these people to speak up—I do so on behalf an unidentified constituent who does not want me to give his name—and urge the Minister to address the issue.
Jim McMahon
The hon. Lady makes an absolutely excellent point. When Alex came to my office in Oldham, he told me that with his compensation payment he had bought a van to go and work self-employed, but his illness stopped him and eventually he had to sell the van, which had ended up sitting on his driveway. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that people have been denied opportunities that many in this House would take for granted. It is far more than simply an aching pain, or not knowing whether tomorrow will be better than today; opportunities have been stolen from people. Given that it is the state’s responsibility to put this matter right, we owe it as a nation to do so once and for all.
The payments we are talking about will seem quite small to many people here. In some ways, that is what makes this so unfair and so cruel. In one of the richest nations in the world, we are talking about penny-pinching from the poorest people in society, who did not choose to be in this situation and who need a way forward. A £2,000 payment taken away, or a winter fuel allowance, or prescription payments—support is being taken away. It is important to say that the £2,000 payments do not go to everyone, but are for people whose income is 70% below the average in that area. I do not want to make party political points, but it is a bit difficult not to do so when the Government of the day could put the matter right but are choosing instead to drag it out and prolong the agony and pain.
When Members vote in the Lobby of this House, we will be voting after having received a pay rise this year. Well done, all of us—aren’t we fantastic? Well, the people out there are not asking for a pay rise. They are asking just to get by—to have the money to pay the bills—and for justice. The Minister has the opportunity to put the matter right once and for all. She should take it.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I am very glad to be able to take part in this debate, having secured it along with hon. Members from both sides of the House. It is on an important and sombre topic.
Back in 2015, I spoke in this House on behalf of two constituents. One is, I believe, in London today. One has passed away—Annie Walker of Norwich. She was one of thousands of people nationwide given infected blood by the NHS during those decades. It left her fighting illness throughout her adult life—she contracted hepatitis C from an otherwise routine blood transfusion at the age of just 19. That caused cirrhosis of her liver and led to cancer in later years. Despite a liver transplant in the months since I last spoke for her in the House, she was told that the cancer had spread and was given just months to live. Like many others, throughout her illness she campaigned to increase hep C awareness and for better treatment of those affected by the scandal. The first thing I want to do is to pay tribute to her courage and tirelessness in campaigning for others while she was suffering so badly herself.
I will add just a few points to the arguments that have already been raised, urging the Minister to do everything she can to put right this historical wrong. I urge her to look again at indexing. It is important to maintain the value of the payments made to those who are suffering. I also urge her to stick to her guns and make future payments simpler and more dignified, rather than people having to go cap in hand to a motley collection of charitable funds.
I urge the Minister to stick to what she laid out in this House, when she established her aim to get annual payments to those who had not, to date, received them. There are those who have not yet been included in the funds and they currently receive no regular support. It is good to seek to include some of those people in the scheme. Her other aim—not to remove payment from any person—is equally crucial. She has set out her aims to the House and we will all hold her to them. Like other Members, I welcome the doubling of the funding available through the NHS. I also welcome the action the Minister has laid out in relation to treatment, something I have argued for a number of times.
A third constituent came to see me after we last held a debate on this matter. He suffers from severe cirrhosis of the liver and needs the new generation of drugs. We should make those drugs available as soon as possible for those who could suffer less. The dreadful dilemma for doctors is whether they should treat the sickest first or those who could be prevented from getting sicker. I welcome the opportunity the scheme represents potentially to prevent that dreadful dilemma in doctors’ surgeries and hospitals.
It is a very delicate matter to argue about who, among those who need treatment, should be prioritised. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have to do in this place on behalf of our constituents. Doctors have to make such decisions every day. On balance, I think it is right to seek to fast-track those who are in the early stage of disease. The dreadful dilemma could perhaps be stopped, given such a historical wrong done to our fellow human beings. I could not possibly look the third constituent of mine in the eye and say that today I argued against possibly stopping that dreadful dilemma by arguing against the Minister’s proposal. She is doing a courageous thing with that particular proposal.
In closing, I want to return to my constituent Annie Walker who has passed away. I supported my constituent and corresponded with her over many years. My heart goes out to the family and friends she leaves behind. Every individual death emphasises the tragedy of this scandal. It is a national scandal and a national tragedy. The fight must go on. Annie fought that fight during her lifetime, with my support. Many who have spoken today and the many who are able to be in London today are also fighting the fight. I urge anybody affected who has not yet come forward to do so and to look at the consultation before it runs out in a few days. We in this place can only attempt to get this right if we have information from those affected. That is our job.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree with the sentiments of my constituent Steve Bertram, who I believe is here today, who came to my office last week? He has a face that many would recognise. He looks like someone who has been repeatedly kicked in the teeth. He said:
“Our government needs to act for English Haemophiliacs – generously and properly. Like me, I hope anyone who responded to the consultation told the government in no uncertain terms how paltry, mean and demeaning the offer is.”
Chloe Smith
I will let the words of a fellow Norwich person speak for themselves. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to vocalise them for his constituent.
It is up to us in this place to get this right and to listen to all such points carefully. Annie Walker once said to me that she did not have the strength to keep on fighting. Sadly, that has now come true. It is up to us to continue to speak out. It is up to us to right this historical wrong. It is up to us to do that with both finance and NHS treatment. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to what has been said today, but to listen even more carefully to the consultation.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
One of my first actions, following my election to this place, was to highlight the plight of those infected with contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s. I did this by writing to the Department of Health, following discussions with Julie, a constituent of mine. In July 2015, I also tabled early-day motion 334 to recognise
“the ongoing hardship and challenges faced by those infected with contaminated blood”
and to encourage
“the Prime Minister to implement promised arrangements to distribute an additional £25 million to those affected as soon as is practicable.”
Infected blood is one of the most terrible chapters in the history of the NHS. Many people have died or suffered long-term disability and hardship as a result of infection. Relatives have had to sacrifice careers to provide care and support, and in some cases partners and loved ones have become infected. Patients, families and carers have dealt with those difficulties with immense and enduring courage. My constituent Julie was born with a rare genetic condition known as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which requires treatment, including blood transfusions. She was infected with contaminated blood in 1974—42 years ago—while a young woman with her whole life ahead of her. Following a transfusion that September, she quickly developed symptoms of hepatitis and suffers today from a range of chronic and debilitating health conditions that have rendered her unable to remain upright for longer than 10 minutes at a time without becoming fatigued, owing to liver and lung damage arising directly from the transfusions.
Although now living in Scotland, Julie was infected in England. The liability for the current ex gratia schemes is based on where the individual was infected, rather than residency. This means that the English schemes and the consultation recently launched by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), are responsible for supporting Julie and delivering the financial support she will require.
Julie is currently classed as Skipton stage 1 and has received an ex gratia payment of £20,000 but receives no annual award. Her medical condition means that she has great difficulty meeting the qualifying criteria for stage 2, which would increase her ex gratia payment and provide approximately £15,000 per annum in badly needed support. I have reviewed her correspondence with the Skipton Fund on the reassessment and have found it unhelpful, perhaps even deliberately obtuse.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Susan Webster who lost her partner, Charlie, almost five years ago, after he contracted hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood, leaving her and their now 14-year-old daughter without any financial support. Since Charlie’s death, Susan and her daughter have received little or no Government help and have had to approach the Skipton Fund themselves. Today, they remain in a state of limbo while the Government dither over the future of the UK scheme. Does he agree that the Government, having dragged their heels for years, must now act to support the survivors of this scandal without any further delay?
Dr Monaghan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a tragic case that he outlines, and I will come to his specific point shortly.
On 21 January 2016, the Health Minister stated that the UK Government wanted to increase the amount of money on offer for victims of infected blood by £100 million, in addition to the £25 million announced in March 2015 by the Prime Minister. This takes the total to £225 million over the five years to 2020. As we know, there is a 12-week consultation on these proposals that closes this week, on 15 April. However, the proposed payment schemes have been heavily criticised by many of those affected for being outdated and confused in structure. That is my experience of them too. They also appear unfair.
The UK Government have estimated that the Department will spend a further £570 million over the projected lifetime of the reformed scheme, but analysis shows that the Department wants to cap annual payments for victims in England at £15,000 and that these will no longer be index linked and so will not increase with the cost of living. The UK Government also want to remove regular discretionary payments, including the winter fuel allowance and the £1,200 per child annual payment.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
On the point about the cost of living, I have several constituents in the same situation. One suggested that pension payments be increased to at least the level of the living wage. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that idea?
Dr Monaghan
I would absolutely support that suggestion. I would also note that many victims in England now face cuts of up to £7,000 a year, together with cumulative losses from the freezing of six annual payments to patients of £15,000 a year, time-limited support for partners and spouses after patients’ deaths, and the ending of help for the children and parents of those affected. Moreover, victims will no longer have access to grants for support with such things as mobility issues and modifications to property; nor will they have access to free expert advice.
The Haemophilia Society, which campaigns on behalf of victims of this scandal, has said that it has deep concerns about the proposals for England. It compared the proposals for England to those in Scotland, saying:
“These concerns are compounded by the fact that similar proposals in Scotland offer more generous payments to its affected community. There is a risk that, if both sets of proposals are accepted (as they currently stand), affected people in England will receive much lower incomes that those in Scotland.”
The Scottish Government have already provided £32 million over the last 10 years to the current UK-wide schemes, so they are already committed to support those infected in Scotland. Nevertheless, on 18 March this year, the Scottish Government announced a substantial package of increased financial support for those affected by infected NHS blood and blood products in Scotland, amounting to an additional £20 million over the next three years alone. The new Scottish scheme will see annual payments for those with HIV and advanced hep C nearly double from £15,000 to £27,000 a year, and those affected with both HIV and hep C will have their annual payments increase from £30,000 to £37,000.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
This is a pure inquiry. Would it have been open to the Scottish authorities to say that the increased levels of compensation would be available to all those affected within Scotland rather than on the basis of where people had acquired the infection?
Dr Monaghan
I do not think that would be possible because it would be an admission of liability, and these are ex gratia schemes with no liability in response to the payment.
In addition to the measures I have explained so far, a new support and assistance grant scheme will be established in Scotland to administer and provide more flexible grants to cover additional needs. Scottish Government funding for this scheme will increase from £300,000 to £1 million a year. In real terms, the new arrangements will mean additional financial support is available for all categories of infected people and their dependants in Scotland. In Scotland, we are clear that this is not the end of the process and that there will be ongoing work with patient groups on this matter.
In overwhelming contrast to the Scottish Government, the UK Government are proposing to cut funding for victims of this scandal, leaving vulnerable people thousands of pounds a year worse off. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government do not think it important to support those who were infected in England, and it is clear that the proposed cuts demonstrate that the UK Government’s priorities lie with austerity, not with the victims of this terrible scandal. It is time for the UK Government to support those whose lives have been ruined by this unprecedented scandal. For people such as Julie, anything less literally heaps insult on injury.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate and on the valuable work that her all-party parliamentary group is doing in this area.
All Members, I am sure, receive a huge number of letters and emails from constituents, and hold face-to-face meetings with them on a huge range of issues. Just occasionally, an email arrives that has the power to stop us in our tracks, simply demanding the wider attention of the whole House. On 2 June last year, just four weeks after being elected to this place for the first time, I received just such an email. It came from my constituent Sue Threakall, from Barnstaple. Mrs Threakall is with us in the Gallery this afternoon, one of many who have travelled long distances to be here today. I pay tribute to them all.
With her permission and with the leave of the House, I would like to read a short extract from the email I received from Mrs Threakall, which sums up better than I could the real human impact of this national tragedy:
“my late husband was a haemophiliac who”,
in the 1980s,
“was given contaminated blood and…died in 1991 with AIDS, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. His death ripped my family apart and to this day the effects are still there.”
Her children lead
“compromised lives compared to the ones they should have led. I have severe financial difficulties to this day, despite doing everything possible to help myself recover from a wrecked career as a…teacher, followed by retirement at 50 on a tiny pension. Since then I have worked in hospitals, but following three major surgeries in seven years have now more or less retired.
I have been campaigning for thirty years for truth and justice”.
Those are two crucial elements that we must discuss today: truth and justice.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way, and I share his concern about the impact on spouses. My constituent Mr Thomas Farrell was given 11 units of contaminated blood in 1989, and tested positive for hepatitis C nine years later. One of his biggest fears is that his wife will not have the security of knowing that she can pay the mortgage should he pass away before her. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that bereaved partners and spouses should have security and proper financial support for the rest of their life?
Peter Heaton-Jones
I absolutely agree that we must look beyond those whose are immediately affected personally by the health effects of contaminated blood, and take account of the effects on their wider families and loved ones. I shall say more about that later.
Truth and justice are what this is all about, and I believe that we have reached a stage at which we really could deliver both. The Government’s consultation is under way; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), Friend made her announcement in January; and there is now a groundswell of public opinion. Those three factors mean that we are at a crossroads, and we may never have this opportunity again. Campaigners acknowledge that since 2010, the Government have listened. We have made progress—more progress than we have made in the past.
This, however, is the position: the Government’s consultation is due to close in just three days’ time, and it is clear that there is still a great deal of unhappiness with the options on the table. The status quo—the existing scheme, with its confusing and inadequate provision—is not acceptable, but neither is the alternative, which would seem to fail to tackle the fundamental problem of fair financial provision both for those who received the contaminated blood and are living with the health consequences and, importantly, the families and loved ones who care for them or grieve for them.
We must be realistic. Like nearly every decision that we make in this place, this does in the end come down to money, and we know that money is tight. It would be unrealistic, indeed irresponsible, to stand here today and ask for a blank cheque to be written, or for funds to be taken from equally worthwhile projects elsewhere in the health budget. What I appeal for today from the Government—on behalf of my constituent, and other constituents who are with us—are two commodities that are perhaps even more precious: time and understanding. I ask for time for these people, including my constituent, to have their cases adequately heard by the Government, and not to be bounced into accepting one of two options, neither of which they believe to be fair or adequate.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech on behalf of his constituent. Does he agree that it would be a tragedy if, at the end of the consultation, some of the victims were worse off as a result of it?
Peter Heaton-Jones
None of us, of course, would want that. We must wait to hear what the Minister says at the end of the debate, but I am sure that we are all aiming for the same result. The least that the people who have fought so hard for truth and justice deserve is a fair hearing, but for many, time is running out. They find themselves in the heartbreaking position of facing the inevitable health consequences of what was, after all, an historical failure of the national health service.
Rebecca Pow
I, too, massively applaud the work of the all-party parliamentary group, which has been working for so long. My hon. Friend has mentioned time. I have just received a text from one of my constituents, who does not want to be named, but who points out that the stark reality is that those infected are dying at the rate of one a month. For these people, time really is of the essence.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I believe that there was an informal time limit of seven minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has a minute to go. If we cannot get it down to six minutes, I will have to impose a formal time limit, which I do not want to do.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker; thank you.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) makes the perfectly reasonable point that time is running out, and that these people find themselves in an impossible position. I do not seek to extend this process unnecessarily, but the 15 April deadline cannot and must not be the end of the story. It cannot be a deadline after which a decision is simply handed down. Let us give a proper, respectful hearing to those who believe that an injustice is about to be done, and let us try to put this right.
I also said that we needed understanding. These events have devastated the lives of many people, including my constituent, Sue Threakall. I shall end as I began, by quoting her words in an email. She says:
“At the moment I haven’t the slightest idea how I will be able to manage and am in complete despair. Over the last week it has occurred to me several times that after fighting this for over three decades…I really don’t want to carry on.”
I say to my constituent and to the other campaigners who are with us today: do carry on, and do keep telling us what we need to know. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who has just left her place, said, it is by hearing the true life stories of those who have been affected that my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is listening, will be able to take very careful note. Let us do all we can to deliver what my constituent and many thousands of others want and deserve: truth, fairness and justice.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to join other Members of Parliament in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her work on this matter, which, among other things, has enabled us to take part in this debate.
Everything that we deal with in this House of Commons is about people, whether they are Syrian refugees or steelworkers from south Wales. Whatever we do deals with the lives of people, and we are somehow led to believe that the larger the number of people involved, the more important the issue will be. That is a basic problem about this issue. There is not, sub specie aeternitatis, a huge number of people who are affected by blood contamination, but those involved have been affected in a way that damages their lives every minute of every day. I would not have known about this issue if it were not for a person in my constituency called Mohibul Islam, who has been in contact with me year after year—I now have a file of correspondence so enormous that I could not bring it into the Chamber—and who has asked me to participate in the debate and to ask a specific question.
Let us be clear about this: I do not accuse the Government of being heartless. It would be easy to do that, given the suffering of the people involved. However, the Government do not seem to grasp the fact that a process that should have been followed to produce an effective outcome has been left in such a way that we still cannot believe that we are going to get a result. We still cannot believe that the outcome will be known to, and potentially satisfy, the relatively small number of our constituents who are suffering in this way. Also, when I say that this involves a small number of people, I must stress that it occupies 100% of their lives.
It may well be that every Member in this Chamber has in her or his family someone who suffers from some deeply upsetting illness, but unless one knows about blood contamination, it passes us by. The Government have not given the matter the active attention that it deserves, and that may simply be because the number of people affected is relatively small. This is not in any way an accusation against the Government—I will make accusations against them when I need to—but there are no votes in this, because the number is small. However, the numbers suffering cannot be pinned down by statistics. Unless any of us in the Chamber have actually suffered from blood contamination or its consequences, we do not really know about it, even if we are told.
Mohibul Islam has asked me to put a specific question to the Minister, and I will ask her to respond to him, so that I can let him know that his voice has been heard in the House of Commons. He wants to know why, instead of raising payments and bringing them above the poverty threshold, the payment for the dual-infected group is being cut substantially, leading to some people being £7,000 a year worse off. For someone with tax relationships with Panama, £7,000 may not seem like a large sum of money, but it is everything to somebody who needs the money and goes day after day without any prospect of alleviation.
Barbara Keeley
We have heard Government Members say that money is tight, but like my right hon. Friend’s constituent, my constituent Mr Dave Gort has had to cover the cost of his own treatment and is facing a decrease in the annual payment. He will also lose additional support such as winter fuel payments and the prescription prepayment programme. Those affected also have issues with insurance, for example, with premiums being loaded even when the virus has cleared. I support my right hon. Friend’s points about hardship and the hit that the change represents.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
What my hon. Friend says is remarkably valid and I concur with it. As a consequence of what she and other Members have said and, most of all, of my communications from Mohibul Islam, I want to know why the Government cannot at least provide parity with Scotland. That would not solve the problem, but it would to some extent alleviate the financial consequences.
As I said, every one of us in this House, either personally or through someone in our family, has suffered the effects of some kind of health-related problem. In my case, my brother and one of my sisters died in suffering after a long experience of Alzheimer’s disease. There are many ways in which the human condition can be hurtful or troublesome. I am not looking for a solution—frankly, I do not believe that there is a solution in health terms—but I am looking for the Government to show that they care, that there will be an outcome, and that that outcome will, as a minimum, alleviate the anxieties and concerns of those who live with this affliction every single day.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and to be able to follow on from all the work done to bring this debate to the Floor of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing it; it was a pleasure for me, as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, to support the proposal that this debate be held today.
Contaminated blood and the impact on victims was one of the first issues to come into my inbox after I was elected. Someone came to my surgery who had had a condition but had been otherwise healthy, only to find that they were to have decades of pain and disability because of the treatment they had for that condition—that is almost heartbreaking. Virtually all their life prospects have disappeared because of a treatment they received that they thought would make them better.
It is worth examining the scale of this disaster in our NHS system. We are talking about 4,700 people with bleeding disorders and 28,000 other people becoming infected with hepatitis C; and 1,200 with bleeding disorders and 100 other individuals getting HIV. Of course these people were getting that condition at a time when the medical understanding of it was very limited and the life expectancy was incredibly short. Thankfully, many people have benefited from the advances in medical science since 1985, which have allowed them to keep living, but they still face all the issues that come with that illness and—let us be candid—the stigma that still comes with it from those ignorant about what can cause it.
The issue is about looking at the time that has elapsed. I am sure that, like me, my predecessor, Adrian Sanders, who pursued a number of cases diligently during his time as the MP for Torbay, would not have expected that after 18 years his successor would still be talking about this issue and still be having to speak up for the constituents affected by this scandal, at least one of whom is in the Gallery today. We know that a patchwork of five schemes is in place, and reference has been made to that. To be fair, £390 million has already been paid out, but the impact on these people has been so devastating that it is right that we are looking again at what the appropriate level of compensation is.
It was appropriate that last year the Prime Minister issued an apology. That is something so simple, but it took until 2015 for it to happen. I agree that we are not in a court of law today, but it is right that we seek to provide some form of justice to those who for so long have found themselves on the receiving end of life-changing conditions.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We have used the word “justice” all the way through this debate. I have listened to it all and I was not intending to intervene, but I must say that in fact there is no justice we can give people who have contaminated blood—that has been taken away from them. All we can do is give them the best possible help, financially and in care terms. They will never get justice, and it is improper to suggest they can—we cannot do it, it is too late, they have had that taken away and money will not compensate.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for such a thoughtful intervention. We cannot give them justice; we cannot restore them back to where they were before the impact of this scandal, but we can compensate them. We can try to mitigate the impact and give them a life that is appropriate, as best we can. Today’s debate is right to focus on that.
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend has mentioned some of the impacts, and I think there is an impact relating to housing. A lot of people with very low incomes are finding it difficult to access reasonable housing, including my constituent Sally Vickers, who has been told by Portsmouth City Council that she cannot be rehoused, despite a threatening condition caused by receiving contaminated blood. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Minister needs to advise local authorities to make sure that the housing is adequate for such people?
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is also about making sure local authorities are aware of the support packages and the possible impact on benefit calculations. During my time as a councillor in Coventry I was approached by someone who was constantly being invited in for a fraud interview because they were receiving funds from one of the trusts. Those trained in these trusts have mostly retired now because of the time that has elapsed since this was put in place; the numbers involved are very small so new members of staff would not be so familiar with this. To be fair, that particular incident was resolved.
Initially, my constituents were pleased to hear that a consultation was going to happen and that £25 million would be available. They waited for it, but when it was announced it is safe to say that they were extremely disappointed. The problems, which have already been listed, include the fact that recipients could receive less than they do now, as some of the top-ups and support may be abolished. Some of the support could rely on assessments. I say that tentatively, as I have looked at this issue of repeated assessments. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have looked at the work of the Department for Work and Pensions, and there is no great enthusiasm to see more people going through an annual assessment, particularly when, for many of these people, only a miracle cure will make any form of difference. The conditions are lifelong and permanent. They have been with them for decades and are not likely to be something from which they will recover.
I hope that the Government will relook at the proposals they put out for consultation, and take on board the comments from the all-party group, which have been put forward in a constructive and genuinely helpful way. I ask the Minister to take a view on what is being done in Scotland, and to explain why the UK Government do not think that the Scottish model would be appropriate here. If there is a particular reason, let us hear it. For me, it seems that the model has been welcomed and could be taken forward here.
I do hope that, after 30 years, we can finally take a step forward, deliver justice and ensure that people get the compensation for which they have waited so long. They need a resolution to these matters, which have been going on for decades.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate today and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing such an important issue to be brought before the House. I add my praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her outstanding leadership. As a member of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I feel strongly that it is right that the House consider this matter and that more should be done. I also feel that it would be unconscionable if any reform that did come about actually reduced the support currently being received by people who have been victims of this appalling episode in the history of our public health system.
As we have heard, between the mid-1970s and the late 1980s, 4,670 people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through their NHS treatment and the transfusion of contaminated blood. Of those, 1,243 people with haemophilia were also exposed to HIV. Almost half of those infected with hepatitis C, and almost three quarters co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C, have since died. Many have experienced poverty and discrimination as a result of their infections. For so many of the victims, the simplest of daily tasks can become difficult and, in some situations, frightening. Such a scenario can be seen in the life of one of my own constituents, Mr Michael Gee, with whom I have worked on this issue since I first met him at a constituency surgery in 2013. Alongside many other victims, Michael has travelled to be here today to listen to this debate. The determination to be here is testament to the importance of these decisions. I pay tribute to Michael and to everyone else who is here today and who has been placed in a similar situation.
As a young boy, Michael was accidentally scalded when reaching for a pan of boiling water on the cooker while his mother was making dinner. Rushed to hospital, he underwent a number of blood transfusions. Due to the shortage of blood donors, the Government of the day had purchased blood supplies from abroad, and one of the bags used contained contaminated blood.
Michael was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 1987, and it is a condition that he has had to live with throughout his adult life. Hepatitis C causes chronic fatigue, organ damage as well as significant cognitive impairment and damage to the auto-immune system causing arthritis and muscle problems. There are also a whole range of significant practical everyday problems. Hepatitis C sufferers, for instance, struggle to get mortgages or proper insurance.
Michael is now a father, and due to the nature of his condition he is restricted in his interaction with his own child. Terrified that an open wound could transfer his virus, he often has to wear gloves to put his mind at ease, and keep the safety of his children paramount. Such a scenario is difficult to comprehend for any of us who are parents and we would not wish to see anyone placed in that position.
I do not think that any Government have done enough on this matter. In 2009, the Department of Health reviewed the support for the victims of the disaster, but 80% of those who were infected with hepatitis C were excluded from the financial help. That was on the grounds that their illness was considered to be at stage 1. They had been categorised as stage 1 because they could not prove a certain stage of liver disease. To make things even more unfair, there were serious differences in the help given to people with HIV and people with hepatitis C. One of the biggest and most obvious anomalies was the fact that if someone with HIV died their spouse could apply for ongoing financial support, albeit means-tested, but if someone with hepatitis C died their partner received nothing.
The entire support system is inadequate, and is administered by a multitude of charitable trusts with different rules and criteria, which makes it harder to access. In 2016, the Government are in danger of repeating the errors of the past and once again letting down the victims and their families. Last month, victims of the disaster received letters from the Department of Health consulting them on reforms that could leave some of them up to £7,000 a year worse off. This is not acceptable, and it must not be allowed to happen.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the impact on families. My constituents, David and Vincent Farrugia, tragically lost their father Barry after he contracted HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood. The families and the bereaved are not included in the consultation—there is no provision for children, dependants or bereaved families. Does my hon. Friend agree that children and dependants who are now adults should be included in the consultation?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we learn the details of these cases it is clear that people’s entire lives have been grievously affected, and it is only right that everyone associated with those injured parties is given the opportunity to take part in the remedy that is required. I would point out to the Department of Health that almost all of the victims of this disaster were infected at least 30 years ago, and there is substantial research evidence showing that by now they have suffered significant damage to their health and earning potential. That must be taken into consideration.
The cap proposed by the Government on annual payments once again shows the lack of compassion and reasonableness faced by these people. The fact that infected spouses will stop receiving payments is grossly unfair. The Prime Minister apologised in the House to the victims last year for what they had had to endure, saying that it was
“difficult to imagine the feelings of unfairness that people must feel”—[Official Report, 21 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1423.]
Given the latest proposals, do not those words now ring somewhat hollow? The chilling truth of this tragedy is that about half of the estimated 5,000 haemophiliacs who were infected have died without ever seeing justice.
I would ask all Members in the Chamber to think not only of those affected, such as Michael, but of the victims’ families, who rely on financial support, which provides the security and stability they need and deserve, and which we as Members of this House have a duty to protect. This is one of the worst episodes in the history of public healthcare and the NHS. Any sense of natural justice leads, I believe, to the conclusion that it must be addressed. We cannot give these people back their health or their dignity, but we can give them closure. We can give them proper financial support—and, frankly, it is time we did.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
In my view, real progress has been made, culminating in January 2016 with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), outlining an additional £100 million, with principles laid out as part of the consultation.
As the Minister knows. I have followed this issue incredibly closely during my time in the House. It has been raised with me repeatedly by my constituent and victim Steve Dymond—the Minister is familiar with his case. Another constituent, Mr Lee Stay, has made himself known to me, and I am here to speak for him too. In the 1980s, he attended the Lord Mayor Treloar college in Hampshire, which was a specialist boarding school with a wing for haemophiliac children. He was given factor VIII, but the blood products contained HIV and hep C. He had a liver transplant, and now suffers from Burkitt lymphoma. He cannot work, and his house has been repossessed.
I know rather more about Mr Dymond, who is a tireless campaigner and advocate for his fellow victims. He has not been able to attend today. He is extremely unwell as a result of his hepatitis C infection, but I know that he will be watching and that the whole House will wish him and all the victims we have heard about today recovery where at all possible. Steve Dymond was afflicted by hepatitis C through no fault of his own, having received contaminated blood as treatment for haemophilia, as we have heard from many cases this afternoon. Every day of Steve’s life since his infection has been lived through the lens of that condition. His capacity to work, to enjoy time with his family, to travel, to holiday and to do all those normal things that we take for granted has been fundamentally affected by his infection.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to family. I want to raise the case of a constituent of mine, which I had the opportunity to talk about when we last discussed this matter in July 2015. My constituent, who was affected by contaminated blood, was trying to have a child through IVF. The couple were entitled to one round of IVF through the normal procedures, but they applied for a second round. Despite the fact that their fertility was affected by contaminated blood, they were denied a second round of IVF and had to spend £8,000 of their family money in order to conceive a second child, who has just been born, to their delight. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the context of family and support, it is extraordinary that my constituent had to go through such hardship to extend his family?
Craig Mackinlay
I entirely agree and thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That example highlights the issues faced not only by the victim, but by the family from young to old. It is remarkable that special cases such as he describes are not recognised by the system. I hope that as part of the review those instances will be resolved.
What happened to Steve, Lee and all the others whom we have heard about today was wrong. In many cases it was avoidable. They were blameless victims who were handed debilitating, dehumanising—as my hon. Friend’s example shows—and degenerative infections that have caused heartache to all those affected. Although responsibility obviously lies with the commercial suppliers of the products, the NHS unwittingly administered them, and society owes the victims a debt. We must do the best we can to alleviate the pain and illness that victims have suffered. The decision that this House and the Government take should place those victims front and centre.
There are two threads to the approach that we should take. First, we must provide treatment for the victims, who suffer from various complex conditions and symptoms that require advanced and expensive care. It is right that we invest in the care and treatment available for those conditions, and in research. Thankfully, medical advances are making rapid progress. Secondly, we must ensure that as much restitution as possible is made to those who have suffered in that way.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
My hon. Friend rightly talks about the blameless victims and the need for compensation. My constituent, who wishes not to be named, asked me about her husband, who was infected in the late 1970s and 1980s. He was a mild haemophiliac whose life was not previously at risk, but he is now living with conditions caused by contaminated blood. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the consultation on the proposals it is important that we consider the long-term impact on such families?
Craig Mackinlay
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The issue is not just money or the obvious conditions. A holistic approach is needed to what those families have faced. The example that she gives of a minor condition is truly shocking.
Money has been discussed at length this afternoon. Money can never bring back what victims have lost, but it is important that the Government do what they can to bring dignity to the shortened lives of many of those who suffer.
I welcome what the Government have done in relation to treatment. On the new generation of drug treatments, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is developing guidance on three further treatments, and NHS England announced last year that it had made available £190 million so that patients with confirmed cirrhosis from hepatitis C can benefit from new treatment options. The Department of Health estimates that around 550 individuals infected with hepatitis C through NHS-supplied blood and blood products can now access the new treatments under the NHS’s interim commissioning policies.
Medical advances will continue, and there will be beneficial new treatments around the corner, which I hope will stem much liver damage. They may prove to be the salvation for many, but it is early days in this pioneering field of research. There remains some confusion from victims about where the money is coming from, so I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on that. I will continue to push for the best treatments available, and for research so that even better treatments are around the corner.
On support for victims, I await the Government’s conclusions on the current consultation. Central to all of this is the need to bring dignity to all those afflicted. Victims tell me that they feel that the current system has in some way belittled them and that it is insufficient. Clearly a more suitable settlement for such victims is needed. Care for bereaved next of kin, as we have heard this afternoon, remains at the forefront of victims’ minds. The settlement needs to be flexible, and I await the proposals that the Government bring forward to address these concerns.
It saddens me that some victims, including those in my own constituency, do not view the Minister as being committed to this cause. I personally refute that. I have found her to be diligent and dedicated to this tragedy. She has been honourable throughout. She has spoken honestly with me, and with great compassion. On every occasion I have spoken with her about the issue, often late in the Division Lobby, she has been both knowledgeable and committed to righting this wrong. Campaigners and victims, such as Steve and Lee, will not settle for a halfway house. Although we can never turn the clock back, I am confident that the Government will do what they can to give dignity to all those affected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We are now getting closer to five minutes as the informal time limit on speeches. I ask Members to keep to five minutes, because otherwise we will not get everybody in.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her amazing campaigning work, and indeed to the other hon. Members who helped secure this debate. I also pay tribute to the organisations Tainted Blood, the Contaminated Blood Campaign and the Haemophilia Society, which have campaigned for years to get justice for so many people. We should also pay tribute to the many individuals who have fought on and on for justice, often in very difficult circumstances.
The Minister should reflect on the extraordinary unanimity of view in this debate, on the reflections in the consultation, on the proposals that the Government have put forward and on the need to think again. This is not a party political issue, because all Governments are to some extent culpable—Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and, indeed, the coalition Government. This is a moral imperative—there is no doubt about that. We have to offer these people justice, and the Government must accept that.
The Government set out the principle right at the start, in their introduction to the consultation, by stating that they accept and recognise their responsibility to everyone infected as a result of NHS treatment, but that leaves out those people affected. This is about not only those infected, but those affected. What about all the loved ones, the children, the spouses and the partners bereaved as a result of loss of life? The Government should accept responsibility for them as well. They have to accept that when they respond to this consultation exercise.
Serious concerns have been raised about this set of proposals. The Prime Minister said—his words were very clear—that:
“We will help them more”—[Official Report, 11 March 2015; Vol. 594, C. 289.]
Yet the proposals, when we see the detail, include a proposal to cut the amount of money that individuals receive. That is not consistent with what the Prime Minister said, so surely the Government must think again. It is surely unconscionable that people in very real need will lose out financially as a result of these proposals. What assessment have the Government made of the winners and the losers? How much will some people lose? It is really important that the Government are open about that. If the Minister cannot respond today, I would be grateful if she wrote to hon. Members to set out the assessment of the amount some people will lose, and of how many people are likely to lose, as a result of these proposals.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and others have said, it is surely not right that people in Scotland benefit more than people in England. Surely everyone should be treated exactly the same as a result of this scandal.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Norman Lamb
I will not, because I am concerned about the time.
Ending inflation-proofing actually means that we plan a cut to what people are paid every year for as long as there is inflation. Surely we cannot begin to justify that.
I have a problem with the principle of funding new medical treatments at an early stage by taking money from people’s financial support. That surely confuses two principles. We should leave intact the money that is available for people’s financial security.
I am concerned that the money will come from the Department of Health. The impact assessment talks about the other things that cannot be done as a result. Surely the money should come from the Treasury. In the Budget, the Government cut capital gains tax. I heard recently of one individual who will benefit to the tune of nearly £1 million as a result. These are political choices. Do we as a country want to cut capital gains tax and give large sums to very wealthy people at the same time as cutting financial support for people who have lost out as a result of a national scandal? That is surely unacceptable.
I therefore say to the Minister: accept what the Haemophilia Society says, withdraw these proposals and think again.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I thank fellow members of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood for securing the debate. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who chairs the group superbly, and I start my remarks the way she ended hers—by saying that we are debating compensation proposals for what has been described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the national health service.
Some 80% of victims are critically ill as a result of receiving contaminated blood and blood products. They suffer the side effects of past treatments, and they are in financial hardship, having been forced out of employment precisely because of the health issues caused by infection. They, their families and the families of those who have died should be treated with equal primacy.
Only weeks after my election, I was contacted by my constituent Cathy Young, who is a stage 1 widow. Cathy is a member of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum and a passionate advocate on this issue. When I met her last week, I asked her to give me her thoughts on what I should say this afternoon, so let me describe them for the next few moments.
Cathy said:
“I don’t know due to the Scottish Government’s recently accepting the review group’s recommendations what can be said, but what I would say is how can the UK Government consultation regarding other UK widows be so far off the mark compared to Scotland. There is more work to be done particularly in relation to extra hepatic manifestations, other illnesses caused by hepatitis C other than liver disease. What will the UK Government do to address this?”
She sent me an email today saying she was sorry that today sees the funeral of another victim of contaminated blood.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) have pointed out, the Scottish Infected Blood Forum has identified 25 families resident in Scotland who would be covered under the proposed UK Government scheme, as the original incident took place while they were resident elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, MPs representing constituencies in Scotland may find themselves representing constituents with two distinct offers of compensation. That is not fair—it is completely unjust.
The Haemophilia Society has sent an email, which I think the Father of the House has touched on, about the differences between the UK and Scottish Government proposals. It is worth emphasising those differences for the benefit of those watching these proceedings. Those in the rest of the UK with advanced HIV or hepatitis C will get £12,000 less in annual payments. Those elsewhere in the UK who are co-infected with hepatitis C and HIV will get £7,000 less in annual payments, and there will be limited or no support available for the widows, partners and children of those infected. There will be substantially reduced ongoing support for those elsewhere in the UK.
The Scottish Government have, in effect, committed to almost doubling the support they give to victims, widows and widowers, and dependent children. The Haemophilia Society is concerned that, without significant revisions to their proposals, the UK Government will fail to follow the example set by the Scottish Government in offering victims of this terrible tragedy and their families the support they deserve. I hope that Ministers in this place recognise that and that they will address the issue.
There is now a very real concern that the UK Government have broken their promise to deliver improvements to the current scheme of payments. In early 2015, the Prime Minister said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 289.]
Where do we go from here? The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, who represents part of my constituency in the Scottish Parliament, has summed it up beautifully:
“In total, of course, hundreds of people in Scotland died after being infected through blood transfusions and even after all this time it is still hard to imagine the difficulties, the anxieties, and the hardships that people and their families have had to contend with.
In addition to dealing with the illness itself, you’ve had to cope with uncertainty, with sorrow, and with grief. Many people, of course, feel stigmatised despite being utterly blameless. And I know that people still fight daily battles, both physical and physiological, to achieve some kind of normality in their lives…We as a society have a moral obligation to help people who are infected with an illness by the Health Service”.
Let us use those words as a guide to how we take this issue forward, compensate the victims and their families, and provide for them what they truly deserve.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It was 1958 when Dr Garrott Allen at Stanford started discovering the risks of contamination in blood. Over the next 20 to 30 years, he spent his time trying to persuade people that commercial blood companies probably knew early on—they certainly knew later on—that one in seven of those from whom they were taking donations was at high risk of contamination. It was not until 1991 that Crown immunity was lifted from the blood products laboratory. If people look at the taintedblood.info website, they will see the chronology, which is pretty accurate and very useful.
That does not solve the problem faced by the Government, Members of Parliament and those affected. I propose that, while the national health service should be treating people, responsibility for dealing with the compensation and trying to make up for the costs to those affected should be taken away from the Department of Health and held jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. I think that that is the only way of solving the problem of Scotland having to determine where those affected got the infection, rather than their actual situation and where they live. If we are going to have a national approach that not only recognises the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish health service but treats people fairly, we have to find a way of getting the non-health aspects away from the Department of Health. I ask the Government to consider whether there is any way of doing that effectively.
Moving on to how people should be treated, I have received a message from someone on behalf of the nearly 200 co-infected people and the 2,220 mono-infected hep C stage 1 victims. Here are some words directly:
“Now about the way they are blackmailing us over the drugs!
I and every other Haemophiliac have never paid for our Factor VIII, I have never paid for any of my HIV anti viral drugs, and my other prescription charges are covered by a pre payment certificate, my blood tests, ultrasounds scan, Fibroscans, and all my appointments are covered by the NHS? So why would they even consider asking us if we think the money should come out of the additional £100 Million they have offered as financial help?”
The answer to that is that it should not. By the way, to those for whom the proposals on which the Government are consulting would lead to a reduction in income, the Government certainly should say that they need to be red-circled—that their money will remain the way it is—and no one should have their money reduced as a result of the changes. We are trying to extend help to people, not to reduce it.
I turn to another quote:
“Co-infected Haemophiliacs need a voice in the debate, we are so few left, dealing with two virus as you know has increased complications. We need to be respected and remembered as are the Scottish Haemophiliacs in the midst of all the mono Hep C victims.
Being co-infected with HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C is the equivalent of 2nd stage Hepatitis C, but at the top end where someone has received a liver transplant, has a limited life expectancy and has to take medication every day for the rest of their lives or die, but the co-infected also has the additional problems of having the illnesses both these viruses can cause—even to the point doctors cannot tell which virus is causing the problem. On top of this we have the life-long secrecy and stigma attached to HIV/AIDS virus.”
It seems to me that we have got to say to Government that they may be trying more now than Governments have tried before, but it is not appropriate for Department of Health Ministers to have to balance this against other treatments. It must come out of the Department of Health so that the money can go properly to those who have suffered because we made mistakes and the American blood companies made mistakes. We need to recognise that. I am not talking about liability; I am trying to deal with what should happen now.
As it happens, the first person in my family to take an AIDS test was my mother, who had a serious operation and received lots of blood. The second was my wife, who received eight units of blood in 1975 when the issue started to come out. I have my blood tested for HIV/AIDS and hep every 10 weeks as a blood donor. I only wish that we had remembered what Richard Titmuss said in his book about giving blood, “The Gift Relationship”. We do it for free, and we do not know who is going to benefit. The people who benefit do not know where the blood comes from, but at least it comes from people who have been tested to make sure that it is safe for our blood to be passed on.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I add my thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on what she has said today and on her outstanding leadership on this issue. She will be encouraged by the commonality of view—it goes further than consensus—across the House, and I hope that the Minister will take note. Back-Bench debates are often not party political, but I cannot remember another debate in which Members’ sympathies have been so clearly at one. I am sure that many Members feel, as I do, quite let down by the consultation. I will not personalise the matter by referring to the Minister. It is a Government responsibility, and this Government are now in power.
We need to bear some basic facts in mind. This is an NHS scandal. The Secretary of State, perhaps more than any other Secretary of State, has been keen to identify where things have gone wrong with hospitals, practitioners and events in the NHS, and to point the finger and say that what happened was not right. This is the clearest case of that, and it is the biggest scandal in the NHS. We are talking about innocent victims. Many of us—even if the Government do not admit it—believe that there has been negligence and there is culpability, but I think we all agree that there is a moral responsibility.
I hope that we all still believe in the welfare state that was set up after the second world war, and that we all think that the state should act as a safety net. The matter goes further than that, however; it is about state error. It is about the state making mistakes that it is bound to correct. The state has made a variety of mistakes—Equitable Life, flooding and many others—after which it has been able to dig into its pockets and find money because it believes that there is a compelling case for doing so. Perhaps a closer analogy is mesothelioma. Mesothelioma victims have not had the complete compensation that they need, but at least the responsibility to make provision for those people has been recognised, even if one cannot point the finger and say that it is anybody’s fault in particular.
I want to say that this has been a very long struggle. I have been engaged in it only since my constituency boundaries changed in 2010 and I found that I had some sufferers, victims of incidents of contaminated blood, in my constituency. Since then, I have been pretty active as a Member by taking part in meetings, debates, reviews and the all-party group. There have been some important interventions. I credit the Minister for Community and Social Care for the work he has tried to do, and the Prime Minister for the apology he made in relation to that. There have also been concessions, such as that the existing schemes are inadequate and badly run, and that there are too many of them.
We have asked for a full and final settlement, for the overall impact on victims to be assessed and for each victim and their family to be dealt with as individuals, so I do not think that we expected to be in the position we are today. It is a position in which the Haemophilia Society can write quite baldly that
“the majority of people currently receiving financial support will be worse off under the new scheme.”
How did we get into this situation?
If I and other Members feel let down, what do our constituents feel? What do people such as my constituent Andrew March feel? His whole life has been fundamentally altered by this. His health, his life expectancy, his earnings ability and his career, as well as aspirational things such as the ability to own his own home and to live a normal life—I thought the Government believed in them—are all out of his reach now. This is a fundamental change, but it has been going on not for years but for decades.
I would say to the Minister that the issue of reduced income must be looked at in full, whether that reduction is because of discretionary payments or other reasons, as must the overall impact on the individual and their family, and the implications, more widely than simply health, on their whole lifestyle. We should not confuse treatment, including the good and innovative schemes that are now available—anybody should receive such treatment from the NHS, to which we all pay in, as of right—with paying proper compensation and ensuring that people are properly rewarded.
Let me end by making two quick points. First, it has been said that Scotland has set an example. It is not a perfect example, but I strongly believe that we should at least be able to match what happens in Scotland. Secondly, my constituents have told me that they do not feel comfortable filling in responses to the consultation. They do not believe the consultation is presented clearly and honestly, and the questions are phrased so prescriptively that they are unable to communicate what they think. The Government can do what they want—it would have been better if they had withdrawn the consultation, but that has not happened—but they do have the power to respond by saying, “We have made a mistake. We haven’t taken into account everything that should be done. We have to act with compassion and with honesty, and we have to give proper compensation.”
Finally, I must say that I disagree, as I rarely do, with the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). This is about justice, and justice can be delivered by recognising the needs of the community who have been infected in this way. I think that the Government have a duty to act.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am very glad to be able to participate in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing it.
I am slightly sad to have to say this, but it is a shame that the debate is happening at this time of day. I know that constituents of many MPs around the country have travelled a long way to come to Parliament today. Some of my constituents were in the Gallery earlier, having got up at 3 o’clock this morning to come down from Glasgow, but they have had to leave to fly back up and go back to work. [Interruption.] I appreciate that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), says, it was the Speaker’s decision. I am just reflecting on the fact that that is quite sad, and perhaps the procedures of the House should be looked at, particularly when already vulnerable constituents who do not have an awful lot of money have had to travel a great distance to hear what their MPs have to say. I went to join the lobby outside earlier this afternoon and spent a lot of time speaking to people, and their sense of frustration at having to wait so long for justice was compounded by their not being able to stay for the whole of this debate, after waiting for so long for a chance to come to the House to listen to us.
To move on to the more substantive issues, many of us are wearing ribbons given to us by the campaigners, so I will tell members of the public who may be watching at home what the ribbons mean. The red is for sufferers of HIV, the yellow is for people who have suffered from hep C, and the black is to remember those who have died waiting during this process. It is very profound to see the number of people who have lost their lives, over the piece, waiting for justice and for some answers.
The constituent of mine who was here today is Maria Armour. She contracted hep C in 1981 when she suffered a miscarriage in hospital and needed a blood transfusion. She did not find out that she had been infected until she turned about 35; she took ill and had to find out what was wrong. People did not know and could not tell her. She had to wait two years for a diagnosis, when she found out that she had hep C. The treatment that she began at that time further compounded her ill health. She now has fibromyalgia and lupus, and also has issues with her bowels. That causes her great distress. She cannot go out and her life is on hold.
Despite all that, Maria is a very inspiring individual. I spoke to her today. She continues to campaign. She, like many people, has dedicated her life to others, and now wants to be able to spend time with her family rather than having to continue to fight this fight. I asked her what she would like to be highlighted this afternoon in the brief time available to us. She said that she is looking for fair and equal treatment. She does not want to be a charity case—to have to go to funds such as the Caxton Foundation, or send them begging letters for very simple things that most of us would take for granted.
In particular, Maria mentioned that she was turning 50. She applied for funds for a dress to wear to her 50th birthday party, because, unlike many of us, she did not have the general funds to go out to the shop and buy herself a dress. She has to put in three quotes for that dress—they choose which dress she gets—and gets vouchers to pay for it. She mentioned that when, in the past, she has asked for furniture, she had to have vouchers, so she had to go to the shop to buy the furniture and count out all those vouchers in the shop, in front of people, to pay for it. That is very stigmatising. It is unfair that people have to do that, and do not get money, which the rest of us have to go and buy the things we need to make our lives easier. She has a lack of choices in her life. She cannot go on holiday with her grandchildren, as she would like to. She does not have the funds to do all the things she would like.
It would be easier for many people in Maria’s situation if they got the fair funding that they deserve. I am glad that the Scottish Government have recognised that funding should be available at a higher level. It has been said that it is a shame that constituents in England, and the few in Scotland who are affected, will not get that higher level, but that is not an unfairness on the part of the Scottish Government. They have recognised the issue, listened to people, consulted, and done a lot of work, and have decided what they think is fair. The ball is now in the UK Government’s court—they need to decide what is fair.
Some people have waited a long time—in the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), 42 years—since the initial infection. They need to have what is fair and what is due to them. They are not at fault here. We need to recognise that and find the funds to enable those people to live their lives with dignity as we wish to live our own lives. People should not in any case have to write begging letters to get what they need to live their life with dignity. I commend that point to the House.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Jim Dobbin, who worked tirelessly on this issue on behalf of his and my constituents in Heywood and Middleton.
As many Members have already identified, this scandal has affected thousands of people who were infected with hepatitis C and HIV through NHS blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. It has been described as
“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”,
and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of haemophilia patients. It has, quite simply, been a nightmare for sufferers and their families. It is a nightmare that continues. It has taken away the careers, hopes, dreams and aspirations of thousands of people, including constituents of mine, just because they needed blood.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), the co-chairs of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Their inquiry into current support for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal in the UK is a superb analysis. The current system for administering compensation is a nightmare and a scandal in itself. We are still in the absurd position of having five trusts, two private companies and three registered charities which give various kinds of assistance to the people affected. The people who should be helped most, the victims, are very far from happy with the present situation.
The all-party group’s report highlights that many beneficiaries are in poverty. At present, the widows and widowers of hepatitis C infectees receive no ongoing financial support whatever. The majority of people with hepatitis C—namely, those with chronic stage 1 hepatitis C—also receive no ongoing payments. People can apply for discretionary payments for all manner of items through the three charities, but, as has already been highlighted, many find the process of having to provide evidence of need for help deeply frustrating. They feel as though they are begging. Registrants report being left completely in the dark about what discretionary support is available to them. This has meant that some people have not received payments they were entitled to. Many more people with hepatitis C are aware of the trusts’ existence, with considerable issues of low take-up. Many people with hepatitis C are unable to obtain payments from their trusts because the NHS has lost their hospital records, or because the trust has denied they are at the sufficient stage of hepatitis C infection to warrant support, even though their own hepatologists have insisted that they are.
The report recommends that the Government second a public health doctor to the five trusts to ascertain the needs of beneficiaries and set Government funding at the level commensurate with need. This also means extending some form of ongoing payments to those with stage 1 hepatitis C and giving the widows of hepatitis C infectees entitlement to the same payments as those of HIV infectees. The trust system has to be reformed and nobody should be left in the dark: they should be told precisely what support is available to them. Those facing difficulties providing proof that they were infected should also be able to get help with their applications.
During the Westminster Hall debate on contaminated blood on 9 September 2015, the Minister was questioned on the commencement date of the public consultation on support for those affected by infected blood. She stated it would occur before the end of the year. It was announced on 21 January 2016. The statement on the launch of the public consultation announced funding of £100 million for the proposals set out in the consultation. That is in addition to the current spend and the £25 million already announced in 2015. The Department of Health previously estimated £455 million as the future cost of meeting payments for the assorted schemes. It is not clear whether the £125 million is in addition to that, or represents projected funding being brought forward.
We wish to know how the Department of Health intends to distribute the £125 million. I appreciate that the consultation has not concluded yet, but a rough outline would be appreciated. Is it intended to end all discretionary or top-up payments to those who receive ongoing payments? Are there plans to allow special discretionary payments for dependants—either partners or children? Will there be a review mechanism regarding the freezing of the level of payments at £15,000, or will the sum remain at £15,000 regardless?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), I should emphasise that I want to be able to call the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) by 6.26 pm. I am sure the hon. Lady will factor that into the equation.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for bringing forward this debate, along with the co-signatories. I was pleased to be one of them.
Today’s debate is the latest in a number of discussions we have held in the Chamber and Westminster Hall on the support arrangements required for people infected with contaminated blood. I pay tribute to the many advocates throughout the UK on the vexatious subject of tainted blood and to the Haemophilia Society. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said there was striking unanimity across the Chamber that this was not a party political issue but one that impacted on the lives of many people, not only the direct victims but the families, spouses, partners and children who, in many instances, have become carers. It has forced many people into poverty and destitution, which should never have been the case.
There has been a renewed urgency to this debate, particularly since last July’s urgent question, and in that regard I would like to put on the record my thanks to and praise for the work of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. However, I would not overstate that urgency, given that publication of the consultation has been repeatedly delayed since its announcement last July and the Prime Minister’s apology on 25 March last year. None the less, I welcome the long-awaited publication of the consultation. I do not necessarily agree with many of the contents, but it is one further step to a full and final settlement for the victims of this tragedy and their families.
Sadly, many have died from their viruses, and for others, every additional day they live is a bonus. This must be dealt with comprehensively once and for all. Let no one be in any doubt: there is no scope for delay. We have spoken at length in previous debates about the impact that the use of contaminated blood products imported back in the 1970s and 1980s has had on people’s lives. Lives have been devastated following the contraction of hepatitis C or HIV as a direct result of these contaminated products.
I have spoken before, in Westminster Hall, about one of my constituents, Brian Carberry, from my local town of Downpatrick. I grew up with him and his family. He and his brothers were born with haemophilia. He received blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, and as a result, his health condition became particularly complicated and he ended up with hepatitis C. Only five or six months ago, he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer for which he now receives an aggressive form of chemotherapy.
I have also met two other constituents, twin brothers, from South Down, Michael and Seamus Sloane, who have met many difficult health, financial and interpersonal relationship challenges as a result of their haemophilia combined with contaminated blood transfusions. Their lives have been turned upside down. In all our meetings, they asked for a full and final settlement for people like them. It struck me what amazing advocates they were: they took a very sunny approach, they saw a better day ahead. But that better day ahead can be achieved only if the Minister indicates unequivocally that there will be a full and final settlement for people like my constituents and the many others described in this debate.
Ms Ritchie
I am sorry, but I cannot take any interventions because time is limited.
The health problems that thousands face as a result of this tragedy have been exacerbated by the distress and uncertainty around the support arrangements. Irrespective of how bad things have been, I would urge the Minister, having listened to the reasoned demands of Members of all parties, to state clearly that there will be a full and final settlement, that there will be proper transitional arrangements hereafter, and that people so affected will have the right and direct access to the medication required to help them live with their medical conditions, while the families affected by these problems will also be helped. The tragedy of this scandal must be ended and a curtain must be drawn on it.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think three minutes will suffice for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) have still to contribute, and we must try now to get back in time. It falls to the hon. Member for Strangford to exercise Executive leadership in the matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to make a few comments in the debate. Let me first thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for setting the scene so well.
Let me start by quoting:
“You can’t give us back our health. But you can give us back our dignity. This tortured road has been too long for many of us. But for the rest of us, please let this be the final road to closure.”
Imagine going to a British hospital in a British city in the middle of one of the richest and most advanced countries in the world for an operation or procedure, and looking forward to getting home, but through no fault of your own, coming out infected with haemophilia or worse. We just cannot imagine what that must be like. For that reason, we must do everything we can to give people back their dignity, as one victim said to the all-party parliamentary group.
The current trusts and systems are not working as well as they could, and they are talking of doing away with aspects of the support for those affected. That is simply outrageous. Of course there are people affected by hepatitis who had nothing to do with the contaminated blood. I understand that we are talking about some 40,000 people across the country, and sadly there is an ever-growing number in Northern Ireland. Scotland has a strong track record through its “Sexual Health and Blood Borne Virus Framework”. It has set an example for the rest of the United Kingdom to follow.
Let me conclude quickly with these five points, because I am conscious of the timescale you have set me, Mr Speaker. The survivors are calling for a full public inquiry to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate fully the events that led to thousands of British haemophiliacs and others with bleeding disorders becoming superinfected with a multitude of viruses and pathogens over many years. Full compensation for haemophiliacs and others with bleeding disorders and their families should be awarded in such a way that closure can be achieved for the majority of those infected and affected, including the widows and dependants of those who have died.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made an important point about the families. He said we should not forget them, and we are all saying the same thing. We hope that the Minister will respond to that, and we want a full and comprehensive acknowledgement by the Prime Minister. He has apologised, but the apology has been lost in the delays that there have been. There are also lessons to be learned from what happened to the haemophiliacs, and measures should be put in place to protect the patients of the future. There have been missed warnings, failures to pass on test results to patients, procedural errors and non-consensual testing.
Let me conclude. Imagine being one of those innocent people, and imagine the difference that delivery on some of these aspects would make. As the testimony I quoted earlier said:
“You can’t give us back our health. But you can give us back our dignity. This tortured road has been too long for many of us. But for the rest of us, please let this be the final road to closure.”
On such a sensitive matter, we need to be able to give our full empathy and sympathy to those affected. I really believe that the Government need to deliver.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
We have paid tribute to many of the people who have come from across the UK to listen to today’s debate, but there is one group missing: members of Haemophilia Scotland, who are in Tayside attending a funeral of one of their members, the second of three brothers who have haemophilia. The remaining brother has had a transplant because of liver damage. I expect that everyone here would want to send their condolences to the family.
Let us recall that this scandal has been going on for over 40 years. People have been dying without being recognised and without being looked after for all that time. It really is a disgrace. We talk about not accepting liability. I have my specs on because I want to read out some quotations, which, as Members know, I do not normally do. I have a letter here. According to a leading doctor in the Food and Drug Administration in America, in May 1985, heat treatment of blood products had been available for some time, but non-heat-treated blood could continue to be produced with the current licences because the FDA was not going to do anything about it. It could have regulated the practice out, but it wanted things to be tidied up quietly. The doctor explained that although the FDA could revoke the licences through regulatory process, it did not want any attention to be paid to the fact that the practice had been allowed to continue for so long; it wanted the issue to be
“quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public.”
I have a copy of a letter from John Major, the former Prime Minister, who was at the time Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In 1997, he wrote to Tony Newton, then a Health Minister, raising the possible consequences of a sympathetic response to the Haemophilia Society:
“It could lead to an open-ended commitment of huge dimensions
and
“give rise to court action against the Government because of the implication of negligence”.
He asked Tony Newton to “consider the points” made by the society, but
“with no implication that the Government will take action.”
Here we are, nearly 30 years on, in almost exactly the same situation.
As has frequently been mentioned, this is the biggest treatment disaster in the NHS, and it happened because we were importing American coagulation products and American blood—blood taken from prisoners, or units of blood that were sold. Who sells their blood for donation? People living on the streets; people who are drug addicts. The main reason haemophiliacs and others are suffering is that making factor VIII meant using the blood products of multiple donors, which meant an increase in the risk of a positive result. Moreover, the haemophiliacs received those products over and over again.
Here we are, all these years on. When I graduated in 1982, and when I worked as a young surgeon throughout the 1980s, this was just beginning to emerge and be discovered. It certainly left me, as a surgeon, with an absolute fear of transfusing blood. I used to go to great lengths to use electrocautery and other techniques to avoid shedding blood in elective cases, because we did not know what other problems were there.
Some of my colleagues have drawn attention to the exact terms of the Scottish settlement, but the first three can be summarised thus. People who are suffering from hepatitis C, HIV or co-infection will receive more money, allowing them to receive at least the equivalent of an average income of £27,000. People with stage 1 hepatitis C will receive £50,000 instead of £20,000, and those who have received compensation of £20,000 in the past will be eligible for £30,000 now. It is totally accepted by the Scottish Government that focusing solely on cirrhosis is a rather bizarre way of assessing people, and they are entirely open to an evidence-based piece of work in the future looking into how people should really be assessed.
I think that one of the biggest differences in Scotland is the recognition of the bereaved families. They will receive the money for another year, and will then receive a lifelong pension of 75%. Our flexible fund will continue to be topped up to the point of £1 million a year. As has already been said, that will not give people back their lives, but it can allow them to live with dignity.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) suggested, with a degree of criticism, that Scotland had gone ahead rather than seeking a United Kingdom solution. How long should we wait? Scotland was criticised because although we were ready to screen blood in 1990, we waited until 1991 so that there would be UK screening of blood donations. We made that mistake then, and we cannot make it again now.
Dr Whitford
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
I do not think that we would be debating this matter with the same urgency if there were not the contrast with what Scotland is doing. This is not just about financial support and recognition. All patients in Scotland with hepatitis C for whom Sofosbuvir is appropriate can receive it. I find it shocking that people in England who have been infected with contaminated blood should have to use any of their funding to buy a drug that can increase their quality of life and reduce the risk of giving the condition to their family. We are doing this not just for those patients but as a public health measure. If we reduce the burden of virus in the community, we will reduce the number of new cases.
A year ago, the Prime Minister and our First Minister responded to the Penrose inquiry. That inquiry was carried out in Scotland; the UK has never had a public inquiry on this matter. Both of them apologised, and our First Minister has used this first year to set up a group to look into changing support, and ensuring that people can access treatment and that families are recognised. I call on the Prime Minister to honour his apology and to ensure that patients in the rest of the UK receive the same treatment.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to the 21 hon. and right hon. Members who have today provided a strong voice for the victims of contaminated blood. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who has been tireless in her pursuit of justice. I remember her forceful arguments when she asked an urgent question on the subject about a year ago, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) responded on the Opposition’s behalf, and when she asked her urgent question in December, to which I responded for the Opposition. She does real credit to the cause of those who are suffering as a result of this scandal. We must never ever forget the personal tragedies behind scandals such as this one, and I want to pay tribute to the families who have travelled down here today to listen to the debate. They deserve their day in Parliament, and I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the points that have been raised by all Members and by the families of the victims.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I apologise for not being here throughout the debate; I was chairing a Committee elsewhere in the building. Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the defining characteristics of the modern world is that we have an expectation that an individual, a company or a Government will accept responsibility when things go wrong, and that they will accept the consequences of taking that responsibility? Does he agree that it is high time the Government accepted responsibility in this case?
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to that point later. We owe it to the victims and their families to find some kind of justice for them.
I am not frequently on the same side as the editorial line taken by the Sunday Express, but I congratulate that newspaper on its tireless campaign for justice. This scandal has seen families torn apart through death and illness caused by the negligence of public bodies. I am willing to accept that, over the years, the response of Governments of all colours has just not been good enough. When the consultation was published in January, I was clear that while no amount of money could ever make up for the impact that this tragedy has had on people’s lives, the victims deserved some form of justice. We have three days until the consultation closes and I want to use my remarks to push the Minister on four points relating to the current proposals.
First, in the 1970s and 1980s, around 7,500 people were infected with hepatitis C or HIV as a result of this scandal. Many of those people were being treated for haemophilia. The viruses have had a devastating impact on their lives and those of their families, not least through loss of earnings and the cost of treatment. The failure of successive Governments to accept liability for this issue means that many of the victims have lost financial security through no fault of their own.
Andrew Gwynne
I am afraid that I will not; I do not have enough time now.
The current system of support is only partial; it does not offer the full and final settlement that those affected and their families need in order to live with dignity. Indeed, it falls well below the level of support available in the Republic of Ireland.
We must be honest that the development of support, financial or otherwise, for the victims has been haphazard over the years, and support is always delivered too slowly. However, I remain concerned about aspects of the Government’s proposals. A number of those affected have made it clear to me that removing discretionary payments will make them worse off, potentially by thousands of pounds a year. It makes little sense to announce more funding for a reformed scheme only to remove the critical day-to-day support that so many people rely on. I wrote to the Minister a few weeks ago on that point, so she will know that this is a basic issue of fairness and openness. The victims of the contaminated blood scandal deserve better than this, so I will be grateful if the Minister confirms what is intended for the future of the payments.
Secondly, I welcome the introduction of support for people at stage 1, as so far they have been denied the annual payments to which they should be entitled, but I want to ensure that the impact that a person’s illness has had on other areas of their lives, such as employment or educational opportunities, will be taken into account. Many people have had their professional lives cut short or have missed out on higher education, so I hope that the impact on quality of life will be considered as a fundamental part of the settlement. Furthermore, an assessment every three years strikes me as excessive given that, generally speaking, these conditions will not improve. Many beneficiaries will be receiving either employment and support allowance or personal independence payments and will be regularly assessed for them, so it is unnecessary and punitive to impose a further layer of assessment on the victims. Why not have some form of joined-up approach with the Department for Work and Pensions to make life easier?
Thirdly, I am concerned about the plans to freeze the existing annual payments. Many victims of the scandal had promising careers cut short or were not given the chance to embark on one after being infected. They had that taken away from them in the most damaging of circumstances, and it is just plain wrong of the Government to fail to recognise the loss of standard of living, as well as the effects on health and longevity.
Finally, I want to mention the discrepancies between the responses of the Scottish and UK Governments. As we have heard, the Scottish Government will increase annual payments for those with HIV or the hepatitis C virus, increasing the initial lump sum from £20,000 to £50,000. Will the Minister elaborate on what alignment there might be with the English system?
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister when he made a pre-election pledge to do more after the publication of the Penrose report, nor that of the public health Minister, who is doing her best with a constrained spending envelope, but I am sure that she will understand the real disappointment that people have been feeling. This drawn-out process has only exacerbated the despondency in the community. Will the Minister tell me when any new scheme will be implemented? The community of people affected need assurances that any improvements to the system will be introduced as soon as possible and sustained long beyond that. Will she commit to a debate in Government time to allow for appropriate scrutiny of the package? We should have a full day of discussions on the matter once the Government have responded to the consultation.
I am sure that the public health Minister appreciates that the longer this goes on, the longer we leave in place a system that does not work and leaves victims without adequate support. No amount of money will ever fully make up for what happened, but we owe to those still living with the consequences the dignity of a decent lasting settlement. It is time to act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the SNP spokeswoman, for granting me a little of their time to respond to many of the points made during this excellent debate. I congratulate members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, in particular the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), on securing the debate and on their campaigning work, to which tributes have rightly been paid. I also wish to thank those who have taken considerable time and trouble, and made considerable efforts, to travel down to London today to express their feelings to their Members of Parliament; some have been able to stay to listen to the debate. I am going to spend as much of my time as possible responding to as many of the factual questions I have been asked as I can, so let me move swiftly on to that.
The consultation on infected blood scheme reform seeks views on what a reformed scheme should look like. This is the first public consultation on this matter by a Government, although there have been other consultations led by parliamentarians. Obviously, it has attracted a lot of interest from Members, as indicated by the presence of those contributing today. I know that many Members, myself included, have had personal frustrations and concerns expressed to them over many years by constituents.
Members will appreciate that, as the consultation is still open, I am not in a position to give any commitments or guarantees on the shape of scheme reform today. Indeed, I want to reassure the House that no decisions on scheme reform will be made until the consultation has closed and all the responses have been carefully analysed. I have listened with keen interest to the various points that have been made and I will carefully consider the contents of this debate, alongside the responses to the consultation.
None the less, I am aware that there are some concerns—they have been expressed today—about the consultation and some of the proposals, and I will try to address those today. First, let me deal with any lack of clarity on the additional funding committed. To be clear, when I launched the consultation I announced £100 million of new funding for the scheme. That is in addition to the current spend of about £22 million per year and the £25 million announced by the Prime Minister in March 2015, so it will more than double our annual spend on the scheme in England over the next five years.
To date, we have spent more than £390 million on support for those affected, and the additional funds I have announced bring the budget for the next five years to £237 million. That means that, over the lifetime of the schemes, we project that more than £1 billion will be spent on support for those affected. The money comes from the Department of Health budget—I hear the points that have been made about where people think the money should come from, but that is where it is coming from and that is the funding we have been able to identify. We are more than doubling the budget for the next five years. This financial assistance is voluntarily provided by Government to help those infected and their dependants. I wish to ensure, and the key aim of the scheme is to ensure, that the money is distributed in a fair and equitable way within that budget envelope and within the legal framework within which I am working, in a way that is also sustainable for the future.
With that in mind, I want to emphasise to Members and to the House that this is a truly open consultation; I genuinely want to hear from all those who have been affected. It has been very useful for me to hear the points made in this debate. I want to hear what support would be most beneficial within the parameters I have set out.
To give some idea of how widely we reached to try to get responses to the consultation, I should say that letters have been sent to all 3,482 registrants of the existing schemes to make them aware of the consultation and provide them with details of how to access it. Letters were also sent to almost 180 Members who have at various times, by various means, contacted us on behalf of constituents over the past year or so, and they have been urged to respond, too. We have already received more than 1,200 responses to the consultation, and I hope that reassures some Members, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who were worried that people might have found the consultation difficult to respond to. That is a very good level of response and it is enormously helpful. I am very pleased that so many people have taken the time to feed their views into the process. It might be helpful and, I hope, reassuring for Members to know that a specific team in the Department has been established to ensure that every response is read in full and captured in the analysis, and given that respectful hearing to which one Member referred.
It has been very valuable in the contributions to the consultation we have already received to hear from the quieter voices in the affected community that I have spoken of before. Indeed, I have been struck—in some ways shocked—by the number of affected individuals who were not aware of some of the support potentially available to them, such as the discretionary financial support and non-financial support provided by the three charitable scheme bodies. That has reinforced my sense, which I think is shared across the House—I say that especially in the light of today’s debate—that scheme reform is necessary, especially with a view to simplification and transparency. That point was put very ably by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). There are still a few days left in which to submit responses, and I encourage anyone who has not responded but would like to do so to respond before midnight on 15 April.
Let me turn to some of the proposals in the consultation. I know that some of the charitable scheme bodies wrote to their beneficiaries to help clarify the consultation proposals, but some of the nuances were lost in the letters. A number of speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), have reinforced that point. Let me confirm that the crux of the consultation is the proposal that every chronically infected individual would, for the first time, receive an annual payment under a reformed scheme. At the moment, those who are registered with the Skipton Fund at hepatitis C stage 1—that is 2,424 people, which is more than 70% of the total number of infected registrants—are not eligible for annual financial support. We are proposing a new annual payment for everyone in that group, reflective of the level of ill health they experience. Should the proposal be taken forward, we anticipate that a large proportion of the additional money committed will be used to provide these new payments.
The proposed reforms would continue annual payments to those who currently receive them, which is, approximately 840 people. Those who are currently registered with the Skipton Fund at hepatitis C stage 2, and those with HIV registered with MFET Ltd would have their payments increased to a rate of £15,000 annually, and those co-infected with HIV and hep C would benefit from an uplift to £30,000. That means that, over the next 10 years, someone with hepatitis C stage 2 would receive £150,000 in addition to any payments they have received to date. Someone co-infected would receive £300,000 in addition to the support they have already received. None of those payments is taxable, nor does it affect a person’s entitlement to any state benefits.
There has been mention of the link to the consumer prices index. I know that there is some concern about the proposal to remove the linkage to CPI. CPI linkage can result in an annual increase or, in theory at least, a decrease in payments. This year, CPI was negative, but we decided to freeze payments to ensure that support for infected individuals did not decrease as a result. Fixing the payments at a set rate would provide more financial certainty over this spending review period for those receiving annual payments. However, I will take very careful account of the concerns that have been raised in response to the consultation when making my final decision on this matter.
Norman Lamb
The Minister has explained that many people will benefit, but will there also be losers? If there are, will she write to confirm how much they will lose by and how many people will be involved?
Jane Ellison
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that clarity today, and there is a specific reason for that.
I will move on to discretionary support for infected individuals. Obviously, I have heard the concerns—I have had a number of letters and held a number of meetings. Some people came to the surgery that I organised. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North was not able to make it, but other Members came and talked about this point. In the consultation, we did propose providing discretionary payments only for travel and accommodation costs. We addressed this issue because, prior to launching the consultation, one of the main criticisms of the current system raised by different groups of beneficiaries and their MPs and by the all-party group was that discretionary grants and the process of applying for them was “demeaning”.
However, I am aware that, through the consultation responses, a number of beneficiaries are troubled by the consultation question on discretionary payment, and those voices have been heard today. In principle, discretionary support should be means-tested, which means that it will vary with circumstances over time. However, it has become clear that, through the independent charitable schemes, a relatively small number of individuals are receiving regular and significant levels of discretionary—as opposed to regular—support. I encourage anyone who feels that they are in this position, or would lose out as a result of the consultation proposals on discretionary support, to reply to the consultation explaining that. No decisions have been made about some of the other discretionary elements on which Members have touched. I hope that clarifies the distinction between our assessment of the impact of annual payments and the impact of discretionary payments, some of which could not be known to us because they were put out through independent charitable schemes.
I welcome any suggestions that respondents may have in relation to the proposals and what would be of benefit to them. This, along with the rest of the consultation responses, will help us to decide what we might be able to do within the budget. We are well aware that some of the non-financial elements of support, which are currently provided by the charitable schemes, are valued. I want to reassure colleagues that we are entirely open-minded about this provision. As I have emphasised previously, it is up to people to tell us through the consultation what they most value in that non-financial support.
Let me touch on the Scottish reforms. Clearly, that has been quite a key theme today. I have been asked to consider matching the recent reforms. The Scottish Government established a financial review group, as we heard, and they announced their plans on 18 March. The package announced by the Scottish Government differs from the proposals on which the Department is consulting. One major difference is in relation to annual payments provided to infected individuals. The Department of Health proposals for England are intended to ensure long-term stability and security to all infected individuals. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) made a point about long-term security and sustainability. To reiterate, in England, there are about 2,400 individuals with hepatitis C stage 1 who do not receive any annual payment. Our proposal is to provide a new ongoing payment to all those individuals that reflects the level of ill health that they experience. The Scottish Government have chosen to provide a lump sum payment.
Jane Ellison
I am really sorry—I will barely get through the points that I have to make.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Is the hon. Lady going to answer the questions that I put to her?
Jane Ellison
I am sorry. I have made a note in the margin of my speech to respond directly to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, if I can get to it. I will try to deal with all the points that were made, and if I do not, I will write to Members after the debate.
The Scottish Government have chosen to provide a lump sum payment, and they currently have no proposals for annual payments to the hepatitis C stage 1 group. To give an idea of the difference, in England, over a five-year period, a stage 1 hep C sufferer who currently gets nothing but is awarded the highest proposed annual payment of £15,000 would receive £75,000. Officials from the Department of Health and the Scottish Government continue to exchange views on scheme reform, and we will reflect on the points that have been made today.
Let me touch briefly on the point about Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a matter for the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments to decide how support is provided for those infected in their areas, but they could opt to make the same reforms as the Department of Health and, indeed, participate in some administration arrangements following scheme reform. My officials hosted a meeting on 24 March with officials from each of the devolved Administrations to discuss scheme reform, and they will continue to work with their counterparts from the DAs on that.
Let me touch on treatment. I understand the points that have been made. Since I launched the consultation in January, the NHS has committed to doubling the number of patients treated with new therapies to 10,000 in 2016-17. NHS England has allocated £190 million from its budgets for 2016-17 for rolling out treatment with these new therapies. I will take into account this significant recent development, along with the responses to the consultation, when making decisions on treatment and payment for it from the scheme’s allocated fund when the consultation has closed. I have noted the clear steers Members have given me about treatment being taken forward by the NHS. I emphasise, however, that legally, the NHS cannot prioritise patients according to route of infection, and can only do so according to clinical need, as Members will understand.
Turning to where we go next, the outcome of the consultation will be crucial in informing our final decisions on how to proceed. We will analyse and reflect on all the responses, and although the scheduling of a debate is not in my gift I will seek to provide an opportunity for colleagues to discuss the proposals with me before any final decisions are made. I will continue to keep Opposition Front-Bench teams closely informed, as I have sought to do throughout. I give the House, and those affected, my commitment that we will proceed as rapidly as possible to implementation. However, I recognise that any reforms must be implemented in a measured way, to give those affected time to adjust, and at the same time ensure that there is no disruption to the provision of ongoing support.
I said when announcing the consultation that my intention was that the new annual payments for the current stage 1 cohort should be backdated to April—this month—regardless of when an individual’s assessment took place. I stress that we are very keen that any assessment is simple and light touch. We do not anticipate any interaction with the benefits system, but I will raise with the Department for Work and Pensions the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) in his thoughtful contribution. We are aiming for simple, light-touch assessments every few years, and if someone’s health deteriorates we want to be able to respond appropriately.
I have tried to address some of the concerns, but I am conscious that I have not covered all of them. After the debate I will review them and respond if I can. I hope the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) will appreciate that I am not able to answer the points that he raised before the end of the debate.
The consultation will be genuinely open and I urge everyone with an interest to respond. I hope to take matters forward in a constructive and open way.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady will have two minutes because I am here and I will insist on it.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. We have had an excellent debate. We had more than 23 speakers in the three hours that we were allocated. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us that time. I also thank the many people who travelled from all around the country for the debate to listen to what another Member referred to as the striking unanimity across the Chamber about the problems with the consultation proposals that have been put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) phrased it well when he said, “Don’t tell us you’re sorry. Show us you’re sorry.” That was an excellent phrase.
Finally, let me quote Rudyard Kipling to the Minister. He said:
“Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right.”
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady, who was commendably succinct.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that the contaminated blood scandal was one of the biggest treatment disasters in the history of the NHS, which devastated thousands of lives; notes that for those affected this tragedy continues to have a profound effect on their lives which has rarely been properly recognised; welcomes the Government’s decision to conduct a consultation to reform support arrangements and to commit extra resources to support those affected; further notes, however, that the current Government proposals will leave some people worse off and continue the situation where some of those affected receive no ongoing support; and calls on the Government to take note of all the responses to the consultation and to heed the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood’s Inquiry into the current support arrangements so as to ensure that no-one is worse off, left destitute or applying for individual payments as a result of the proposed changes and that everyone affected by the tragedy, including widows and dependents, receives support commensurate with the decades of suffering and loss of amenity they have experienced.
Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 1(P), page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 5, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 11, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 12, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—
(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and
(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”
Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert
“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.
Amendment 14, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 15, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:
(a) the Greater London Assembly,
(b) the London boroughs,
(c) the City of London,
(d) passenger representative bodies, and
(e) relevant trades unions.”
Amendment 17, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 38, leave out from “borrows” to end.
Amendment 8, page 3, line 4, leave out from “borrowed” to “indemnity”.
Amendment 18, page 3, line 13, leave out
“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6A) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include-
(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and
(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.
(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6C)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”
Amendment 2(P), page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 3(P), in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.
Amendment 4(P), page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.
Amendment 5(P), page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Amendment 6(P), page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.
Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add
“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public health of such use.”
Amendment 21, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
Amendment 22, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 24, page 6, line 19, paragraph 1(k), after “machines”, insert
“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”
Amendment 25, page 6, line 19, paragraph 1(k), leave out from the first "stations" to the end of the sub-paragraph.
Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).
Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).
Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).
Andy Slaughter
We have a single grouping of amendments to deal with in what might be the last outing of this interesting and important Bill, after some five and a half years of its progress through both Houses. I shall speak to the large number of amendments in my name. The remainder stand in the name of the promoters of the Bill, and no doubt the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) will address his reason for tabling them. I welcome the concessions that are marked by the promoters’ amendments, which may shorten considerably the length of the debate today.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will recall from our discussion in November that one of my particular concerns about the way in which Transport for London has engaged on this Bill and other property development matters related to the future of Harrow-on-the-Hill station and the access issues pertaining to it. My hon. Friend may not be aware that I have had the opportunity to meet Graeme Craig, property director of TfL. It was a helpful meeting, but it left me worrying that although TfL has plans to improve the access arrangements at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, it does not plan to put any resource into them. Is there anything in my hon. Friend’s amendments or in the remaining parts of the Bill that might help to deal with that concern, which my constituents are likely to be very worried about?
Andy Slaughter
That is a complex question—perhaps even more complex than my hon. Friend divines, despite his huge knowledge and intellect. It goes to the heart of the Bill and the fact that TfL has got itself into a sort of spiral with property developers and, as a result, does not know where it is going or where its best interests and those of its customers lie. Is its primary objective to uphold and improve its infrastructure, stock and services? Is it to compensate for the billions of pounds being withdrawn very cynically by the Chancellor, or is it going into a whole new area of operation where it will become some kind of poor man’s property developer?
I think that my hon. Friend will get the answer if he stays for the whole debate—if not, he may have to look at Hansard. My short answer to him now is that no one, not even the strongest opponents of the Bill—I include myself, the petitioners and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers in that bracket—would not wish TfL to maximise its income and its opportunities for development and to be able to develop on its operational and non-operational land and, in the process, improve its facilities. I hope that we have made substantial progress—although, it has been like drawing teeth over these five-plus years—but I am not sure that I can give him a full assurance that that will be the case as a consequence of this Bill.
However, I can give my hon. Friend a full assurance that from 5 May, when our right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) will be installed as Mayor of London, the importance of stations such as Harrow-on-the-Hill will be foremost in his mind. I have visited Harrow-on-the-Hill and know that it could do with a great deal of improvement. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to fight strongly for that.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Surely the purpose of TfL is to provide the best, most efficient and most cost-efficient transport services for this great city of London. Is it not therefore right that it uses its assets in the best way to achieve that aim? Does my hon. Friend think that this Bill will achieve that objective in such a way that we can have confidence that TfL can use its resources to best effect to achieve its core aim?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certainly, my amendments—I will go through them one by one—are designed to improve the Bill in the way she suggests. I will add a slight rider to what she says, however, because I think that TfL, as a public authority, has a slighter wider duty. We see that in the way it has disposed of assets in a cavalier fashion, entered into inappropriate deals with property developers and—perhaps most worrying of all in the context of the Bill—set out at this stage to say that its future priority, perhaps understandably, given the amount of money it is losing to the Treasury, will be to maximise the commercial opportunity of the land it holds. That sounds fine, if the money is going to subsidise fare payers. However, if it produces the type of development that is harmful to the London economy as a whole, and to Londoners—for example, by excluding affordable housing from its prime sites—then I think it needs to be brought up short. The problem is that TfL is trying to do several things at once. Yes, I am sure that it is trying to do as much as it can to subsidise its operations, but at the same time it is taking very risky steps in the deals it is doing with property developers. Part of that will be cured by the withdrawal of clause 5, but not all of it.
Mr Gareth Thomas
I take my hon. Friend back to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, because it is clear that TfL will have to go higher in any housing development, potentially reducing the amount of affordable housing, in order to pay for the access works required. Does he not think that it would be better if TfL, using the funding it currently has for making stations accessible, matched the funding that Harrow Council is willing to put into those access requirements, rather than just building ever higher blocks of housing to pay for it?
Andy Slaughter
I am always pleased to be taken back to Harrow-on-the-Hill station, although my hon. Friend normally cons me into going there for canvassing sessions that tend to go on for four or five hours. He is absolutely right that there has to be a balancing act between the needs of the travelling public and whatever development TfL is doing, and I think TfL has abdicated its wider responsibility in trying to get that balance right.
Mr Thomas
Moving on from Harrow-on-the-Hill station, will my hon. Friend deal with the concern that he and many others of us alluded to last November regarding the so-called tax-efficient limited liability partnership model that TfL wanted to use for its property developments? Can he shed any light on how TfL’s plans have changed in relation to that vehicle in the light of the obviously devastating disclosures in the Panama papers?
Andy Slaughter
A lot of the credit must go to Lord Dubs, who obtained a substantial concession in the other place when clause 5 was withdrawn. The chronology is that that preceded the Panama papers, but I suspect that TfL is breathing a sigh of relief, given that its proposals may have come under even more scrutiny had the clause remained in the Bill. I wait with interest to hear what the promoters say about the reasons for the withdrawal of clause 5. Personally, I am just glad that it is has been withdrawn, although I am puzzled they appeared prepared to die in a ditch for it over a period of years and then, following the debate in the main Chamber and the revival motions in the other place, decided to give in gracefully. What their reasoning was for doing that, I am still not quite sure, but I am grateful that it happened.
To that extent, the issue, which was of concern to the large number of Members who attended the last debate here, has gone away, but not entirely, as my hon. Friend will see when I talk about clause 4, which still tempts TfL—if I can put it that way—to enter into relationships with companies that may have a dubious past, present or future. Amendment 7 and consequential amendment 8 are designed to remove that temptation.
Mr Thomas
Before my hon. Friend turns to his proposed amendments, may I take him back again to our debate last November? There was substantial concern among Labour Members about the lack of commitment shown by the TfL management to building a significant amount of affordable housing in any large housing development. I understand that TfL is seeking to move on from that position—I am thinking of a particular site that my hon. Friend knows very well. Has he received confirmation that TfL is now more committed to affordable housing?
Andy Slaughter
Like my hon. Friend, I recently had a lengthy meeting with Graeme Craig and other TfL lawyers and senior managers. The reasonable assurance that I was given was that no firm decisions would be taken on any of the London sites—save for one, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)—until after the mayoral election, which I think is right.
London Members in particular were concerned that TfL was being disingenuous. It was saying in the free pages it gets in the Metro paper that part of its development strategy was to build affordable housing, but the reality was that it planned to build no affordable housing whatsoever on its prime sites in zones 1 and 2. It said that there might be elements in zones 3, 4, 5 and 6, but that was simply not satisfactory. Let us consider the issue after the mayoral election. It is clearly a matter for each individual planning application, but I would hope that Labour councillors in London would look askance at any proposal that did not include affordable housing.
One of the first three sites proposed was in Parsons Green, which is not quite in my constituency, but it is in my borough. That application has been withdrawn and is being rethought, because the proposals were either not sufficient or not the right type of affordable housing. We know that “affordable housing” is now a term of art and that, when used by this Government, it usually means housing that is affordable to nobody who is not on a seven-figure income.
Let me turn to the amendments standing in my name. I am very grateful for the substantial support I have received from a number of people at the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers in preparing the amendments and, indeed, throughout the whole Bill process. They have been extremely assiduous in providing their expertise, obtaining counsel’s opinion and providing briefings on the Bill. The three public petitioners—Richard Osband, Jos Bell and Anabela Hardwick—not only contributed to that important part of the process, but have been stalwarts in scrutinising the Bill and providing briefings on it. Many Members, not just members of the RMT and London MPs, have also shown an interest; when we last debated the Bill, there were 20 to 30 Members present. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who will get a special TfL Bill badge for being here tonight.
Mr Thomas
A further concern that was aired when we last debated the Bill in November was that the advisory board that TfL had set up to help it with its property development contained no significant social housing providers. Does my hon. Friend sense that TfL has now changed its position and that it is now balancing out the interests of those hard and fast traditional developers with the need for proper social housing to be part of the mix on the sites overseen by the Mayor and TfL?
Andy Slaughter
I am not aware that that has happened. To give TfL the benefit of the doubt, it, like many in London, awaits the outcome of the mayoral election and will take its lead from that. Although I strongly anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting will be the Mayor—so, I believe, do the bookmakers, who have started paying out on him—I do not think, whoever wins the mayoral election, that we could be worse off than we are at the moment with a Mayor who has set his face against affordable housing. He, and the people he has appointed to be his agents in the matter, have cynically allowed the term “affordable housing” to become more abused than used.
Mr Thomas
I intervene again on my hon. Friend to suggest that he might want to use at least a portion of his speech on the amendments to encourage the promoter of the Bill to take back from the debate the concern that TfL has no social housing providers in its property development group. That needs to change. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is elected, we might be able to go directly to him. Perhaps we can encourage the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to use the influence he has on TfL in the drafting of the Bill in that regard now.
Andy Slaughter
I entirely agree. My hon. Friend has made the point very well, and I cannot add anything to it. I intended to say one or two things about housing, but I think I will say them on Third Reading. They relate more to the general principles of the Bill and TfL’s approach to the Bill than to the amendments that we are dealing with.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend has a modest style, but may I encourage him to say two further things on the question of whether social housing providers are invited to sit on TfL’s property board? First, will he urge my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) to encourage TfL to listen to our concerns about the absence of a social housing provider? Secondly, will he encourage the Minister to use his influence with TfL to persuade it to put social housing providers at the top of its property development work and on to its property development advisory group?
Andy Slaughter
I absolutely concur with that. I suspect that, like me, my hon. Friend finds housing to be the single biggest issue in his constituency at the moment. We have reached a ludicrous stage in London whereby in many constituencies, including his and mine, it is simply impossible and unaffordable for anybody—not just those who have low incomes or average means, but those who are earning good wages—to access property of any kind. That applies to private rented, owner occupied and even what is cynically called affordable housing. That position has been exacerbated by Government policy and by some local authorities in London over a number of years.
It will take a long time to turn the situation around. It is possible, but it is difficult, and one of the quickest ways to do it is by the use of public land. TfL, as it constantly tells us, is one of the major public landowners in London. There are many others. I have the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation in my constituency, and 70% of that land—the largest regeneration site in the UK—is owned by Network Rail. It will shortly be owned by the OPDC. It is not just TfL that owns land; Government Departments also do so. That is the most immediate and instant solution to the problem, which I suspect Members from all parts of the House would admit of. Even Members who represent constituencies outside London probably have experience of the London property market and know that the situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Even with its current budget constraints, it is wrong for TfL to say, “Nothing to do with us, guv; we are just a railway company.” Of course it is primarily a railway company, and of course its job is primarily to make sure that we have a safe, secure and efficient railway that has capacity. That is a difficult enough task, but TfL cannot abdicate its responsibility, and it certainly should not be making the situation worse by engaging in development that involves no affordable housing.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend is right to say that housing is a huge issue in my constituency, as it clearly is in many constituencies across London. Like him, I want the public land that TfL has available to be used to create more affordable housing in particular, as well as housing units more generally. Does he accept that TfL needs to take into account a further consideration, which is the character and conservation needs of the space in which such public land will be available? In that context, I think of Harrow on the Hill—not Harrow-on-the-Hill station, but the area in my constituency. Any large TfL blocks of flats will still need to allow local people to see the iconic views of Harrow on the Hill. It is crucial to preserve the character of such areas.
Andy Slaughter
That is right. I am afraid that almost every planning application for residential development I now see ignores all the basic principles and tenets of building on a human scale, with sufficient amenity space and in such a way that impossible constraints are not imposed on existing neighbourhoods in terms of congestion, overlooking and environmental pollution, while also almost entirely excluding social infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools.
This is not the way London was built. Ironically, in the Victorian era—when the railways were built, and the suburbs expanded along those routes—we had far less town planning than we do now, but they somehow managed to build liveable communities, with all such factors. The combination of greed on the part of the developers and desperation on the part of much of the public sector means that we are now building monstrosities that nobody will want to live in.
Ruth Cadbury
To make another observation, if I may, about liveable communities, TfL owns a lot of shopfronts and high street properties. Is it not beholden on TfL, when it develops properties, to give some consideration to the kind of uses that such retail frontages are put to so that we ensure that they provide a usable range of businesses and services for the communities living in the new flats, which will of course include a significant proportion of affordable units?
Andy Slaughter
That is another very good point. I am afraid that it is another one on which TfL does not have a terribly good record. In Brixton market or Shepherd’s Bush market, which I am very familiar with, there are many historical amenities, including retail areas—they have been there for decades, if not, in some cases, for centuries—of which TfL has been the custodian, that are now under threat. Again, that is simply because the bottom line always has to take precedence.
Such an approach is often self-defeating, because we end up building a white elephant. The best example I can give is the Hammersmith Broadway. TfL pressed ahead with that development some 30 years ago. Nobody wanted it, and it ruined the town centre, as we thought, for the foreseeable future. However, we have now found out that there are plans to pull the whole thing down and start again. Even within its own rather limited and pedestrian view, which is to make the maximum capital out of it, such an approach often does not work. We must have schemes that actually work—work with existing communities, and work in terms of long-term commercial prospects—rather than something that looks as though it will provide a quick subsidy for the sort of works at Harrow on the Hill that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West.
Let me press on. I am almost the last man standing in this debate—not quite, because I have had the assistance of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who have a particular interest in this matter—but it has had a glorious number of supporters so far. I see that the shadow Chancellor has joined us on the Front Bench. I will spare his blushes, but I was just about to pay tribute to what he and the Leader of the Opposition have done. They have really cracked the whip on the Bill. If he has looked at the amendment paper, he will have spotted that I have filched quite a large number of his amendments to propose myself. I would not have done that if they were not excellent in their own right. I will not speak to them at great length.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the drafting quality of the amendments?
Andy Slaughter
They are much better than I could have done. They could not be improved upon by the Clerks, so they get 10 out of 10, not just for their eloquence and presentation but for their content.
If I may, I will deal with the consolidated amendments in three parts, and will come to the promoter’s amendments last of all. In a moment, I will look at two amendments in particular, amendment 7 and amendment 8, which is consequential on amendment 7. I will be looking for a response from the promoter on those. They contain a serious and, to some extent, new point. To show my hand at this stage, amendment 7 is the one amendment I am thinking of pressing to a vote. I am only thinking of doing so, however—it will depend on what the Front-Bench spokesperson and the promoter say. I will explain my logic in a moment.
I will go through the rest of the amendments at some speed. A few might be probing, but they are mainly what we might call improving amendments. They try to make sure that the Bill’s deficiencies—it is rather hasty and secretive, and tries to provoke unwise decisions that have not had proper consideration—can be mitigated in some way. I ask the promoter and the Government to look at them in the spirit in which they have been tabled. I am not very hopeful, because when that same point was made in the first part of Report, in March 2015—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was proposing the amendments at that stage—the promoter said he was not going to accept any of them, which I thought was a little churlish. They are genuinely intended to be improving. Let me explain what I mean by that.
I will start with new clause 1. That measure is slightly different. It flushes out one of the problems that we thought we had got rid of with TfL, but I am now not sure that we have. In its enthusiasm to sell off its assets to the highest bidder and to maximise commercial return, TfL sometimes ends up selling off land that it needs now or might need in future. That is slightly counterproductive, because with London property, when it is gone, it is gone. Any public authority that tries to buy back land that has been used from a commercial developer—even if, as in this case, that might be a joint partner—will find the price very high. The developer knows that the railway will absolutely need that piece of land so it will be treated as a ransom strip.
New clause 1 says:
“TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which…has been used in the preceding 10 years…has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or…is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”
Let me give one example, a very big one and probably the one that the promoter thinks I am going to give: Lillie Bridge depot.
Lillie Bridge depot is one third of the Earls Court and West Kensington opportunity development. As is the case for many others, much of my interest in the Bill has been engendered by that very development, which, until Old Oak and Park Royal comes onstream, is the biggest in London. It is a multibillion pound scheme. It consists of three parts, two of which are, or were, owned in their entirety by TfL. I will not talk about this now; I will talk about it on Third Reading. The way that part one of the scheme has been handled—admittedly under the existing rules, because the Bill has not been passed into law—has been so disastrous and cataclysmic for my constituents and the wider London economy that it bodes very badly for what may come forward.
It could be even worse from TfL’s point of view, because Lillie Bridge depot, the second part of the site—the two or three parts are roughly the same size, between 20 and 25 acres each—is a working depot for TfL. It employs about 550 people. It has stabling for District line trains, and major manufacturing and workshop areas. To all intents and purposes, it is an essential part of the operation of TfL. Unfortunately, the view put forward by TfL’s property division is that it can all go. I have a letter here from Graeme Craig, whom I referred to earlier, from 26 March 2014. It says:
“TfL is committed to bringing forward the development of LBD”—
Lillie Bridge depot—
“in accordance with the approved masterplan or such updated planning permissions as may be approved by the Council. TfL is not able to commit at this stage to how and with whom the development of LBD is to be delivered if it is proved feasible to do so. However, given the establishment of JVCo to develop Earls Court Village and ECP’s control of other interests, it would make commercial sense in due course for both parties to fully explore the potential benefits which could arise should we combine our respective remaining land interests.”
That was a scandalous letter to write and I am pleased to say that Mr Craig gave me an assurance that no deal has been, or would be, entered into with Capco for the development of the Lillie Bridge depot before the mayoral election. What has happened in that area is on the basis of no ownership of that portion of land and on the basis of a masterplan devised by Capco itself. TfL, in a very craven way, just decided to give up the land and develop it with Capco without looking at any other possibilities.
Obviously, there is now a delay. Even TfL has to admit that a fully operational depot of that kind, with all the facilities in situ that I have talked about, cannot be closed down overnight. It is talking about not developing it for about another five years, but it is certainly looking to sign agreements to do so in advance. That is exactly the type of mischief that new clause 1 is designed to prevent.
It is not only because of the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West that we need to worry about what type of development is going to go on TfL land; we need to worry about what is going to happen with current usage, either in the case of Lillie Bridge where there is current transport usage, or if there is a potential transport usage. This is absolutely recognised in the HS2 Bill, where HS2 is able to compulsorily purchase, acquire and protect land ancillary to the line, stations or other essential infrastructure that is being developed—for good reason.
Whatever we think of HS2, we cannot allow major infrastructure projects and essential lifelines of the transport system to be put at risk by private development in this way. I therefore ask, without a great deal of hope or expectation, for support for new clause 1. Even if there is not to be support in that way, I still ask for a clear statement of policy from the sponsor on behalf of TfL as to how it intends to protect the operational benefits of TfL. This is not a pious or notional idea. TfL is going into the property development game big time. It is looking at thousands of acres of land across London with transport or ancillary transport uses—by definition, most of its non-operational land is adjacent to its operational land—in a way that I do not believe it is prepared for and that would be a quantum leap in how it operates. All we are saying is that there needs to be safeguards. We need to ensure that it does not shoot itself, or the travelling public, in the foot by giving away, tying up or otherwise compromising land in that way, which, I am afraid, is exactly what has happened in the past.
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the risk of taking land out of operational use or losing land that could be put into operational use should transport demands change. Would it not therefore be appropriate to undertake a fully transparent assessment of all TfL’s land prior to any deals being done by the private sector that might take land out of operational use?
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for that intervention, because transparency is very important here. We have asked several times for a terrier of TfL property so we can know exactly what sites are owned and where they are. I certainly think that all London MPs should be entitled to know what sites reside in their own constituencies. That is the first point: we need to know what we are dealing with here. I agree entirely.
Subsections (2) and (3) of new clause 1 would introduce what is a theme in other amendments: the need to consult. We need to consult the public, who fund TfL through their taxes and fares, and the responsible elected bodies—the GLA and the London boroughs—before these decisions are taken. It is absolutely the case that TfL, in the past, certainly before it came under the Mayor’s control, behaved like a medieval baron. It was extraordinarily unaccountable. There is nothing as unaccountable as a public body with no democratic accountability. At least one can sit down with private sector organisations, talk to them and reach a deal. When dealing with organisations such as TfL, as was, or the NHS, as is, one often finds oneself intruding on the privacy of these organisations. Despite their being fully funded by the taxpayer, they have no mechanism for such engagement, which takes us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Harrow West about ensuring that the boards of these organisations have proper representation of the public and other interests. I therefore say in new clause 1 that the public, as well as the London boroughs and the GLA, should be consulted before contracts for development are entered into.
Part of the role of the Mayor should be to ensure that that democratic element is put in train. I have to say I have not seen any sign of that under the current Mayor. I have found that TfL’s decision making has been just as opaque, and I am hoping we will see a sea change in that. I believe that all public bodies, irrespective of their primary function, have a wider public duty. With local authorities, that is generally accepted. Indeed, there is now legislation saying that they have a community role and function to look after the general interest of their communities, as well as specific individual functions. We have moved a long way from the Nicholas Ridley days of their meeting once a year and handing out contracts. Similarly, other public bodies have a wider role. At the end of the day, such public bodies are taxpayer funded and have a responsibility to the communities in which they reside. We require private developers, through the community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements, to make a contribution in that way, and I believe that public bodies should equally make a contribution. That is what I am asking for.
That theme is continued in my amendments 9 to 16, which I will deal with more briefly. I feel that this is rather a pinched Bill that wants to do things in a hurry. Whenever steps are to be taken, they are taken within two months, but I think three months would be the normal and more appropriate period of time. I am not sure where the two-month period has come from.
So far as amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 are concerned, the Bill grants TfL substantial new powers. It is right to say that the two major operative clauses have now been dropped. The first, dropped at a relatively early stage in the House of Lords, was a scandalous attempt to get land sales done without any oversight by the Secretary of State or anyone else. The other is the clause being dropped today, which would have allowed these rather dubious property ventures to be entered into. However, there is still quite a lot of substance here, and we are right to look critically at what the Bill says in those respects.
Clause 1 states that the powers given in clause 4 will come into force at the end of the period of two months, while clause 3 states that the appointed day is at the end of that same two-month period. I see nothing wrong with three months. I am sure that the promoter will enlighten me if there is a particularly good reason for having two rather than the more common three months. I also say—this is provided for in amendment 12—that none of these provisions should come into force until there has been
“a review of the…potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers…and…likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”
Some may say that this is rather belt and braces, but I tabled this amendment because of experience. My experience is that TfL has not always behaved with the degree of probity or reserve that is necessary, and has got itself into a mess; later I shall quote the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, who put it in slightly less polite language than that. It is a case of once bitten, twice shy. Where a public body does not have a good track record on consulting and making the right decisions on matters outside its core remit, and where it proposes a massive expansion in the work it does, we are entitled to ask first for a longer pause for proper assessments and reviews, and for consultation. Amendment 16 is relevant here. I am not asking for consultation not with every Tom, Dick and Harry, but with those who have a legitimate interest as the elected representatives of the people of London.
I shall say no more on that. I shall not dwell on those amendments any further. They are improving amendments. They do nothing more than that, and I say the same about amendment 19, which adds to clause 4. It simply sets out in more detail what should happen when consent is given by the Secretary of State under the clause. It says that there should be a proper process, and that it should be dealt with through a statutory instrument.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to what I shall call my major residual concern; most of my concerns about the Bill have been dealt with. Let me be clear that nobody—no Labour Member in the hall of fame of those who have worked on the Bill—doubts the need for TfL to be as solvent as possible, or to subsidise fares as far as possible. In proposing amendments to clause 4(2), we are not suggesting that it should not be open to TfL—this is a major change in the Bill—to use its property as security for money that it borrows. The idea is essentially to enable TfL to borrow cheaply. It has the power to borrow at present, but it does not have the power to secure that borrowing against its substantial assets, and I see no reason why it should not be able to do so. However, I do think that the phrase
“Those things are the charging by a TfL subsidiary of all or any of its property as security for money which it borrows”
goes a little bit too far, although it may be simply a term of art. That is why, in amendment 17, I have proposed the substitution of the words “no more than 25%” for the words “all or any”. That is still a substantial proportion of TfL’s property, and I should have thought that such sums would be at least sufficient to fund anything that it could be required to do. The Minister may say that the Government do not intend to allow TfL to mortgage its entire estate, but I think that a little clarity would be advisable.
The main purpose of amendments 7 and 8 is to ensure that, while TfL is permitted to borrow against its own property for the purpose of legitimate investment opportunities, it is not allowed to borrow for the purpose of providing guarantees or indemnities for third parties. The reason for that is, I should have thought, pretty obvious. While debating this Bill, we have engaged in long discussions about TfL’s conduct in the context of its new-found policy of joint venture with its private sector partners. I do not, in principle, oppose that new policy. The logic of it is that, rather than disposing of assets, TfL will acquire a capital sum that could be invested to give a return. It will embark on a joint venture with a development partner of some kind, and will then have both a retained stake in the land and a revenue stream from its development. I see nothing wrong with that, and it seems to fit better into the picture in which TfL needs such a revenue stream more than ever before. Our objection is to the type of partner and the type of deal with which TfL has been involved.
However, the same logic could be applied to TfL’s borrowing. Borrowing for its own purposes and its own uses against its assets is one thing, but borrowing in order to guarantee or indemnify a third party strikes me as completely different. I should like reassurance from the Bill’s sponsor before deciding whether the issue should be put to a vote. In explaining why I say that, I must return to the experience of Earls Court. Not only is it the experience that is most familiar to me, but it is a massive project.
A deal was done whereby a piece of land wholly owned, freehold, by TfL, with some leasehold interests—in some cases quite short leasehold interests—is held by its development partner, Capco. That has been converted into a joint venture. TfL is the minority stakeholder, with 37%, and therefore does not have a controlling interest in what happens to the land. The joint venture company’s purchase price of the TfL land, with the Capco leasehold interest, appears to be substantially below the market price—perhaps by as much as a factor of three, if we compare the price paid, £335 million, with the current valuation of the asset by Capco, which is in excess of £1 billion. Moreover, it is being paid for by the interest-free loan from TfL. Where is the risk, and where is the cost to the private sector partner?
Let us remember that the private sector partner is not the international property company Capco; it is, in that hallowed phrase so often used by the petitioners, and particularly by Mr Osband, a £2 company based in Jersey with no other assets, and which could disappear off the face of the earth, leaving TfL to pick up any liabilities at the end of the day. I and many others were worried that that was the type of property deal that TfL was entering into, and we hope that that worry will now be removed, certainly for any new ventures, by the withdrawal of clause 5. However, such arrangements remain a possibility in relation to how the secured borrowing by TfL would be put to work.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I reiterate that the Department supports TfL’s commercial programme. We want TfL to maximise its unique position to ensure that its assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. Giving TfL greater financial flexibility will provide it with the opportunity to run its business in a more efficient way, to the benefit of taxpayers and fare payers. For those reasons, the Government continue to support the Bill and do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), which would generally have the effect of watering down the Bill.
Ruth Cadbury
That aim is creditable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) gave a number of examples of where he has concerns about TfL’s ability to negotiate effectively and to make the best of its opportunities. The Opposition have some concerns about the private sector’s ability to pull the wool over the eyes of public sector bodies—even those as large and experienced as TfL.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I quite like a principle called democracy. London has devolution of power, democratically elected Mayors and other democratically elected members around the city. Giving people the power to make decisions is something that we should do around the country. We should trust the people to elect the right individuals and then trust them to make the right decisions.
Andy Slaughter
I take slight exception to the term “watered down”. I could have gone on longer, but I thought I had explained pretty fully that this is about not watering down but strengthening the Bill—putting in exactly those democratic elements that the Minister says he wants. I ask him to explain in detail why he objects to the majority of the amendments standing in my name, which simply do what he says: give a surer footing to the Bill.
Separately, on my important amendment 7 and what the Minister says about that, I should say that watering down has been done already by TfL, which has withdrawn the two substantive clauses to the Bill.
Mr Goodwill
Her Majesty’s Government believe that, rather than strengthening the Bill, the hon. Gentleman’s amendments have the effect of watering down the Bill’s provisions or making it more difficult for TfL to use them.
I also note the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) to remove clause 5. The clause would have enabled TfL to join with others in setting up limited partnerships. However, it had been amended, following scrutiny of the Bill by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to provide that the Secretary of State must consent to the formation of the limited partnership by way of an order debated by both Houses. Given the burden that that would have placed on both Parliament and my Department, and the fact that it would have made it difficult in practice for TfL to enter into any limited partnerships, we support the principle of these amendments. I understand why they have been tabled and support them, perhaps slightly reluctantly.
We have already spent a lot of time talking about these amendments—indeed, we have spent a lot of time talking about this Bill altogether. I will therefore quickly conclude my remarks so that we can make progress.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that this Bill has had an arduous journey through both Houses; a petition to introduce it was presented to Parliament on 29 November 2010. Plenty of people have aged during its passing—some of us visibly. One who has not is my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); I pay tribute to him as he has clearly improved the Bill during these lengthy discussions. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for their contributions tonight.
Let me take a little time to deal with the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has tabled, as they deserve detailed responses. New clause 1 would ensure that neither TfL nor any subsidiary of TfL would be able to
“lease land to third parties which:
(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,
(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or
(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years,
for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.”
That would safeguard significant, useful land from being leased to developers for private profit at the expense of public transport passengers—those who rely on London’s transport system in their everyday lives. However, it would not prevent land from being sold; TfL already holds the power to do that.
The new clause would also compel TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, to carry out “a public consultation” before entering into a contract involving the development of land for anything other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers. A process of consultation before using TfL’s land for anything besides transport services is very important, to make sure that local communities have their views and voices heard. The development of land should come from the bottom up, rather than the top down, and with the backing of local people. One need only look at the Earls Court development, for which TfL leased out its assets, to see why my hon. Friend believes that prior consultation before lease and development is so important.
Let me turn to clauses 3 and 4. An insertion to subsection (1) of clause 4 that the consent of the Mayor may be granted to a subsidiary of TfL only after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation with, a variety of bodies, including the London Assembly and the London boroughs, is surely welcome. Discussion and collaboration with a range of stakeholders will ensure that a balance between public and private interest is retained. Similarly, the insertion into clause 3 that TfL must consult the Greater London Assembly and publish the report provides greater accountability and transparency. That is important, although we must also beware that the measures imposed on TfL do not become draconian.
A balance must be struck between scrutiny and freedom, and while TfL must act in the public interest, it should also not be restricted more unfairly than other public and private sector bodies. We are sympathetic to the aims of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith. He, along with other Members, has campaigned tirelessly to ensure that this Bill provides the best outcome for Londoners. We are grateful that these amendments will give Ministers and the Bill promoter the opportunity to discuss further provisions in the Bill and to alleviate any remaining concerns, and I welcome their thoughts on that.
Let me turn now to the vexed question of the removal of clause 5, which I understand will happen and which we advocated. Undoubtedly, it was the most controversial element in the Bill, which in our view would have risked TfL entering into opaque limited partnerships. It is quite understandable that, although the clause has been withdrawn, some of my hon. Friends still have reservations about certain elements of this Bill, which is why they have a continuing desire to tweak its text—not least because of the bitter experience of the Earls Court development, to which frequent reference has been made tonight.
With TfL potentially morphing into the role of property developer, I quite understand why my hon. Friends remain concerned and seek reassurance on how new powers will be used. Even without clause 5, these are still significant changes, with significant implications for local councils and communities as TfL comes to exercise these new powers. However, we are pleased that, following the strong objections from Labour Members expressed in previous debates, clause 5 is to be withdrawn.
I must also mention the context against which this Bill has come to fruition. Transport for London recently said that, from 2019, its objective is to cover all of the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks in London through non-Department for Transport grant sources of income. It says:
“We have planned for some time to achieve operational breakeven by running our business more effectively and efficiently.”
That operational independence—for want of a better word—is happening far sooner than anticipated. TfL says that its overall income is being reduced by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. Its resource grant from central Government, worth around £700 million annually, will be completely wiped out by the end of the decade. I would like to stop momentarily and point out, as I have done previously, that this means that London will be the only major European city transport network that will operate without an operational subsidy from Government. The Campaign for Better Transport put it succinctly:
“Almost nobody anywhere in the world runs a sizable public transport network without”
subsidies.
It could well be said that this Conservative Government are cold-shouldering our capital’s transport system. TfL is keen to limit the damage.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is talking about subsidies from the Government. Does he not agree that these are subsidies from taxpayers? They are paying for the subsidies.
Daniel Zeichner
That is a fine distinction. Most of us understand that the reason we pay our taxes is for exactly the kind of high quality transport system that a capital city such as London needs, and it is a huge risk that this Government are taking. The Government are forcing TfL to limit the damage, and they are using ingenious means and utilising existing assets to do so. The Budget indicates that there will be a move towards the full retention of business rates by local authorities, and we welcome the ability of local councils to have control over funding, but this is uncharted territory and we should be in no doubt about the risks to our transport system in London—risks that are a direct consequence of the political choices of this Government.
We want TfL to be modernised and to become a highly efficient public sector organisation. TfL has been making savings, some very difficult and controversial, but in its annual budget in 2014, TfL said that it is
“becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”
This pattern of cuts is visible not just in the capital, but across the country. Cuts to local authority budgets have been extreme, leading the Local Government Association to point out that even if councils stopped filling in potholes, maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres and turned off every street light they would not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face by 2020. Department for Transport resource funding has been cut by 37%, from £2.6 billion in 2015-16 to £1.8 billion in 2019-20, representing a real terms decline of 71% since 2009-10.
Let us consider the fact that last year a record 8.6 million people were living in London. By 2030, that figure is predicted to reach 10 million. That is the pressure under which TfL finds itself. We are not ideologically opposed to TfL’s maximising the value of its assets to increase the revenue seized by the Treasury. They do what they have to do, and using resources efficiently is important to keep our capital city running.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I expressed concern about certain measures in the Bill, including clause 5, which we have discussed. We are happy with the principle and understand the necessity of TfL’s having greater commercial freedoms, but the implications of those so-called freedoms were problematic. The controversial Earls Court development, a joint venture between TfL and the private developer Capital & Counties, set a worrying precedent for further public-private partnerships. Clause 5 would allow TfL to enter into limited partnerships with private property developers. Those partnerships are vague in legality and opaque in accountability.
I said on Second Reading that we must consider carefully the long-term impact of introducing powers to enter into those partnerships. We are reassured both by the fact that TfL has noted those concerns and by its decision to table amendments to remove clause 5 and references to limited partnerships from the Bill. It is encouraging that our opposition to that problematic part of the Bill was taken into account, and we are pleased with the outcome.
I also spoke on Second Reading about the importance of putting public needs above private profit. Property development to increase TfL’s revenue must not happen without the backing of local communities—those who are affected most directly. Those who bankroll projects should not subsequently be able to steamroller over local people. TfL is obliged to obtain the consent of the Mayor to dispose of an interest in land by sale or by granting a long-term lease. If that land is operational or has been in the previous five years, the Secretary of State for Transport must give his or her consent. It must be noted, however, that that did not prevent the unhappy saga around the developments at Earls Court from unfolding. The balance between the provision of affordable homes on the one hand, and maximising revenue to reinvest in transport, is an extremely significant and fine political judgment. We will be watching closely to ensure that proper balance is secured.
In conclusion, as clause 5 has been shelved, I think we are all hopeful that TfL can now move forward. We are keen to see how TfL uses its commercial freedoms to develop and improve the transport network that keeps our great capital city moving, but we will be watching closely to ensure that profit is used to benefit the public, and not the other way round.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I support amendment 1, and consequential amendments 2 to 6, which I tabled on behalf of the promoter.
This is a private Bill promoted by Transport for London, as has been said. It was submitted to the House of Lords in November 2010, and reached this House on 4 March 2014. It took rather a long time to get through the other place. The Commons gave the Bill a Second Reading on 9 September 2014, and it was considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee on 13 January 2015, where clause 5 was substantially amended. I shall come on to discuss that briefly.
A debate on the consideration stage took place in the last Parliament on Monday 16 March, and those of us who were Members then remember that as an epic occurrence. Many amendments were tabled, and the time allocated for debate expired before proceedings could be brought to a conclusion. Following the agreement of both Houses to the revival of the Bill in this Parliament, consideration was first proposed on 22 February 2016, but there was an objection, resulting in the need for today’s debate.
The promoter, TfL, has considered carefully the strength of feeling expressed in the previous debate in the House about clause 5. If the clause was introduced, it would allow TfL to engage in limited partnerships. TfL recognised, notwithstanding the amendments to the clause made by the Opposed Private Bill Committee, that serious concerns remained about the possible exercise of powers conferred by the clause and about the lack of transparency arrangements, which was raised by objectors. Accordingly, TfL took the decision not to press for clause 5 to stand part of the Bill. The amendment to which I am speaking would leave out that clause, and the further minor amendments grouped with it are consequential upon the removal of clause 5. I understand that that is accepted across the House.
Andy Slaughter
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is saying that TfL has listened to the democratic voice of this House and to the wishes of the elected representatives here. Is it as simple as that? If so, that is quite refreshing.
Bob Blackman
We have had substantial debates. The promoters listened to those debates, considered them carefully and decided that in order to ensure the passage of the Bill, rather than prolong the agony and the disputes, it would be better to withdraw the clause and demonstrate in good faith that they would not proceed with that element. That means, of course, that the Bill is substantially changed from its original form.
I shall touch on the amendments proposed by the objectors—in principle, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). If I miss one of the amendments that he is pushing, he will no doubt intervene to clarify that. New clause 1 is substantially that which was debated on 16 March 2015. We had a very long debate on consideration at that time and it was clear that that was not going to proceed.
The present new clause would impose restrictions on the disposal of land and on the development of the land. Prior to the disposal of any land, various tests would have to be satisfied. Prior to carrying out any development other than the development of the land for rail maintenance facilities, consultation would have to be undertaken with a range of consultees, including unnamed trade unions and the London boroughs.
TfL is subject to the normal legal requirements relating to the development of land. Accordingly, prior to carrying out development of land, including for rail maintenance facilities, TfL has to undertake consultation in accordance with the rules and procedures relevant to the consenting process in question. Adding a further layer of consultation there is unnecessary. Furthermore, the process for securing consents for disposal of land is well established under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I believe the hon. Member for Hammersmith was a member of the Government at the time. Section 163 provides the statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The promoters therefore consider that a further consenting process is neither necessary nor desirable.
Amendments 9 to 12 would lengthen the period of consultation. No solid argument seems to have been put forward by the proposer of the amendments on why that should take place. There would be a severe impact on TfL were that to take place. It would delay TfL improving its financial affairs and managing its operational undertakings, which would be detrimental to the tax-paying public and the fare-paying public. It is not clear what the impact of amendment 12 would be. It refers to a report being produced. TfL’s view is that the Bill, together with the existing processes and procedures under the 1999 Act, ensures that the exercise of the powers conferred by clause 4 will be properly exercised in discharge of statutory functions under the 1999 Act. That set of proposals is therefore unnecessary and unreasonable.
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman asks what the point is. The point is bitter experience. I bet that he could give just as many examples from his constituency as I can from mine of projects that TfL has gone into without proper risk assessment or consideration, and which have invariably wasted millions of pounds. What we are looking for here, before steps are taken, is a proper process of review; of stepping back and thinking.
Bob Blackman
Requiring the Secretary of State to go through a process of producing risk assessments and so on is clearly extremely burdensome. It is quite clear that TfL will have to carry out those functions itself in order to justify what it is seeking to do.
Amendments 7 and 8, which the hon. Gentleman pressed in particular, are new and were not considered on 16 March 2015. The clear issue here is that exercising powers under clause 4 is subject to the consent of the Mayor, when he is granting security on borrowing or acquiring companies, and the consent of the Secretary of State, in respect of core assets and revenue. I could go into a long and detailed explanation of why that would be unnecessary. The point is that these amendments would create legal uncertainty over the whole question of what the requirements would be. They would also create uncertainty about TfL and its subsidiaries exercising the necessary flexibility around assets and revenue streams.
Since the Bill was deposited—this is a very important aspect—the operational funding from central Government has been reduced, as has been said during the debates. It will now be removed entirely, but much earlier than anticipated. The Bill, including clause 4, will assist TfL in its efforts to achieve further savings and efficiencies, while at the same time upgrading transport networks, which, I remind the House, support new jobs, new homes and economic growth in London and right across the UK. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press those amendments to a vote, because they are completely unnecessary, would create tremendous uncertainty and, indeed, would impact on TfL’s ability to generate the sorts of savings and to create the types of work that we all want to see.
Andy Slaughter
I think I want the long and detailed explanation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What I want to know—this is not about the first part of clause 4(2), which I understand, about
“security for money which it borrows”—
is how
“the payment of which it guarantees, or in respect of which it gives an indemnity”,
first, improves TfL’s financial position, and secondly, does not create risks to TfL.
Bob Blackman
It is quite clear that the operation under clause 4(2) mirrors what TfL can do anyway under section 160 of the 1999 Act, and the scope of what a subsidiary can lawfully do by way of offering a guarantee or indemnity is not changed by this Bill whatsoever. From that perspective, the proposals to delete these references are almost irrelevant, given that the same powers exist under the 1999 Act. TfL is merely seeking to ensure that it has got this flexibility under those arrangements.
Bob Blackman
I have given way on a couple of occasions. If there is something else the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise, he will no doubt duly do so.
Most of the other proposals appear to have been put forward at consideration stage on 16 March 2015—they certainly formed a great part of the debate, but they clearly did not secure the agreement of the House. I therefore suggest that all the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman should be rejected and that we should end consideration stage and allow the Bill to proceed to Third Reading so that we can discuss its general merits.
Andy Slaughter
I appreciate the way the hon. Gentleman has approached the debate, but he will understand that I am a little disappointed by his response and by that of the Minister, who gave the proposals a cursory few moments. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, for at least making some thoughtful comments.
It is not my fault, or that of any of the other opponents of parts of the Bill, that it has dragged on for five and a half years, and we will perhaps look at that issue on Third Reading. As I said, most of the proposals were probing or, I hope, improving proposals, and I am disappointed that they have been dealt with in a fairly cursory manner. However, I also said that I would not press them to a vote.
Let me go back to amendment 7. As I said, the powers in clause 4(2) already exist, but there is no ability to secure borrowing, or an indemnity or guarantee, against property. I asked what I thought were quite reasonable questions about that. I said that, whereas I understand the advantage of securing borrowing against property, I do not understand the benefit to TfL, the fare payer or the taxpayer of an indemnity or guarantee. I have not really received an answer on that from the Minister or the sponsor. I do not really blame the hon. Gentleman, who drew what turned out to be the short straw in being the sponsor of the Bill. TfL has serried ranks of experts in these matters—consultants, lawyers and property people—and the fact that we have not had an answer shows a certain amount of arrogance in the way this issue has been dealt with throughout.
I am not persuaded, but I am not going to push the proposals to a vote this evening. I hope, as I have said, that we have a new Mayor who will take a different view of how these matters are dealt with and how these powers are used. I agree that these issues are not at the centre of the Bill. As I have said several times, I appreciate the concessions that TfL has made. In that spirit, I am not minded to stop the Bill going forward now.
I simply think that it shows a lingering lack of candour and transparency and an attitude of “It’s none of your business how we run our railway” when those involved cannot give a simple explanation of a fairly simple, albeit technical point. However, there it is. I have made the points I want to make on the proposals, but I do not propose to put any of them to a vote tonight. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 1, page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7. —(Bob Blackman.)
Clause 5
Power for TfL to form and invest in limited partnerships
Amendment made: 2, page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.—(Bob Blackman.)
Clause 6
Specified activities
Amendments made: 3, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.
Amendment 4, page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.
Amendment 5, page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.—(Bob Blackman.)
Third Reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Mr Goodwill
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on taking this Bill to Third Reading. I have listened with interest to the contributions of Members on both sides of the Chamber.
The outcome of the 2015 spending review means that TfL will need to find further savings and look to maximise its commercial income in the interests of both the taxpayer and the travelling public. That is why I welcome the principle behind the Bill. It will enable TfL to use financial practices and mechanisms to release greater value from its assets and financing arrangements. In short, it will maximise its unique position to ensure that assets generate revenues to their greatest potential. I understand from TfL that the Bill could realise in excess of £50 million in immediate benefits by improving its hedging power, enabling it to borrow money in a more cost-effective way and allowing it to make the most of its assets.
For all those reasons, the Government support the Bill and I look forward to seeing it finally receive Royal Assent.
Andy Slaughter
Well, here we are, after only five and a half years, with a Bill that is better than it was when the petition was first presented in the other place on 29 November 2010. It has had an interesting history. I suspect it will be reviewed in various civil service colleges and sixth forms in years to come—although I do not think it will give any pleasure to those who study it—as an example of how not to do a private Bill, because it really did not have to be like this.
There have been some highlights, or lowlights. There was a time when the Bill was considered by the other place to be uncontentious: it went through Committees unopposed and its Second Reading was a formality. Then, up popped an organisation called the West London Line Group, which I am pleased to say is stationed, if I can put it that way, in my constituency. It pointed out that TfL was seeking, under what was then clause 4 of the Bill, to dispose of any land it wanted without the consent of the Secretary of State. After important but cursory scrutiny, TfL backed off from that most contentious and controversial part of the Bill.
The Bill then went to sleep for a long time. There were periods of 18 months when nothing happened. I do not know why that was. I have never actually asked TfL and I am not sure it could tell me even if I did. When the Bill finally came to this House in 2014—four years into its life—things became a bit more lively, because a number of parties, which I mentioned earlier, identified that it still contained some controversial parts.
More importantly, we were beginning to see, or suspect, that there were other motives behind the Bill. I do not know what TfL knew in 2010 about how quickly its revenue stream was going to be withdrawn—I suspect that it must at least have thought that that would be the case—or whether it was contemplating some of its proposed large-scale property deals. To some extent, we owe a debt of gratitude to Capco for its aggressive exploitation of the West Kensington and Earls Court development, which has become a cause célèbre in many ways. Indeed, it will shortly be the subject of a complaint to the European Commission on state aid, because so bad was the deal that TfL got for the Earls Court exhibition centres that those who are making the complaint contend that it amounts to unlawful state aid. In other words, the subsidy and the help that TfL has given to Capco to allow it to boost its share price, boost its profits and boost its directors’ bonuses may be unlawful under European law. We will see how well that complaint fares, but the fact that it has been contemplated suggests just how little confidence and faith many of the people who have scrutinised the Bill have in TfL’s ability to get a good deal.
I said that I would mention what the RMT has said about the matter. In the press release that it put out today, it stated:
“The construction firms with which TfL plans to engage, are running rings around TfL, helping the hapless organisation offload its prime London assets at well below the market rate.
We have no confidence in TfL to be able to secure a fair price for its land—and our concerns are borne out by its dreadful governance failures in relation to the development of Earls Court”
and:
“There is a fresh financial crisis brewing—meaning that there is an increased risk of corporate defaults—especially in the over-leveraged property sector.”
I pause to say that Capco is now discounting its luxury properties by about 20%, according to press reports last week. The press release continued:
“TfL is entering the property development game at precisely the wrong moment and in precisely the wrong way”.
That is how RMT put it. I might have chosen different words, but I cannot disagree with those sentiments. Those were real fears about the way in which TfL was, in a completely new way but across the board in relation to its assets, turning 5,700 acres of land into development sites.
As we found out, the whole thing was about money, specifically the Chancellor’s decision to withdraw £2.8 billion of Revenue funding from TfL over the next five years. That has led TfL, as I described in the earlier debate, to indulge in what I believe are risky, dubious and foolish interventions in the property market, which have allowed developers to use whatever vehicles they like with the support of a public sector organisation. It really stuck in the craw that the House was going to pass legislation that would have enabled those sorts of deals and developments to be done. It is good that the clause that contained those provisions was withdrawn in the other place and clause 5 has been withdrawn today.
If anybody does not believe me, I am happy to take any hon. Members to the Earls Court site, where they will be able to see the huge disruption that has been caused to a whole neighbourhood of London by dust, noise, the removal of asbestos, the threat to the security of residents and property, and the way in which the interests of small business, whole estates of people and small streets are being overridden. TfL has no control over that any longer, because it is just a sleeping partner. It is now a minority stakeholder in the land that it used to own, which it sold off at an undervalue, with loans that it guaranteed at nil interest rate. That cannot give us any confidence that if TfL had been allowed the powers that clause 5 would have given it, it would have used them in any proper way.
I am pleased that we have reached this stage, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) say that TfL has, belatedly, properly responded to the concerns that have been expressed not only in this House but in the other place. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman candidly admitted, bears no resemblance to the one that was introduced five and a half years ago. Not only have five and a half years and a lot of debating time elapsed, but we have ended up with something that is a mere shadow of what it was before.
There is a remaining concern that I do not feel has been addressed. I did not press it to a vote. I do not think I would have won the vote if I had—I say that rather churlishly—judging by what happened on a previous occasion, when the payroll vote all came in to vote. I am sorry if I have again kept them away from their dinner tonight. As I said a few moments ago, I worry that there is still that continuing arrogance. Those at TfL say, “We know best”, but they do not know best. They do not have a track record of doing this. In some ways, I would not expect them to have that. They are mainly transport people and they are running a railway—and quite a lot of the time, they do a good job of running a railway—but they are now getting into bed with some of the biggest property sharks and some of the least appropriate people to develop London. I am afraid that the way in which they are doing so really is a case of the lamb trying to lie down with the wolves.
I am worried about that for the future. I suspect that it will not worry me so much once we know the outcome of the mayoral election. Nevertheless, the Bill still indicates things—including in clause 4, which we have just debated in relation to amendment 7, that will still allow TfL to guarantee and indemnify third parties, and to secure those guarantees and indemnities against their own assets—that TfL should not be in the business of doing.
When we started to debate the Bill a couple hours ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) raised some very important points, which I said I would address on Third Reading, in relation to the sort of developments we can expect on TfL land. What is the purpose of the Bill? We now know—we did not know it, although TfL may have done, back in 2010—that it is mainly about making up for lost revenue. It is mainly about TfL being deprived of billions of pounds of revenue by the Chancellor. However, it is also about the type of city we will live in in London, because TfL is one of the largest public sector landowners and it is seeking to develop many of its sites. I have mentioned some in my own constituency or borough, such as in Parsons Green and Earls Court, and others may well be brought forward in the future. We do not know the list of developments, even though several hundred major sites are on it. One of the first things that the new Mayor could do is to publish that list and make sure that all MPs take an interest in it. I suspect that there would be substantial interest among London MPs from all parties when the list becomes available.
TfL has a wider responsibility. It should not just keep fares as low as possible, although that is important, and run an efficient railway, but ensure, as custodian of the largest part of the public realm in London, that it deals with that properly. It has a fantastic history: some TfL stations are among the best architectural buildings in London. The pride that ran all through the Victorian era and into the inter-war period—in the 1930s, there were developments of lines and stations out to the suburbs—is a fantastic credit to London and this country. It would be a terrible shame if, in the 21st century, TfL decided to build, through the variety of investment vehicles that we are tonight giving it permission to use, not just hideous overdevelopments and monstrosities, but non-functional buildings that do us no credit whatsoever either architecturally or in terms of use.
Increasingly, that is we are seeing with the sort of development partnerships into which TfL is going. When I looked at the short list of development partners that TfL has brought out I shuddered because they are exactly the same companies that are ruining the borough I live in with their riverside developments, their tall, faceless towers and the things from their pattern books that show no architectural merit whatsoever. Such developments minimise the proportion of affordable housing and the amount of amenity space, and they do not provide any social benefit at all. Unfortunately, hard-pressed local authorities—as the planning authorities, this falls back on them—which are cutting their budgets by up to 50%, are in no position to deal with that.
This is a David and Goliath battle. It is not City Hall or the town hall that holds all the cards—the bureaucrat and Big Brother. The developers hold all the cards. They can afford the people who can make the viability assessments that they want, as well as the surveyors, architects, lawyers, consultants and accountants to run rings around TfL and the boroughs to get the developments that they want.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Bill and what he has achieved—in particular, the removal of one specific clause. He rightly raises concerns about the planning system and how TfL’s potential private sector partners could run rings around local authorities. Is it not true that the situation will be even worse if the Housing and Planning Bill is passed, as the Government are, in effect, removing and reducing the power of local authorities to intervene actively in planning applications and decisions?
Andy Slaughter
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes two very good points about the Housing and Planning Bill. One is its anti-localist feel, as it takes planning authority away from the boroughs. The other is what that Bill is doing to housing. It is not just the case that the Government, and the coalition Government before them, have been negligent. They have been actively supporting unaffordable housing and diminishing the role of affordable housing in London.
That is very clear in the Housing and Planning Bill, in which we have not just the sale of housing association properties, but the subsidising of those sales by the sale of council properties. I have had direct experience of this problem. My borough is the only one in which, under Conservative control, the quantum of social housing actually decreased over a period of years. It did not go up at all; it went down, through demolitions, sales and other matters of that kind. That is exactly what we are seeing. The situation is getting worse. The point that I made earlier—I hope my hon. Friend agrees with it—is that we have to build more affordable housing, social housing and shared ownership housing, and more private rented housing that is affordable, especially for young people. We also need genuine low-cost home ownership.
That should be being delivered through a Bill such as this one, because TfL has that responsibility as a major public landholder in London. But it is not being delivered. The type of investment vehicles promoted through the Bill and the type of partners that will be selected will simply mean we see more of what we call safe deposit flats being built.
TfL may ask what it can do, given that its money is being taken away by the Government and it has to pull as much money as it possibly can from commercial developments. I have already explained why I think that is a short-sighted view, which may not achieve even its short-term objective of making TfL a lot of money. The luxury property market may also be in trouble.
We need sustainable development, in town centres and around stations in particular. We need car-free development, for people of all income levels and from all backgrounds. Those are the people who make our city work. Of course, if those people are able to live in zones 1, 2 and 3, they will not be clogging up the tubes and buses, as they will be nearer to where they work. TfL already has major capacity problems, and is making a rod for its own back by helping with the process of social cleansing and pushing people out of London.
This Bill should be about Londoners’ housing and environment; it should promote air quality and alternative means of travel to the car. It should also be about having an efficient and effective transport system. It is not about any of those things, but about promoting dodgy investment vehicles with dodgy investment partners to maximise the gain for private sector development companies without their taking any risk, as that risk will instead be loaded on to the public sector, in the person of TfL. That is why we have opposed the Bill so strongly, over the past two years in particular, but also before then.
I am glad that TfL, the sponsor and possibly even the Government have listened. I suspect we have succeeded in modifying 90% of what we wanted to modify. It just did not have to be like this. When I met TfL two or three weeks ago, I said “Do you really want to go through another long debate like this in Parliament? Why don’t you hold this back until the new Mayor gets elected? I bet you could agree something that we could all agree on within half an hour.” I am afraid it did not take that in the spirit in which it was intended and it wished to press ahead. Well, it has got its Bill now. I suspect it wasted a very large sum of fare payers’ money on all its experts to get it through, which it did not need to do. I suspect it is not at all happy with the result. I hope it has had an object lesson in how Parliament works. We will not put up with the pig in a poke that the Bill was in its original form.
There are some good provisions in the Bill, but almost by definition we have not discussed them because they are unexceptional and have general support. There are still one or two bad things in the Bill. The Bill has had an unhappy history. I hope that at the very least TfL will learn two lessons: how to approach bringing Private Bills to this House and to the other place; and that we will continue to scrutinise how it does deals and how it tries to develop its property portfolio. TfL has to do this not only in its own interests as an organisation, but in the interests of the fare payer and the taxpayer, and in the interests of Londoners as a whole.
Bob Blackman
It is a pleasure to rise at what I hope will be the end of a very long journey. The purpose of the Bill is to provide TfL with additional powers, so it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. TfL has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets. They can only be realised if TfL acquires the new statutory powers or if the restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed.
This has been mentioned before, but let me put it on the record: TfL is one of the biggest landowners in London, with 5,700 acres of land. Clearly, there is a pipeline of some 300 sites, with 50,000 new homes to be provided in London. We know above all else that in London, the capital city of this country and one of the major cities of the world—if not the major city in the world—we need to provide more new homes and to keep people moving to create investment for the opportunities for jobs and for a better quality of life for everyone. The Bill enables TfL to play its part. It is clear that from October 2015 we already have 75 sites that will generate 10,000 new homes over the next two years. Two thirds of them, contrary to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) said, will be in zones 1 and 2. It is not true to say that sites are not being provided for new homes for Londoners and for people who want to make London their home.
Bob Blackman
I will make a bit of progress and then maybe give way. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunities to put his own perspective and spin. I want to set the record straight.
Four sites in particular have been invested in recently by TfL: 360 homes at Nine Elms tube station, with 25% affordable; 55 homes in the Fenwick Estate near Clapham North tube station, of which 100% are affordable; the development at Northwood is only 20% affordable housing, but TfL has respected local demand to invest in a brand new tube station with step-free access; and at Parsons Green TfL has submitted a scheme with 40% affordable homes, which it has now withdrawn to allow further time for consultation with local businesses and residents. It is clear that TfL is responding to the request and demand for additional housing to be provided in the capital.
The Bill contains only three substantive clauses but is of great importance to TfL because it will enable it to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and taxpaying public. The growth in London is relentless and driving up demand for services. The tube has record ridership year on year and our roads are also under great pressure. To keep London working and growing, TfL has to invest just to keep the assets in good repair, modernise the rail and road networks and improve reliability. The reality is that all its revenue is reinvested in TfL projects, be it on the roads or rail. Clearly, the issue that will be debated in the run-up to 5 May is how we keep that revenue stream increasing and ensure a fair balance between the taxpayer and the fare payer.
TfL’s £11 billion capital funding settlement from the Government runs from 2015-16 to 2020-21—the life of the Parliament—and includes a total of £5.8 billion in investment grant, £1.4 billion in general grant from the Department for Transport and, crucially, £3.8 billion in borrowing powers. That allows TfL to invest £1.7 billion a year to modernise the road and rail networks. The Circle, District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan lines will be the next four tube lines to be upgraded. I would have thought the hon. Member for Hammersmith would welcome that, seeing as his constituents use those lines, as do mine—I think, in particular, of the Metropolitan line.
Bob Blackman
No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to put his point of view.
From 2019, TfL’s objective will be to cover all the operational costs of running the tube and bus networks through non-DfT grant sources of income. It plans to do this over an extended period by running the business more effectively and efficiently. The continuous savings programme has generated a 15% reduction in costs. Following the November spending review, TfL has had to accelerate and build upon that because, as has been alluded to, its overall income is set to reduce by £2.8 billion over the period to 2020-21. The Bill will provide TfL with additional powers to run its business more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient and economic financial arrangements. This will allow TfL to maximise the value of assets, bear down on fares and deliver significantly better value for money to the public.
The first of the substantive clauses, clause 4, will allow TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams. We have had a long debate about this issue in relation to the amendments. The powers will allow TfL to access cheaper finance for projects and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against subsidiary borrowing. TfL will be able to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt without having to engage in costly loan restructures. Very importantly, the Secretary of State’s consent is required if core assets are to be offered as security, and the Mayor must consent to all other arrangements.
Where TfL owns more than 50% of a joint venture, clause 4 will enable TfL’s subsidiary to incur debt using the assets of the subsidiary as security. That does not advantage or disadvantage a private partner involved in the joint venture, as the increased value of the assets will be brought about with the greater flexibility in clause 4 and will be shared by TfL and the private sector partner, in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties.
Clause 5 has now been removed. Clause 6 seeks to expand the type of entities through which TfL’s commercial activities must be undertaken. TfL is currently required to undertake its profit-making activities through a company limited by shares that is either a subsidiary or a joint venture. The clause amends this restriction to give TfL the option of using any type of entities that TfL has the power to form, in addition to a company limited by shares. TfL would be able to use a company limited by guarantee or a limited liability partnership. Importantly, clause 6 preserves the policy that TfL must undertake commercial activities through a taxable entity by requiring that the subsidiary be a member of a limited liability partnership. Clause 6 will enable TfL to conduct its affairs more flexibly and net the maximum value from the assets.
Clause 7 amends TfL’s hedging power, responding to changes in the way that financial institutions hedge risk away from specific commodity trading to trading by indices—as, for example, in the use of an oil price index, as opposed to a barrel of Brent crude oil. It also gives TfL the capacity to enter into a derivative investment when TfL is exposed to a risk by virtue of contractual arrangements for the provision by others of public passenger transport services—for example, if there were movements in fuel prices, it would allow TfL to hedge the costs. Clause 7 also clarifies that TfL may use its hedging powers in respect of its liability to any pension fund. It is not proposed that TfL enter into any derivative investments on behalf of the TfL pension funds, but TfL will be able to hedge its contribution risk to the fund.
Given the benefit to TfL pension fund members, some of whom will be members of RMT, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, acknowledged the merits of clause 7 on Second Reading. Once again, I find it hard to see the logic of the hon. Member for Hammersmith’s continuing to block the Bill. It seems that my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen have misconceptions about the scope of the Bill, but, contrary to assertions made on Second Reading and elsewhere, the Bill does not give TfL any new powers to sell or develop its land. TfL has had those powers since it was created in 2000, and it is not seeking to enlarge them in any way. Neither can TfL act autonomously when it wishes to dispose of its interests in its land, including when granting a long-term lease. TfL must obtain the consent of the Mayor to sell surplus land, and if that land is operational land or has been operational land in the last five years, the Secretary of State must give his or her consent.
Some colleagues suggested on Second Reading that TfL’s track record shows that it is not competent enough to be given greater powers and that it should focus on its core function of providing transport services rather than delving into joint venture projects with developers. It cannot be disputed that TfL serves more customers more efficiently and more reliably than at any point in its history. Providing public passenger transport will always be TfL’s main focus. The powers it seeks in the Bill will not detract from its discharge of those functions, and the discrete scope of the Bill should be taken as indicative of a change in TfL’s priorities.
The Bill will, however, give TfL greater opportunity to secure sustainable income from its assets, rather than a one-off capital receipt from their disposal. Very importantly, that is to adopt a long-term strategy to the management of its property estate, which will allow TfL to maximise the value of its assets and deliver better value for money to the public.
I am somewhat confused because it would appear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is so lacking in confidence in his candidate for the mayoralty that he would seek to block this Bill in order to get him there. I am looking forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) assuming his place as Mayor of London on 6 May, and we can look forward to this Bill helping him to deliver more homes, more jobs and better and safer transport for the people of London.
Daniel Zeichner
You will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to repeat the substantial points I made in my earlier contribution—[Interruption.] That is no doubt the biggest cheer of the night. There is always a but, however, and I shall reiterate one or two minor points. Let me first put on record the thanks of Labour Members for the sterling efforts of our hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who has staged a heroic fight over many months and years on this issue. As a consequence, we end up with a better Bill.
Let me return to my earlier point: the pressure on TfL is clearly a consequence of the substantial cut in support from the Government in the recent Budget. That has caused a significant shift in the way in which TfL operates. I hear what others have said about its capacity to use resources well and make the best possible use of its assets, and we hope that their confidence is justified, but we also share the misgivings expressed by my hon. Friends about some of the potential bedfellows whom TfL may seek out. This becomes a much wider and more complicated debate about the role of public authorities such as TfL at a time when so many people in our city are experiencing such acute housing problems. Labour Members, certainly, feel that TfL’s most important role is to keep our capital working and moving successfully.
Nevertheless, we have a better Bill, not least because of the withdrawal of clause 5, which, in our view, would have led us down a dangerous route. On the basis that we have secured some improvements, let us end the evening on a positive note. We hope that TfL will be able to take the opportunities that some Members have described, although we ourselves still have some reservations.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Road and Rail Links: Sheffield and Manchester
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The debate has been slightly delayed. At least three colleagues who share my concern about trans-Pennine links would have joined me in the Chamber tonight, but the late start has prevented them from doing so. I wanted to put that on the record.
The economic case for new transport infrastructure between Sheffield and Manchester is very strong. The National Infrastructure Commission has reported that the north in general
“needs immediate and very significant investment for action now and a plan for longer-term transformation to reduce journey times, increase capacity and improve reliability.”
It admits that
“Sheffield’s economy…is small compared to that of Leeds and Manchester, with lower productivity and skills levels”,
and that—this is the important point—
“the city is less well linked to the surrounding region, in particular with the Pennines limiting connectivity to the west.”
It also points out that
“the lack of a good transport link between the two means that their economies are largely separate from each other.”
That is a big problem for the northern powerhouse project, and a real obstacle to the delivery of progress.
Only 10,000 vehicles a day travel between Greater Manchester and south Yorkshire, whereas 55,000 a day travel between west Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. There may be slight differences in population, but the only real explanation for the disparity must be the poor transport links between the former two regions. The implication is that the vast majority of potential travel between them simply does not take place, because the infrastructure needed to accommodate it does not exist.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on initiating a debate on a matter that she will know is close to my heart, because my constituency is just on the other side of the Pennines. Does she agree that the problems on the two principal roads between her constituency and Greater Manchester, which go through my constituency—the A628 and the A57—are preventing people from travelling, and preventing them from creating a link between two big economies that need to dovetail as part of the northern powerhouse?
Angela Smith
I entirely agree with my constituency neighbour. As I shall go on to explain in detail, the key problem is that those two roads are effectively mountain passes—or what pass for mountain routes in England—and they run through a national park. The fact that two of our major northern cities are divided by the huge obstacle presented by those two very difficult roads lies at the heart of the problem.
I want to illustrate the economic impact with a concrete example before I move on to describe the two roads that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Tata Speciality Steels has a dedicated service centre in Bolton, which is obviously on the other side of the Pennines from the factory, and the company experiences real logistical difficulties precisely because of the poor links between the two areas. There are three road routes across the Pennines. We have the A57, part of which is known as the Snake pass. Incidentally, it was not given that name because of its winding nature; it was named after a feature on the Duke of Devonshire’s coat of arms. It is nevertheless incredibly difficult to use. Heavy goods vehicles find it impossible; indeed, they are advised not to use it. Even cars can find it difficult in bad conditions. It is, after all, a mountain pass.
The A628 is therefore the major road across the Pennines between Sheffield and Manchester, but the height and exposure of the road often create problems during poor weather in winter, and it is sometimes closed due to snowfall or high winds. However, road closures on the Woodhead pass are more often the result of road traffic accidents than of bad weather. In 2011, four of the eight closures on the Woodhead pass were due to road traffic accidents, and four were due to bad weather. In 2012 there were 14 closures, eight of which were the result of road traffic accidents. The other six were due to bad weather. There were 12 closures in 2013; eight were due to road traffic accidents and four to bad weather. So, in the latest year for which we have statistics, the major road crossing between two of our biggest cities was closed on average once a month. That is a huge obstacle for people and, in particular, for businesses trying to make logistical transport plans in order to do their work.
We also have the M62, but using it to go from Sheffield to Manchester involves making a massive detour. I used the AA route planner this evening and worked out that if you use the M62 to go up from Sheffield, across the Pennines and down to Manchester, the distance is 72.5 miles and the journey takes one hour and 42 minutes. If you use the A628, the distance is only 37.8 miles, but the journey is only 20 minutes shorter. Using the motorway involves travelling twice the distance but takes only 20 minutes longer. That is if you are lucky—we all know that the M62 can be hugely congested. It is therefore not a realistic option, and we need to do something about the trans-Pennine link.
As for rail, the average speed of rail travel across the Pennines between the major cities is below 50 mph. This has led to the contained nature of travel in the northern regions. An analysis of travel patterns between northern cities by Transport for the North suggests that levels of commuting are below what might be expected given the size and relative proximity of the cities in question, bearing in mind that Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester are equidistant from each other. Commuting between Sheffield and Manchester, for example, is 38% lower than could be expected. As an example of the slow speeds that we experience, the trains from Manchester to Sheffield travel at less than half the average speed of those travelling between London and Milton Keynes.
Trains are also running at capacity on the Hope Valley line. The hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) will know that line, as will the Minister. The trains run at capacity during the rush hour, with an average of 7,224 passengers coming into Sheffield from Manchester each morning during peak hours, which is 2.3% in excess of capacity. This results in 7.8% of passengers having to stand during those morning journeys.
As the Minister knows, I would be the first to acknowledge that progress is being made. Proposals are on the table for a new road tunnel and a new rail tunnel involving a high-speed route across the Pennines. I welcome those proposals; I am not playing politics. I know that work is being undertaken to establish the feasibility of at least three of the original five potential corridors for a road link across the Pennines. The feasibility work needs to include the impacts on nearby land use and economic growth, and there are the environmental concerns relating to a long road tunnel. I am hopeful that if the proposed new road tunnel is feasible and if the economic case can be made, the Government will press ahead with this important project.
Angela Smith
I cannot, as I have only a few minutes left.
As for the new rail project, the National Infrastructure Commission has made it clear that it recommends kick-starting High Speed 3, and that its integration with HS2 would be the best way of planning the new rail development in the area. Important route decisions for HS2 need to be made over forthcoming months, and I put it on the parliamentary record—I have already done so locally—that Meadowhall is the best option for an HS2 station in South Yorkshire on the way to Leeds at end of the eastern branch of HS2.
We have heard that the Government plan an HS3 route from Manchester to Leeds, and I need to make it clear and put it on the record that any such project cannot be allowed to miss out South Yorkshire. It is absolutely critical to the economic resilience and redevelopment of the north of England that the new rail route serves South Yorkshire and potentially the south bank of the Humber as much as it serves Leeds and the north bank of the Humber. A new tunnelled rail link could come out in the Penistone area, probably in my constituency, and spur not only up to Leeds and over to Hull, but down into South Yorkshire, Sheffield, Rotherham and potentially beyond. The developments on the table are exciting, but we are absolutely adamant in South Yorkshire that we want to be included in the Government’s options for both rail and road.
Some of us have been campaigning for years for a new rail route across the Pennines. We initially focused on reopening the old Woodhead route, but we lost that campaign and electric cables have now been established in the old 1953 tunnel by National Grid. It is clear that we did not lose the argument about the need for new rail infrastructure; however, the connections suggested so far are not to Sheffield, which is what the campaign for a new Woodhead route was always about, or to South Yorkshire, but to Leeds, so we need to deal with that. We need a commitment to a route that crosses the Pennines and then serves all the major urban communities of the north. Why do we need to do all that? All the Government’s arguments about the northern powerhouse and the rebalancing of the economy are brought into focus by the need to do something about the trans-Pennine transport links, which is what the NIC has driven home in the conclusion of its report. The NIC’s argument that poor connectivity is holding back economic development in South Yorkshire underpins the case.
I want to finish by mentioning the achievements of our Victorian forebears. I mentioned the Woodhead line earlier, so let us look at the facts. It was built by the Victorians, and when the first railway tunnel was completed in 1845, it was one of the longest in the world. The second tunnel was completed in 1853. Both those tunnels would potentially be usable even now, but for their being no longer in maintenance. That is a great testament to the foresight and engineering skills of our Victorian ancestors. As far as I am concerned, they managed it, and so can we. They saw the economic potential of linking two rapidly growing northern cities—a steel city and Manchester—and so should we. They also invested for the long term, and so should we.
A 30-year appraisal in the cost-benefit analysis of the need for these links—the road link and the rail link—is not adequate; we need an analysis and an economic case that understands that we are building for the long term. We need to look at a 100-year case for building this new infrastructure. We would never have built the Woodhead line or many of our railway lines across the country if we had not taken a long-term view of the interests of the economy in areas such as Sheffield, Manchester and London. Would we have even built the tube in London had we not taken such an approach? That is what we need to understand.
On that basis, there is a great deal of support among Opposition Members for what the Government are trying to achieve. As I said, more of my colleagues would have been here to support this debate had it not been postponed for so long because of other very urgent business. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I hope that he will concede the case for the Sheffield link to HS3, and that he will give us some optimistic updates on the progress on both the road link and the rail link that we are all looking forward to seeing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on securing this debate on road and rail links connecting Sheffield and Manchester. She has been making some valuable points about the need for improved transport links, and I agree with her comments about the debt we owe to our Victorian forefathers and the long-term approach they took to their planning. There are indeed lessons we can take from that. One thing I did learn during her speech was how Snake pass got its name—I did not know that until a few moments ago.
On 7 March, the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly published the first annual update report on the northern transport strategy. The report is the culmination of 12 months of collaborative work with Transport for the North and other transport agencies, and it sets out the significant progress that has been made in laying the foundation for transformative infrastructure projects across the north of England, connecting key cities and areas across the region, enabling the north to become more than the sum of its parts. The report sets out the next steps, including major improvements to the north’s road networks, connecting the north’s regions better by rail, and enhancing the passenger experience of travelling across the north by using smart and integrated ticketing technologies.
Improving east-west connectivity is at the heart of the northern transport strategy report. Our work to date has shown that the north of England has a number of cities that perform well individually but lack the transport connectivity needed to drive improved output and employment. Boosting that connectivity is essential to creating that single and well-connected economy of the north, which is our objective in the northern powerhouse.
The hon. Lady’s debate specifically focuses on the city regions of Sheffield and Greater Manchester, both of which are key economic centres for the north; they are certainly at the forefront of all of our thinking on northern transport strategies. The cities and their wider regions are key to the success of the northern powerhouse, and there is significant potential for enhanced growth if we can link the two cities much more closely together. The economic case that she made was important, highlighting the lack of economic integration between two large cities that are only 40 miles apart compared with other neighbours, where the read-across is absolutely correct.
Both city regions have strengths in advanced manufacturing, nuclear energy, health technologies and IT. We need to make it quicker and easier for companies in those sectors and all others—we are talking about very diverse economies—to do business with each other. We also need to make it easier and quicker for skilled and experienced employees to work and develop careers across both city regions.
On road connectivity, we are committed to ensuring that strategic road travel is both free flowing and reliable. In announcing the road investment strategy in 2014, we delivered a step change in how road investment in this country is delivered.
Before 2020, we will commence improvements to a number of roads, greatly improving transport links and connectivity across the country. The north of England is obviously an important part of our road investment strategy. However, any conversation about links between Sheffield and Manchester must give due regard to ensuring that the spectacular natural beauty of the Pennines is preserved. That is why we are considering the case for a new high performance road tunnel between these two great cities.
A Government-commissioned study into that endeavour has already determined that there is a clear strategic case for a road tunnel. In addition to bringing potentially significant economic benefits to the region, this tunnel could also deliver environmental benefits to the Peak District national park. It does no service to the national park, with all of its beauty, that it should have back-to-back HGVs ploughing through difficult road conditions, causing all of the problems that come with that in terms of congestion and air quality.
I cannot at this stage provide concrete details about the project, such as the exact scale of the economic benefits, the cost or indeed the most important matter of a preferred route for a potential tunnel, but I will certainly be back to give the House a thorough update on those issues and on the study findings as soon as we have them. It is an important long-term project. It has been talked about in the north for very many years. We are taking it forward and are determined to make it a reality should all the criteria work for us.
This study, alongside studies considering the case for the significant improvements to the M60 and the north Pennines connectivity, the A66 and the A69, will publish its final report by the end of the year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already allocated £75 million from the £300 million transport development fund to ensure that, if these studies indicate that there is a strong case for developing these schemes, we can get shovels in the ground on these transformational projects as soon as possible.
Andrew Bingham
The improvements to the A628 and the A57, the Mottram relief road and the Glossop Spur, are very welcome. The Minister will know from his visit to High Peak not long ago that we need to extend that work. I really must stress that, although this is welcome, speed is the key. I do not mean the speed of the traffic as it trundles through Glossop at 5 mph, but the speed of delivering these projects, because we are experiencing huge problems in my constituency.
Andrew Jones
I very much enjoyed the visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and the point he makes was brought home by that visit and by talking to residents and to neighbouring colleagues from this House who also joined us on that visit. I will come on to talk a bit more about that very shortly, but his point is fair, and I agree with the urgency of the case.
The tunnel and these long-term studies are examples of the kind of forward-thinking, long-term planning that has been a characteristic in transport planning in our country and is something that we are trying very hard to recover. We have made a good start on that, and it is a key part of our approach to transport. We are also committed to putting in place improvements to transport corridors between Sheffield and Manchester in the more imminent future. That builds on the points mentioned by my hon. Friend.
We have already announced a number of measures that will seek to alleviate pressure on the transport network in the short to medium term. This includes improvements to the A628 in the Peak District national park, with the introduction of two overtaking lanes. There are also additional upgrades on both sides of the national park, with schemes due to improve both the Mottram Moor link road and the A61, improving journeys between Manchester and all of south Yorkshire. There are also other smaller measures in place to address accident blackspots.
On timing, it is expected that construction of the schemes set out in the first roads investment strategy will commence by March 2020. I know that my hon. Friend and other colleagues across the House are impatient for progress, so I will do all that I can to look at ways in which we can advance that date through the design and delivery process. Nevertheless, I must also stress that we will work closely with the National Park Authority to ensure that these improvements are in keeping with the Peak District national park’s protected landscape.
Angela Smith
The Minister will be aware of the controversial history of any attempt to deal with congestion, particularly around Mottram and Tintwistle. May I ask him to work effectively with groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Friends of the Peak District to ensure that we keep not just the national park onside but the environmentalists, who have a passionate concern about our wonderful national park?
Andrew Jones
I happily give that commitment to make sure that we work as widely as possible. Our objective is not just to solve a transport issue and improve quality of life for residents as a result of the economic benefits that come from transport investment, but to improve the protection of a wonderful national park and people’s experience of that park. We will happily consult widely with communities and stakeholders on all these measures.
Turning to rail services, upgrading our rail network will make journeys faster, easier and less crowded. Businesses will be able to recruit from a wider labour pool, and people will be able to travel to a wider range of jobs without having their horizons limited by the distance from their home and the challenges of travelling time. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the new Northern and TransPennine franchises began on the first of this month, and she has welcomed the benefits, which are significant for rail passengers across the north. The new franchises will deliver more than 500 brand new carriages, space for 40,000 extra passengers at the busiest times and thousands of extra services, plus investment to improve stations. The line between the key northern cities will have more trains, with new trains and services, which is a significant change. Alongside that, the north of England rail infrastructure upgrade programme includes a substantial electrification programme and other track, station, depot and signalling improvements to enhance the capability of the northern rail network.
As part of the proposed northern hub programme of capacity enhancements—the northern hub is something for which the hon. Lady campaigned for a considerable time, and I was happy to join that campaign—Network Rail proposes to carry out works at the eastern end of the Hope Valley line, which has been a key connection between Sheffield and Manchester since it was completed at the end of the 19th century. A passing loop is to be provided east of Bamford station, and the line is to be redoubled at Dore and Totley station. The purpose of the scheme is to enable an increase in passenger services between Manchester and Sheffield and to improve access, with a sustainable means of transport, to the Peak District national park.
A public inquiry on Network Rail’s application for legal powers and planning permission for the scheme will open in Dore on 10 May. The independent inquiry inspector will submit a report and recommendation to the Department for Transport. In view of the Department’s role in deciding the application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the scheme at the moment.
We are working to establish better rail connections across the whole of the north of England. In March 2015, the Government and Transport for the North set out the vision for the northern powerhouse rail network—HS3, as it is sometimes called. South Yorkshire is certainly part of those plans; there is no question about that. It is an ambition for radically faster, more frequent links between the six city regions of the north: Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle, and Hull, along with Manchester airport. That ambition includes, for example, six trains an hour with 30-minute journey times between Sheffield city centre and Manchester, and better connectivity for passengers from south Yorkshire to Manchester airport. Initial findings, published in the spring 2016 report on the northern transport strategy, indicate that that is likely to include a mixture of upgrades to existing lines, the construction of new lines, and the use of northern sections of HS2.
At the same time, the National Infrastructure Commission agreed that the north needs a high speed, high frequency network between its six city regions. Working with TfN, we are continuing to develop options, and by the end of this year we will have a more detailed view of the physical work required to deliver each option within a corridor. This includes analysis of the indicative costs and benefits, in order to move towards proposing a preferred option on each corridor.
It is clear that we are working hard to establish much better links between the cities of the north, particularly Sheffield and Manchester. They are great cities and an important part of the northern powerhouse. Connectivity is at the heart of progress. We are taking action now and planning for the long term to ensure better futures for both cities. I look forward to reporting to colleagues in the House the progress that we are making as the reports and development work take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2016
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016.
It is a great pleasure, Mr Davies, to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time.
The draft regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State under the power in section 19 of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015. They can be made only if they have first been approved by both Houses of Parliament. They were considered and approved by the other place on 22 March. The purpose of the power in section 19 is to make provision adding or removing circumstances in which a person is potentially within the scope of the 2010 Act.
The draft regulations will add to the list of circumstances in which the 2010 Act may apply to corporate and other bodies that are subject to certain sectoral insolvency regimes or, with limited exceptions, have been dissolved. When the changes have been made, the 2010 Act will be able to be brought into force without adversely affecting people who are within the scope of the 1930 third parties legislation that is to be replaced by the 2010 Act, but are not within the scope of the 2010 Act. The reforms to be introduced by the 2010 Act are supported by insurers and claimants alike. The benefits of the legislation apply to insurance of all kinds and will be particularly beneficial in cases of long-tail industrial diseases, such as mesothelioma. To set the draft regulations in context, let me explain briefly the principles underlying the third parties legislation.
Third parties legislation has existed since the 1930s. It is so called because the claimant is a third party in relation to the contract between the insurer and the insured. The current legislation is the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, which applies to England, Wales and Scotland, and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1930, which applies to Northern Ireland. The purpose of the 1930 Acts and indeed the 2010 Act is to protect the interests of claimants against insured persons who have a liability to the claimant, but who no longer have effective control of their assets. Typically, this occurs if the insured person is insolvent.
The basic effect of the third parties legislation is to transfer to a third party to whom an insured has incurred a liability the contractual rights of the insured against the insurer as regards that liability. This has the effect that the proceeds of the insurance policy are paid to the claimant not the general creditors of the insolvent insured, which is particularly important when insurance is compulsory otherwise the purpose of having compulsory insurance would be negated. To put it crudely, the aim of the legislation is to prevent creditors from trumping victims. That is the basic point: a dry technical detail that is difficult to get one’s head around.
To trigger the application of the 2010 Act, an insured must both incur a liability to a third party against which it is insured and undergo an insolvency or analogous event specified in the 2010 Act. Unfortunately, following enactment of the 2010 Act, it was found, at least in some respects, to have a narrower scope than the 1930 legislation. This was partly a result of the terms used in the drafting of the 2010 Act and partly because of developments in insolvency law following the financial crisis of 2008.
The operative provisions of the 2010 Act have therefore not yet been brought into force and will not be until these defects have been remedied. It is this remedial process that is so essential to realising the benefits of the 2010 Act, which is intended to extend and improve the protection conferred by the 1930 legislation. That is the point of the regulations. Part of the remedial process was effected by amendments to the 2010 Act made by the Insurance Act 2015 and the draft regulations will complete the process.
Let me now describe the working of the amendments to be effected by the draft regulations. First, they extend the list of circumstances where the 2010 Act may apply by adding the sectoral insolvency or administration procedures listed or referred to in the provisions to be inserted in the 2010 Act by regulation 3 of the draft regulations.
Those additions cover the possibility of insolvency or administration under special legislative regimes that generally follow, but are distinct from, procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986 in a wide range of important business sectors where company failure has the potential to damage the public interest or cause market contagion, for example, the kind of things that might follow the collapse of a financial services, postal or energy utility company.
Secondly, regulation 4 extends the scope of the 2010 Act in relation to dissolved bodies, which do not have effective control over their rights and assets. The 2010 Act currently applies to dissolutions under sections 1001, 1002 or 1003 of the Companies Act 2006, but not to other types of dissolution. Regulation 4 broadens the scope of the application of the 2010 Act to include those other kinds of dissolutions, to ensure they are all covered.
The proposed coverage of dissolutions generally will, however, not extend to the dissolution of unincorporated partnerships. Our view is that that exception is sensible, as technically at least a partnership dissolves each time a new partner leaves or is added.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am sure that in relation to regulation 4 my hon. Friend was coming on to explain the point made in paragraph 7.9 of the explanatory memorandum.
“Unincorporated partnerships are excluded from the dissolution provisions in regulation 4 and the provisions of regulations 5 and 6 because they dissolve whenever there is a change in membership (for example the retirement of one partner).”
The provisions are supposed to cover dissolutions in the sense of bankruptcy. The question I put to my hon. Friend is: what happens if an unincorporated partnership goes bankrupt? He will probably tell me that partnerships are jointly and severally liable, which they are, but what happens in the event that the partners themselves go bankrupt?
The explanatory note says:
“Regulation 4 inserts new section 6A in the 2010 Act, extending its coverage to all dissolved corporate and unincorporated bodies except when the body in question is an unincorporated partnership or is treated as not having been dissolved as a result of subsequent events (the latter may still be “relevant persons” by virtue of another provision).”
That last part is what makes the situation unclear. What is the position with unincorporated partnerships?
Mr Raab
The primary objective in relation to partners, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is that the insured would be required to proceed against the individual partners. I will take advice on the consequential effects of that in relation to the specific technical points he raised and perhaps deal with those in my closing speech. The principal answer to his question is that someone would have to proceed against the individual partners, and therefore the usual caveats that apply to partnerships also apply here.
The other qualification that I should mention is that bodies that have been dissolved but are no longer being treated as if they were dissolved, perhaps because they are companies that have been restored to the register, are not included within the scope of the new provision for so long as they are no longer treated as being dissolved. That qualification follows the treatment of dissolutions already in the 2010 Act.
The remainder of the draft regulations deal with ancillary matters and I will touch on them briefly. Regulations 5 and 6 amend section 9 of the 2010 Act and paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 2010 Act respectively. Section 9 of the 2010 Act provides that a third-party claimant to whom the 2010 Act applies does not have to satisfy a condition of the insurance policy regarding provision of information or assistance to the insurer by the insured, if the condition cannot be fulfilled because the insured has died or is a body corporate that has been dissolved.
Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 2010 Act gives a claimant a right to request information from officers, employees, insolvency practitioners or official receivers of a defunct body corporate. The draft regulations extend section 9 of the 2010 Act and paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 2010 Act to all dissolutions, other than those of unincorporated partnerships, irrespective of whether subsequent events result in the body in question being treated as if it is no longer dissolved, or as if it had never been dissolved.
The reason for the wider application of these provisions is that most situations of this nature involve reversing a dissolution—for example, restoration to the register of companies—and they are therefore temporary and unlikely to result in there being a person who is responsible and able, on behalf of the body in question, to assist the claimant by being able to fulfil the condition or to supply the information in relation to the liability.
Before concluding, may I express my Department’s thanks to all those who have contributed to the preparation of the draft regulations, including the Insolvency Service, the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the commercial and common law team at the Law Commission, who have worked very hard on a lot of the fine detailed points that have gone into the regulations? Finally, I want to thank the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission more generally for their continuing support for the reform of third parties legislation.
As the draft regulations have not yet been approved by both Houses the date for commencement of the 2010 Act has not yet been set, but the Government’s intention is to bring the 2010 Act, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015, and these regulations into force as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to allowing no less than three months from the making of the regulations to allow those affected to prepare for the coming into force of the new legislation.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Christina Rees
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument and I confirm that it is not controversial. In fact, I have a letter from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers stating that this is a rare situation where both the Association of British Insurers and APIL are in agreement.
We are happy to support the provisions, as we supported, of course, the 2010 Bill as it went through Parliament. As the Minister will know, at the current time we have many criticisms of much of what the Ministry of Justice does. However, in this instance we praise the work being done. I have some questions and comments for the Minister’s consideration, but they are brief.
My first point is in relation to those that this Act will help, and highlights the need for it to be enacted swiftly. Although it will improve the situation for a whole range of people with insurance claims, it will particularly benefit mesothelioma victims because their life expectancy is typically quite short after diagnosis, so a quick resolution is of great importance. As it stands, the law dictates that the claimant must sue his employer, despite it usually being the employer’s insurer that pays the compensation.
In many mesothelioma claims, however, the culpable employer has gone out of business due to the amount of time that has passed. That means that the employer has to be resurrected and restored to the register of companies, which costs time and money, and even then, in some cases, the company will disappear again. That is a stressful procedure for those who may not have long to live due to their illness. The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 would make this costly and time-consuming procedure unnecessary. It will ensure that more people are able to claim, as well as speed up the process, and reduce the costs of bringing a claim, something I am sure Members on both sides can agree with. To ensure that that happens soon the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015 and the regulations, should be brought in swiftly.
I wish to refer to the point made in the other place in March about paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum, which is about the impact of the measure. Paragraph 10.3 states:
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for the Regulations because the amounts involved fall below the threshold at which an assessment has to be prepared.”
Will the Minister please tell the Committee what that threshold is? Paragraph 8.3 states that charities have been consulted and are content with the proposal. I am pleased that that is the case, as charities can often be at a disadvantage, due to not having the same resources as Government when changes to law come into place.
I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with the points I have raised. I end by welcoming this statutory instrument, by pressing for it to be enacted as soon as possible, and by thanking the Minister and his team for presenting it so clearly to the Committee this afternoon.
Mr Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her support and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds for his intervention. I will touch briefly on one or two of the points that have been raised.
My hon. Friend asked how an unincorporated partnership could be sued. I understand his concern about partnerships. It is possible for third parties to bring claims against partnerships, for example, partnerships that are wound up under part 5 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are a “relevant person” for that purpose. In addition, a third party could bring a claim against a single partner and rely on the principles of joint and several liability, to the extent that they apply.
The hon. Member for Neath was supportive of the regulations, which we welcome. I agree with her that it is rare and welcome to get support from insurers, the legal profession and the claimants. There is cross-party support for the idea that we can fix some of these problems in that collegiate manner.
The hon. Lady raised a particular point about the impact assessment. We would normally expect the impact of regulations to cross a threshold of £1 million for that provision to be invoked, and we estimate that these regulations will fall substantially below that.
I think that deals with the two substantive points that were raised. To sum up, the draft regulations will extend the scope of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, to include the specific sectoral insolvency and administration regimes, and most dissolutions of corporate and non-corporate bodies.
Of course, that sounds dry legal stuff, but the regulations will allow the benefits of the 2010 Act, which will implement and realise the recommendations of both the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, without removing some of the categories of claimants who are currently protected by third parties legislation and who would otherwise miss out. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Policing and Crime Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 April 2016 - (12 Apr 2016)
The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
I beg to move amendment 148, in clause 50, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“(8) In the Criminal Justice Act 2003—
(a) in section 24A(5)(b) (purposes for which person may be kept in police detention) for “section 37D(1)” substitute “section 47(4A)”, and
(b) in section 24B(5) (application of provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)—
(i) omit paragraph (a), and
(ii) in paragraph (c) at the end insert “except subsections (4D) and (4E)”.”
This amendment is consequential on the changes made in clause 50. It relates to persons who are arrested because they are believed to have failed to comply with conditions attached to a conditional caution.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 3—Release without bail: fingerprinting and samples.
Government new clause 4—Release under section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Government new clause 5—Duty to notify person released under section 34, 37 or 37CA of PACE that not to be prosecuted.
Government new clause 6—Duty to notify person released under any of sections 41 to 44 of PACE that not to be prosecuted.
New clause 48—Scrutiny of investigatory capabilities—
“(1) Police and crime plans produced under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, must include an annual assessment of the capability of the police to properly investigate crimes within the 28-day pre-charge bail time limit.
(2) The assessment must consider any—
(a) changes to the number of suspects released without bail,
(b) resource constraints, including staff numbers,
(c) safeguarding requirements of victims, witnesses and suspects, and
(d) issues around multiagency work.”
This new clause would make it mandatory for Police and Crime Commissioners to produce an annual assessment of the capability of police forces and other agencies to meet the mandated 28 day pre-charge bail limit.
New clause 49—Cooperation of relevant agencies in investigations—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require relevant agencies to cooperate promptly with police in carrying out investigations of suspects.
(2) Relevant agencies may include, but are not limited to—
(a) the Crown Prosecution Service,
(b) forensic examiners,
(c) health authorities, and
(d) banks and financial institutions.
(3) Alongside any additional duty to cooperate, the Home Secretary must carry out an assessment of the relevant agency’s resource capacity to provide relevant information or services within the 28 day limit for cases where suspects are released on pre-charge bail.”
This new clause would allow the Home Secretary to mandate cooperation of relevant agencies with police forces in conducting investigations, and would allow for scrutiny of whether relevant agencies have the necessary capacity and resource to cooperate within the required length of time.
Mike Penning
Briefly, the Government amendments and new clauses in this group are consequential, to ensure that we tidy up any loose ends. I know that the shadow Minister will speak in a moment to new clause 48 and, if I may, I will respond to his concerns when he has done so.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Let me say at the start that we agree with the principle of what the Government are seeking to achieve. We want to raise issues of practicality that were cited, for example, in the evidence given to the Committee by both the National Police Chiefs Council and the chief superintendents.
New clause 48 would make it mandatory for police and crime commissioners to produce an annual assessment of the capability of police forces and other agencies to meet the mandated 28-day pre-charge bail limit. I stress again, as we said on Second Reading, that reform of police bail is absolutely overdue. The current system has been criticised from both sides, on the grounds that it unfairly leaves people under investigation for long periods before they have even been charged for an offence and that it does not offer the necessary safeguards in the cases of people who pose more of a risk to the public. I will say more on that later.
A more targeted approach is therefore needed that does not unfairly restrict the liberty of people whose guilt is far from proven but that has teeth when it needs to. The case of Paul Gambaccini is a stark example of why the system has to change. We are in complete agreement that we need a common-sense approach to cases in which people have been on bail continuously but no evidence is found. Investigations need to be conducted swiftly and fairly, yet a 2013 BBC freedom of information request, to which 40 police forces responded, found that 71,256 people were on pre-charge bail and 5,480 had been on bail for more than six months. Our concern is that the Government are mandating a 28-day pre-charge bail limit, the aim of which is welcome, but are not addressing the root causes of delays in investigations.
Let us start with the key problem with cases such as that of Paul Gambaccini: individuals who are suspected of a crime but who are not ultimately charged can be under investigation for a long time before a decision not to charge is reached. As we are well aware, that can have a hugely negative impact on the lives of suspects and their families, and in cases where charges are brought and suspects are eventually found guilty, we do not want a system that involves prolonged periods before victims see any kind of justice. We therefore need to tackle why these investigations take so long.
Alongside the measures contained in this Bill, the Government need to have a careful look at where the system can be improved, where extra capacity is needed and what impact reductions in resources are having. For example, Home Office workforce figures show that 40,000 police jobs were cut between 2010 and 2015, with a 30% cut in police community support officers, 20% fewer police staff jobs and 13% fewer police officers. The police are therefore juggling carrying out investigations with patrols, immediate response to emergency incidents and life-saving preventive work. Resources will inevitably have an impact on how quickly police forces can get things done and how able they feel to prioritise investigative work.
Do the Government have any considered idea of what impact resource reductions are having on the capability of forces to carry out timely investigations? What resources will be required under this clause? For example, as regards a super structure of police superintendents to oversee the changes proposed by the Government, the point has been made very strongly by the chief superintendents that it would take out several of their number whose job it would be to supervise the new arrangements that the Government seek to put in place. Crucially, our amendment would require an assessment of this question by police and crime commissioners themselves.
Similarly, cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service and to other agencies are being seen to have a knock-on effect, and I will come back to that point shortly. We do not want the outcome of these proposals to be simply that more people are released not on bail. Chief Constable Alex Marshall noted in his evidence to the Committee that, according to the College of Policing’s bail pilot, early indications of the data were that 70% of those released on pre-charge bail
“were bailed for more than 28 days.”
This was because officers were waiting, while
“getting professional statements from doctors and others, getting phones and computers analysed, taking detailed statements from vulnerable victims of crime, getting banking information and details, and getting forensics analysed”.
He went on:
“We agree that the time limits should be closely monitored…The onus will rest on many people across the system to respond much more quickly to requests from the police conducting their investigation.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2016; c. 78, Q45.]
He is absolutely right. We do not want a situation in which, due to factors beyond their control, police have no choice but to release not on bail in order to meet the time limit. Clearly, in cases where bail conditions play a necessary role in safeguarding, this would have serious consequences for victims, witnesses and the general public.
In the Government’s consultation, suggestions from respondents included consideration of the needs of the victims of crime, including safeguarding requirements and special interview requirements. The need to safeguard complex investigations was also raised. Early indications of the College of Policing’s pilot were that, of the 950,000 arrests in a year, about 30% were released on pre-charge bail. If that starts to change dramatically, and many more people are released not on bail due to the proposals in the Bill, the Government will have to reflect on and address that. That is why the part of this amendment that requires an assessment of any changes in the number of people released not on bail is so important. Alex Marshall’s comments relate very closely to new clause 49 and the issue of third-party delays preventing police officers from taking critical decisions within the required timeframe in an investigation.
This amendment would allow the Home Secretary to mandate co-operation of relevant agencies with police forces in conducting investigations, and would allow for scrutiny of whether relevant agencies have the necessary capacity and resource to co-operate within the required length of time. The Crown Prosecution Service, forensic examiners, health authorities, banks and financial institutions, to name but a few, are all third parties that the police rely on in the preparation of a case, so the Government’s proposals in the Bill address only one part of the investigatory process.
In the Government’s own consultation on the proposal, they found that the most commonly raised suggestion was that matters outside police control should be taken into account, such as Crown Prosecution Service timescales, forensic examinations—including digital—and international inquiries.
In the 119 responses—or 40% of those who responded —highlighting the resource implications of each model, the most commonly raised issues were on the need for increased resources, including greater staff numbers. As Committee members will be aware, a number of pieces of existing legislation impose statutory duties on third parties to provide reports or information within a set timeframe, such as the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, the National Health Service Act 2006 and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. However, as we have argued with pre-charge bail limits, the Government must not just mandate co-operation by third parties, they must also assess the relevant agencies’ capacity and, crucially, take a proactive approach to ensuring that agencies have the tools at their disposal to provide relevant information or services within the limit. For example, when consulted on the proposals, the Ministry of Justice highlighted concerns that the numbers of cases that would fall to be considered in the Crown court will exceed the available capacity in Crown court centres. Further to that, the Government proposed to have all pre-charge bail hearings dealt with in the magistrates court. I would be interested in the Government’s assessment of the capacity of magistrates courts and the ability of the Ministry of Justice to accommodate the projected costs of the additional hearings.
The Government need to listen on this important issue. In principle, they are doing the right thing in terms of the direction of travel, but they need to listen to the widespread concerns about the practicalities of implementing their proposals; they need to listen to what the police and other agencies are telling them about the major constraints on timely investigation, address those constraints and take a comprehensive approach to scrutinising the role of all agencies in the investigatory process, including, but not limited to, the police. That is what these two new clauses seek to achieve, and I urge the Government to take further action in parallel with their proposals in the Bill.
Mike Penning
May I say at the outset that I acknowledge and understand where the shadow Minister is coming from, even though I disagree on the need for the new clauses? We acknowledge that the new system will put pressures on the forces. We accept that, but at the moment we have a situation where the police can have unlimited police bail. That is unacceptable. We have consulted, listened carefully and 28 days should be the marker going forward. Of course, a superintendent or above can authorise extensions, and magistrates can authorise beyond that. We absolutely accept that the police will need more time in some complex cases and where the crime changes, but they have to explain why, unlike in the present system.
Whether and how the new system is working will be assessed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary within its police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy reviews. That is a robust system. I do not think there is a PCC or chief constable in the country who would argue that Tom Winsor’s regime is not fair and robust. Sometimes they say to me that it is not fair and robust—but it is independent, it is there, and that is exactly right. We will keep the need for further reporting under review, but I do not want to put further bureaucracy on to the PCCs.
I fully understand the inter-agency point. We need to break down the silos so that we work more closely together. However, the shadow Minister referred to the consultation in his comments; a clear majority—two thirds—of consultation responses were in favour of establishing memorandums of understanding between the agencies rather than a statutory review. That is what the consultation said, and that is why we have gone down this route rather than the statutory one. I say again that we will keep that under review—but if there is a consultation where two thirds respond in favour of one way, and they are then completely ignored in favour of the statutory route, they will argue, “What is the point of a consultation?”.
It is so early in the morning to disagree already, but although I understand where the shadow Minister is coming from, the Government, sadly, do not feel the need for new clauses 48 and 49.
Jack Dromey
First, the Police Minister is right to be frank: this set of proposals will put pressure on not just the police but a whole range of other agencies. I note what he said of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and its PEEL reports, and I add that the College of Policing and the Home Affairs Committee will keep this matter under review. I also welcome the proposed memorandum of understanding so that we can make the new system work. On that basis, and given those assurances, we will not press our amendments to a vote.
Amendment 148 agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Restrictions on places that may be used as places of safety
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 157, in clause 60, page 68, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) Before a house, flat or room where a person is living is used as a place of safety the patient must first be offered one of the following locations as an alternative place of safety—
(a) a residential accommodation provided by a local social services authority under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act 1977;
(b) a hospital as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983; or
(c) a mental health care home.”
This amendment would require that a patient was offered a health-based place of safety as an alternative to their, or someone else’s, home being used as a place of safety.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 159, in clause 61, page 69, leave out lines 31 to 38 and insert—
“the point at which the decision is taken to remove a person to a place of safety, or keep them at the current place of safety.”
This amendment would mean that the permitted period of detention started when the decision was taken to remove a person to a place of safety, rather than the point at which they arrived at the place of safety.
Amendment 158, in clause 61, page 69, line 31, leave out “24” and insert “12”.
This amendment reduces the permitted period of detention to 12 hours.
Government new clause 28—Protective searches: individuals removed etc under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
New clause 11—Detention in places of safety: annual reporting—
“(1) Police forces in England and Wales must publish an annual report containing statistics on the usage of the power to detain a person in a place of safety.
(2) This report shall contain, but need not be limited to, information on—
(a) the number of detentions;
(b) the age of detainees;
(c) the length of detention; and
(d) the location of the detention.”
This new clause would require police forces to report annually on the number of detentions in places of safety, including information on the age of the detainee and the location and duration of the detention.
New clause 12—Access to Independent Mental Health Advocates—
“(1) A person detained in a place of safety under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall have the right to an independent mental health advocate (see section 130A of the Mental Health Act 1983).”
This new clause would extend the right to an independent mental health advocate to those detained under sections 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
New clause 50—Powers under the Mental Health Act 1983: reporting and review—
“(1) One year after section 59, 60 and 61 of this Act come into force the Secretary of State must lay before parliament a report on the impact of the changes to powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 on mental health assessment and outcomes.
(2) This report shall contain, but need not be limited to, information on—
(a) length of time taken from commencement of mental health assessment of an individual under sections 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act, to either the discharge, admittance to hospital or extension of period of detention of these individuals,
(b) availability of trained medical professionals to carry out assessments, and
(c) availability of hospital beds for persons deemed to require inpatient care.
(3) In producing this review the Home Secretary must consult the Secretary of State for Health.”
This new clause would make it mandatory for the Home Secretary to report on the impact of Section 59, 60 and 61 on mental health assessment and outcomes. This would allow for scrutiny of whether the proposals improve the outcomes for those subject to police detention and mental health assessment, and whether health providers have the capacity to carry out timely assessments and provide any necessary inpatient care.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I have said in Committee, and on the Floor of the House, that I recognise that the Government are trying to make progress on ensuring that the way in which people with mental illness are treated by the police is both compassionate and secures them the help that they deserve. The problem that is evident today, and will be as the Bill continues its journey through this House and the other place, is that although the Home Department is trying to improve the situation, the elephant in the room is the resources and activities of the Department of Health. This is an area in which two Departments are intertwined, because the issues are quite clearly not, in essence, a police matter, although the police are left to resolve the problem.
Amendment 157 recognises that the Government have tried to emphasise that a police cell is the worst place for not only a young person but an adult. I commend the Government’s initiative in trying to ensure that few adults, and certainly no children, are detained in a police cell. We have to ask why they are currently detained, which is—I am going to be very political—because of the reduction of beds and facilities by the Department of Health. I have tabled amendment 157 because the Government, quite helpfully, have no objection to a place of safety, under the Mental Health Act 1983, being someone’s flat or home, because that is a place in which those individuals can be supported by mental health services and other agencies. That is important. The problem is that it might become the default position that people are forced to stay in their homes if an alternative is not available. I put it to the Committee that most of us, given the choice between staying at home or being in a police cell, would stay at home. However, that does not guarantee that home is the best place of safety.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and speaks with authority on the subject. Does he recognise that there are some excellent local examples of clinical commissioning groups working well with the police? In Kingston we have a new project where the mental health trusts, the clinical commissioning group and the Met police have come together to provide just the kind of facility we are talking about. Although there is more to do nationally, there are some good local examples of the policy working.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the few good things that came out of the Health and Social Care Bill was that it allowed local providers to develop contracts out of the box, perhaps with the third sector and others, to provide good local services. I am on record as having said that. I have to say that in my own area and nationally that has not happened in practice because unfortunately the default position is that the contracts that have been awarded are so large that a lot of small, good voluntary organisations that could provide those services are not getting a look in.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the project in his constituency, but we need to ensure that there is uniformity across the piece. If we have a situation where the only option is for people to go to a police station or stay at home, that is not satisfactory.
Amendment 159 is also probing, aiming to explore and again bring pressure on the Department of Health. With regard to the time limits put in place around the place of safety, it is important that people are assessed quickly. It is no good waiting, in a police cell, hospital or any other facility, for a long time without assessment.
When being removed to a place of safety, it is important that the assessment is made quickly and undue time limits are not in place, for example, if someone has to travel a long distance to access a service. At the point of detention, a decision would start with the removal of the individual, certainly in terms of Lord Crisp’s report for the Commission on Acute Adult Psychiatric Care. That gives examples of people having to travel up to 50 km to access a mental health bed. If that were done in the back of a police car or van, it could take a long time and add to that individual’s distress. Again, I want to get the Minister’s thinking; I do not think for one minute that she wants anyone to be detained for an unduly long time without assessment. We are probing to find out what the Government are thinking in terms of trying to put pressure on the services that provide assessments. Can we get intervention at an earlier stage?
Amendment 158 is linked to the previous amendment and is another probing amendment. I welcome the reduction from 72 to 24 hours, showing again that the Government want to improve the situation. This probing amendment would further reduce the time from 24 to 12 hours. I would like to understand the Government’s rationale for agreeing to 24 hours. Under existing and proposed legislation, if someone is clearly incapable of assessment, that period can be extended. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has a target of three hours for someone to be assessed. I accept that there are difficulties: for example, if someone is intoxicated or has some other issue, with drugs or anything else, an assessment may not be possible for a long time, but I think that 24 hours is too long.
I have tabled these amendments to assist the Minister to press her Health colleagues to push the boundary. I accept what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said about some excellent local provision. We do need a uniform service, but it would be completely wrong for individuals to be detained longer than necessary. I would not, for one minute, suggest that any healthcare professional, police officer or the Government, for that matter, want to detain people. Early diagnosis and assessment are in the interest of the individual and help to ensure an efficient use of time.
Let me deal with new clauses 11 and 12. I may push new clause 11 to a vote because it is important. One fear I have is that we have before us a Home Office Bill which deals with the problem faced by police forces up and down the country of people being detained under the Mental Health Act. The right aim of the Home Secretary is to ensure that no one is detained in a police cell. Certainly, her target for young people is welcome and she clearly wants to get to a position whereby no adult is detained in a police cell either. The problem I have with that is that we may achieve the target in terms of the police—a police authority or a police and crime commissioner may be able to stand up and say, “We have nobody in police cells who has been detained under the Mental Health Act”, but unless we have some indication of what has actually happened to those individuals, it could mask a problem. It could move away from the clear spotlight that has been put on this, certainly in terms of young people being detained in police cells.
If the answer to the written question that we ask every year is that nobody is being detained in police cells, that is good, but if people are languishing in the community without support, or are unable to access the treatment that they want, that would let the Department of Health—again, not the Home Office—off the hook in terms of its responsibility to those individuals. It is important that we have reliable statistics, because we need to see where there are pressures, which there certainly are. Having talked to my local police force, I know that forces throughout the country are dealing with a lot of mental illness problems that they are not qualified to deal with. The system has failed when people with such problems turn up in police cells, so we need to address that.
I feel passionately about new clause 12, because, very strangely, the only people who are not allowed advocates under the Mental Health Act are people who are sectioned under section 135 or 136. I am not sure why that was agreed when that Act passed through this place. It may have been to do with cost, and I understand that if we offer everyone who is sectioned an advocate, costs will be incurred, but we are talking about ensuring that people with mental illness are given the right approach and support. If someone is arrested for any other crime, they should have an advocate to speak on their behalf. Many people think that those with mental illness will have family members or others to help them, but there are clearly individuals who do not, so there is no one there to speak on their behalf. There are also individuals who go into crisis whose family members have never experienced anyone with mental illness and so will not know the right questions to ask or the rights of the individual.
The need for an advocate is particularly relevant to the issue I mentioned earlier: the home becoming a place of safety. Is someone really going to object to their home becoming the “place of safety” if they have no one to advocate for them or understand their position? I do not think they would. The default position would be that the easiest option is to stay at home, even though it might not be the best option for some individuals, so advocacy is very important.
As I said on Second Reading, sections 135 and 136 are unique powers that are, quite rightly, not used lightly. They are used to protect either the individual themselves or the people who might be in danger from their actions, but that still leads to people’s liberties being taken away from them. If the default position in this country is that someone who is arrested for a crime is entitled to legal representation, it is not too much to ask in this day and age that people who are detained—we are not talking about a massive number of cases—should at least, within a permitted period, be allowed an advocate to speak on their behalf and advise them. Properly done, that may well save time and money by ensuring that the individual takes the advice they are offered and by allowing the system—the police and health services—to ensure that that person is directed to the help they require.
The Chair
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman has expressed his intention to press new clause 11 to a Division.
The Chair
It might be helpful to the Committee if I point out that although both new clauses can be debated at this point, any Divisions will come later when we deal with new clauses.
Jack Dromey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who is a brave and doughty champion of those who have suffered from mental illness. There is no question but that real progress has been made in recent years, and he can take credit for the outstanding role that he has played in that process, which we see the benefits of in our constituencies and across the country.
I have seen non-custodial places of safety at the Oleaster suite in Birmingham and in the form of street triage arrangements around the country, including one team of three outstanding police officers in the east midlands. One of them took me to one side and said, “I’m passionate about what I do because my brother was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic eight years ago. I’ve supported him; I now want to support others like him.” The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that a police cell is no place for an ill person. I therefore completely support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said.
I want to speak only to new clause 50, although we support what has been said in respect of new clauses 11 and 12 and I will briefly refer to them. In our country there is a right to be represented, and that is all the more important in circumstances where there is a vulnerable individual—often one who is going through a terrible trauma in their life—who requires the support and advice that an independent representative or advocate can give. We therefore strongly support what my hon. Friend has said in respect of new clauses 11 and 12.
Returning to new clause 50, I will take this opportunity to repeat the concerns that were expressed across the House on Second Reading—the debate on these issues was excellent—and the concerns of medical professionals and the police. Although we welcome the objective of the proposals, the combination of the changes could put professionals in a difficult position. Assessments of those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 cannot be completed until a bed has been identified. Professionals should not have to choose between breaking the law by exceeding the 24-hour period if a bed cannot be identified and not breaking the law but releasing someone who should be detained. Yet HMIC has found that some of the most common reasons why the police used custody as a place of safety include
“insufficient staff at a health-based place of safety”
and
“the absence of available beds at the health-based place of safety”.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that such problems will not be fixed by the Bill or even by the Home Office. It is therefore essential that, alongside the Bill, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary work together to ensure that health service commissioners open sufficient beds and train sufficient professionals to deliver these welcome new commitments. New clause 50 would make it mandatory for the Home Secretary to report on the impact of the proposals in the Bill on mental health assessment and outcomes.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) spoke eloquently on Second Reading. He said:
“We cannot make demands on the police to change the way they do things in providing places of safety unless we actually provide places of safety.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 59.]
He is absolutely right. There are not enough beds in this country for mentally ill people who are suffering real crises and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has said, where beds are made available, long distances sometimes have to be travelled to take the individual in question to a safe place where they can be looked after. We therefore need cast-iron guarantees from the Department of Health that it is in a position to support police officers in treating those suffering from mental health crises with the dignity and support that they deserve.
The mental health crisis care concordat requires NHS commissioners to commission health-based places of safety for that purpose. It states:
“These should be provided at a level that allows for around the clock availability, and that meets the needs of the local population. Arrangements should be in place to handle multiple cases.”
However, there is not a specific statutory duty to commission health-based places of safety. In theory, the Mental Health Act could be amended to introduce a duty for clinical commissioning groups to commission suitable and sufficient health-based places of safety for persons detained under sections 135 or 136. Have the Home Office or the Department of Health considered that? We understand that, strictly speaking, such legislation is outside the scope of the Bill, but in parallel with the provisions here, the Home Office must have assurances from the Department of Health that they are going to make available the necessary capacity. That is why it is crucial to our amendment that the Secretary of State for Health is consulted. The Home Secretary and the Health Secretary should work together to ensure that the proposals improve the outcome for those subject to police detention and mental health assessment, and that health providers have the capacity to carry out timely assessments and provide any necessary in-patient care.
In conclusion, is there welcome progress in the right direction? On that there is absolutely no hesitation. However, on the issues that I have raised, the Government have yet to give assurances. I urge the Minister to act, to give Parliament, the public and the police whatever assurances are possible to ensure that the proposals in the Bill are not only brought forward with worthwhile intentions but implemented in practice, and that we avoid the possibility that in some cases they will do more harm than good.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to be back from Easter recess; I hope you had a pleasant break. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Durham, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for many years and who is known as a leading advocate for those suffering with mental health conditions, be they crises or long-term conditions. I respect him enormously; I look forward to meeting him soon to discuss the many points he has raised today and to ensuring that the Government take notice of his experience and expertise and that we can work together on these matters.
I also want to make a point about what we are dealing with here. In a section 135 or section 136 detention, we are not dealing with a long-term condition that is being managed; we are dealing with a crisis—with somebody who, for whatever reason, either for their own protection or that of others, needs to be detained under the Mental Health Act. This has to be a short-term detention, and it should be one in which they are treated with dignity and respect. Somebody who breaks their legs does not get taken to a police cell, and nor should somebody having a mental health crisis. They have committed no crime, but for their own safety and that of others, they need a short-term temporary detention. That is not the same as being sectioned long term under the 1983 Act; it is a short-term issue. It might arise, for example, as a result of alcohol or drug abuse, because of some personal issue that has happened, or—let us admit it—because there has been a failure, where something has been identified from a health perspective but without identifying that the individual may go into crisis. It is about the crisis.
I want to pay tribute to my own police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis in Staffordshire, who I think was the first police and crime commissioner to identify how much police time was being taken to deal with people in a mental health crisis. He estimated that it was 20%: one in five police days were taken up with dealing people in a mental health crisis. It says a lot about the system that was in place, in which it was easier for police to deal with this than it was for health workers. We know that we are dealing with a problem that has grown up over many years; we are tackling it and ensuring that it is dealt with appropriately.
I want to assure the Committee that this issue is not just dealt with by the Home Office. I work very closely with other Departments: not just the Department of Health, where my right hon. Friend the Minister for Community and Social Care is as absolutely determined as I am to ensure that this matter is dealt with, but the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and others. We need to ensure that we are all working together to identify the signs of mental health issues and ensure they are dealt with so they do not lead to a crisis. That is the important point.
The crisis care concordat, a cross-Government initiative, has led to a halving of the number of people being detained in police custody, but that is not good enough. That is why we are taking the steps in the Bill. We want to see this practice as the very rare exception when somebody in a mental health crisis ends up in police custody. We want the vast majority, and certainly those under 18, to be in a health-based place of safety.
The shadow Minister made a point about the east midlands police officer’s family member. Since I took on this brief, a number of people have spoken to me about their personal experiences of mental health in their families. This is something we are all waking up to in many ways. The issue has not been recognised for many years and I am glad we are talking about it and recognising the scale of the problem and ensuring that support is available.
I will turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Durham. As he said, amendment 157 seeks to introduce a requirement to offer a health-based place of safety before a private home is used. When a person is in a mental health crisis, it is important that they have access to the appropriate medical care at the earliest stage. I know we all agree on that.
In most section 136 cases people will be taken to a health-based place of safety, as is the case today. Usually, that will be a bespoke facility provided by the NHS that meets the national standards set out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The shadow Minister and I and my colleague who previously dealt with mental health have all visited health-based places of safety and been incredibly impressed by the work to provide somewhere safe and secure but also does not feel like a police cell. It feels like a medical setting and is comfortable. I visited one in Sussex—I know I have a Sussex MP behind me—where Katy Bourne, the excellent police and crime commissioner, has done incredible work on ensuring that there are sufficient and appropriate places of safety.
That facility at Crawley hospital has private access; the patient does not walk through the main hospital and A&E. The patient comes through a private door at the back into the mental health unit but in a secure section 136 facility where there is a bed, a private room and a bathroom. That is somewhere where someone can be treated with dignity while they experience the crisis, and can be diagnosed appropriately. Great credit should be paid to the many clinical commissioning groups and police and crime commissioners who are working together to ensure that those places of safety are there.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I am slightly concerned by Opposition amendments that want to create a national picture. Having a bespoke local model has meant that Sussex has gone from having one of the highest levels of detention of people in crisis to one of the lowest. That is working very well for the police, the health service professionals and, most of all, for the patients.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend, who represents her Sussex constituency extremely well, is right. When we looked at the figures, we asked why Sussex has a problem. It has Beachy Head and that is a particular problem. There is no Beachy Head in Staffordshire. There is a particular problem that the police and crime commissioner and the health services in Sussex have to deal with. The work that has been done there should be commended. Katy Bourne has worked not just to provide the health-based places of safety but with the Richmond Fellowship to understand the problems. That includes understanding why people are not always able to go to a health-based place of safety. It is shocking to discover that there are many health-based places of safety that will not take a person under the influence of alcohol.
We know that the majority of crises occur when somebody is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so it is important to educate and have appropriate facilities. I visited an excellent facility in Merseyside where they are able to cope with somebody under the influence of alcohol, give them time to sober up and recover from the alcohol or drugs, and then assess them appropriately as to their ongoing medical care needs.
Jack Dromey
The Minister speaks with authority and sincerity, and we welcome the progress that has been made. Unusually, what we want to do on this occasion is strengthen the arm of the Home Office because, while it is true that there are excellent examples of good provision all over the country, it is uneven and patchy, and too many people who suffer mental illness are still being let down. The crucial point—she may be coming to this—is how the Home Office addresses the reality that, ultimately, it is the Department of Health that funds this provision. Unless the Department of Health is compelled to work with the Home Office, the Home Office will forever have problems.
Karen Bradley
I know that it will seem odd to the shadow Minister for a Home Office Minister to refuse further powers, but I will at this stage. I will return to that point later.
I will deal first with whether a health-based place of safety is the most suitable place of safety in every case, which goes to the nub of amendment 157. As the hon. Member for North Durham knows, a private home can already be used as a place of safety for a person detained under section 136 of the 1983 Act if the occupier consents. Clause 60 will make it possible to use a private home as a place of safety after a section 135 warrant has been used to enter those premises.
Where consideration is given to using a private home, it should be because it is the most appropriate place of safety for meeting that person’s needs, and not due to a lack of better health-based alternatives. In determining which place of safety to take a person to, those involved will need to consider all the relevant circumstances in the round. However, if the person concerned is particularly frail or likely to be very distressed if away from familiar surroundings, removing them from a home setting may be judged to be, on balance, more harmful than helpful. Conducting the mental health assessment in the home may therefore prove both quicker and a more satisfactory experience for all concerned. Similarly, it may be preferable to take a young person to their family home, rather than detaining them in a strange place where they know no one.
There is no question of a person being taken to a private residence or forced to remain there against their will. The use of a private dwelling as a place of safety will require the active consent of both the person detained and the occupiers of the residence.
The shadow Minister talked of street triage. When I have met street triage teams across the country and seen mental health clinicians working with law enforcement, the best cases have been where the law enforcement officer has allowed the mental health professional to take responsibility for the necessary decisions. I have seen examples of the mental health professional, rather than the police officer, going into the place where the individual in crisis is, assessing them and determining whether they should be arrested or detained, whether at their own home, at somebody else’s home or in a health-based place of safety.
Anybody who has been in a police custody suite—I hasten to add that it was not as an inmate, in my case—will know that it is stark and brightly lit, with no shade and nowhere to hide. It is a horrible environment for somebody who is ill to find themselves in. Going to a health-based place of safety is a much better option, but it may be that some people can be treated better and get the appropriate care in their own home. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not saying that there is no need for health-based places of safety—absolutely not. We are determined that health-based places of safety will be available as they are needed, but for some people it is better to be treated in their own home. In the majority of cases I genuinely believe that the health-based place of safety is the best place, but for a small number that will not be the case.
The Bill is designed to increase the flexibility that police and medical professionals have to act in the best interests of the person concerned in a wide range of circumstances, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards remain in place to prevent abuses of such a system.
Amendment 159 seeks to provide that the period of detention would commence when a decision to detain was made, rather than on the person’s arrival at a place of safety. As the hon. Member for North Durham will know, sections 135 and 136 enable someone to be removed to a place of safety if that is required. Once they arrive at the place of safety, it is essential that the mental health professionals have sufficient time to conduct the assessment and arrange any further care and treatment that are required. Any individual in such a circumstance must have the opportunity to have a thorough assessment that is not driven by detention deadlines.
Amendment 159 would unfairly penalise both the people in need of care and the health professionals assessing them if the decision to remove them was taken in an isolated place and if getting them to a place of safety would take some time. I know from my constituency that in isolated rural constituencies, things just take more time. As it happens, one also cannot give birth in Staffordshire Moorlands because there is no maternity facility. If one goes into labour, it will take at least half an hour to reach a maternity hospital. That is the reality of isolated rural communities.
Similarly, what about situations in which removal is difficult and risky for all concerned—for example, when someone is threatening to jump off a bridge? An attending police officer would probably make the decision to detain very soon after arriving on the scene, but it might take time to get the individual off the bridge. Would it be reasonable to require the police officer, in that highly pressured situation, to think about the clock ticking towards a time when they would have to release the person, whether or not they had managed to get them to a suitable place for a mental health assessment?
I do not think that that is what the hon. Gentleman intends with his amendment. I think he intends to ensure that the person is transported to a place of safety as quickly as is reasonable. That can be addressed through guidance and the performance management of ambulance response times, rather than through legislation. Front-line professionals need to make the right decisions, taking account of the circumstances and the individual’s best interests.
Amendment 158 seeks to reduce further the permitted period of detention. As far as I can see, there is no disagreement among members of the Committee that the current period of up to 72 hours is much too long. It was put in place to take into account bank holidays, weekends and so on, but that is not good enough. We cannot have a situation in which, because someone has a mental health crisis on the Friday night of a bank holiday weekend, they find themselves in a police cell for 72 hours. That is simply unacceptable. It cannot be right to hold someone who is suffering a crisis and is in urgent need of a mental health assessment against their will for up to three days anywhere, not just in a police cell.
Clause 61 deals with that issue by introducing the concept of a permitted period of detention, and setting that period at 24 hours. We have also allowed for an extension by a further 12 hours if—and only if—the person’s clinical condition merits it. This is not a target time. Just as they are now, we expect that the vast majority of cases will be resolved much more quickly. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recommended, as a matter of good practice, that the assessment should start within three hours of the person being detained, and that has been built into the Mental Health Act code of practice. I want to be clear that 24 hours is not a target. We do not expect that a mental health assessment will start at 23 hours. We want it to start as soon as is reasonably practical, to ensure that the person gets the assessment and treatment that they need as soon as it is required.
We have been told by stakeholders that there will be occasions when the clinical condition of the person is such that they simply cannot be assessed immediately—for example, because they are intoxicated through drugs or alcohol. We have listened to that advice, and the maximum permitted period of detention has been set at 24 hours so that time is built in for the effects of intoxication to wear off. Otherwise, we would risk creating a situation in which the assessment process was made difficult or impossible because the person was unable to participate fully.
Equally, a shorter maximum detention period would risk the person having to be released before they had been assessed because they were not yet clinically fit to participate. Clearly, that would be in no one’s best interests. For those reasons, we have set the permitted period of detention at 24 hours. In the Government’s view, that provides a good balance between keeping periods of detention as short as reasonably possible and making sure that the assessment can be carried out in the most effective way.
The provision for an extension of not more than 12 hours over and above the original 24 hours, is for the very rare cases where the clinician responsible for carrying out the assessment is satisfied that the person’s clinical condition is such that the assessment cannot be started or completed within the 24-hour period. I want to be clear here: the provision to extend beyond 24 hours will be based solely on the person’s clinical condition. There is no scope for it to be used in any other circumstance, such as staffing problems.
In practice, the average period of detention is now less than 11 hours. That time includes the person being detained, the assessment being made and any future care or treatment arrangements arising out of that assessment being put in place. In the majority of cases, the necessary processes are already completed well within 24 hours. Of course, we recognise that the reduction to 24 hours may represent more of a challenge in some areas than others, but the work that is going on across England to improve mental health crisis care services, backed by both the national crisis care concordat and the 94 local concordat groups, is helping to develop services that can respond to the changing needs of the areas they serve.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for North Durham that the 24-hour time limit is not some arbitrary figure that has been chosen for convenience, but a deliberate decision that seeks to establish the balance between compulsion and care that I mentioned earlier.
New clause 11 seeks to introduce an annual reporting requirement in respect of detention in places of safety. The Government agree that the police should be transparent about the use of their powers under the Mental Health Act, so that we can see how often these sensitive powers are used, who they are used for and what further actions are taken. That will enable the changes being made through the Bill to be monitored effectively. It is only through looking at the data that we are in the position we are in. When my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister had responsibility for this area, he was determined to get to the bottom of what was and was not working well, and to make the decisions and changes that were needed to get to things working well across the country.
The Health and Social Care Information Centre and the National Police Chiefs Council publish annual data on detentions under sections 135 and 136 of the 1983 Act. For section 135, data are provided by health services covering the volume of detentions in which people are taken to a health-based place of safety. For section 136, the data include the numbers of people taken to police custody and health-based places of safety and are provided by the police and health services respectively.
However, we know that police data in this area have varied in quality. As a result, the Home Office is working with forces across England and Wales on a new data collection system for section 135 and 136 detentions to raise the level of consistency across the country. The new data set is voluntary in 2015-16, but will become a mandatory part of the Home Office’s annual data requirement for all forces in England and Wales from April this year—this month.
The annual data requirement will capture not only the number of detentions, but the age, ethnicity and gender of the people detained; the place of safety used, including, where applicable, the reason for using police custody; and the method of transportation and, where a police vehicle is used, the reason why. We intend to publish the data annually to ensure that there is full transparency, so I hope the hon. Member for North Durham will not need to ask written questions at that point.
Mr Kevan Jones
I welcome what the Minister has said, as it goes to the core of what new clause 11 aims to achieve. In what format will those data be published? Will there be a consistent approach, as she suggests, so that areas can be compared? That is the other important point to consider as this legislation progresses: we must ensure that it is working, that people do not end up in police cells and that we have comparable data from different areas.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we do not have comparable data, we cannot compare. My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who set this work in train, was adamant that we needed comparable, appropriate data, which would be available online, so that we could make a fair comparison.
It is a fair suggestion that the length of time for which people are detained should be recorded, but there are practical difficulties. It would be incredibly difficult for the police to keep such information, because, quite frankly, we do not want police officers to be part of the process once somebody has been detained under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act, apart from in the very rare cases where a police station is used.
Mr Kevan Jones
As I said, my amendments are probing amendments. I thank the Minister for the full way in which she has responded to them. I know, and I want to put it on the record, that she, too, has a genuine interest in this subject and wants to do the best for individuals who suffer mental health problems.
I welcome the Minister’s response to new clause 11. The data are going to be very important, because they will attest to whether the changes are working. By comparing areas with one another, local scrutiny will allow areas to improve their situations and to learn from best practice. As she said in response to an intervention, what happens in one area can be transferred to another.
I hear what the Minister says about new clause 12. I accept her point that this situation is very different from being sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health Act, but for people to be detained without any right to advocacy is unique. Like her, I do not want to overburden or inhibit the system, but there needs to be a basic right for individuals to have access to information. Given her commitment to further discussions on new clause 12, I shall not press it to a vote, but we may come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Application of maritime enforcement powers: general
Amendment made: 214, in clause 62, page 71, line 29, at end insert—
“( ) a National Crime Agency officer having the powers and privileges of a constable in England and Wales under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, or”.—(Karen Bradley.)
This amendment makes express provision for National Crime Agency officers to come within the definition of law enforcement officer that applies for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 4.
Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Firearms Act 1968: meaning of “firearm” etc.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 227, in clause 77, page 81, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would remove the exception for airsoft guns from the definition of a lethal barrelled weapon.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I, too, hope that you had a really happy holiday—I am learning from the Minister how to do these things.
The amendment would remove the exemption for airsoft guns from the definition of a lethal barrelled weapon from the Bill. It has been tabled as a probing amendment to understand why the Government have allowed an exemption in this case.
Lyn Brown
Oh heavens!
The Bill exempts airsoft weapons from the 1 J limit. If we pass the Bill without making the amendment, airsoft weapons will be allowed to exceed that limit; instead, they will not be able legally to exceed 1.3 J, or 2.5 J for a single-shot weapon. Why has the exemption for airsoft weapons been put in place? If the Home Office is of the view that a 1 J threshold successfully identifies a lethal weapon in other instances, why are airsoft weapons any different?
Deputy Chief Constable Andy Marsh has cited evidence from the Forensic Science Service that the 1.3 J and 2.5 J thresholds would not be lethal for airsoft weapons, as was noted by the Law Commission, but that research is from 2001 and therefore more than 14 years old. There must surely be something more recent. If there is not, why is that? Why have we not commissioned something?
Mike Penning
Unless my information is wrong, that research was done in 2011.
Lyn Brown
Well, my research tells me it was in 2001. We will wait for some inspiration on that.
There is some dispute about whether airsoft guns can be converted into weapons that can shoot lethal ammunition. I am told that numerous YouTube videos exist in which enthusiasts claim that they can do exactly that. It was revealed by a 2013 freedom of information request that the American Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives believes that some airsoft weapons can be converted. Given that, the Minister needs to explain the rationale behind the exemption of airsoft weapons from the standard 1 J limit. If 1 J is the definition of lethality and airsoft weapons can, as we understand, be converted to be lethal, it seems to me that they should comply with the 1 J limit and not be allowed a 1.3 J limit.
I accept that the Minister might well talk about the fun he has on his holidays playing these weird games.
The Chair
Order. The Committee will be fascinated to hear about the Minister’s holiday activities, provided that they are germane to the Bill.
Lyn Brown
Absolutely, Mr Howarth. My mind is boggling. I think I need to get back to the issue at hand.
The Minister may argue that the 1.3 J threshold is necessary to protect the airsoft industry, but the truth is that airsoft weapons could still be produced and carried without a firearms licence without this exemption; they would just have to be below the 1 J threshold of lethality. If airsoft guns are toys and not weapons, I do not see the problem with them being less powerful than lethal weapons. If airsoft enthusiasts still wish to have a powerful airsoft gun over the 1 J threshold, they could still do so without the exemption; they would just have to apply for the same licence and subject themselves to the same checks that we would expect for any other weapon that powerful. It does not seem to be too onerous a set of regulations to comply with.
Britain rightly prides itself on having among the most stringent gun control laws in the world. We see the public and their safety as the primary clients of gun control legislation. Elsewhere in the world, the so-called rights of gun owners are given preference, with tragic consequences. In this context, the Committee will be interested to know that Japan—where airsoft was invented and is profoundly popular—imposes a single 0.98 J limit on all guns, including airsoft weapons. Japanese manufacturers of airsoft weapons were happy to sign up to those regulations so, again, I do not see the need to exempt airsoft.
There must be a case for saying that a single power limit for all weapons, without exemptions or loopholes, would be legally preferable and more enforceable. That is what our amendment would achieve, and I know it is something for which the Gun Control Network, which was founded in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy, has campaigned. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Before I finish, I will talk about the use of airsoft weapons as realistic imitation firearms. These weapons are designed to look almost exactly like real firearms, and are only exempt from laws against the manufacture of realistic imitation firearms because of a set of defences provided in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. In other countries, such as Canada, airsoft weapons are treated as realistic replica weapons and regulated as such.
On seeing these guns, I was immediately worried that they could easily be used to threaten and intimidate. There is no doubt that the owners and manufacturers of these weapons pride themselves on their guns looking exactly like the most deadly of weapons. I urge members of the Committee to go online and look for themselves. Websites such as Patrol Base sell guns that look exactly like military assault rifles.
I was not surprised to read that a cache of airsoft weapons was seized in December from an ISIS terror cell in Belgium. Two men were arrested and military fatigues, airsoft weapons and ISIS propaganda were found in their property. Brussels’s main new year’s eve fireworks display was cancelled as a result of the find.
Let’s face it: if a terrorist walked down Whitehall with one of these guns and threatened to shoot us, we would fear for our lives and comply with the instructions given by the bearer of the gun if we were unable to run for our lives. Even if these weapons are not lethal, they can certainly bring fear and terror. I ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to reviewing the exemption for airsoft guns from the laws against realistic imitation firearms in the light of the incident in Belgium. If not, I strongly urge him to think about it.
I feel so passionately about this matter that if the Minister is unable to help us today, I would be happy if he would consider it further, write to me and perhaps come back to it on Report.
Mike Penning
As the shadow Minister indicated, we have some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. That is how it should be, and we will continue to strengthen and tighten the laws, providing clarity for the police and the public. I have looked at several aspects related to this matter.
I have two girls and I used to see toy guns when I went to toy shops with them when they were very young. Even as an ex-military man, I would not know the damn difference, from a distance, if someone came down Whitehall with one. Nevertheless, we are not going to ban all children’s toy guns. It is an offence to use a toy gun, or any other kind of replica, in that way. There are powers on the statute book.
I should declare that I have never used an airsoft weapon and I have never been to one of the play sites, but nearly 50,000 people do have the kind of fun that I have not enjoyed. Given the days I spent with real weapons, I would not fancy taking up such an invitation, but plenty of people do.
We looked carefully at proportionality and whether or not the 1 J limit recommended in the Law Commission’s report would have an adverse effect on the public’s enjoyment. We looked carefully at whether the police or the National Ballistics Intelligence Service had reported any instances of airsoft guns causing serious injuries, and they had not. We had to look at whether the effect would be proportionate on people who were enjoying an activity against which there was no evidence whatever. The Law Commission itself discussed in its report whether changing the limit would be proportionate. We have looked into the matter and can find no evidence of injuries.
We already have restrictions. I accept that other countries have made different legal decisions. I lived in Canada for a short time. Interestingly, hunting rifles and other weapons are freely available there, yet the velocity of airsoft weapons is restricted. We think that the existing legislation is proportionate. If someone wants to adapt one of these guns, other legislation is immediately triggered. For example, if it becomes a weapon and they are unlicensed, the sanction is five years or a fine. If someone creates a weapon from something that is not designed to be one and it becomes a firearm, that is captured by a completely different piece of legislation. If someone comes wandering down the street with a toy gun, let alone one of the weapons we are discussing, it is an offence if they use it inappropriately or in a threatening manner.
We do not want to prevent 50,000-odd people from enjoying themselves, even if they are enjoying themselves in ways that are slightly different from how the shadow Minister and I enjoy ourselves.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Was any research undertaken into what difference such a change would make? Airsoft weapons have been known to cause injuries, even when used in safe, recreational settings. Did the Department undertake any research into the likelihood of reduced injury if the power of the weapons was reduced from the proposed 1.3 J limit to 1 J or even 0.98 J, which is the limit in Japan?
Mike Penning
We looked at the evidence from the police and the National Ballistics Intelligence Service. Yes, there have been injuries, in which there might have been other factors, but the police have not reported any instances of serious injuries.
I understand the shadow Minister’s concern about something that neither of us are likely ever to enjoy, but 50,000-odd people do and I do not want to prevent them from doing so. I hope she will withdraw her amendment.
Lyn Brown
I hear what the Minister says, but I have not heard an explanation of why an airsoft weapon could not be 1 J or less than 1 J, as is the case in Japan. No evidence has been put forward today to suggest that that would stop the enjoyment of people who want to run through forests waving firearms. The other point that I do not understand is why it would spoil their enjoyment if airsoft weapons were a different colour—pink, red or green—so that they did not look as realistic as they do at the moment.
Mike Penning
I have finished. I am sorry, but I do not agree.
Amendment 227 negatived.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 and 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Applications under the Firearms Acts: fees
Lyn Brown
I beg to move amendment 228, in clause 80, page 83, line 31, leave out
“the amount of any fee that may be charged”
and insert
“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.
This amendment would ensure that the firearms licensing system achieves full cost recovery.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 229, in clause 80, page 84, line 7, leave out
“the amount of any fee that may be charged”
and insert
“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.
This amendment would ensure that the firearms licensing system achieves full cost recovery.
Amendment 230, in clause 80, page 84, line 27, leave out
“the amount of any fee that may be charged”
and insert
“that the fee charged must be equal to the full cost to the tax payer of issuing a licence.”.
This amendment would ensure that the firearms licensing system achieves full cost recovery.
Lyn Brown
These amendments would be a first step towards ending state subsidy of gun ownership. They would achieve that goal by ensuring that the full costs of licensing prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums are recovered.
Full cost recovery was a Labour manifesto pledge. It is a key objective of the Gun Control Network, and it is even stated as a policy goal in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill. It would therefore appear that we are all united in wanting to achieve the same end. However, the Bill would bring the licensing fee regime of prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums in line with the fees regime that exists for standard section 1 firearms. That is a problem. I do not believe that the fees regime for section 1 firearms provides for full cost recovery, so I do not have the confidence that these proposals will achieve full cost recovery for the licences that they control.
The Bill deals with relatively narrow issues around licensing fees. At the moment, there is no system to recover costs from the licensing of prohibited weapons. Subsection (1) will allow authorities to set fees for very powerful, prohibited weapons, such as rocket launchers, which can only be obtained with the permission of the UK Defence Council. The fee will be variable and set by the Secretary of State by regulations, just as is presently the case for ordinary section 1 firearms.
Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the licensing of pistol clubs and museums respectively. At the moment, such fees are fixed under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to change them by secondary legislation. The Bill will bring the licensing system for those institutions in line with the licensing system for individual firearm owners by granting the Secretary of State the power to change the fees by regulation and by allowing variable fees. The Bill does not actually propose any change in the fees for pistol clubs or museums, and as a result the amount of money that these proposals involve is relatively small.
The Government estimate that these changes will bring in £570,000 a year for the Home Office, £78,000 for the English and Welsh police, £42,000 for the Scottish Government and £6,000 for Police Scotland. As it is said, every little helps. That increased revenue is welcome, as is the capacity for the Secretary of State to change the fees when the costs of licensing increase; but however welcome these changes are, the unfortunate truth is that these proposals will only make a small dent in the gun ownership subsidy that still persists in this country.
In the previous Parliament, the Labour party campaigned on full cost recovery. Fees for section 1 firearms had remained frozen for too long, and as a result the taxpayer was subsidising gun ownership to the tune of £17 million a year. That is insane. The police estimated that the cost of licensing a firearm was £196, yet the fee was stuck at £50. The taxpayer was paying three quarters of the cost of a gun owner getting a licence.
To be fair to the coalition Government, they did respond to the pressure. A working group was set up by the Home Office, the police and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to consider the matter. After negotiations, it proposed that an £88 fee would be mutually acceptable to the police and shooters. The £88 fee was considerably short of the £196 that the police had independently estimated to be the true cost of licensing guns, but it was still a welcome increase. The £88 fee was finally introduced just before the general election. However, the fee was frozen for 14 years before it was finally increased. The £88 fee was arrived at only after negotiations with BASC and was not imposed following independent estimates.
Our amendments to the Bill would mandate the Secretary of State to set the cost of a licence for prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums at the full cost to the taxpayer. A legal requirement that the fee match the full cost would take some of the politics out of the process. The fee decisions would be based on an evidential analysis, conducted by the Home Office, of the true cost to the taxpayer. If the process proved to be successful for prohibited weapons, pistol clubs and museums, the Minister could consider extending it to section 1 firearms. This legislation could be a first step to true full cost recovery.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the issue. I urge him to accept amendments 228, 229 and 230. The taxpayer should not have to subsidise gun ownership, as it currently does. Our amendments would be a first step to bringing that unfairness to an end once and for all. Labour pushed hard for full cost recovery in the previous Parliament, and we have seen some movement from the Government on the issue. I urge the Minister to work with us, both by accepting our amendments today and by looking at the issue of section 1 licences in the future, to achieve what seems to be a realistic and realisable common goal.
Mike Penning
We are as one on the fact that the taxpayer should not subsidise licensing. The Bill, which is about Home Office licences, will not have an effect on police fees. However, given that the shadow Minister referred to police licence fees, I will respond to that as well. I completely agree that this should have been done years and years ago, under several Administrations. I will therefore look at police licence fees, which the Bill does not do, but which the hon. Lady was referring to.
The legislation has been changed. As from April 2015, police licence fees increased by between 23% and 76%, depending on the certificate type. That is the first increase since 2001. Once the new police online system, eCommerce, is introduced, fees will recover the full costs of licensing. That is specific: it is in the legislation. I had problems myself with the coalition Government, along with several of my colleagues.
Let us look briefly at the Home Office licence fees. I completely agree that it is wrong that the taxpayer is subsidising other organisations. Currently, combined, the authorisation and licensing of prohibited weapons, shooting clubs and museums costs the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 a year. I do not feel that the amendment is necessary: I will explain why. Clause 80 will create a consistent set of charging powers across all Home Office firearms licences and authorities. The Government’s intention is that licence holders, and not the taxpayer, should pay the full cost. The Government will set fees at the appropriate level, based on clause 80, but with agreement from the Treasury. Fees will be set out in a public consultation later this year, which will give affected organisations the chance to raise any issues. Final fee amounts will be introduced via regulations subject to the negative procedure.
Lyn Brown
What is the need for consultation on this? If the Home Office is going to impose the full cost of the licence fee on the person who is applying for the licence, what are we consulting about? If the consultation comes back with some interested group saying, “We can’t afford this—we only really want 50% or 30%,” might the Government be minded to agree with that, rather than impose the full 100% of the cost?
Mike Penning
There are frustrations in being a Minister, as former Ministers know. Consultation is a requirement, because we are likely to be challenged in law. That is why we consult. We will say what we want to do and then consult. One area where there may be real concern is the cost to museums. That is right. Other organisations may want to put their four pennyworth in, as often happens in consultations. We would not want to have a massively adverse effect on museums, though, so we will need to look at that. When proposing changes to legislation or to use delegated powers, it is always best to consult.
Jake Berry
Other people affected by this will be gamekeepers. For example, several gamekeepers in my constituency require a firearm for their job; so I hope that the Government will consider extremely widely. I do not think that, as a matter of principle, we should be saying that the Government should never subsidise sports. I am not particularly interested in volleyball, but I am very happy that we had the London Olympics, with £9 billion of Government money spent on hosting them. I do not think that the principle that we should never subsidise sport should be set out in law, so I hope that the Government will consider this and consult widely.
Mike Penning
I fully understand what my hon. Friend is saying. There is now a confusion between police licence fees and Home Office licensing fees. Gamekeepers will be dealt with under police licensing for shotguns for the control of vermin and so on. This part of the legislation is different: it is to do with Home Office licensing, for armed guards or merchant shipping, for example. Whether a museum is holding weapons—they are still tangible weapons—is separate. I understand that there is confusion: we look at police fees and licensing and think of that as one thing, but they are two different things. Police licensing fees have been set for the first time since 2001, but that is a different issue altogether. I will write to my hon. Friend to confirm exactly what I just said. However, with that and what I propose about using delegated legislation powers later in the year in mind, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for making my day—that is a great birthday present for tomorrow. I look forward to receiving his letter, which will provide clarification. I will bring this back on Report if everything is not as hunky-dory as we think. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Guidance to police officers in respect of firearms
Amendment made: 215, in clause 81, page 85, line 20, leave out from “must” to end of line 22 and insert
“have regard to any guidance issued under section 55A that is relevant to the appeal.”.—(Mike Penning.)
This amendment requires a court or sheriff hearing an appeal against a decision by the police under the Firearms Act 1968 to have regard to any guidance issued to chief officers of police under the new section 55A of that Act inserted by clause 81.
Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 82 to 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Power to impose monetary penalties
Lyn Brown
I beg to move amendment 231, in clause 91, page 94, line 37, leave out “50%” and insert “200%”.
This amendment would increase the maximum civil penalty for breaking financial sanctions from half the value of the funds or resources involved to double the value.
The Opposition support the measures in the Bill that will toughen up the enforcement of financial sanctions. We appreciate that financial sanctions are an important diplomatic and strategic power, but we are concerned that the penalties proposed are too light and may not deter an individual from taking a calculated risk.
I am sure we all welcome the news that in recent weeks ISIS has been in retreat in parts and has lost the ancient city of Palmyra. I have no doubt that the financial sanctions that the UK and other countries have placed on 258 individuals and 75 entities that support ISIS have played their part, but, as the executive director of the Iraq Energy Institute told the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee last month, ISIS’s spending patterns suggest that it must still be receiving substantial donations and outside financial assistance. That is an important reminder that those who break financial sanctions can be a serious threat to national security and to British interests. Those people must be stopped and punished.
The Bill introduces sensible and welcome measures on enforcing financial sanctions, which we support. For example, we support the changes in clause 89, which will allow the Secretary of State to increase the penalty for breaking EU financial sanctions to seven years’ imprisonment. That matches the maximum penalty for breaking an asset freeze under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010. Given the severity of the crime, that is a far more fitting penalty than the two years currently provided for.
Clauses 97 and 98 address the gap in time between the UN passing a financial sanction resolution and our Government adopting the EU regulations needed to implement it. The Bill will allow the Treasury to enforce United Nations financial sanction resolutions immediately by introducing temporary sanctions as an interim measure. This sort of interim measure seems entirely reasonable, given the importance of financial sanctions to national security. It was, indeed, recommended by Lord Rodger in the Supreme Court when reviewing the case of Mohammed Jabar Ahmed.
Although I support the general thrust of the measures on financial sanctions, there are a few areas in the Bill where I seek assurances from the Minister. In particular, I am concerned that the civil penalties introduced by clause 91 might be perceived as a mere slap on the wrist by those contemplating illegal business activity: that the civil penalties might be light enough that breaking sanctions might be considered to be a risk worth taking. Clause 91(3) states that the maximum civil penalty for breaking financial sanctions is either £1 million or
“50% of the estimated value of the funds or resources”,
if that is more than £1 million. I wonder whether this is insufficient.
I know that £1 million sounds a lot—it is for me—but imagine an individual selling a property in the London property market with a value well in excess of £1 million to a foreign buyer who is subject to financial sanctions. Members of the Committee may have seen last year’s Channel 4 documentary that showed a buyer posing as a Russian official who told the vendors of London properties that his funds were embezzled. Those dealing with him seemed completely and utterly unperturbed. We were not told by the journalists that they were subsequently contacted by any of the vendors to withdraw their interest in the sale, in reconsideration of the fact that the funds were embezzled.
Of the Mossack Fonseca companies tied up in the Panama papers leak, 2,800 appear on the UK Land Registry list of overseas property owners and have assets worth more than £7 billion. It is little wonder that Donald Toon of the National Crime Agency has said that
“the London property market has been skewed by laundered money.”
There is little doubt that London property is seen as a safe haven for both legitimate and illegitimate investors. So my contention is that the threat of being fined 50% of the value of the property might not be sufficient deterrent to stop an individual seller undertaking a sale. As I understand the Bill, the vendor would still be able to keep 50% of the proceeds of a sale even if they are caught. That, if they received it in cash, might be more valuable to them than alternative revenue streams they could have received from the property. I would be grateful if the Minister let me know whether my reading of the Bill is correct. If it is, I would be grateful if she explained why she thinks that that is reasonable. If we want to discourage people who are contemplating engaging with an illegal business, the civil penalties need to be stronger.
I accept that the Minister—getting all my arguments in at once—may stand up and say that these are only civil sanctions and that anyone engaging in illegal business activity will still be subject to criminal sanctions, which include custodial punishments. That may well be the case, but the civil standard of proof of “the balance of probabilities” is a lot easier to meet than the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. That is particularly true with regards to financial crime, where the complexities of the financial system have seen calls for fraud cases to sit outside the jury system. That is not a call I agree with, as an individual, but it has been considered and debated in the recent past.
There is a danger that the new Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, run by the Treasury, will rely on civil punishments rather than on the more difficult to achieve criminal punishments. If that is the case, the low level of civil penalties might actually only make the problem worse. Financial sanctions are an important diplomatic and strategic power. Individuals or companies breaking financial sanctions are a serious threat to the national interest and must be stopped.
Policing and Crime Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 April 2016 - (12 Apr 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
In conclusion [Laughter.] Financial sanctions are an important diplomatic and strategic power. Individuals or companies breaking financial sanctions are a serious threat to the national interest and must be stopped. We cannot allow the civil penalties introduced under the Bill to be perceived as a mere slap on the wrist, and a reasonable risk to take for those who would do business with people they should not. By accepting our amendments, the Minister could prevent that from happening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
May I start by wishing the hon. Member for West Ham happy birthday for tomorrow? I hope we will not be sitting down to do this the day after her birthday, so I hope she enjoys her day without having to worry about getting up for Committee the next day, although she will obviously continue to represent her constituents in the excellent way that she does.
The enforcement of financial sanctions is vital to our foreign policy and national security, but it is also important to note that the size of a breach and the culpability of those involved in a breach will vary from case to case. It is therefore important to ensure that the enforcement of financial sanctions is both appropriately targeted and proportionate.
I will respond to some of the points made by the hon. Lady. I welcome her support for these measures. I reassure her that the new Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, or OFSI, and the increased resource behind sanctions enforcement will ensure that financial sanctions make the fullest possible contribution to the UK’s foreign policy and national security goals, as well as helping to maintain the integrity of and confidence in the UK financial services sector.
I would also like to reassure her that OFSI will not seek to use monetary penalties as an alternative to a criminal prosecution. Where a serious breach of the kind described by the hon. Lady is identified by OFSI, the full range of potential enforcement mechanisms will be considered. Although the monetary penalties set out in the Bill will provide a valuable contribution, prosecution and asset seizure under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 will also be available.
I note that the Crown court will, on conviction, be able to impose an unlimited fine. We intend to consult shortly on where and when to use monetary penalties. The proposed maximum limits of £1 million or 50% of the value of the breach are based on evidence about the value of breaches reported to the Treasury over the past two years. We believe that those levels are both proportionate and adequate to remove profits made from breaches of financial sanctions and provide a sufficient deterrent.
The hon. Lady will also be aware that the clause already obliges the Treasury to keep the maximum limits under review, and it includes a power to vary that figure by regulations. Clearly, if it turns out that the provisions are not appropriate, based on the evidence we have today, we can always vary that figure. Finally, I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that if evidence shows that the limits should be set at a higher level we can, and we will, change them.
In the context of the civil sanction regime, it is right that the legislation should provide clear and proportionate limits on the amount of the financial penalty. We believe that, based on the evidence, £1 million or 50% of the estimated value of the funds is an appropriate limit and, accordingly, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for that clear and concise answer to the points that I made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 92 to 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Initiation of investigations by IPCC
‘(1) Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 4 (reference of complaints to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (7), in the words before paragraph (a), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 4A”.
(3) After paragraph 4 insert—
“Power of Commission to treat complaint as having been referred
4A (1) The Commission may treat a complaint that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 4 as having been so referred.
(2) Where the Commission treats a complaint as having been referred to it—
(a) paragraphs 2 and 4 do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the complaint except to the extent provided for by paragraph 4(7), and
(b) paragraphs 5, 6, 6A, 15 and 25 apply in relation to the complaint as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 4.
(3) The Commission must notify the following that it is treating a complaint as having been referred to it—
(a) the appropriate authority;
(b) the complainant;
(c) except in a case where it appears to the Commission that to do so might prejudice an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one), the person complained against (if any).
(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a complaint and the complaint has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the complaint.”
(4) In paragraph 11 (recording etc of conduct matters otherwise than where conduct matters arise in civil proceedings), omit sub-paragraph (5).
(5) In paragraph 13 (reference of conduct matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (7), in the words before paragraph (a), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 13A”.
(6) After paragraph 13 insert—
“Power of Commission to treat conduct matter as having been referred
13A (1) The Commission may treat a conduct matter that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 13 as having been so referred.
(2) Where the Commission treats a conduct matter as having been referred to it—
(a) paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the matter except to the extent provided for by paragraph 13(7), and
(b) paragraphs 14 and 15 apply in relation to the matter as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 13.
(3) The Commission must notify the following that it is treating a conduct matter as having been referred to it—
(a) the appropriate authority;
(b) except in a case where it appears to the Commission that to do so might prejudice an investigation of the matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one), the person to whose conduct the matter relates.
(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a conduct matter and the matter has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the matter.”
(7) In paragraph 14A (duty to record DSI matters), omit sub-paragraph (2).
(8) In paragraph 14C (reference of DSI matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (3), after “occasion” insert “, or that has been treated as having been so referred by virtue of paragraph 14CA,”.
(9) After paragraph 14C insert—
“Power of Commission to treat DSI matter as having been referred
14CA (1) The Commission may treat a DSI matter that comes to its attention otherwise than by having been referred to it under paragraph 14C as having been so referred.
(2) Where the Commission treats a DSI matter as having been referred to it—
(a) paragraphs 14A and 14C do not apply, or cease to apply, in relation to the matter except to the extent provided for by paragraph 14C(3), and
(b) paragraphs 14D and 15 apply in relation to the matter as if it had been referred to the Commission by the appropriate authority under paragraph 14C.
(3) The Commission must notify the appropriate authority that it is treating a DSI matter as having been referred to it.
(4) Where an appropriate authority receives a notification under sub-paragraph (3) in respect of a DSI matter and the matter has not yet been recorded, the appropriate authority must record the matter.”
(10) In section 29 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (interpretation of Part 2 of that Act), in subsection (1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of “recordable conduct matter”, for “or 11” substitute “, 11 or 13A”. —(Karen Bradley.)
This new clause is intended to take the place of clause 14. The amendments of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 in the new clause are aimed at giving the IPCC the ability to consider whether or not it is necessary for a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter to be investigated and, if so, to determine what form the investigation should take, as soon as the IPCC becomes aware of the complaint or matter.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Sensitive information received by IPCC: restriction on disclosure
‘(1) Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (complaints and misconduct) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 21 insert—
“21A Restriction on disclosure of sensitive information
(1) Where the Commission receives information within subsection (3), the Commission must not disclose (whether under section 11, 20 or 21 or otherwise) the information, or the fact that it has been received, unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.
(2) Where a person appointed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to investigate a complaint or matter (a “paragraph 18 investigator”) receives information within subsection (3), the paragraph 18 investigator must not disclose the information, or the fact that it has been received, to any person other than the Commission unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.
(3) The information is—
(a) intelligence service information;
(b) intercept information;
(c) information obtained from a government department which, at the time it is provided to the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator, is identified by the department as information the disclosure of which may, in the opinion of the relevant authority—
(i) cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom, or
(ii) jeopardise the safety of any person.
(4) Where the Commission or a paragraph 18 investigator discloses to another person information within subsection (3), or the fact that the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator has received it, the other person must not disclose that information or that fact unless the relevant authority consents to the disclosure.
(5) In this section—
“government department” means a department of Her Majesty’s Government but does not include—
(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters (“GCHQ”);
“intelligence service information” means information that was obtained (directly or indirectly) from or that relates to—
(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(c) GCHQ, or
(d) any part of Her Majesty’s forces, or of the Ministry of Defence, which engages in intelligence activities;
“intercept information” means information relating to any of the matters mentioned in section 19(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;
“Minister of the Crown” includes the Treasury;
“paragraph 18 investigator” has the meaning given by subsection (2);
“relevant authority” means—
(a) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to the Security Service, the Director-General of the Security Service;
(b) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;
(c) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to GCHQ, the Director of GCHQ;
(d) in the case of intelligence service information obtained (directly or indirectly) from or relating to Her Majesty’s forces or the Ministry of Defence, the Secretary of State;
(e) in the case of intercept information, the person to whom the relevant interception warrant is or was addressed;
(f) in the case of information within subsection (3)(c)—
“relevant interception warrant” means the interception warrant issued under section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 that relates to the intercept information.
21B Provision of sensitive information to the Commission and certain investigators
‘(1) A person who provides information that is intelligence service information or intercept information to the Commission or a paragraph 18 investigator (whether under a provision of this Part or otherwise) must—
(a) make the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator aware that the information is intelligence service information or (as the case may be) intercept information, and
(b) provide the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator with such additional information as will enable the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator to identify the relevant authority in relation to the information.
(2) In this section, “intelligence service information”, “intercept information”, “paragraph 18 investigator” and “relevant authority” have the same meaning as in section 21A.”
(3) In Schedule 3 (handling of complaints and conduct matters etc), in Part 3 (investigations and subsequent proceedings)—
(a) omit paragraph 19ZD (sensitive information: restriction on further disclosure of information received under an information notice);
(b) in paragraph 22 (final reports on investigations: complaints, conduct matters and certain DSI matters)—
(i) after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) Where a person would contravene section 21A by submitting, or (as the case may be) sending a copy of, a report in its entirety to the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (2) or (3)(b), the person must instead submit, or send a copy of, the report after having removed or obscured the information which by virtue of section 21A the person must not disclose.”;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (8), at the end insert “except so far as the person is prevented from doing so by section 21A”;
(c) in paragraph 23 (action by the Commission in response to an investigation report under paragraph 22), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2ZA) Where the Commission would contravene section 21A by sending a copy of a report in its entirety to the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or to the Director of Public Prosecutions under sub-paragraph (2)(c), the Commission must instead send a copy of the report after having removed or obscured the information which by virtue of section 21A the Commission must not disclose.”;
(d) in paragraph 24A (final reports on investigations: other DSI matters), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Where a person would contravene section 21A by sending a copy of a report in its entirety to the appropriate authority under sub-paragraph (2)(b), the person must instead send a copy of the report after having removed or obscured the information which by virtue of section 21A the person must not disclose.”” —(Karen Bradley.)
Paragraph 19ZD of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 currently imposes restrictions on the further disclosure by the IPCC of certain sensitive information received by it under an information notice. This new clause replaces paragraph 19ZD with new section 21A of the 2002 Act, which applies irrespective of how the IPCC has obtained the information. New section 21A also applies to investigators appointed under paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (investigations by an appropriate authority under the IPCC’s direction). New section 21A is supplemented by new section 21B, which is intended to assist those needing to comply with section 21A.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Release without bail: fingerprinting and samples
(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 61(5A) (fingerprinting of person arrested for a recordable offence) —
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “in the case of a person who is on bail,”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) omit “in any case,”.
(3) In section 63(3ZA) (taking of non-intimate sample from person arrested for a recordable offence)—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “in the case of a person who is on bail,”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) omit “in any case,”.—(Karen Bradley.)
Sections 61(5A) and 63(3ZA) of PACE allow fingerprints and samples to be taken from persons released on bail. Because of changes in the Bill, persons will be released without bail (rather than on bail) unless pre-conditions are met. The amendments change those sections so they cover persons released without bail too.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Release under section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
(1) Section 24A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (arrest for failure to comply with conditions attached to conditional caution) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—
“(b) released without charge and without bail (with or without any variation in the conditions attached to the caution) unless paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) applies, or
(c) released without charge and on bail if—
(i) the release is to enable a decision to be made as to whether the person should be charged with the offence, and
(ii) the pre-conditions for bail are satisfied.”
(3) In subsections (3)(a) and (4) for “subsection (2)(b)” substitute “subsection (2)(c)”.
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
(8A) In subsection (2) the reference to the pre-conditions for bail is to be read in accordance with section 50A of the 1984 Act.”—(Karen Bradley.)
This new clause changes the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relating to persons who are arrested because they are believed to have failed to comply with conditions attached to a conditional caution. To reflect the changes made in the Bill, those persons will be released without bail (rather than on bail) unless pre-conditions are met.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Duty to notify person released under section 34, 37 or 37CA of PACE that not to be prosecuted
(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34 (limitations on police detention) after subsection (5A) (inserted by section 42 of this Act) insert—
(5B) Subsection (5C) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (5), and
(b) the custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(5C) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(5D) Subsection (5C) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.
(5E) In this Part “caution” includes—
(a) a conditional caution within the meaning of Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
(b) a youth conditional caution within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
(c) a youth caution under section 66ZA of that Act.”
(3) Section 37 (duties of custody officer before charge) is amended as follows.
(4) After subsection (6) insert——
(6A) Subsection (6B) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (2), and
(b) the custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(6B) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(6C) Subsection (6B) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(5) After subsection (8) insert—
(8ZA) Where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (7)(b) or (c), and
(b) the custody officer makes a determination as mentioned in subsection (6A)(b),
subsections (6B) and (6C) apply.”
(6) Section 37B (consultation with Director of Public Prosecutions) is amended as follows.
(7) After subsection (5) insert—
(5A) Subsection (5) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(8) Omit subsection (9).
(9) In section 37CA (release following arrest for breach of bail) after subsection (4) insert——
(5) Subsection (6) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (2), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(6) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(7) Subsection (6) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(10) In section 24B(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (application of provisions of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)—
(a) in paragraph (d) for “(5)” substitute “(5E)”, and
(b) in paragraph (f) for “(6)” substitute “(6C)”.—(Karen Bradley.)
This new clause requires a custody officer to notify a person released under section 34(5), 37(2) or (7)(b) or (c) or 37CA(2) of PACE if it is decided not to prosecute. So the person is put in the same position as a person released under section 37(7)(a) (who is notified under section 37B(5)).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Duty to notify person released under any of sections 41 to 44 of PACE that not to be prosecuted
(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 41 (limits on period of detention without charge) after subsection (9) insert—
(10) Subsection (11) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (7), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(11) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(12) Subsection (11) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(3) In section 42 (authorisation of continued detention) after subsection (11) insert—
(12) Subsection (13) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (10), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(13) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(14) Subsection (13) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(4) In section 43 (warrants of further detention) after subsection (19) insert——
(20) Subsection (21) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (15) or (18), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(21) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(22) Subsection (21) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.”
(5) In section 44 (extension of warrants of further detention) after subsection (8) insert——
(9) Subsection (10) applies where—
(a) a person is released under subsection (7), and
(b) a custody officer determines that—
(i) there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or
(ii) there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence.
(10) The custody officer must give the person notice in writing that the person is not to be prosecuted.
(11) Subsection (10) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.” —(Karen Bradley.)
This new clause requires a custody officer to notify a person released under section 41(7), 42(10), 43(15) or (18) or 44(7) of PACE if it is decided not to prosecute. So the person is put in the same position as a person released under section 37(7)(a) (who is notified under section 37B(5)).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Combined authority mayors: exercise of fire and rescue functions
‘(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).
(2) After section 107E insert—
“107EA Exercise of fire and rescue functions
(1) This section applies to a mayor for the area of a combined authority who—
(a) by virtue of section 107D(1), may exercise functions which are conferred on a fire and rescue authority in that name (“fire and rescue functions”), and
(b) by virtue of section 107F(1), may exercise functions of a police and crime commissioner.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order make provision—
(a) authorising the mayor to arrange for the chief constable of the police force for the police area which corresponds to the area of the combined authority to exercise fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor;
(b) authorising that chief constable to arrange for a person within subsection (4) to exercise functions exercisable by the chief constable under arrangements made by virtue of paragraph (a).
(3) An order under subsection (2) may provide that arrangements made under the order—
(a) may authorise the exercise of any fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor;
(b) may authorise the exercise of any fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor other than those specified or described in the order;
(c) may authorise the exercise of fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor which are specified or described in the order.
(4) The persons mentioned in subsection (2)(b) are—
(a) members of the chief constable’s police force;
(b) the civilian staff of that police force, as defined by section 102(4) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011;
(c) members of staff transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1);
(d) members of staff appointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2).
(5) Provision in an order under section 107D(1) for a function to be exercisable only by the mayor for the area of a combined authority is subject to provision made by virtue of subsection (2).
(6) This section is subject to—
(a) section 107EB (section 107EA orders: procedure), and
(b) section 37 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (prohibition on employment of police in fire-fighting).
107EB Section 107EA orders: procedure
‘(1) An order under section 107EA(2) may be made in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority only if the mayor has requested the Secretary of State to make the order.
(2) A request under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a report which contains—
(a) an assessment of why—
(i) it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the order to be made, or
(ii) it is in the interests of public safety for the order to be made,
(b) a description of any public consultation which the mayor has carried out on the proposal for the order to be made,
(c) a summary of the responses to any such consultation, and
(d) a summary of the representations (if any) which the mayor has received about that proposal from the constituent members of the combined authority.
(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if—
(a) the mayor for the area of a combined authority has made a request under subsection (1) for the Secretary of State to make an order under section 107EA(2), and
(b) at least two thirds of the constituent members of the combined authority have indicated that they disagree with the proposal for the order to be made.
(4) The mayor must, in providing the report under subsection (2), provide the Secretary of State with—
(a) copies of the representations (if any) made by the constituent members of the combined authority about that proposal, and
(b) the mayor’s response to those representations and to the responses to any public consultation which the mayor has carried out on that proposal.
(5) The Secretary of State must—
(a) obtain an independent assessment of that proposal, and
(b) in deciding whether to make the order, have regard to that assessment and to the material provided under subsection (4) (as well as the material provided under subsection (2)).
(6) An order under section 107EA(2) may be made only if it appears to the Secretary of State that—
(a) it is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the order to be made, or
(b) it is in the interest of public safety for the order to be made.
(7) The Secretary of State may, in making an order under section 107EA(2) in relation to the mayor for the area of a combined authority, give effect to the mayor’s proposal for the order with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(8) Before making an order which gives effect to such a proposal with modifications, the Secretary of State must consult the mayor and the combined authority on the modifications.
(9) In this section—
“constituent council”, in relation to a combined authority, means—
(a) a county council the whole or any part of whose area is within the area of the combined authority, or
(b) a district council whose area is within the area of the combined authority;
“constituent member”, in relation to a combined authority, means a member of the authority appointed by a constituent council (but does not include the mayor for the area of the combined authority).
107EC Section 107EA orders: further provision
‘(1) An order under section 107EA(2) may make provision for the making of a scheme to transfer property, rights and liabilities (including criminal liabilities) from a fire and rescue authority or the combined authority to the chief constable (including provision corresponding to any provision made by section 17(4) to (6) of the Localism Act 2011).
(2) A chief constable to whom an order under section 107EA(2) applies may appoint staff for the purpose of the exercise of functions exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of the order.
(3) A chief constable to whom an order under section 107EA(2) applies may—
(a) pay remuneration, allowances and gratuities to members of the chief constable’s fire and rescue staff;
(b) pay pensions to, or in respect of, persons who are or have been such members of staff;
(c) pay amounts for or towards the provision of pensions to, or in respect of, persons who are or have been such members of staff.
(4) In subsection (3) “allowances”, in relation to a member of staff, means allowances in respect of expenses incurred by the member of staff in the course of employment as such a member of staff.
(5) Subject to subsections (6) to (8), a person who is employed pursuant to a transfer by virtue of subsection (1) or an appointment under subsection (2) may not at the same time be employed pursuant to an appointment by a chief constable of the police force for a police area under Schedule 2 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
(6) Where an order under section 107EA(2) is in force in relation to the chief constable of the police force for a police area, the person who is for the time being the police force’s chief finance officer is to be responsible for the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of the order.
(7) Subsection (5) does not prevent a person who is employed as a finance officer for fire functions from being at the same time employed as a finance officer for police functions.
(8) In subsection (7)—
“finance officer for fire functions” means a member of a chief constable’s fire and rescue staff who—
(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (6), and
(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of an order under section 107EA(2);
“finance officer for police functions” means a member of a chief constable’s civilian staff within the meaning of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 who—
(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (6), and
(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of a police force’s financial affairs.
(9) Where an order under section 107EA(2) is in force, the combined authority to which the order applies must pay—
(a) any damages or costs awarded against the chief constable to whom the order applies in any proceedings brought against the chief constable in respect of the acts or omissions of a member of the chief constable’s fire and rescue staff;
(b) any costs incurred by the chief constable in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by the chief constable in the proceedings;
(c) any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim made against the chief constable in respect of the acts or omissions of a member of the chief constable’s fire and rescue staff, if the settlement is approved by the authority.
(10) Where an order under section 107EA(2) is in force, the combined authority to which the order applies may, in such cases and to such extent as appears to the authority to be appropriate, pay—
(a) any damages or costs awarded against a member of the fire and rescue staff of the chief constable to whom the order applies in proceedings for any unlawful conduct of that member of staff;
(b) costs incurred and not recovered by such a member of staff in such proceedings;
(c) sums required in connection with the settlement of a claim that has or might have given rise to such proceedings.
(11) In this section “fire and rescue staff”, in relation to a chief constable to whom an order under section 107EA(2) applies, means—
(a) staff transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of subsection (1);
(b) staff appointed by the chief constable under subsection (2).
107ED Section 107EA orders: exercise of fire and rescue functions
‘(1) This section applies if—
(a) an order under section 107EA(2) makes provision in relation to the area of a combined authority, and
(b) by virtue of the order, fire and rescue functions exercisable by the mayor for the area of the combined authority are exercisable by the chief constable of the police force for the police area which corresponds to that area.
(2) The chief constable must secure that good value for money is obtained in exercising—
(a) functions which are exercisable by the chief constable by virtue of the order, and
(b) functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment.
(3) The chief constable must secure that other persons exercising functions by virtue of the order obtain good value for money in exercising those functions.
(4) The mayor must—
(a) secure the exercise of the duties which are exercisable by the chief constable or another person by virtue of the order,
(b) secure the exercise of the duties relating to fire and rescue services which are imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment,
(c) secure that functions which are exercisable by the chief constable or another person by virtue of the order are exercised efficiently and effectively, and
(d) secure that functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred or imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment are exercised efficiently and effectively.
(5) The mayor must hold the chief constable to account for the exercise of such functions.
107EE Section 107EA orders: complaints and conduct matters etc
‘(1) If an order is made under 107EA(2) that enables arrangements to be made for the exercise of functions by members of a police force or the civilian staff of a police force, the Secretary of State may by order amend Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (persons serving with the police: complaints and conduct matters etc) in consequence of that provision.
(2) If an order is made under section 107EA(2) that enables arrangements to be made for the exercise of functions by members of staff transferred to a chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) or appointed by a chief constable under section 107EC(2), the Secretary of State may by order make provision of the type described in subsection (3) in relation to those members of staff.
(3) The provision referred to in subsection (2) is—
(a) provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by or under Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002;
(b) provision applying (with or without modifications) any provision made by or under Part 2 of that Act.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order, in consequence of any provision made under subsection (2), amend Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
(5) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales,
(b) the Independent Police Complaints Commission,
(c) such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of police and crime commissioners,
(d) such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of fire and rescue authorities, and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
107EF Section 107EA orders: application of local policing provisions
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) apply (with or without modifications) any provision of a local policing enactment in relation to a person within subsection (2);
(b) make, in relation to such a person, provision corresponding or similar to any provision of a local policing enactment.
(2) Those persons are—
(a) a mayor for the area of a combined authority to which an order under section 107EA(2) applies,
(b) a chief constable to which such an order applies, and
(c) a panel established by virtue of an order under paragraph 4 of Schedule 5C for such an area.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (1)(a) or (b) includes power to apply (with or without modifications) any provision made by or under a local policing enactment or make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order amend, revoke or repeal a provision of or made under an enactment in consequence of provision made by virtue of subsection (1).
(5) In this section “local policing enactment” means an Act relating to a police and crime commissioner.
(3) In section 107D(6)(b) (general functions exercisable by the mayor for the area of a combined authority) after “section 107E” insert “or 107EA”.
(4) In section 120 (interpretation) after the definition of “EPB” insert—
““fire and rescue authority” means a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.
(5) In section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (firefighters’ pension scheme) (as continued in force by order under section 36 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004) in subsection (5A) (as inserted by paragraph 12 of Schedule 1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) a transfer to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(d) an appointment by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act.”
(6) In section 63 of the Police Act 1996 (Police Advisory Board for England and Wales) in subsection (4) (as inserted by paragraph 15 of Schedule 1) for “also imposes a requirement” substitute “and section 107EE of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 also impose requirements”.
(7) In section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (police powers for civilian staff) in subsection (11A) (as inserted by paragraph 17 of Schedule 1) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) any member of staff transferred to that chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (transfer of property, rights and liabilities to chief constable to whom fire functions of combined authority may be delegated);
(d) any member of staff appointed by that chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act (appointment of staff by chief constable to whom fire functions of combined authority may be delegated).”
(8) In section 34 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (pensions etc) in subsection (11) (as inserted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(d) appointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act.”
(9) In section 37 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (prohibition on employment of police in fire-fighting) (as substituted by paragraph 10 of Schedule 1) in subsection (3)—
(a) after “whom” insert “—(a)”, and
(b) after paragraph (a) insert “, or
(b) functions of a fire and rescue authority which are exercisable by the mayor of a combined authority have been delegated under an order under section 107EA(2) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”
(10) In Schedule 8 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (appointment, suspension and removal of senior police officers) in paragraph 2 (no appointment until end of confirmation process) in sub-paragraph (1AA) (as inserted by paragraph 23 of Schedule 1) after “section 4F of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004” insert “or section 107EA(2) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009”.
(11) In Schedule 1 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (persons in public service: definitions) in paragraph 6 (fire and rescue workers) in paragraph (aa) (as inserted by paragraph 24 of Schedule 1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i), and
(b) for the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, orappointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act, or”.”
(i) transferred to the chief constable under a scheme made by virtue of section 107EC(1) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(ii) appointed by the chief constable under section 107EC(2) of that Act, or”.” —(Mike Penning.)
This new clause makes provision for and in connection with enabling the mayor of a combined authority by whom fire and rescue functions are exercisable to delegate those functions to the chief constable for the police area which corresponds to the area of the combined authority.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mike Penning
New clause 22 applies the single employer model to combined authority mayors to enable mayors with both policing and fire functions to delegate fire functions to a single chief officer, who will employ both police and fire personnel. This allows combined authority mayors to realise the core benefits of collaboration between the police and fire services, for example by bringing together a senior management team or allowing rapid consolidation of back-office functions. The candidates for metro mayor who are coming forward are particularly looking for that collaboration: it will be essential to producing the efficiencies, economy and effectiveness needed. The new clause will give metro mayors the ability to function in the way we all expect them to.
Lyn Brown
The new clause will give metro mayors the power to put in place a single employer model for the fire service and for the police force, where they have taken on the role of fire and rescue authority and police and crime commissioner. There are already provisions in the Bill that enable metro mayors to take on responsibility for the governance of policing and fire, but there is no existing legislation to give a mayor who has taken on both roles the power to implement the single employer model.
As we discussed in a previous sitting, the Bill provides for police and crime commissioners who have taken responsibility for fire and rescue to put in place a single employer model; the new clause extends this power to mayors. Since we were opposed to the single employer model then, it will be no surprise to the Minister or the Committee that we are still opposed to it now. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I am not going to repeat the arguments I made on the first day against the single employer model in quite as much detail today—the Committee has heard my concerns, and I am sure the Minister took note of them—but I would like to re-address the important arguments.
A large proportion of the work carried out by the fire service is preventive: smoke alarms are checked, sprinklers are fitted and homes are made safer. This preventive work is not an add-on to the fire service’s work; it is at the core of what it does. We need to be honest: there are some people who would not welcome a policeman into their homes without a warrant. Police officers turning up at their door can be a scary experience. There are fears that under the single employer model it may be more difficult for the fire service to carry out vital preventive work if a member of the public is concerned that the firefighters coming into their home may have to share information with or report back to their boss, the police.
There is a fundamental difference between the humanitarian service that the fire and rescue service provides and the law enforcement service carried out by the police. This is not an attack on our police, who provide an important public service, as we all know. However, for the public to allow firefighters into their homes for preventive checks, there has to be a level of trust in the fire service, which is quite simply not paralleled elsewhere.
There is also the issue of workers in the police force and the fire and rescue service enjoying different terms and conditions of employment, not least around the right to strike. I think there are legitimate fears that the single employer model will be used as a means of cutting back on the workers’ rights of those in the fire service.
Finally, I am concerned about extending the power of the single employer model to metro mayors at this late stage in the legislative process. By including that in a late amendment, the Government have not given those living in metropolitan areas the time to consider and be consulted about what is on offer. Will the Minister explain why this important part of the Government’s reform is being made via an amendment at this late stage?
Mike Penning
I am, sadly, not surprised that Her Majesty’s Opposition continue with the concern that they raised about the PCCs. The principle here is pretty simple: that it will have no operational effect on the fire service. There are two separate pillars of funding—two separate positions to be in. We have tabled numerous amendments, which is quite normal; we are making sure that there is no anomaly between PCCs and mayors.
There was initial support from Her Majesty’s Opposition. The shadow Policing Minister said:
“I think that police and fire services logically sit within the context of a combined authority.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 376.]
I agreed with him at the time. What we are now discussing—who trusts whom going into homes—has nothing to do with that; it is to do with whether we have the same system for PCCs as we have for mayors. That is the reason for the amendments.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
This point has been raised previously. It is one thing to seek to get all the statutory agencies effectively to collaborate as part of a combined authority. It is another thing altogether to merge the police and the fire service. We have no problem with the former, but we are opposed to the latter.
Mike Penning
I respect the shadow Policing Minister’s position. There are very few things we disagree on, particularly in the Bill, but on this particular point we disagree. There will be plenty of time on Report and in the other place to discuss that further, but it would be wrong to leave an anomaly between PCCs and mayors, which is why the Government have tabled these amendments. I hope the Committee will approve them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 42—Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel: interpretation.
New clause 43—Breach of pre-charge bail—
“(1) A person commits an offence if, having been released on bail under sections 37, 37C(2)(b) or 37CA(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 under investigation for a terrorism offence or serious crime offence they breach any of the terms of their bail specified that place restriction on their ability to travel including surrendering their passport and/or place conditions on their residency.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to 6 months imprisonment or a fine or to both.
(3) For the purposes of this section, serious crime shall be specified of the Secretary of State by order.”
This new clause would make it an offence for those suspected of serious crimes and terrorism to break bail conditions linked to travel.
Government amendment 226
Mike Penning
This is a very important Government new clause and amendment, which I discussed with the shadow Minister outside the room, but I think it is particularly important that we debate them properly in Committee. The issue of suspected terrorists absconding from pre-charge bail was quite rightly raised on Second Reading. In January, the Prime Minister indicated to the Liaison Committee that the Government would look very carefully at the issue to avoid a repeat of instances in which somebody is not charged, released on police bail and then breaks the conditions of that police bail within the counter-terrorism context.
This new clause is about counter-terrorism suspects, a subject on which I know the Opposition would like to expand. Although I will keep under review any other offences that are alleged against somebody who has been released on pre-charge bail, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 already lists a range of offences, including membership of proscribed organisations, that would prevent bail from being granted. The new clause relates to people for whom bail has been granted because the police need to continue with their investigations and do not have evidence to give them concern about a more serious offence taking place. The breach of this bail would carry a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment. This very important Government new clause enacts the commitment that we made, and I look forward to the Opposition’s response.
Jack Dromey
The starting point for us is that we may have our disagreements on other fronts but there is unity across the House in opposition to the grotesque threat posed to our nation by terrorist violence. There is utter determination that we rise to the challenge of keeping our communities safe. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Home Secretary, called on the Government to toughen the police bail regime for terror suspects, and we are pleased that the Government have listened and are now taking action.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that was in fact a recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs? The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) circulated something to the Committee this morning saying that it was his cross-party Committee that brought the issue to the Government’s attention, and it is something on which we all agree.
Jack Dromey
All I would say is that this measure was not part of the original Bill. It is certainly true that the Home Affairs Committee has done valuable work on this matter, but ultimately it was our proposal on Second Reading that led to the Government’s welcome shift. The fact that there is cross-party support is also welcome.
If we believe that the Government have moved, we are not convinced that they have yet gone far enough. The issue of principle is simple: it should not be right that terror suspects on pre-charge police bail have previously been able to leave the country with ease to escape justice, and it is essential that the loophole is closed as a matter of urgency. The Government’s new clause would make it an offence for those suspected of terrorism to break bail conditions linked to travel.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh referred to the case of Siddhartha Dhar, who absconded while on police bail and went to Syria via Dover, as a prime example of the unacceptable loophole in the current system. In reference to what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said earlier, the Home Affairs Committee investigated forensically and collected evidence on this important issue. That was strongly buttressed by the compelling evidence given by the head of counter-terrorism, Mark Rowley, and Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, when they came before this Committee. They both made it absolutely clear that they wanted to see the removal of the limitations currently obtaining, which are operational constraints.
Although we welcome the Government’s amendment and new clause, we want to ensure that in cases such as that of Siddhartha Dhar the police are able to insist on a suspect’s passports being handed over when they are in the custody suite. We should not wait to write to them after they have been released to say, “Please, would you hand over your passport?” because we risk that they may have already used the opportunity to leave the country, as Mr Dhar did. The Home Affairs Committee recommended that to the Government some considerable time ago, and we welcome the fact that Ministers are now acting, but their proposal does not set out how exactly the police can seize travel documentation, where necessary. For example, will the police be able to accompany the suspect to wherever his or her passport is being stored? Could they prevent a suspect from leaving until documentation is brought to the station? Will the police be able to request the surrender of passports and travel documents as a condition of release from custody? What exactly does the Policing Minister envisage happening next time the police arrest a terrorist suspect who inconveniently does not have his travel documentation on him at the time of arrest? I would be grateful if the Government would set out in some detail how they see this working.
Mike Penning
The new clause is about breach of a bail condition that carries a 12-month sentence. The police already have the power to set police bail conditions and, if they wish, they could say that a person cannot be released on bail until their travel documents have been surrendered. That could be part of the bail. It could be seven days. They already have the powers. It is not within the Bill because it does not need to be.
Jack Dromey
I have looked at what the Minister said in our earlier discussions, in particular in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000. There is no provision for bail, before or after charge, under the Terrorism Act. Under the Act it boils down to either charging or releasing a suspect; the initial detention limit is 48 hours, which is extendable, and there is no existing terrorist legislation, therefore, that provides for the police to seize a passport from a terrorist suspect or relates to the enforcement of pre-charge bail conditions.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
An interesting point in the case of terrorism is that many—not all—people accused of terrorism offences will have dual nationality and more than one passport. Has there been any thought as to how that would be discovered by the police, if the information was not volunteered, and what provisions may be required to get someone to surrender passports of another country as well as their British passport?
Jack Dromey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. That is precisely why I referred earlier to “passports”. There have been a number of cases of people having dual nationality in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Fundamentally, this is about making sure that we do not have somebody like Dhar who walks out of the police station, says, “Yeah, okay, I will surrender my passports, I will be back tomorrow” and is then on the first plane to get out of the country. It is about certainty beyond any doubt that that simply cannot happen in future. Relatedly, have the Government looked at the issue of the ability of agencies to communicate immediately when passports are to be surrendered—for example, crucially, the Border Force? We look forward to clarification on these crucial points.
On another issue, the Government proposal applies only to terrorist suspects and not to those suspected of serious crimes. There is no question but that there is something uniquely awful about the terrorist threat to our country but, having said that, our new clause includes serious crime offences to be specified by the Secretary of State in regulation and so would address cases where, for example, suspects have fled the country before standing trial over rape allegations. The Minister has very helpfully said that he will keep this matter under review. We hope, however, that the Government will now give the Home Secretary that power; of course, it is for the Home Secretary to determine, in consultation, how that power is exercised thereafter.
The Minister was right when he said that the National Police Chiefs Council highlighted that it would like this power not to be confined to counter-terrorism. We urge the Government to include suspects of other offences in their proposals. As such, in circumstances where the Government are taking action, we will not press our new clause to a vote today. We seek assurances from the Government on the points I have raised as soon as possible, however, and we stand ready for further dialogue before Report. I very much hope that we can go to Report with a common position. In that dialogue, we will seek a strengthened clause and we will work with the Government to make sure that the pre-charge bail regime truly has teeth. We will return to this on Report; for now, on this crucial issue, we urge the Government to reflect and I stress, once again, that we very much hope that we are able to make common progress by the time of Report. The way we vote on Report will depend on whether we can put our hand on our hearts and say that never again will there be a case like that of Dhar.
Mike Penning
I am genuinely pleased that the shadow Minister is not going to push this to a vote. Perhaps it is right that a subject of this seriousness is debated on the Floor of the House on Report. Yet again, I offer the shadow Minister my help and that of my Bill team to see if we can come to a consensus.
The shadow Minister asked specifically whether the police can accompany the person who was still under arrest before they were given police bail, to ascertain their travel documents; under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, they can do that. Where police have already requested under the arrest warrant their immediate surrender, they can accompany the individual to their place of residence. If they breach that—in other words, they try to abscond and so on—that is where the sanctions in the new clause apply.
Of course, the shadow Minister is absolutely right that under the Terrorism Act 2000, there is no bail—a point that I made earlier on. This proposal relates to other alleged offences. Let us see what position we can come to. It is very important, because we are all as one in wanting to protect the public. We are as one in wanting people who are suspected of terrorism offences not to abscond. But the police have substantial powers at the moment. I have discussed that with them extensively to make sure that they use their existing powers, including making sure that they have the travel documents.
I do not want to go into individual cases. It is for officers in an operation to make operational decisions, not for politicians, but it is for us to give them the powers and to say to them, sometimes, “By the way, you already have the powers and you should use them.” I am pleased that new clause 43 will not be moved and we offer as much assistance as possible to reach consensus, as we have done throughout the progress of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 41 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel: interpretation
“(1) This section defines words used in section (Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel)(2).
(2) “Travel document” means anything that is or appears to be—
(a) a passport, or
(b) a ticket or other document that permits a person to make a journey by any means from a place within the United Kingdom to a place outside the United Kingdom.
(3) “Passport” means—
(a) a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971),
(b) a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of an international organisation, or
(c) a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.
(4) “Port” means—
(a) an airport,
(b) a sea port,
(c) a hoverport,
(d) a heliport,
(e) a railway station where passenger trains depart for places outside the United Kingdom, or
(f) any other place at which a person is able, or attempting, to get on or off any craft, vessel or vehicle in connection with leaving the United Kingdom.”.—(Mike Penning.)
This new clause defines certain terms used in NC41.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
National Assembly for Wales: devolution of responsibility for policing
“(1) In Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 after paragraph 20 insert—
Policing
21 Policing, police pay, probation, community safety, crime prevention.
Exceptions—
National Crime Agency
Police pensions
National security”.—(Liz Saville Roberts.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Cadeirydd. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. This is a probing new clause, and I do not intend to press it to a Division. None the less, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that policing in Wales is an anomaly in the UK. Although policing is a devolved power in Northern Ireland and Scotland, Welsh policing remains reserved to Westminster. At the same time, the Welsh police forces are unique in the UK in that they are non-devolved bodies operating within a largely devolved public services landscape.
When we were discussing the police and fire authorities earlier in Committee, I was aware that there were perhaps cost implications for the police forces in Wales that are not necessarily appreciated. We are seeing changes happening even during the progress of the Bill. It is as important to draw attention to that as much as to the principle of devolving policing.
The Welsh police forces are unique in the sense that they are required to follow the agenda of two Governments; crucially, that means that Welsh police forces operate on the basis of English priorities, such as knife crime. Some of these issues are major problems in England but less so in Wales; correspondingly, issues that are significant in Wales have a lower priority here. Thus, while there are clear and numerous benefits to devolving policing, the arguments for keeping it reserved to Westminster appear to be comparably weak—and weakening, given that it is already devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
That was, of course, reflected in the recommendations of the Silk commission, which was set up by the previous coalition Government and comprised a nominee from each of the four main parties, academics and industry experts. It received written evidence, heard oral evidence and visited every corner of Wales; it was a very broad consultation project. It heard evidence from the police themselves calling for the devolution of policing, and the report recommended as such. All four parties represented on the Silk commission recommended that policing be devolved, as has every Member of the National Assembly.
Jack Dromey
Wales is a proud nation, well served on the one hand by some excellent Labour Members of Parliament on this Committee, including my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and on the other hand by a first-class police service. Like the Policing Minister, I have seen that first hand in Wales—more recently in north Wales with David Taylor, looking at the good work being done to tackle rural crime.
In south Wales, only last weekend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, I was looking at how the police safeguard public order at major public events, in that case a football match. I was deeply impressed by the police officers that we met—Jason, Steve and Joe—who were all doing a first-class job together with their police and crime commissioner Alun Michael. They are rooted in the community and talk about the community. That is a style of policing that has evolved over the past 20 years and is popular with the people of Britain as a whole, and Wales in particular.
So Wales is a proud nation, well served. It is right, nevertheless, that the people of Wales have a greater say over the policing of Wales. It is also right that the Welsh Assembly has the right to draw up in partnership a policing plan for Wales. That would be in partnership, on the one hand, with the four forces and their police and crime commissioners and, on the other hand, a range of statutory agencies.
Historically, Labour is the party of devolution. We do support the devolution of greater powers over policing to Wales but time and thought are necessary to get it right. I was speaking only last night with Carwyn Jones, and he has talked about a 10-year process of evolution of the arrangements in Wales and those between Wales and the rest of the UK.
Time and thought are necessary due to the sometimes complex interface with other areas in the criminal justice system and Government, but they are also necessary because I do not believe that anyone is proposing that all powers be devolved to Wales. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made the point that the work of the National Crime Agency on serious and organised crime would clearly not be devolved. Likewise, counter-terrorism strategy would clearly not be devolved. As an example at the extreme end, when I was in Swansea with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, we talked at length about the policing of the NATO summit and how to keep safe Heads of State from all over the world. Clearly, that would not be devolved either.
It is therefore a question of working through those crucial principles at the next stages. How can the people of Wales have a greater say in their policing? How best can the Welsh Assembly have the right to draw up a policing plan for Wales, in consultation with others? Then comes a process of evolution of the existing arrangements to achieve those objectives. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, including that she would not push the amendment to a vote. She has raised important and complex issues, but the amendment is not the appropriate vehicle to resolve them; they will require resolving in the next stages.
Finally, I could not let an opportunity like this go by without reminding the Committee that in Labour Wales, a Labour Administration has made a difference to policing, with 500 extra PCSOs, 200 of them in south Wales. It was a privilege to meet some of them at the weekend. They are good men and women on the ground keeping our communities safe, thanks to what a Labour Administration did.
Mike Penning
I reiterate the comments made by the shadow Policing Minister about the tone of how the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd introduced her amendments. It has been useful. The issue is enormously complicated for Wales as part of the United Kingdom. The obvious references to Scotland and Northern Ireland are difficult to add to a report, not least because they have completely independent and different criminal justice systems. There is only one police force in Scotland now, and there has been only one police force in Northern Ireland for many years.
This issue must be decided by the people of Wales. The Government have made it clear that if there is not consensus within the Silk commission’s proposals, we will not consider devolving full powers to the Government of Wales and the Welsh Assembly. I heard the hon. Lady say that there is consensus, and that is certainly true of the correspondence and conversations that I have been having. I reiterate what the shadow Police Minister said. I have visited Wales on many occasions. There are many Conservative MPs there, not least the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. What I am trying to indicate politely is that it is not a one-party state.
PCC elections will be held in Wales imminently. They will give the people of Wales the best chance to decide what sort of policing they want in their part of the world. That is devolution, and that is democracy. Although I understand that this is a probing amendment, I am also pleased that new clause 7 will not be pressed to a vote.
Liz Saville Roberts
I welcome the change of standpoint by Labour MPs. Possibly it indicates a shift since the process undertaken through the St David’s day negotiation resulted in not all the recommendations of the Silk report being adopted, even though they were cross-party.
On devolution and the issues to be decided by the people of Wales, when I was discussing the draft Wales Bill, we were told that in the St David’s day discussions certain issues had been brought ahead or otherwise. I note that the people of Wales did not support the police commissioners in that state when that decision was made.
Finally, another issue that is developing as we speak, in the nature of devolution, is the development of a distinct legal jurisdiction, with a separate legislature in Wales able to produce its own legislation. Although we are talking about 10 years, I anticipate and very much hope that we will see policing devolved to Wales before then. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Annual Report by Chief Inspector of Constabulary
“In Part 2 of the Police Act 1996, omit section (4A) and insert—
“(4A) A report under subsection (4) must include the chief inspector’s assessment of—
(a) The efficiency and effectiveness of policing, and
(b) The crime and non-crime demand on police in England and Wales for the year in respect of which the report is prepared.”.”—(Jack Dromey.)
This new clause would add a duty for HMIC to assess demand on police on a yearly basis in addition to the efficiency and effectiveness of policing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jack Dromey
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe it is appropriate to charge the chief inspector of constabulary with producing reports on a regular basis, not just on the efficiency and effectiveness of policing but, crucially, on the crime and non-crime demand on police in England and Wales for the year in respect of which the report is prepared and for two and five years ahead. For example, we may disagree on how to handle cybercrime, but it is common ground across the House that it is a major and growing area of crime and a relatively new development; we must therefore always properly assess the demand on the police service before making decisions about how best to meet that demand.
To be quite frank, the problem is that things are increasingly difficult for the police. Some 18,000 police officers and some 5,000 police community support officers have gone. The thin blue line has been stretched ever thinner; ever fewer are being asked to do ever more, on four fronts in particular.
First, following scandals in recent years, there is now a great national will to do everything necessary to protect children in our society. Only last week, Simon Bailey, the chief constable who heads up the police’s multi-faceted strategy on the protection of children, said that it was already costing the police £1 billion, and that that would rise to £3 billion by 2020, such are the scale and complexity of the cases involved, both current and historical, and the investigation necessary.
Secondly, there has been an enormous increase in cybercrime. As we were rehearsing only yesterday, someone is more likely to be mugged online than in the street. Some of the major banks have estimated 20% or 30% increases in attempted crime against their customers every year. The scale of it is enormous.
Thirdly, there is the sheer scale of what is required for counter-terrorism. Last November, the Government decided not to go ahead with what would have been 22% cuts on top of 25% cuts. One reason for that decision was the strong representations, made by people like Mark Rowley and Bernard Hogan-Howe, that numbers matter, both for surge capacity in the event of a Paris-style attack and for neighbourhood policing, which was described by Peter Clarke, the former head of counter-terrorism, as the “golden thread” that runs from the local to the global. The patient building of community relationships is key to gaining intelligence; as a consequence, arrests for terrorism are now happening at the rate of almost one a day. As Bernard Hogan-Howe and Mark Rowley have said before the House, that is a consequence of good neighbourhood policing, but it is incredibly resource-intensive.
Fourthly, there is the wider problem of the police being increasingly seen as the force of last resort. In his powerful contribution this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham rightly made the point that, if there are no other agencies ready to respond, the police are the force of last resort. Sara Thornton, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, said recently that the police tend to be the people who, after 5 o’clock on a Friday, can be counted on to turn out when others perhaps do not because they no longer have the resources. Classically that includes going after looked-after children.
Mike Penning
Let me say from the outset that I recognise the importance of understanding the demand on police forces, which is exactly where the shadow Policing Minister is coming from. However, I do not see the need for new clause 10, as we are actually doing many of the things that the shadow Minister has asked for.
It is for a chief constable to assess the demands that their forces face and ensure that resources are allocated accordingly. The purpose of inspectors of constabulary is clearly set out in section 54(2) of the Police Act 1996. Their role is to inspect the “efficiency and effectiveness” of every force. Section 54(4) and section 54(4)(a) of the 1996 Act require the chief inspector of constabulary to prepare an annual report, and for that report to include his assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of policing in England and Wales.
Reliable, independent information is crucial in understanding the demands on the police force. It is for this reason that the Home Secretary asked the inspectorate to introduce annual, all-force inspections, which has led to the development of the Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy—commonly called PEEL—programme. As part of the efficiency assessment, the inspectorate assesses how effectively each force understands and is responding to the demand that it faces. The inspectorate also works with forces to support them to better understand the demand that they face. There is work going on as we speak, including from the College of Policing, which I think everybody accepts has been a great success.
That includes the development of force management statements, which will be prepared with chief constables, and are intended to ensure that information on a force’s available resources and the demand they face is produced annually to an agreed standard—ensuring the same across all forces—and is accessible to chief constables, PCCs and, most importantly, the public. I accept that this is a work in progress, but it is in progress, and the police are doing it themselves with the inspectorate and the College of Policing so, respectfully, I do not see the need for new clause 10. I hope that the shadow Minister understands that.
Jack Dromey
Some of the things that the Minister said were helpful. We have common ground on wanting to understand the nature of need. I hope that the Minister’s comments on what the Government are doing and will do in the next stages will contribute to exactly that. In those circumstances we will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Digital Crime Review
“(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to provide for a review of legislation which contains powers to prosecute individuals who may have been involved in the commission of digital crime in order to consolidate such powers in a single statute.
(2) In the conduct of the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the statutes and measures that he deems appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1,
(b) Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 2, 2a, 4, 4a,
(c) Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47,
(d) Data Protection Act 1998, section 10, 13 and 55,
(e) Criminal Justice Act 1998, section 160,
(f) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, section 30(1), (3),(5),(6), 78(5),
(g) Computer Misuse Act 1990, as amended by Serious Crime Act 2015 and Police and Justice Act 2006,
(h) Contempt of Court Act 1981,
(i) Human Rights Act 1998,
(j) Public Order Act 1986, section 4, 4a, 5, 16(b), 18,
(k) Serious Organised Crime Act 2005, section 145, 46,
(l) Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, section 48,
(m) Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2014, section 32, 34, 35, 36, 37,
(n) Protection of Children Act 1978,
(o) Obscene Publications Act 1959,
(p) Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 28, 29-32,
(q) Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 145, 146,
(r) Communications Act 2003, section 127, 128-131,
(s) Data retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, section 4,
(t) Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992, section 5,
(u) Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015,
(v) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, section 33(5), 29(6),
(w) Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2,
(x) Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 4, 8, 10, 62,
(y) Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 43,
(z) Magistrates Court Act 1980, section 127,
(aa) Suicide Act 1961, section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009,
(ab) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 63,
(ac) Theft Act 1968, section 21, and
(ad) Criminal Law Act 1977, section 51(2)
(3) It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to determine for the review any other statute under which persons have been prosecuted for a crime falling under section 1 of this Act.
(4) In the conduct of the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with any person or body he deems appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) the Police,
(b) Crown Prosecution Service,
(c) judiciary, and
(d) relevant community organisations.”—(Liz Saville Roberts.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 17—Surveillance and monitoring: offences—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) uses a digital device to repeatedly locate, listen to or watch a person without legitimate purpose,
(b) installs spyware, a webcam or any other device or software on another person’s property or digital device without the user’s agreement or without legitimate reason,
(c) takes multiple images of an individual unless it is in the public interest to do so without that individual’s permission and where the intent was not legitimate nor lawful,
(d) repeatedly orders goods or services for another person if the purpose of such actions is to cause distress, anxiety or to disrupt that person’s daily life,
(e) erases data remotely whilst a digital device is being examined by the police or any other lawful investigation,
(f) monitors a digital device registered to a person aged 17 or less if the purpose of that monitoring is to obtain information about a third person,
(g) monitors any other person’s digital device if the intent of the monitor is either to damage or steal data from that person, or
(h) creates a false persona on line without lawful reason if the purpose of such a creation is to intend to attempt to defraud, groom, impersonate or seriously damage the reputation of any other person.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (1)(a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (1)(a) “repeatedly” shall be deemed as on two occasions or more.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory limit.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (1)(e), (f), (g) or (h) is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.
(6) The Secretary of State shall introduce restrictions on the sale of spyware to persons under the age of 16 and requests all persons who are purchasing such equipment to state their intended use of such equipment.”
New clause 18—Digital crime training and education—
“(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Home Department to ensure that each Police Service shall invest in training on the prioritisation, investigation and evidence gathering in respect of digital crime and abuse.
(2) It shall be the responsibility of the Home Department to ensure that all Police services record complaints and outcomes of complaints of digital crime and abuse.
(3) It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish annual statistics on complaints and outcomes of digital crime and abuse.”
Liz Saville Roberts
Diolch yn fawr. Forgive me if my understanding of procedure is incorrect; I am learning as I go along. I speak about these three new clauses and then I take a response, if I understand correctly.
Liz Saville Roberts
Thank you very much. I am just covering myself in case something goes terribly wrong.
New clause 16 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a review of all relevant legislation that contains powers to prosecute people involved in digital crime, and to consolidate those powers in a consolidation Bill. This is because prosecution can currently be initiated using a confusing array of criminal legislation. There are 30 Acts listed here; there are actually more than that but these are the most relevant. Some date back to the 19th century. Existing provision is therefore evidently fragmentary and inadequate, and that is a hindrance to effective prosecution. It allows abuse—which, interestingly, we are talking about, from all directions, more and more—to continue unchecked, up to a point.
A very high threshold is set for the prosecution of hate crime over the internet, and this is understandable, but the way this threshold is interpreted varies between police forces across the country. Indeed, this is true of many aspects of digital crime. People’s experiences when they approach the police can vary widely under these interpretations, and the fact that so many pieces of legislation have to be referred to does not bring any additional clarity when clarity is what we need, first and foremost. So consolidation is the theme of new clause 16.
New clause 17 relates to offences associated with surveillance and monitoring. It would make it an offence, for example, to post messages or images that are discriminatory, threatening or would cause distress or anxiety. It would make it illegal to install spyware or webcams without good reason. It would also place further responsibilities on social media platforms to block offensive postings or postings inciting violence, for example. Current legislation is insufficient to deal with actions whereby people are now using digital means to harass or carry out crime.
New clause 18 is concerned with digital crime training and education. Given that the College of Policing estimates that half of all crimes reported to front-line officers now has a cyber element, there is a real need to consider how we prepare police personnel at all levels to deal with this problem. It is estimated that there are 7 million online frauds a year and 3 million other online crimes. The Chief Constable of Essex, Stephen Kavanagh, has warned that the police risk being swamped with digital crime cases. None the less—this is where training is important—I have been informed that only 7,500 police officers out of a total of 100,000 across Wales and England have been trained to investigate digital crime. This is a particularly significant area because it is extremely new to senior police officers in particular; it has not been part of their training in the past. There is also an issue for the police in that those who are particularly efficient at dealing with digital crime are often offered posts outside the police service.
To summarise this simplistically, it appears that the police, historically, were trained to deal with 20th century crimes, while we are now seeing crime shifting online. From those answering phones in call centres to those dealing with front-line issues, they all need training to respond appropriately to what threatens to become overwhelming. How do we identify what is crime that needs to be addressed and what is unfortunate social behaviour, which we would not condone but we would not necessarily associate with the police? There have been instances in the past of misinterpretation of the most adequate approach. I do not intend to push these new clauses to a Division, but I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Jack Dromey
The hon. Lady made a compelling case. I have three points. First, there is the nature of the growing threat and, I hate to say it, the terrible things that people do in the privacy of their homes, including, for example, hate crime and abuse on social media, which are absolutely unacceptable.
Secondly, the hon. Lady is right when she says that there is a real problem of capacity in the police force. Stephen Kavanagh is an impressive chief constable. Some of us struggle with digital literacy, but the figure to which he referred of fewer than one in 10 people being digitally literate is chilling given the scale and rapid rise of digital crime and cybercrime.
Thirdly and finally, the hon. Lady makes a good point about strategy in the police service. For example, with the national fraud strategy, the police have been moving down the path of a national product but local delivery. Local delivery means the work that the police do in terms of prevention and their being more digitally literate in future. Indeed, Gavin Thomas, the new chairman of the Police Superintendents Association, recently said that many more younger police officers who understand the technology need to be recruited. The hon. Lady has put her finger on a very important set of issues relating to a rapidly growing area of crime, the sheer scale of which the police are struggling to cope with.
Karen Bradley
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, whose constituency I am going to try to pronounce correctly. I last dealt with this pronunciation when we considered the Serious Crime Bill last year. I have the luxury of the Solicitor General, who is a very adept Welsh speaker, to prompt me on how to pronounce this: Dwyfor Meirionnydd.
Karen Bradley
Not bad. I will not try again, but at least I have got that far. I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the new clauses, because they give the Committee the opportunity to debate these important issues. I hope to reassure her that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling them.
Digital crime and cybercrime are threats that we take very seriously. The Government continue to invest in law enforcement capabilities nationally, regionally and locally to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the capacity to deal with the increasing volume and sophistication of online crime. Through the national cyber-security programme, we invested more than £90 million in the previous Parliament to bolster the law enforcement response, and we will continue to invest. As the Chancellor announced in November, the Government have committed to spending £1.9 billion on cyber-security over the next five years, including for tackling cybercrime.
Additionally, we have invested in the national cybercrime unit in the National Crime Agency and created cyber teams in each of the regional organised crime units. Those teams provide access to specialist capabilities at a regional level. I think that we can all accept that it is expensive to have such technical support available to every force at a local level, and that is why the regional organised crime units, with their fantastic cyber units that are accessible to all forces, are incredibly impressive.
I remember visiting the south-east regional organised crime unit during the last Parliament, when organised crime was part of my portfolio, and meeting the young lady who had sat in that unit and cracked the case—I do not know if hon. Members remember it—of the Xboxes that no one could access at Christmas because of the activity of some hackers. A young lady working in one of our regional organised crime units here in the UK solved that crime and found the individuals responsible. We should be proud of the work that those forces do and the fact that we have such incredibly talented individuals working in the ROCUs.
James Berry
Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of this online crime—online fraud—is not local crime but happens in boiler rooms that sell, or mis-sell, things across the whole of the UK, and that there needs to be a collective national approach to it? A lot of this work is done by Action Fraud, which is based in the City of London police, so that the people committing these crimes that affect people across the UK are investigated in a single place here in London.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend gets this absolutely right. As a central repository of intelligence and information, Action Fraud can work out which force is best placed to investigate. It may well be that that is the National Crime Agency or an international force. I will give an example. One of my constituents could go to the marketplace in Leek in Staffordshire Moorlands and have a fraud committed on them there. It would be very clear that that had happened in Staffordshire Moorlands and that Staffordshire police should investigate. But if that happens online, the criminal could be based in eastern Europe, or the far east, or anywhere in the UK. Action Fraud can put that information into a central repository and get the links; that means that we have an excellent facility for finding the right force to investigate and for finding the criminal.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham)
I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was saying. These things are best looked at nationally—some of the conspiracies are clearly international as well—but does the Minister also agree that one of the problems with Action Fraud is that many people who have contacted it feel let down because of a lack of feedback about what happens in their individual case, or how their individual case may well be helping a bigger fraud?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I had ministerial responsibility for Action Fraud, then my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister covered it and it now sits within the portfolio of the Minister for Security. We have all identified that problem and the City of London police are taking action to address that. They understand that feedback.
There has been a problem that local forces feel that they can pass the information to Action Fraud and it will deal with everything. There is a still an obligation on the local force to feed back to the individual. The crime has still been committed on that individual in the local force area, and it is incredibly important, and incumbent on the local force— working with Action Fraud—to make sure that feedback is given. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
It is important to make the point that crime is crime—whether it happens online or offline, it is crime. Somebody stealing money from someone is theft. It may be fraud. It may be that it could be prosecuted under some other offence, but it does not matter what the offence is—it is still crime. We need to make sure that the police have the capabilities to understand where the evidence is. It is not like somebody breaking into your home leaving fingerprints, but they will be leaving fingerprints online. There will be digital fingerprints all the way back. We need to make sure that the forces have the capability to see that and that local forces also know the opportunities that this affords.
One of my favourite examples of the great opportunity of online is that if somebody breaks into a house and they are carrying a smartphone, it will try to find the wi-fi. There will be a digital fingerprint from that smartphone. That is an opportunity for local forces to be able to crack more crimes.
We need to ensure that training is happening. Working across the Home Office with local forces, the National Crime Agency and ROCUs, I know that there is an incredible amount of work going on to ensure that local forces and police officers—bobbies on the beat—understand the problem that they are dealing with and how to tackle it. But it is crime. It does not matter whether it is online or offline: it is crime.
Turning to the new clauses, I will deal first with new clause 16, which calls for a digital crime review. As the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd explained, the aim of such a review is to consolidate into a single statute criminal offences and other powers relevant to tackling digital crime and the misuse of digital devices and services. She made a very persuasive argument, but I am far from persuaded that such a lengthy and costly exercise would deliver the benefits she seeks. I do not accept her premise that the criminal law is defective in this area. As a general principle, any action that is illegal offline is also illegal online.
Legislation passed before—in some cases, well before—the digital age has shown itself sufficiently robust and flexible to be used today to punish online offending. Consequently, most of the long list of statutes and offences in new clause 16 relate to offending that may be carried out by both digital and non-digital means. I think the terminology is that this is cyber-enabled crime: it is the same crime that has always happened—it is just that the digital platform of the internet enables criminals from thousands of miles away to have access to victims here in the UK and across the world that they would never have had access to without the internet.
Crime is crime. It does not matter whether it is 20th-century or 21st-century crime—it is crime, and it needs to be tackled. The offences that have long been tested in the courts and in the legal system are the right ones to use, whether they have been committed online or offline.
The new clause suggests that the Government should review, with a view to producing a single statute, all legislation
“which contains powers to prosecute individuals who may have been involved in the commission of digital crime”.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to separate all those powers from those used to prosecute non-digital crime. The new statute would not consolidate the powers, as the new clause suggests. Rather, it would inevitably reproduce and duplicate many existing offences, which would also need to be retained in existing legislation for non-digital offending.
That is not to say that, where we identify specific gaps in the law or new behaviours that ought to be criminalised, we will not take action to plug those gaps. Indeed, the Bill will criminalise the live streaming of offences relating to the sexual exploitation of children. Years ago, none of us would even have thought it possible, but there is live streaming and we need to make sure that we deal with it.
Likewise, in the last Parliament we created a new criminal offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films
“without the consent of an individual who appears in the photograph or film, and with the intention of causing that individual distress.”
That is what we would perhaps call revenge porn. I think we can all see that that crime may have been committed before, but a partner sharing a photograph with a few friends in the pub, although equally offensive, is not as destructive as that photograph appearing online and being available across the world for millions of people to see. It is very important that where there is criminality and we see gaps like that, we act. We are determined to do so, and will continue to do so. I mentioned that the hon. Lady’s predecessor was a member of the Public Bill Committee that considered the Serious Crime Act 2015. In that Act, we further strengthened the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
New clause 17 seeks to create a raft of new offences relating to digital surveillance and monitoring. I presume that the intention is to address issues such as harassment and stalking offences, which can now occur through digital means. I want to be absolutely clear: abusive and threatening behaviour, in whatever form and whoever the target, is totally unacceptable. That includes harassment committed in person or using phones or the internet. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduced specific provisions to deal with incidents of harassment, including the offences of harassment and putting people in fear of violence—offences that may be committed by online or offline behaviour, or a mixture. The 1997 Act also enables victims to apply for an injunction to restrain an individual from conduct that amounts to harassment, and it gives courts the power to make restraining orders. Those powers are regularly used to successfully prosecute offences committed by digital means.
I want to add one other point. I do not think that the issue we are discussing is whether the offence exists or whether it is sufficient; it is about understanding the offences and ensuring that the public and law enforcement know the offences and use them appropriately. I have experience of this in my own constituency: a business run by one of my constituents was subjected to an online trolling attack. I made the point that if my constituent had walked down the street and paint had been thrown at her, we would all have understood that offence. This was, effectively, digital paint being thrown at her from hundreds of miles away to destroy her business. That does not change the fact that she was being harassed. The issue is not that the offences are in some way lacking; it is about ensuring that they are known and understood, and that appropriate evidence is gathered.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that online and offline behaviour is partly an educational issue? If my 12-year-old was at the shops for four or five hours, doing what they wanted, unmonitored and unchecked, I would certainly ask who they were talking to, what they were doing and what was going on. There are parents who allow this behaviour, probably not seeing the dangers out there in respect of who children are talking to and what they are getting up to for a significant amount of time.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is so important. I co-chair, along with the Minister for Children and Families and Baroness Shields, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety—UKCCIS. It is a very important forum, bringing together internet service providers, education providers and people who have the ability to influence young people and parents. Parents must understand that they need to turn their filters on; it may be a pain to have to occasionally put in a password when looking at a website, but those filters will protect their children.
We are also consulting on age verification for pornography. When I was growing up, it was not possible to access the kind of images that children can download on their smartphones and look at in playgrounds up and down the country. It simply was not available. Again, we have to be clear: if a child cannot purchase that material offline in a corner shop, newsagent or specialist retailer, they should not be able to access it online. We need to make sure that we have those safeguards in place.
We need to get rid of any suggestion that this is too difficult or too hard, and say to parents that they need to understand what the dangers are and to make sure that filters are in place so that their children are protected online. Schools have a role to play in that, too, as we all do. I would be happy to write to all Committee members on the work that we are doing, which they can share with their constituents and local headteachers. I will be delighted if we can get more information to headteachers and others about the work that is being done to protect children online.
New clause 18 deals with digital crime training and education, which is linked to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh made. I support the underlying objective, but I do not think that we need to legislate to require police forces to provide such training. Since the introduction of the College of Policing’s cybercrime training course in February 2014, more than 150,000 modules have been completed across all forces, and in September last year the College of Policing launched the second phase of its mainstream cybercrime training course for police forces. This is a modular course consisting of a series of self-taught and interactive modules that are accessible to all police officers and staff, which provides an introduction to how to recognise and investigate cybercrimes.
We need to get rid of the barriers and obstacles that make people think that they cannot investigate a crime because it happened online. They absolutely can; it is the same type of crime. It is money being stolen, it is harassment, it is stalking or it is grooming. These are all crimes. The fact that they happen online does not change the nature of the crime.
Additionally, more than 3,900 National Crime Agency officers have completed digital awareness training as part of equipping the next generation of highly-skilled digital detectives. The national policing lead for digital investigation and intelligence is co-ordinating a programme of activities to equip forces with the capabilities and technology to effectively police in a digital age and protect victims of digital crime. We need to repeat this point: it is not for the Home Office to mandate this training. Whitehall does not know best here. Delivering that training is something that the police are rightly leading on.
In conclusion, the Government recognise that tackling digital crime is one of the most important challenges that the police face today, and we continue to support and invest in the police to ensure that they have the resources and the capability to respond effectively. Having answered the points that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made, I hope that I have persuaded her not to press her new clauses.
Liz Saville Roberts
As I stated earlier, this is a probing new clause. The very purpose of tabling it was to hear the response. I am very pleased to hear that the view on cybercrime is that “crime is crime”. The Minister very effectively described it as “digital paint” being thrown at her constituents.
I believe, in line with those who advise us, such as Stephen Kavanagh, that there is room to look at this matter in a slightly different way. Training is a significant consideration. It has been brought to my attention that, although there are some powerful, centralised initiatives, the front-line work of all police personnel is significant, because there have been cases like the one that I mentioned, in which somebody in a call centre, taking the first contact call, did not interpret the harassment as something that should be taken as a crime. We should be very alert to the means by which we can strengthen the response.
James Berry
Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not just an issue for the Government to tackle, but an issue for internet companies? Whereas online banking fraud has been quite effectively tackled by the banks, companies such as Google, Twitter and Facebook need to do much more. They are some of the richest companies in the world, with some of the best technical brains in the world and if this was an advertising opportunity by which they could make money, they would be up it like a rat up a drainpipe. This is about protecting users and the public, and they need to do a lot more. It is not just an area for Governments; it is an area for the people who are making money out of these services.
Liz Saville Roberts
I had sat down, but I will stand up again. I agree entirely. What is very interesting is how we define, as a society, the behaviour that parents should be addressing in their children and how children should be taught to behave online. What behaviour is socially unacceptable, what is the behaviour in which the police should be involved, and what behaviour really is a threat to safety?
Karen Bradley
Before the hon. Lady sits down, I would like to give a quick response to the point about internet companies. I want to put it on the record that many internet companies are working very hard with the Government to deal with this issue. There is always more that can be done, but Google, for example, works with the Government and the Internet Watch Foundation to make sure that we close down inappropriate or illegal content as soon as it is identified—if not before it is identified, in fact. I pay tribute to them for the work they have done with the Government on that.
Liz Saville Roberts
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Modern technology: specialist digital unit (child abuse)
“(1) The chief officer of each police force in England and Wales must ensure that within their force there is a unit that specialises in analysing and investigating allegations of online offences against children and young people.
(2) The chief officer must ensure that such a unit has access to sufficient digital forensic science resource to enable it to perform this function effectively and efficiently.”—(Liz Saville Roberts.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Child sexual abuse: specialist unit—
“(1) The chief officer of each police force in England and Wales must ensure that within their force there is a unit responsible for working with local agencies to coordinate early identification of children at risk of child sexual abuse, including child sexual exploitation, and early identification of children and adults at risk of sexual offending.”
Liz Saville Roberts
Diolch yn fawr iawn. Everyone will know how to say “thank you” in Welsh by the end of the afternoon.
New clauses 19 and 20 relate to offences against children. New clause 19 relates to online offences against children and calls for modern technology specialist digital units for child abuse. Again, these are probing amendments and are pertinent to what we have just been discussing. New clause 19 would ensure that every local police force has a specialist digital child abuse unit with the latest equipment and expertise to analyse, investigate and take action in relation to online offences against children, including children being groomed and forced to commit sexual acts online, and the making and sharing of sexual images and videos involving children.
We have talked about the explosion of online crime, so I will not go through it again, but I echo the concerns that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s raised during oral evidence to the Committee about the lack of capacity and expertise within local police forces to tackle these crimes. Beyond the cases that reach the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre threshold, local forces are left with a huge volume of other cases where children are at risk, which they do not have the expertise or capacity to deal with adequately.
Emerging findings from research by the NSPCC show that the scale of this type of offending is far greater than previously thought. The sheer volume of offenders, devices and images relating to online offences against children has left the police swamped and unable to protect children to the best of their ability. In one sense, the increase in recording and reporting is to be welcomed, as these crimes are now being recorded. None the less, they are increasing, which is an issue that we should be addressing.
Recent reports by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary on the responses of individual police forces to child protection cases have revealed significant delays—in some cases of up to 12 months—in the forensic analysis of the devices of suspected offenders. We are talking about children here. Some of those delays can pose serious risks to the safeguarding of children, leaving offenders free to continue abusing or exploiting other victims, not to mention the impact on the child victim. While the expertise and capacity of high-tech and cybercrime units are crucial, it is child protection and offender management knowledge and skills that are vital to ensuring that children are best protected.
The Prime Minster gave child sexual abuse the status of a “national threat” in the strategic policing requirement, but what assessment has been made of the increased policing capacity and expertise needed to deal with this issue, given the rise of online offences, and what reassurances can the Minister give that those will be made available? What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that police forces are trained and have the necessary technical capacity to investigate such offences using the newest technology available?
New clause 20 is concerned with preventing child sexual exploitation and with the establishment of specialist units for child sexual abuse. It would help to ensure that all police forces had the resource and support that they needed to work with other local agencies to prevent child abuse, including child sexual exploitation. This subject is particularly pertinent to me because I work with North Wales police. Of course, the Macur review, which discusses this area, was published recently. That review was based on the Waterhouse inquiry, one of the recommendations of which was that there should be a children’s commissioner for Wales. How forces operate in respect of these issues is very significant. I am glad to say that my force, North Wales police, has a child sexual exploitation unit.
In the current economic climate, the police and others face a significant challenge in focusing on prevention. By the time incidents of grooming or sexual abuse come to the attention of the police, it is too late. The Government need to send a clear message that the early identification of children at risk, and of adults and children at risk of offending, is vital. Improving identification of children at risk means confronting difficult issues. Around a third of sexual offences are committed by children under the age of 18. That is often called peer-on-peer abuse. Barnardo’s is currently running a cross-party inquiry into how we can improve our responses to such young people, many of whom have themselves been the victims of abuse or trauma. Police and local agencies must have the resources that they need to work together, and in partnership with charities and others, to prevent horrific crimes such as child sexual exploitation. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that that will happen?
Lyn Brown
I support new clauses 19 and 20. New clause 19 would ensure that there was a unit specialising in analysing and investigating allegations of online offences against children within each police force, and new clause 20 would ensure that there was a unit responsible for working with local agencies to co-ordinate early identification of children at risk of sexual abuse. This is important preventive work.
A report by the Children’s Commissioner in November last year showed that only one in eight children who are sexually abused are identified by professionals. I really do not think that that is good enough. Early identification is incredibly important. The National Police Chiefs Council lead for child protection and abuse investigation, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, has said that
“by the time a child reports sexual abuse the damage has been done and we must do more to stop the abuse occurring in the first place.”
I could not agree more.
We need to do better on early identification, and the specialist units provided for in new clause 20 would help towards that end. The provision for a specialist unit within each police force would mean that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had a specialist or specialists working exclusively on child sexual exploitation, just as now happens with domestic violence. Many police forces already have specialist units dealing with child sexual exploitation and that is to be welcomed, but it would be good to see this replicated across the country if possible. Making the provision of specialist units statutory will help to give vulnerable children in all areas of the country a much greater chance of having their abuse recognised before it is too late.
The last decade has seen a huge increase in the number of children with access to the internet, particularly using smartphones and tablets. Current data shows that 65% of 12 to 15-year-olds, and 20% of eight to 11-year-olds own their own smartphone. In 2004, Barnardo’s identified 83 children as victims of some kind of online abuse, but today that number is in the thousands. Clearly, the way in which perpetrators of child sexual abuse contact and groom vulnerable children is changing, and those of us who wish to prevent these awful life-damaging crimes must change the way that we work too.
Barnardo’s 2015 report states that
“young people at risk of harm online may not have any previous vulnerabilities that are often associated with being victims of sexual abuse and exploitation”.
As a result, these victims are less likely to be known to the authorities and the police may only identify cases of exploitation when it is really rather too late. Encouragingly, in July 2014, initial outcomes of Operation Notarise showed that 660 people suspected of sharing illegal images of children had been arrested and around 500 children had been safeguarded. I welcome the good work that the police and charities like Barnardo’s are doing to combat online child sexual exploitation, but this is not the time to be complacent. I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s response to the suggestions in these new clauses.
Karen Bradley
I fully understand why the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has tabled these new clauses. I believe that they have been prompted at least in part by concerns about significant digital forensics backlogs in some forces, which were highlighted by the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary national child protection investigations. I thank HMIC for the work that it did. It is very important that we all understand what is happening on the ground and that there is an honest appraisal of the work that local police forces are doing, so that police and crime commissioners and others can take the necessary steps to ensure that those issues are addressed.
It almost does not need saying, but I will say it anyway: we can all agree that child sexual exploitation, whether on or offline, is an abhorrent crime and that the police and other relevant agencies must up their game to effectively respond to such crimes and safeguard vulnerable children. The shadow Minister and others have made reference to last year’s report by the Children’s Commissioner. It is worth setting out the context in which we are operating.
The Children’s Commissioner estimated that there are about 225,000 cases of child abuse a year. Of course, the vast majority of that was intra-familial abuse and, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned, peer-on-peer abuse—children-to-children, or young people to children abuse. Child sexual exploitation online is part of the problem, but intra-familial abuse is an enormous part of it. The national policing lead, Simon Bailey, is very clear on the work that needs to be done in schools, with social services and others, working in multi-agency safeguarding hubs, to ensure that children are protected and that we have places for people to go. For example, the Government launched the child sexual abuse whistleblowing helpline, which was one of the recommendations in the Louise Casey and Alexis Jay report on Rotherham. The report said that there needed to be a safe place for professionals to report concerns that child sexual abuse that had been reported had not been dealt with. The NSPCC runs that helpline for the Home Office, and will help to make sure that children can be protected.
Lyn Brown
May I probe the Minister a little on the idea that we do not need specialist units? We now have specialist units within our police forces for domestic violence, which are provided for across the country. They seem to me to have had a massive impact on the safety of women in our communities; they have raised the issue locally and have meant that we are tackling domestic violence so much better than we were. Since those units have had such an impact on domestic violence, may I ask her gently to go away and think about them a bit more, rather than rejecting them out of hand, because they may be the answer to child exploitation and child abuse within our localities.
Karen Bradley
I understand exactly the hon. Lady’s point, but I think we need to differentiate between online and offline exploitation of children. Policing online exploitation is a detailed, technical job that requires great skill and depth. CEOP, which is part of the National Crime Agency, leads on that nationally, with the child abuse image database that is rolled out to all forces, and with their expertise. The Prime Minister committed £10 million to CEOP at the first WePROTECT summit at Downing Street in December 2014; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice was there. We have the specialist capability sitting within CEOP to give all local police forces access to data on online grooming and exploitation.
However, dealing with child sexual abuse in a wider context—not necessarily online—has to be part of every police officer’s work: working with the multi-agency safeguarding hub, with social services, with health professionals and others to ensure that we identify the victim. It is not as easy as finding a victim online—although that is not easy either—because these are very hidden crimes. We need to ensure that they are the business of every police officer, that all officers are aware of what is involved, and that we work within the multi-agency safeguarding hub.
Frankly, it is far too often the police who end up leading on this matter. When a crime is committed, the police absolutely have a role to play. But if there is an allegation of abuse within a family context, two big burly coppers turning up at the front door may not be as successful as a social worker or a health professional. We need to get the right professionals and it needs to be an operational local matter; it is not something that we should be mandating nationally. With that in mind, I hope I have persuaded the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to withdraw her new clause.
Liz Saville Roberts
I reiterate the point that the hon. Member for West Ham made: there is a risk, when making something everybody’s responsibility—particularly children and safeguarding—that it becomes nobody’s responsibility. It was felt that the particular focus required for the police to deal with domestic abuse would not have come about without units present in every police force; that prompts similar questions for child sexual exploitation, which is very much in the same area.
I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, but I hope we will be able to discuss it further. We are all aware of incidents such as those in Rotherham—we can all list them—and the ongoing cases within Operation Pallial; we know that we have not solved the problem, in any shape or form.
Karen Bradley
May I make an analogy with mental health, which we were debating earlier? I think the difficulty there was that the police stepped into a void that no other agency was stepping into. We have the opportunity here to have multi-agency and cross-agency working, to really help children. My fear is that, if we mandate the police to be the agency that deals with the problem, it will all be police-driven. I am not sure that that is in the best interest of the victims or that it is the best way to tackle this issue. I think that there has to be a multi-agency response, which is what we are working towards through the work that all multi-agency safeguarding hubs and others are doing.
Liz Saville Roberts
I thank the Minister for her comments, which I appreciate, but none the less it strikes me that in my own area North Wales police, evidently as a result of the Waterhouse inquiry and Operation Pallial, which is, of course, ongoing, felt it needed a child sexual exploitation unit. We know that child sexual abuse is not restricted to certain areas of the country. Yes, many cases—the majority of cases, possibly—are intra-familial and we have talked about peer-on-peer, but if it was felt to be significant and necessary in north Wales, and wherever the other units are, I feel strongly that it is necessary throughout all police forces. I ask the Minister to consider this again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
“Offence of abduction of a vulnerable child aged 16 or 17
‘(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowingly and without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he—
(a) takes a child to whom this section applies away from the responsible person; or
(b) keeps such a child away from the responsible person; or
(c) induces, assists or incites such a child to run away or stay away from the responsible person or from a child’s place of residence;
(2) This section applies in relation to a child who is—
(a) a child in need as defined in Section 17 of the Children Act 1989;
(b) a child looked after under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989;
(c) a child housed alone under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996;
(d) a child who is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm subject to Section 47 1(b) of the Children Act 1989.
(3) In this section “The responsible person” is—
(a) a person with a parental responsibility as defined in the Children Act 1989; or
(b) a person who for the time being has care of a vulnerable child aged 16 and 17 by virtue of the care order, the emergency protection order, or section 46, as the case may be; or
(c) any other person as defined in regulations for the purposes of this section.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both such imprisonment and fine; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
(5) No prosecution for an offence above shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”—(Liz Saville Roberts.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Liz Saville Roberts
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Diolch yn fawr iawn eto byth. You may be glad to hear that this is the last time you will be hearing my voice on another aspect of children’s safeguarding in relation to abduction. Again, I shall not be pushing new clause 21 to a Division. This probing measure concerning child abduction warning notices, or CAWNs, would ensure that police can protect vulnerable 16 and 17 year- olds by the same method they use to protect younger children.
Child abduction warning notices are used by the police to disrupt inappropriate relationships between children and people who seek to groom them. We mentioned earlier that children are maturing sexually earlier, but not emotionally. There are, of course, people who are very vulnerable although they have reached the age of 16 or 17. These notices are civil orders stemming from the Child Abduction Act 1984. In addition to their use with under-16s, they can currently be used to protect very limited groups of vulnerable 16 and 17 year- olds—those children who have been formally taken into care under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, those subject to an emergency protection order and those in police protection. This, as you can imagine, accounts for a very small number of vulnerable 16 and 17 year-olds. Latest statistics for England show that just 190 16 and 17 year-olds were taken into care under section 31 last year. This left a further 4,320 young people of that age who became looked-after in the same year who would not have the same protections if they were at risk of sexual exploitation.
This is particularly concerning when reported sexual offences are on the rise. In Wales alone there was an increase from 1,545 incidents in 2013-14 to 1,903 in 2014-15. Anything we can do to prevent these offences, including using child abduction warning notices, is vital, as I am sure we would all agree. Professionals working with vulnerable young people and charities such as the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s have consistently argued that CAWNs should be available for police to use in the protection of all vulnerable 16 and 17-year olds. Will the Minister therefore consider closing this loophole in the law?
Lyn Brown
I do not want to repeat everything the hon. Lady has said, but I agree with much of it. Child abduction warning notices can only currently be issued with regard to children under the age of 16, or to 16 and 17 year-olds formally taken into social care under a section 31 notice. We believe that, when it comes to sexual exploitation, this is simply too narrow a definition of a child and that there are very vulnerable 16 and 17 year-olds who could be protected by a child abduction warning notice. The most recent annual statistics available show that only 190 children aged between 16 and 17 were taken into care by their local authorities under a section 31 notice and would thus be able to be protected by a child abduction warning notice. However, a further 4,320 young people of that age are looked after by their local authorities and, as the law currently stands, they are not able to receive that form of protection. The Children’s Society report, “Old enough to know better?”, calculated that the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who live outside the family and are vulnerable to sexual exploitation is actually as high as 7,200. Whatever the exact number, there is clearly a substantial gap between the number of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-old children and the number eligible to be protected by a child abduction warning notice.
Karen Bradley
As with other amendments that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has tabled, I understand and have great sympathy for the intention behind the new clause, but there are problems, as I hope she and the shadow Minister would acknowledge. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are adults. They are lawfully able to get married. They are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents and are otherwise able to make decisions affecting their way of life, not least in sexual matters. Extending the offence of abducting a child who is capable of exercising his or her own free will could therefore raise difficult issues. We therefore need to think very carefully about and debate this matter. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the shadow Minister to discuss it, and I have talked to the Children’s Society about it.
We have a very difficult balance to strike here. We discussed this issue—and will be discussing it shortly—in connection with the coercive control offence when we debated the Serious Crime Bill last year. The difficulties we have—of recognising and ensuring that we respect the rights of somebody who is legally able to leave home and legally able to engage in sexual intercourse, while recognising their need for protection and their vulnerabilities —are considerable, and there is a very fine line. The fact is that there are many 21 and 22-year-olds who are incredibly vulnerable people. It is about the nuance and where we draw the line on these matters.
Lyn Brown
I appreciate that the Minister is doing her best here and I appreciate having the opportunity to talk about this issue, but my colleague on the team—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—who is not here today is probably the better person to talk to about it. However, I just say to the Minister that the children who have been in and out of care are so vulnerable. They are desperate for love, affection and to be able to put down roots. They are so vulnerable. We really should be able to find a way through the difficulties with the law with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds to provide protection for this small number of very vulnerable young people.
Karen Bradley
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that children in care have special treatment. To be clear, children in care do get different treatment from those who are otherwise vulnerable.
I will give an example, which I raised with the Children’s Society when it gave evidence, of where that could create problems. In an honour-based violence situation, a young person may have chosen to leave home because they fear what might happen to them there. I have heard horrendous examples of 16 and 17-year-old girls who left home and were forced to go back to their parents because they were vulnerable and that was the best place for them. In some cases, that led to the most horrendous outcomes. We have to be very careful and mindful of the fact that we confer rights on 16 and 17-year-olds over and above the rights that are conferred on 14 and 15-year-olds.
I appreciate fully the hon. Lady’s point about ensuring that children in care have special protections and, as I say, I am working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that we deal with that. I hope that she will recognise that the Government have legislated to introduce new civil orders, sexual risk orders, and slavery and trafficking risk orders, which provide the police with powers to tackle predators of 16 and 17-year-olds. We need to use those orders and civil powers, not make a blanket decision at this stage without having thought very carefully about the consequences.
That is why I would appreciate having a discussion. I understand that the hon. Lady referred to the hon. Member for Rotherham. I would be happy to meet them both to discuss this issue further, but we need to be careful. Before making a blanket decision on a matter such as this, we need to think about all the risks and consequences for all young people, on whom, as I say, at 16 and 17 we confer rights of adulthood in many ways. We need to respect those rights. For that reason, although the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said that she would not press the new clause to a Division, I would be happy to discuss this issue further.
Liz Saville Roberts
I thank the Minister for her full response and I appreciate that she is endeavouring to address this issue. I am particularly concerned that, as we are very much aware, vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds can be targeted and are more open to abuse because they have reached an age at which some people perceive that it is legal to act so. The 1984 Act gives some precedent for us to look at those groups of people. If three categories of young people are already defined in that Act, are there other categories that we could look at pushing ahead with? However, I appreciate what the Minister said about being cautious about taking a blanket approach and I would very much like to take her up on her offer to meet her and the hon. Member for Rotherham. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 44
Controlling and coercive behaviour in non intimate or family relationships in relation to a child aged 16 and 17
‘(1) Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 76, insert—
“76a Controlling and coercive behaviour in non intimate or family relationships in relation to a child aged 16 and 17
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards a child (B) aged 16 or 17 that is controlling or coercive,
(b) at the time of the behaviour A and B are not in an intimate or family relationship which each other,
(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaviour will have a serious effect on B.
(2) A’s behaviour has a ‘serious effect’ on B if—
(a) it causes B to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against B, or
(b) it causes B serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on B’s usual day-to-day activities, or
(c) it inhibits B’s ability to withhold consent to activities proposed by A through A supplying B with drugs or alcohol.
(3) In this section the ‘non intimate or family relationships’ are relationship other than those defined in Section 76.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both.”’—(Carolyn Harris.)
This new clause would make controlling and coercive behaviour towards a 16 or 17 year old a criminal offence.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd—I can say it—on the excellent way in which she presented her arguments on the measures tabled in both her name and mine. I support everything that she said.
New clause 44 would make controlling and coercive behaviour towards 16 and 17-year-olds a criminal offence. I cannot accept the argument that 16 and 17-year-olds are that capable of knowing their own minds; there seems to be a contradiction if they are capable of making decisions about their sexual behaviour but are not permitted to vote. That aside, this behaviour—child sexual exploitation—is happening every day in our constituencies and communities and in the homes of many young people. That behaviour takes many forms, and it is our job to ensure that the law is able to address them all.
Through the Serious Crime Act 2015, the Government introduced a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour. That rightly seeks to prevent vulnerable individuals in intimate and family relationships from suffering abuse. It recognises that domestic abuse is wrong and illegal, and that individuals do not need to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence. The 2015 Act focuses on habitual arrangements, but there are parallels to be drawn in other contexts. In the case of child sexual exploitation, police often struggle to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence. Supplementary documents to the Government’s guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, acknowledged that
“Violence, coercion and intimidation are common, involvement in exploitative relationships being characterised in the main by the child or young person’s limited availability of choice resulting from their social/economic and/or emotional vulnerability.”
However, the current offence of child sexual exploitation is much more narrowly defined in legislation. It mentions power and coercion, but it must go further. In particular, we must recognise the role of drugs and alcohol in coercing a child into sexual activity in a private residence. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the offence in the 2015 Act, and will she consider what more can be done to ensure that those who are grooming children using drugs and alcohol receive appropriate sentences?
Lyn Brown
I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East. As the Minister rightly said, children aged 16 and 17 are over the age of consent, but there is no doubt that they can still be victims of child sexual exploitation. Often without financial means and the life experience necessary for complete independence, children can be manipulated and pressured into complying with the wishes of those who have power over them. They may find themselves in a situation where they are frightened of saying no to someone, or stressed that if they say no they will lose the financial support and assistance that that person provides them with. However, under current legislation, it is very difficult for the police to prosecute in those situations, as they are required to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence. The new clause would make it easier to protect that vulnerable group of people from grooming and sexual exploitation.
The Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in the home and I welcomed that move, as it rightly seeks to protect those individuals in intimate and family relationships who suffer the agony of domestic abuse. It recognises that domestic abuse is wrong and illegal, and for the first time it established that individuals do not need to prove specific instances of sexual or physical violence in order to demonstrate they have been the victim of the crime of domestic abuse. A partner who manipulates, bullies and emotionally torments is an abuser and the law finally recognises that.
The new clause would extend the provisions on manipulative and controlling behaviour to protect 16 and 17-year-olds in non-habitual arrangements with their abuser. It would make any behaviour that has a serious effect on a child, such as increasing their levels of stress or creating the fear of violence, controlling and coercive. It would, for example, have applied to the girls in Rotherham who were described by the Jay report as fearing the violent tendencies of their abusers, even if the men had not directly and physically attacked them. I would be grateful if the Minister would seriously consider the new clause.
Jake Berry
I want to speak briefly to the new clause to say that I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments being made. It is a hugely important issue. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on violent and coercive behaviour.
This is not an issue that I was particularly aware of, though I was aware that the Government had taken action. If anyone is a fan of “The Archers”, they will have heard, I am sure, the sensitive and good way that the issue is being covered in a relationship on that programme, which has made huge steps in raising awareness. I have been deeply shocked by this form of abuse, to the point of being unable to listen to a programme that I have listened to for the last 15 years.
I am extremely proud of the Minister and our own Government for all that we have done so far, but I hope that she will listen to Opposition voices and perhaps take this away to review. Protecting 16 and 17-year-olds, in the way that we have already done, is something that we should investigate, even if just for the future.
Karen Bradley
We had this debate when we introduced the coercive control offence in the Serious Crime Bill in 2015. It goes back to the points that we discussed during debate on previous clauses about the need to respect individuals’ right at 16 or 17 to leave home, marry legally and make decisions, and how best to respect that in law. I am a great believer in legislating where there is a true gap in the law—where new legislation is needed because at the moment prosecution cannot be brought.
On the offence of coercive control, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned “The Archers”. He may well have spotted me on “Countryfile” on Sunday night, discussing exactly that point. It was very difficult; we knew that there was a problem. When I was talking about the issue at a meeting recently, I met a lady who grabbed me afterwards with tears in her eyes—a well-to-do lady, somebody whom one would perhaps not expect it to have happened to—and said, “That was me 30 years ago. All the police told me was that they had to hope he kicked my door in, because then they could get him for criminal damage.” There was no offence available that the police could use.
That is the point. Is there an offence available, and is it possible to get a prosecution? The answer goes back to the point that we were discussing earlier about digital offences. Where an offence exists, it is not a case of re-legislating or creating new offences; we should ensure that the offence is used. It will be understood by the courts and the legal system, and we need to ensure that the police understand it and use it appropriately. However, where there is no offence and protection cannot be offered, the Government want to take note and listen. I fear that on this issue, there are offences already in place. A suite of powers are available to the police and others. Therefore, although I am happy to discuss the point, I am not persuaded that at this stage, the amendment is the right approach.
The new coercive control offence, which we commenced on 29 December last year, was introduced to address a specific gap in the law and capture patterns of abuse in an intimate partner relationship. Patterns of abuse outside an intimate partner relationship, which the new clause seeks to address, are already captured by harassment, the test for which is partially replicated in the proposal, and stalking offences, which can apply to patterns of abuse directed against 16 and 17-year-olds.
One question that we faced when considering the coercive control offence was how to get evidence. Much of what the hon. Member for Swansea East and the shadow Minister discussed involves gathering evidence. We have seen from stalking offences that it is perfectly possible for the police to gather evidence of persistent or repetitive behaviour to ensure prosecutions, which is what we all want.
The hon. Member for Swansea East mentioned child sexual exploitation. I hope that she has seen that we have recently consulted on the definition of child sexual exploitation, making it clear that the term applies to children under 18 and thus includes 16 and 17-year-olds. As I said, stalking and harassment also apply to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new domestic abuse offence enacted in the Serious Crime Act 2015 means that 16 or 17-year-olds in intimate partner relationships who are coerced or controlled are covered by the new criminal law. Equally, if a 16 or 17-year-old is living with a parent or other family member who seeks to control them in a way that causes them to fear violence or feel alarmed or distressed, the domestic abuse offence offers protection. For the sake of completeness, I should say that if a young person does not live with the family member or parent concerned, existing harassment legislation will offer the same protection.
The hon. Lady discussed gangs and the approaches that they might take in terms of drug trafficking and so on. That is precisely the reason why the Government’s new ending gang violence and exploitation programme, which has replaced our ending gang and youth violence programme, is there.
The point that the hon. Lady makes about vulnerable young people being exploited by gangs, under what is known as the county line phenomenon, is something that we are determined to tackle, but it is possible to tackle it using existing legislation and offences; it does not require a new offence. For example, the Policing and Crime Act 2009 introduced a new civil tool that allows the police or a local authority to apply for an injunction against an individual to prevent gang-related violence and, from 1 June 2015, gang-related drug dealing, which we discussed during the passage of the Serious Crime Act last year.
A wide range of powers are available. I would be very happy to sit down and thrash out whether there really is a gap in the law, or whether it is merely that the existing powers are not being properly used; we need to be clear on that. I hope at this stage that the hon. Lady will withdraw her new clause.
Carolyn Harris
We believe that there is still a gap in the existing harassment legislation that is not covered, as was recently proven in Rotherham. I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I am delighted that she has offered further conversation on this important matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
Prevention of child sexual exploitation and private hire vehicles
“(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows—
(a) after section 47(1) insert—
“(1A) A district council must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation”.
(b) at end of section 48 (1) insert—
“(c) a district council must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation”.
(2) Section 7 of the London Cab Order 1934 is amended as follows—
(a) after Section 7(2) insert—
“(2A) Transport for London must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation”.
(3) Section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is amended as follows—
(a) after Section 7(2) insert—
“(3) The licensing authority must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation”.—(Carolyn Harris.)
This new clause would place local authorities under a duty to consider how they can prevent child sexual exploitation when they issue licences for taxis and private hire vehicles.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Carolyn Harris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Licensing authorities have a duty to protect children from harm. Horrific cases that we have seen on television, in connection with Rotherham, have highlighted the need for this amendment, which could bring us a step closer to making our communities safer for our most vulnerable children. We already place duties on authorities that license premises to sell alcohol to carry out functions with a view to protecting children from harm. This amendment would create similar duties for licensing authorities in relation to taxis and minicabs. We know that taxis and private hire vehicles often feature in cases of child sexual exploitation. Indeed, in February of this year, Mohammed Akram was found guilty of sexual activity with a child under the age of 16, which took place in the back of his cab. He was sentenced to five years in prison.
This is not to say that all drivers are inherently likely to be involved in these crimes. The vast majority of drivers are law-abiding citizens but, along with other night-time economy workers, they have a role to play in helping to keep young people safe. Licensing authorities have a role to play in raising awareness so that drivers can spot the signs of harm and know how to intervene. There have been examples of good practice in Oxford, but we should have good practice across the United Kingdom. We need much more consistency.
Barnardo’s has been working with a range of night-time economy workers across the country to help improve awareness of children at risk. It is a part of the move towards prevention, which we need to see in this area. Will the Government consider introducing new duties on licensing authorities so that communities can be confident that all taxi and minicab drivers are able to spot the signs of abuse, and can help to keep children safe?
Lyn Brown
As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East said, the new clause would place local authorities under a duty to consider child protection when they issue licences for drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. We support it because we think it could lead to important safeguarding measures.
Taxi drivers do a fantastic job up and down the country. I could not happily live my life without them. More than 242,000 licensed vehicles in England provide transport for millions of people every day. Outside of rural areas, interestingly, there is a high satisfaction level—about 68%—with taxi and private hire services. The review of child exploitation in Oxford made it clear that taxi drivers can and do play a very positive role in tackling grooming and child exploitation. The report noted that taxi drivers had driven young girls to the police station when they were worried that the girls were being sexually exploited, and that they were well regarded across the city because of the role that they had played.
However, we have to recognise that in some of the grooming rings exposed in recent years taxi drivers have not played such a positive role. Taxi drivers have been reported as abusing their position of power when they collect young people. The independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham found:
“One of the common threads running through child sexual exploitation across England has been the prominent role of taxi drivers in being directly linked to children who were abused”.
This is, quite clearly, a problem that needs to be tackled. I believe that my hon. Friend’s amendment could pave the way for important safeguarding measures that, frankly, should already be in place. For example, a number of local authorities up and down the country have imposed “conditions of fitness” tests on taxi drivers. These can involve criminal record checks and even live reporting to licensing authorities if a taxi driver commits a criminal offence after they have been granted a licence. Realistically, I do not believe that a licensing authority could carry out its duty to promote the prevention of harm to children, which is what the new clause provides for, without conducting checks on all drivers.
The Department for Transport provides guidelines on how local authorities should assess the criminal records of those who wish to have a licence to drive a private hire vehicle. The guidelines state that authorities
“should take a particularly cautious view of any offences involving violence, and especially sexual attack.”
Those are proportionate and appropriate words. However, because local authorities have discretion to interpret what is meant by a “fit and proper” person to drive a private hire vehicle, not all private hire vehicle drivers outside London are even subject to a criminal record check. We should consider reversing that; I believe that this proposed statutory duty to protect would have precisely that effect.
Other good practice can be considered. In Oxford, taxi drivers have been trained how to respond if they believe that their customers are victims of sexual exploitation. The independent review suggests there is evidence that that training is working. With a statutory duty in place to promote the prevention of child sexual exploitation, we could see such practices replicated across the country. Will the Minister say what measures the Government have put in place to ensure that best practice, like that in Oxford, can be shared across the country?
Karen Bradley
I hope that I am going to cheer everybody up—spoiler alert! I am not going to repeat the arguments made by the hon. Member for Swansea East and the shadow Minister, who have summed up the problem exactly. We have been working closely with the Local Government Association and others to ensure that best practices are spread. I recently enjoyed a taxi ride from Stoke-on-Trent station to my constituency home, in which the taxi driver, without knowing who I was, told me all about the safeguarding training he had been through that day. It was very good to hear him share that knowledge with someone he thought was a complete stranger to it.
We still need to go further. I have been working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on the further reforms that are urgently needed on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing arrangements.
Although I absolutely agree with the spirit of the new clause, I suspect—the hon. Member for Swansea East may be shocked to hear this—that more will be required, with respect both to strengthening the Bill’s provisions and to making additional amendments to relevant legislation. I assure her that I am committed to delivering this change; we want to ensure, working with colleagues at the Department of Transport, that those exercising licensing functions have access to the powers and are subject to the appropriate duties that best ensure that our licensing arrangements provide the strongest possible protections. Once we have determined the best way forward, we will carefully consider what legislative vehicle is most appropriate to make any necessary changes. I cannot promise that that will be in this Bill, but it may be. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw her new clause.
Carolyn Harris
I am happy to withdraw it. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, “You’ve made my day”. Thank you very much.
Carolyn Harris
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Child sexual exploitation: assessment of needs for therapeutic support
‘(1) Where police or a local authority have received a disclosure that a child who has been sexually exploited or subject to other forms of child abuse, police or the local authority must make a referral to a named mental health service.
(2) The named mental health service must make necessary arrangements for the child’s treatment or care.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations—
(a) define “named mental health service” for the purpose of this section;
(b) specify a minimum level of “necessary arrangements” for the purpose of the section.”
This new clause enables the Future in Mind report’s recommendation that those young people who have been sexually abused or exploited should receive a comprehensive initial assessment, and referral to appropriate services providing evidence-based interventions according to their need.—(Mr Kevan Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 47— Child sexual exploitation: duty to share information—
“The local policing body that maintains a police force shall have a duty to disclose information about children who are victims of sexual exploitation or other forms of abuse to relevant child mental health service commissioners in England and Wales.”
See the explanatory statement for NC46.
Mr Jones
The new clauses are probing. This afternoon we have talked about some of the issues surrounding child exploitation. This is about the support that should be given to the victims of child exploitation. The NSPCC and the Children’s Society have been campaigning very hard to ensure that victims of sexual and physical abuse have access, as a matter of course, to therapeutic services. It is true that these things are costly—we talked about that this morning—but in my experience of talking to organisations that deal with such cases, proper, early intervention, especially with young victims, can save money in the long term, by preventing greater trauma many years later.
New clause 46 says that where police or others receive a disclosure that a child has been sexually exploited or subjected to other forms of child abuse, they should refer them to mental health services. It comes back to the question we asked this morning about whether reference to mental health services is a police function. Yes, it is, in terms of investigating the crime that was committed, but how do we then put the holistic bubble around the victim and support them? We need to ensure that the perpetrator of the abuse is taken to court and dealt with, while making sure that the individual gets the emotional and mental health support that they need. Is that naturally a police issue? Directly, no, it is not, but as the Minister said this morning, it is about how we create a link-up between the police service, the health service and other support services.
I accept that some of the services will be provided not by statutory services but by the voluntary sector. A great organisation in my constituency called the Just for Women Centre works with women who have been victims of domestic violence or abuse. It was very interesting listening to the debate this afternoon about victims coming forward. The spike in Durham has come out of the Savile revelations, but it is not about well-known individuals; the issue in that local group is the number of people who have come forward to report family members who abused them over many years.
There has been huge concentration, nationally, on the more high-profile figures, but in local areas a lot of victims who have never come forward before have now done so and are in need of a huge amount of emotional support. This provision refers to children, but without the support given to many of the women at the Just for Women Centre in Stanley in my constituency, early abuse would have led to other problems. Talking to those individuals, we hear that their problems throughout life stem from the fact that they were abused as youngsters. I commend Durham police for their proactive approach to investigating such cases and ensuring that victims get the proper emotional support.
New clause 47 is about information sharing. It says that local policing bodies shall maintain a duty to disclose information about a child who has been a victim of sexual exploitation to the relevant mental health services. I can hear minds crunching among the civil servants in the room, saying that there are obviously problems about sharing information and so on. I accept that, but if we are to ensure that those young people do not fall through the cracks between our statutory services, some method of getting that information to the services that count needs to be put in place.
I accept that ultimately, victims cannot be forced to accept help, but it must be on offer for them. Many of the women whom I have met who have been supported by the Just for Women Centre in my constituency had years of anguish and torment, the root cause of which was not getting help and assistance when they were young. If we can put in place a system that prevents that for future generations, that early intervention could prevent a lifetime of mental health issues, relationship problems and other things. As I said, these are probing amendments to explore how we can put in place practical support for victims of sexual and physical child abuse.
Lyn Brown
New clauses 46 and 47 act on a recommendation made in a joint report by NHS England and the Department of Health in 2013 called “Future in mind”, which argued that we need to ensure that those who have been sexually abused and/or exploited receive a comprehensive assessment and referral to the services that they need, including specialist mental health services.
In 2014, the NSPCC produced a summary of the academic literature on the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and victims’ later mental health. In each instance, the NSPCC offered a conservative estimate of the known impact of one on the other. Despite that effort not to sensationalise, the numbers are truly shocking. Children who are victims of sexual abuse are twice as likely to suffer from depression as those who are not victims. They are three times as likely to attempt suicide, to self-harm or to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder at some point in their lifetime and twice as likely to become dependent on alcohol, meaning that their physical health as well as their mental health is endangered.
All the evidence shows that the trauma and emotional confusion that follows childhood sexual abuse leaves victims more likely to suffer from poor mental health. We should, as a matter of course, do all we can to prevent that from happening, or at least to ensure that those mental health issues are made easier for victims to manage. That involves high-quality and appropriate mental health treatment and professional emotional counselling. There is evidence, for example, that abuse-specific therapeutic interventions relieve depressive symptoms among victims.
New clause 46 would require police or local authorities to make a referral whenever they receive a disclosure that a child has been the victim of sexual or other abuse. They would have to make a referral even if they do not believe there is enough evidence or grounds to take further legal action. That is important, because the burden of proof necessary for law enforcement to use its full array of powers is obviously higher than the level of suspicion needed for our full safeguarding and health measures to be utilised.
The NSPCC has found that delays between children suffering from traumatic events and receiving treatment lead to exacerbated mental health issues and we know that victims of sexual abuse have often had difficulty in being believed by the professionals charged with their care and protection. Duties to refer are not new to our legal system when dealing with safeguarding measures. For example, some employers must refer an individual to disclosure and barring services whenever an allegation of a sexual or abusive nature is made. The provisions in the new clause would not charge local authorities or the police to carry out the task of diagnosis, which they are not trained to do. It would be a precautionary measure that applied to all those about whom they receive a disclosure, not just those they believe to be suffering from a mental or emotional health issue. It is a sensible proposal, in keeping with established safeguarding practice and the assignment of appropriate professional duties.
The proposals are also well thought out. New clause 47 would put a duty on the police to share information with the relevant mental health service commissioner in their area. I believe that that new clause would work with new clause 46 to create a culture of collaboration between law enforcement, health agencies and local government, which is needed if the victims of child sexual exploitation are to be given the care and support that they need.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Member for North Durham for again raising a very important issue. He is absolutely right. We must make sure that vulnerable or traumatised children must never fall through the gaps between services. I would appreciate it if, when we meet, we could discuss the way that that might best be addressed, because I am not convinced that the best way is a mandatory way. For example, some young people who are abused or exploited do not develop mental health problems and I have a nervousness about intervening unnecessarily, which could create unintended harms. We need to make sure that we intervene where we need to and that each child is treated as an individual and has the care that they need; I do not think that it should be mandated.
Mr Kevan Jones
I take the Minister’s point. We cannot force anyone to have treatment, but the offer of some support for individuals would make a real difference.
Karen Bradley
I would really appreciate talking this matter through outside the Committee, and I would like the shadow Minister to attend that meeting as well. There is work being done. The shadow Minister mentioned the “Future in mind” report, which the Department of Health is working on to ensure that an emerging workforce strategy is put in place. Perhaps we can discuss that privately.
The hon. Member for North Durham referred to civil servants getting slightly scared about the idea that personal data should automatically be disclosed to third parties. I appreciate the good intentions, but I do think that that is a dangerous road to be travelling down. We need to have a conversation about how best to manage that.
It is right that we need to make sure that children get support. I have talked about the children I have met who have experienced abuse. They need the right support. At what point do they go into recovery? At what point can they lead a functioning life? It is clear from the work we are doing through the troubled families programme that in the families who have gone through the programme, there are multiple problems—mental health, abuse, domestic abuse and other problems. We need to tackle all of those. I know these are probing amendments and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow us to discuss them at length outside this room.
Mr Kevan Jones
I thank the Minister for her reply. Discussing these issues is worth while. I know there is an onus on things somehow being about cash, especially in a time of austerity, but I have to say that, if properly implemented, the new clause would save money in the long term as well as help individuals. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Suspension of Licences
“(1) Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows—
(2) After section 171 insert—
“171A Suspension of Licences
(1) A licensing authority may suspend a premises licence, or a club premises certificate if the holder of the licence or certificate has failed to pay the non-domestic rates due, from one or more previous financial years, to the licensing authority in respect of the premises for which the licence or certificate relates.
(2) A licensing authority may not suspend a premises licence or a club premises certificate using the powers granted by this section if—
(a) the licensing authority is unable to demonstrate that earlier efforts to secure payment of the debt have been made but have failed, or
(b) either—
(i) the licence holder failed to pay the required amount of non-domestic rates at the time it became due because of an administrative error (whether made by the holder, the authority or anyone else), or
(ii) before or at the time the non-domestic rates became due, the holder notified the authority in writing that the holder disputed liability for, or the amount of, the rates.
(3) If a licensing authority suspends a premises licence or club premises certificate under subsection (1), the authority must give the holder of the licence or certificate notice of the grounds on which the licence or certificate has been revoked and specify the day the suspension takes effect.
(4) The date specified in the notice under subsection (3) must be at least 10 working days after the day the authority gives the notice.
(5) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to any outstanding non-domestic rates which are owed to the licensing authority six months after the commencement of this section.””—(Lyn Brown.)
This new clause would enable a licensing authority to suspend a premises licence where a business has wilfully or persistently failed to pay the business rates due to the licensing authority.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 52—Cap on Licensed Premises—
“(1) Amend the 2003 Licensing Act as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection 3 of section 18 insert—
“(c) have regard to the cumulative impact of granting the licence application given the number of other licensed establishments in the vicinity of the applicant premise.”
This new clause would allow local authorities to reject a licensing application on the grounds that there are already too many licensed premises.
New clause 53—Public health licensing objective—
“(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 4(d) insert—
“(e) promoting public health.””
This new clause would make promoting public health a statutory objective for licensing authorities.
Lyn Brown
These new clauses have all been tabled to help local authorities to carry out their alcohol licensing function.
New clause 51 would enable a licensing authority to suspend a premises licence where a business had wilfully or persistently failed to pay the business rates due. It has been tabled with the support of the Local Government Association. New clause 52 would allow local authorities to reject a licensing application if they felt there were already enough licensed premises in a particular area. New clause 53 would make promoting public health a statutory objective for licensing authorities.
New clause 51 has been tabled because, as the law stands, local authorities must issue licences to businesses even when they may owe debts running into tens of thousands of pounds. I am told by the LGA that that has become a problem in some localities, such as West Sussex, where local authorities are struggling to collect the business rates to which they are entitled. The new clause would end the problem by allowing local authorities to suspend the licence of an establishment that has persistently failed to pay its business rates. The hope is that the power would rarely be used, as premises would change their behaviour as they would no longer have reason to see their local authority as a soft creditor.
The new clause is by no means an attack on drinking establishments. We recognise the role that they play in our communities as social hubs that are an important part of our cultural heritage. The Opposition want to ensure that we keep as many of our well-run drinking establishments open as possible. We understand that the proposal could be seen as a threat to that, which is why it contains a power for a local authority to revoke a licence that would apply only if it was able to demonstrate first that earlier efforts to secure payment of the debt had been made but failed. That safeguard is included to ensure that the power is used only as a last resort.
Furthermore, the power to revoke a licence would not apply if the business failed to make the payment because of an administrative error on the part of the holder, the authority or anybody else—for example, the business’s bank. Taken together, those safeguards would ensure that the power to revoke licences was used only as a very last resort and would protect well-run local pubs from accidentally having their licence removed because of an administrative error.
The Local Government Association predicts that the safeguards, alongside the Government’s extension of small business rate relief, would mean that we would not see important community pubs closing as a result of the new power. However, the power would enable local authorities to ensure that they do not lose out on important revenue to which they are entitled and on which many of our basic services rely.
New clause 52 would allow local authorities to reject a licensing application if they felt they were saturated with licensed premises in a particular area. The Licensing Act 2003 allows local authorities to reject licensing applications only in a limited and defined set of situations: either where the premises has not demonstrated that it will meet statutory licensing objectives, or where door or cover supervision is not provided for.
Home Office guidance suggests that a local authority can refuse a licence based on
“the potential impact on the promotion of the licensing objectives of a significant number of licensed premises concentrated in one area.”
However, a local authority can do so only if it demonstrates in its licensing statement that the number of licensed premises in its area has already had a negative cumulative impact on its licensing objectives. That is called a cumulative impact policy and means that local authorities have to wait until they can demonstrate a negative impact on the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance or the protection of children from harm. That leaves local authorities powerless to act until after the fact, and I just do not think that that is right. I believe that the licensing objectives are incredibly important and I want to give local authorities the power to be proactive to ensure that they are upheld.
For instance, a small town with two large nightclubs could not reject an application for a licence from a third nightclub even if the local authority believed that it would not be appropriate for the town to have yet another nightclub. It is of course important to consider the individual characteristics of the premises concerned, but it is also important to consider the individual characteristics of our towns and cities, which many residents want to see conserved. In effect, local authorities have no power to control the number of licensed premises in any given locality until they can demonstrate that it is having an adverse impact on one of their licensing objectives, by which point it would be rather late.
New clause 52 would allow a local authority to reject a licensing application based on the belief that an area is already saturated with drinking establishments. It would give local authorities a sure footing and a legal foundation to allow them to be proactive in ensuring that their licensing objectives are met, and more power over how their towns and cities look and operate.
New clause 53 would make promoting public health a statutory objective for licensing authorities. I do recognise—honest—the important place that pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants play in our society. Drinking is a social activity, and drinking establishments are essentially social places where people go for conversation, relaxation and pleasure. I understand that in our busy and stressful lives, the socially integrative, egalitarian environments in our favourite locals can be the perfect way to switch off and unwind. For me, a decent beer, a good meal, an engaging book and the company of my four-legged friend is a great joy and a perfect way to spend a weekend afternoon or an evening. I also acknowledge that that can provide significant public health benefits—it certainly does for me—but we must not lose sight of the significant impact that drinking can have on public health.
It is well known that there is a causal relationship between alcohol consumption and a range of health problems, including alcohol dependency, liver diseases, some cancers and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, it can lead to unsafe behaviour and thus the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The World Health Organisation estimates that 5.1% of the global disease burden is due to harmful use of alcohol. New clauses 52 and 53 would enable local authorities to reject licensing applications on the basis that the number of premises in an area was having a negative impact on public health. We cannot ask local authorities to be responsible for public health and then not give them the powers that they say they need to have an impact upon it.
I understand that implementing public health as a licensing objective in Scotland has proved to be somewhat difficult; however, that should not deter us from at least considering it. Alcohol clearly has a major impact on public health, so local authorities should be enabled to consider that impact when undertaking their licensing function. I believe that we have to find a way of successfully implementing what was attempted in Scotland. Local practitioners certainly think so; a recent Local Government Association survey of directors of public health found that nine out of 10 were in favour of adding a public health objective to the Licensing Act 2003, saying that it would help them do their jobs more effectively. Our amendment has the support of the Local Government Association.
Karen Bradley
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I too have read the very informative LGA briefing. I ought to declare an interest in that I am not just an avid—and regular—user of licensed premises. I grew up in a licensed premises, and my brother still has a licence and runs the family pub, which has been in the family since 1967. I think we probably have some experience of these things. Perhaps I could deal with the new clauses in the order that I am attracted to them.
I will start with new clause 51. The four licensing objectives that local authorities have are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. It is very important that we stick to those when we come to look at the new clause. The hon. Lady will know that there is a provision in the 2003 Act for the licensing authority to suspend a premises licence or club premises certificate if the premises has failed to pay the annual fee. That power is directly linked to the local authority’s need to obtain a fee from premises in order to carry out its functions. If it is not paid it undermines licensing authorities’ ability to operate fully, and it is therefore right that they should have the corresponding power to suspend the licence and thus the legal operation of such premises.
Business rates are a different matter. They must be paid by not just licensed premises but all businesses. There are already enforcement remedies available to local councils for the non-payment of those rates. I am not sure that linking the payment of business rates to the right to hold a licence to sell alcohol is necessarily an appropriate route to take. I am therefore afraid that I cannot commend new clause 51 to the Committee.
New clause 53 seeks to introduce a health-based licensing objective. I want to assure the hon. Lady that the Government have sympathy for the view that considerations of public health should play a greater role in licensing, and we remain interested in the possibility of introducing a health-related licensing objective. However, this is neither the right time nor the legislative vehicle to do so. It may superficially seem straightforward, but licensing decisions must be proportionate and made on a case-by-case basis. To try to establish direct causal links between alcohol-related health harms and particular premises would be very difficult. Without the necessary processes and supporting evidence in place, licensing decisions based on health grounds would be unlikely to stand up to legal challenge.
Lyn Brown
I have an awful lot of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, especially about this not being the right legislative vehicle. It was an opportunity for us to test the waters.
We did not envisage this new clause being about the health risk of a particular pub, premises or bar, but about the amount in a particular area, or possibly the type of risks in a particular area. Effectively, the new clause would allow local authorities to take that into consideration when making decisions on licences.
Karen Bradley
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I should make the point that the public health requirement, in the case of two-tier authorities, is on the county council, as it is in my case, but the district council deals with licensing. Licensing decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, so we would be asking a district or borough council to take a licensing decision on an individual premises on the basis of a public health implication that may or may not be properly founded. I want to assure the hon. Lady that Public Health England is looking at the lessons learned from the evidence-based work that was done in 2014-15. A consultation process would need to follow, but it is looking carefully at that point.
New clause 52 covers the cumulative impact. The hon. Lady linked new clauses 52 and 53, but I do not think we need to do that. I hope that she has read avidly the Government’s modern crime prevention strategy, which was published just last month, because in that we made a commitment to put cumulative impact policies on a statutory footing.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is my understanding that if a local authority draws up a local policy, it can use cumulative impact to refuse further licences in an area.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are already more than 200 cumulative impact policies in England and Wales and they allow local authorities to control the number or type of licence applications granted in an area where it can be shown that high numbers or densities of licensed premises are having an adverse impact on the licensing objectives. They can also put a levy on such premises. However, the cumulative impact policies currently have no statutory basis and it is unclear whether all local authorities are making best use of the power. That is why we intend to place them on a statutory footing both to maximise their effectiveness and to improve local authorities’ ability to ensure that the right premises for their area are granted licences to sell alcohol and late-night refreshment.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am a bit of an anorak on the Licensing Act 2003 from when we were in power. The Minister makes an important point about putting cumulative impact on a statutory footing. One thing that confuses the public is that while the ability to reduce licences or take action is there—the onus is on the local authority—in many cases they do not use the powers they have got.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that local authorities do not necessarily use the powers available to them and this measure will ensure that they understand those powers and use them. I hope that he and the hon. Member for West Ham understand that the change requires proper consultation with those affected. We need to consult the licence trade, the alcohol industry and local authorities. Therefore—I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—we need a little time to undertake such consultations. We will do them as quickly as possible. I cannot promise that they will have been completed in time for Report, but suffice it to say that we support the objectives behind new clause 52 and will seek to bring forward proposals of our own as quickly as possible.
Lyn Brown
The Minister has obviously delighted me. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary
“1 The Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 3A (regulations relating to disciplinary matters) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Regulations under this section may provide for the procedures that are established by or under regulations made by virtue of subsection (1A) to apply (with or without modifications) in respect of the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of any person where—
(a) an allegation relating to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person comes to the attention of the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police, the Ministry of Defence Police Committee, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner or the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland,
(b) at the time of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness the person was a member of the Ministry of Defence Police, and
(c) either—
(i) the person ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or
(ii) the person had ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) but the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in paragraph (a) does not exceed the period specified in the regulations.
(1C) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1B) must provide that disciplinary proceedings which are not the first disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness may be taken only if they are commenced within the period specified in the regulations, which must begin with the date when the person ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police.”
(3) In subsection (2), for “The regulations” substitute “Regulations under this section”.
3 In section 4 (representation etc at disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (4)—
(a) in the definition of “the officer concerned”, after “member” insert “or, as the case may be, the former member”;
(b) in the definition of “relevant authority”—
(i) after paragraph (a) insert—
(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—
4 In section 4A (appeals against dismissal etc), in subsection (1)(a), after “member” insert “, or former member,”.
5 Regulations made in pursuance of section 3A(1B) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (as inserted by paragraph 2)—
(a) may not make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police before the coming into force of paragraph 2 of this Schedule;
(b) may make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police after the coming into force of paragraph 2 of this Schedule even though the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness occurred at a time before the coming into force of that paragraph, but only if the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, there could be a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed if the person had still been a member of the Ministry of Defence Police.
Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (c. 20)
6 The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 is amended as follows.
7 In section 36 (police regulations: general), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) To the extent that subsection (1) concerns regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) of the Police Act 1996, or matters that could be dealt with by such regulations, the reference in subsection (1) to constables or other persons employed in the service of the Police Force includes former constables and other persons formerly employed in the service of the Police Force.”
8 In section 37 (police regulations: special constables), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) To the extent that subsection (1) concerns regulations made in pursuance of section 51(2B) of the Police Act 1996, or matters that could be dealt with by such regulations, the reference in subsection (1) to special constables of the Police Force includes former special constables of the Police Force.”
9 In section 42 (police regulations by Secretary of State), in subsection (3)—
(a) after “50(3)” insert “or (3A)”;
(b) after “51(2A)” insert “or (2B)”.
10 Regulations made under section 36, 37 or 42 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that make provision that applies regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) or 51(2B) of the Police Act 1996, or that deals with matters that could be dealt with by such regulations, in relation to former constables, and former special constables, of the British Transport Police Force and other persons formerly employed in the service of the British Transport Police Force—
(a) may not make provision that would not be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by section 22(7)(a);
(b) may make provision that would be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by section 22(7)(b).
Energy Act 2004 (c. 20)
11 The Energy Act 2004 is amended as follows.
12 In section 58 (government, administration and conditions of service of Civil Nuclear Constabulary), in subsection (1)(a), after “members” insert “or former members”.
13 (1) In Schedule 13 (directions by Secretary of State about Civil Nuclear Constabulary), paragraph 3 (government, administration and conditions of service) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) To the extent that sub-paragraph (2) concerns provision that may be made in pursuance of section 50(3A) of the Police Act 1996, the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to members of the Constabulary includes former members.”
14 Provision made by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority that relates to former members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and matters which are the subject of regulations made in pursuance of section 50(3A) of the Police Act 1996—
(a) may not be provision that would not be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by section 22(7)(a);
(b) may be provision that would be permitted in relation to former members of a police force and former special constables by 22(7)(b).”—(Mike Penning.)
This new Schedule includes amendments relating to the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police Force and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary which produce an equivalent effect to the amendments at clause 22 of the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
Office for Police Conduct
Part 1
Amendments to Schedule 2 to the Police Reform Act 2002
Introductory
1 Schedule 2 to the Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule (see also paragraph 54 below for further minor and consequential amendments).
Director General
2 (1) Paragraph 1 (chairman) is amended as follows.
(2) For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
(1) The Director General holds office in accordance with the terms of his or her appointment.
(1A) A person who holds office as Director General must not be an employee of the Office (but may have been such an employee before appointment as the Director General).”
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) for “chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) for “chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) for “chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.
Appointment etc of members
3 After paragraph 1 insert—
“Appointment of members
1A (1) The non-executive members of the Office are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) A person who is a non-executive member must not be an employee of the Office (but may have been such an employee before appointment as a non-executive member).
1B (1) The employee members of the Office are to be appointed from the staff of the Office by the non-executive members.
(2) If the non-executive members propose to appoint an employee member, the Director General must recommend a person to the non-executive members for appointment.
(3) The Director General may also recommend a person to the non-executive members for appointment as an employee member without any proposal having been made under sub-paragraph (2).
(4) On a recommendation of a person for appointment under sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the non-executive members may—
(a) appoint the person, or
(b) reject the recommendation.
(5) If the non-executive members reject a recommendation they may require the Director General to recommend another person for appointment (in which case this sub-paragraph applies again and so on until somebody is appointed).”
4 (1) Paragraph 2 (ordinary members of the Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) for “an ordinary” substitute “a non-executive”.
(3) Omit sub-paragraph (2).
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) for “an ordinary” substitute “a non-executive”.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) for “an ordinary”, in both places, substitute “a non-executive”;
(b) for “five” substitute “three”.
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) for—
(a) for “An ordinary” substitute “A non-executive”;
(b) for “his office as a member of the Commission” substitute “from being a non-executive member of the Office”.
(7) In sub-paragraph (6)—
(a) for “an ordinary” substitute “a non-executive”;
(b) omit paragraph (b).
(8) Omit sub-paragraph (8).
5 After paragraph 2 insert—
“Terms of appointment etc: employee members
2A (1) A person holds office as an employee member in accordance with the terms of his or her appointment (subject to the provisions of this Schedule).
(2) Those terms may not include arrangements in relation to remuneration.
(3) An appointment as an employee member may be full-time or part-time.
(4) The appointment of an employee member terminates—
(a) if the terms of the member’s appointment provides for it to expire at the end of a period, at the end of that period, and
(b) in any event, when the member ceases to be an employee of the Office.
(5) An employee member may resign by giving written notice to the non-executive members.
(6) The non-executive members may terminate the appointment of an employee member by giving the member written notice if they are satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in paragraph 2(6)(a) to (g) apply in relation to the employee member.”
6 Omit paragraph 3 (deputy chairmen) (including the italic heading before that paragraph).
7 Omit paragraph 5 (chief executive) (including the italic heading before that paragraph).
Vacancy or incapacity in office of Director General
8 After paragraph 3 insert—
“Director General: vacancy or incapacity
3A (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the office of Director General is vacant, or
(b) it appears to the Office that the ability of the Director General to carry out the Director General’s functions is seriously impaired because of ill health (whether mental or physical).
(2) The Office may, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, authorise an employee of the Office to carry out the functions of the Director General during the vacancy or period of ill health.
(3) A person who falls within section 9(3) may not be authorised under this paragraph to carry out the functions of the Director General.
(4) A person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months or more may not, at any time in the five years following the day of sentence, be authorised under this paragraph to carry out the functions of the Director General.
(5) Paragraph 1(6) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4).
(6) Authorisation of a person under this paragraph ceases to have effect—
(a) at the end of the vacancy or period of ill health,
(b) on the Office revoking the authorisation for any reason, or
(c) on the Secretary of State withdrawing agreement to the authorisation for any reason.”
Remuneration arrangements
9 (1) Paragraph 4 (remuneration, pensions etc of members) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for the words from “the chairman” to the end substitute “the Director General as the Secretary of State may determine”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “chairman, deputy chairman or member of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) in the words after paragraph (b) for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(4) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
(3) The Secretary of State may make remuneration arrangements in relation to non-executive members of the Office.
(4) Remuneration arrangements under sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) may make provision for a salary, allowances and other benefits but not for a pension, and
(b) may include a formula or other mechanism for adjusting one or more of those elements from time to time.
(5) Amounts payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) are to be paid by the Office.”
Staff
10 (1) Paragraph 6 (staff) is amended as follows.
(2) For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
(1) The Office may appoint staff.”
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;
(b) after “staffing” insert “(including arrangements in relation to terms and conditions and management of staff)”;
(c) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) for “Commission”, in the first place, substitute “Office”;
(b) for “Commission”, in the second place, substitute “Director General”.
(6) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—
(4A) The powers under this paragraph are exercisable only by the Director General acting on behalf of the Office (subject to the power under paragraph 6A(1)).”
(7) In sub-paragraph (5) for “by the Commission of its” substitute “of the”.
Delegation of functions
11 After paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 insert—
“Delegation of functions
6A (1) The Director General may authorise a person within sub-paragraph (2) to exercise on the Director General’s behalf a function of the Director General.
(2) The persons within this sub-paragraph are—
(a) employee members of the Office;
(b) employees of the Office appointed under paragraph 6;
(c) seconded constables within the meaning of paragraph 8.
(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to a function of the Director General is to any function that the Director General has under this Act or any other enactment.
(4) A person (“A”) who is authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to exercise a function may authorise another person within sub-paragraph (2) to exercise that function (but only so far as permitted to do so by the authorisation given to A).
(5) An authorisation under this paragraph may provide for a function to which it relates to be exercisable—
(a) either to its full extent or to the extent specified in the authorisation;
(b) either generally or in cases, circumstances or areas so specified;
(c) either unconditionally or subject to conditions so specified.
(6) Provision under sub-paragraph (5) may (in particular) include provision for restricted persons not to exercise designated functions.
(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (6)—
(a) “designated functions” are any functions of the Director General that are designated by the Director General for the purposes of this paragraph (and such functions may in particular be designated by reference to the position or seniority of members of staff);
(b) “restricted persons” are, subject to any determination made under sub-paragraph (8), persons who fall within section 9(3).
(8) The Director General may, in such circumstances as the Director General considers appropriate, determine that persons are not to be treated as restricted persons so far as relating to the exercise of designated functions (whether generally or in respect of particular functions specified in the determination).
(9) The Director General must publish a statement of policy about how the Director General proposes to exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (7)(a) and (8).
(10) The statement must in particular draw attention to any restrictions on the carrying out of functions imposed by virtue of their designation under sub-paragraph (7)(a) and explain the reasons for imposing them.
(11) The exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (7)(a) and (8) is subject to any regulations under section 23(1) of the kind mentioned in section 23(2)(g) (regulations limiting persons who may be appointed to carry out investigations etc).
(12) An authorisation under this paragraph does not prevent the Director General from exercising the function to which the authorisation relates.
(13) Anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to a person authorised under this paragraph in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function to which the authorisation relates is to be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by or in relation to the Director General.
(14) Sub-paragraph (13) does not apply for the purposes of any criminal proceedings brought in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the authorised person.”
Protection from personal liability
12 After paragraph 7 insert—
“Liability for acts of the Director General
7A (1) A person holding office as the Director General has no personal liability for an act or omission done by the person in the exercise of the Director General’s functions unless it is shown to have been done otherwise than in good faith.
(2) The Office is liable in respect of unlawful conduct of the Director General in the carrying out, or purported carrying out, of the Director General’s functions in the same way as an employer is liable in respect of any unlawful conduct of employees in the course of their employment.
(3) Accordingly, the Office is to be treated, in the case of any such unlawful conduct which is a tort, as a joint tortfeasor.”
Regional offices
13 For paragraph 9 (power of Commission to set up regional offices) substitute—
9 (1) The Office may set up regional offices in places in England and Wales.
(2) But the power under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only by the Director General acting on behalf of the Office (subject to the power in paragraph 6A(1)).
(3) The power under sub-paragraph (1) may be exercised—
(a) only with the consent of the Secretary of State, and
(b) only if it appears to the Director General necessary to do so for the purpose of ensuring that the functions of the Director General, or those of the Office, are carried out efficiently and effectively.”
Proceedings
14 In paragraph 10 (proceedings), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) But the arrangements must include provision for—
(a) the quorum for meetings to be met only if a majority of members present are non-executive members of the Office, and
(b) an audit committee of the Office to be established to perform such monitoring, reviewing and other functions as are appropriate.
(1B) The arrangements must secure that the audit committee consists only of non-executive members of the Office.”
Part 2
Minor and Consequential Amendments to the Police Reform Act 2002
15 The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
16 For the italic heading before section 9, substitute “The Office for Police Conduct”.
17 (1) Section 10 (general functions of the Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) omit “itself”.
(3) In subsection (1)(e) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(4) In subsection (1)(f) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(5) In subsection (3) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(6) In subsection (3A) (as inserted by this Act), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(7) In subsection (3B) (as inserted by this Act), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(8) In subsection (4), in paragraph (a)—
(a) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(9) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(10) In subsection (7)—
(a) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its”, in both places, substitute “the Director General’s”.
18 (1) Section 11 (reports to the Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for “its”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “the Office’s”;
(b) for “Commission shall” substitute “Director General and the Office must jointly”;
(c) for “its”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “their”.
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
(2) The Secretary of State may also require reports to be made (at any time)—
(a) by the Director General about the carrying out of the Director General’s functions,
(b) by the Office about the carrying out of the Office’s functions, or
(c) jointly by the Director General and the Office about the carrying out of their functions.”
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
(2A) The Director General may, from time to time, make such other reports to the Secretary of State as the Director General considers appropriate for drawing the Secretary of State’s attention to matters which—
(a) have come to the Director General’s notice, and
(b) are matters which the Director General considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State by reason of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances.”
(5) In subsection (3)—
(a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;
(b) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.
(6) After subsection (3) insert—
(3A) The Director General and the Office may jointly make reports under subsections (2A) and (3).”
(7) In subsection (4)—
(a) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;
(c) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(8) In subsection (6) for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(9) After subsection (6) insert—
(6A) The Director General must send a copy of every report under subsection (2A) —
(a) to any local policing body that appears to the Director General to be concerned, and
(b) to the chief officer of police of any police force that appears to the Director General to be concerned.”
(10) In subsection (7) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”.
(11) In subsection (8)—
(a) after “subsection” insert “(2A) or”;
(b) for “Commission” substitute “Director General or the Office (as the case may be)”.
(12) In subsection (9)—
(a) after “subsection” insert “(2A) or”;
(b) for “Commission” substitute “Director General or the Office (as the case may be)”.
(13) In subsection (10) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.
(14) In subsection (11)—
(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;
(c) for “(3)” substitute “(2A)”.
(15) After subsection (11) insert—
(12) The Office must send a copy of every report made or prepared by it under subsection (3) to such of the persons (in addition to those specified in the preceding subsections) who—
(a) are referred to in the report, or
(b) appear to the Office otherwise to have a particular interest in its contents, as the Office thinks fit.
(13) Where a report under subsection (2A) or (3) is prepared jointly by virtue of subsection (3A), a duty under this section to send a copy of the report to any person is met if either the Director General or the Office sends a copy to that person.”
19 In section 12 (complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies), in subsection (6)(a) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.
20 (1) Section 13B (power of the Commission to require re-investigation) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (1)—
(a) for “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;
(b) in paragraph (b), before “under” insert “(or, in the case of an investigation carried out under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 by the Director General personally, is otherwise completed by the Director General)”.
(4) In subsection (2) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(5) In subsection (3) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(6) In subsection (9)—
(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(7) In subsection (10)—
(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
21 (1) Section 15 (general duties of local policing bodies, chief officers and inspectors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), in the words after paragraph (c) after “Director General” insert “of the Agency”.
(3) In subsection (4)—
(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.
22 (1) Section 16 (payment for assistance with investigations) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place except as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (4), for “the Commission”, in the second place where it occurs, substitute “Office”.
(4) In subsection (5)(b), after “Director General” insert “of that Agency”.
23 (1) Section 17 (provision of information to the Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for “it” substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
24 (1) Section 18 (inspections of police premises on behalf of the Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading and provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (2)(b), for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
25 (1) Section 19 (use of investigatory powers by or on behalf of the Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (1), for “Commission’s” substitute “Director General’s”.
26 (1) Section 20 (duty to keep complainant informed) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (1)(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(4) In subsection (3) for “it”, where it occurs after “as”, substitute “the Director General”.
(5) In subsection (8A) (as inserted by this Act)—
(a) for “its” substitute “their”;
(b) after “submitted”, in the first place it occurs, insert “(or finalised)”;
(c) after “submitted”, in the second place it occurs, insert “(or completed)”.
(6) In subsection (9) for “its” substitute “their”.
27 (1) Section 21 (duty to provide information for other persons) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including provisions inserted by amendments made by this Act), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (6)(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(4) In subsection (8) for “it”, where it occurs after “as”, substitute “the Director General”.
(5) In subsection (11A) (as inserted by this Act)—
(a) for “its” substitute “their”;
(b) after “submitted”, in the first place it occurs, insert “(or finalised)”;
(c) after “submitted”, in the second place it occurs, insert “(or completed)”.
28 In section 21A (restriction on disclosure of sensitive information) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
29 In section 21B (provision of sensitive information to the Commission and certain investigators) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.
30 (1) Section 22 (power of the Commission to issue guidance) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (3)(c) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
31 (1) Section 23 (regulations) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (2)(o) for “it” substitute “the Director General or the Office”.
32 In section 24 (consultation on regulations) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the Office;
(aa) the Director General;”.
33 In section 26 (forces maintained otherwise than by local policing bodies), for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
34 In section 26BA (College of Policing), for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.
35 (1) Section 26C (the National Crime Agency) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) before “and other” insert “of the National Crime Agency”.
(3) In subsection (2) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “the Office or its Director General”.
(4) In subsection (4) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.
(5) In subsection (5)—
(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “Commission’s”, in both places, substitute “Director General’s”;
(c) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.
36 (1) Section 26D (labour abuse prevention officers) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (4), for “Commission’s”, in both places, substitute “Director General’s”.
37 (1) Section 27 (conduct of the Commission’s staff) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission’s”, in each place (including the heading), substitute “Office’s”.
(3) In subsection (4) for “Commission” substitute “Office and the Director General”.
38 Omit section 28 (transitional arrangements in connection with establishing Commission etc).
39 (1) Section 28A (application of Part 2 to old cases) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place other than in subsection (3) of that section, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (1), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
(4) In subsection (4), for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
40 (1) Section 29 (interpretation of Part 2) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit the definition of “the Commission”;
(b) after the definition of “death or serious injury matter” insert—
““the Director General” means (unless otherwise specified) the Director General of the Office;”;
(c) after the definition of “local resolution” insert—
““the Office” means the Office for Police Conduct;”.
(3) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “Commission” in each place substitute “Director General”;
(b) omit “itself”.
41 In section 29C (regulations about super-complaints) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (3) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.
42 (1) Section 29E (power to investigate concerns raised by whistle-blowers) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (2) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
43 (1) Section 29F (Commission’s powers and duties where it decides not to investigate) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In the heading—
(a) for “Commission’s” substitute “Director General’s”;
(b) for “where it decides” substitute “on decision”.
44 (1) Section 29G (special provision for “conduct matters”) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) or “it”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the”.
45 (1) Section 29H (Commission’s powers and duties where whistle-blower is deceased) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In the heading for “Commission’s” substitute “Director General’s”.
(4) In subsection (1) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
46 In section 29HA (duty to keep whistle-blowers informed) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (1)—
(a) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(b) for “it” substitute “the Director General”.
47 In section 29I (protection of anonymity of whistle-blowers) (as inserted by this Act) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.
48 In section 29J (other restrictions on disclosure of information) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.
49 In section 29K (application of provisions of Part 2) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
50 In section 29L (regulation-making powers: consultation) (as inserted by this Act), for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.
51 In section 29M (interpretation) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (1)—
(a) omit the definition of “the Commission”;
(b) after the definition of “conduct” insert—
““the Director General” means the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct;”.
52 In section 36 (conduct of disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (1)(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.
53 In section 105 (powers of Secretary of State to make orders and regulations), in subsection (5) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.
54 (1) Schedule 2 (the Independent Police Complaints Commission) is amended as follows.
(2) For the italic heading before paragraph 1 substitute “Director General”.
(3) For the italic heading before paragraph 2 substitute “Terms of appointment etc: non-executive members”.
(4) In paragraph 7—
(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”;
(b) for “chairman or as a deputy chairman of the Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(c) omit “or as a member of it”.
(5) In paragraph 8—
(a) for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”;
(b) for “Commission’s”, in both places, substitute “Office’s”.
(6) In the heading before paragraph 9 omit “of Commission”.
(7) In paragraph 10—
(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”;
(b) for “Commission’s”, in each place, substitute “Office’s”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (5)(c) omit “by the chief executive or”.
(8) In paragraph 11—
(a) for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”;
(b) in paragraph (a) for “chairman, a deputy chairman” substitute “Director General”;
(c) in paragraph (b) for “chairman” substitute “Director General”.
(9) In the italic heading before paragraph 12, for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.
(10) In paragraph 12—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “Commission” substitute “Office”;
(b) in paragraph (a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;
(c) in paragraph (b) for “Commission” substitute “Director General”.
(11) In paragraph 13 for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(12) In paragraph 14—
(a) for “Commission” substitute “Office”;
(b) in paragraph (a), after “it” insert “or the Director General”;
(c) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “it”, in both places, insert “or the Director General”;
(ii) for “its” substitute “their”.
(13) In the italic heading before paragraph 15, for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(14) In paragraph 15 for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(15) In paragraph 16 for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(16) In paragraph 17 for “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Office”.
(17) In the italic heading before paragraph 18, for “Commission” substitute “Office”.
(18) In paragraph 18 for “Commission”, in both places, substitute “Office”.
55 (1) Schedule 3 is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place where it occurs, substitute “Director General”.
(3) For “Commission’s”, in each place where it occurs, substitute “Director General’s”.
(4) For “it”, in each place where it occurs and is used as a pronoun in place of “the Commission”, substitute “the Director General”.
(5) For “its”, in each place where it occurs and is used to mean “the Commission’s”, substitute “the Director General’s”.
(6) The amendments made by virtue of sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)—
(a) include amendments of provisions of Schedule 3 that are inserted, or otherwise amended, by other provisions of this Act (whether or not those other provisions come into force before or after the coming into force of this paragraph);
(b) do not apply if otherwise provided by another provision of this paragraph.
(7) In paragraph 19 (investigations by the Commission itself)—
(a) in the heading omit “itself”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “itself”;
(c) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) The Director General must designate both—
(a) a person to take charge of the investigation, and
(b) such members of the Office’s staff as are required by the Director General to assist the person designated to take charge of the investigation.
(2A) The person designated under sub-paragraph (2) to take charge of an investigation must be—
(a) the Director General acting personally, or
(b) another member of the Office’s staff who is authorised to exercise the function of taking charge of the investigation on behalf of the Director General by virtue of paragraph 6A of Schedule 2 (delegation of Director General’s functions).”;
(d) in sub-paragraph (4) for “member of the Commission’s staff” substitute “person”;
(e) in sub-paragraph (5) for “member of the Commission’s staff” substitute “person designated under sub-paragraph (2)”;
(f) in sub-paragraph (6) for “members of the Commission’s staff” substitute “persons”;
(g) in sub-paragraph (6A) for “member of the Commission’s staff” substitute “person designated under sub-paragraph (2) who is”.
(8) In paragraph 19ZH (further provision about things retained under paragraph 19ZG) (as inserted by this Act)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a) for “Commission’s” substitute “Office’s”.
(9) In paragraph 19A (as substituted by this Act), in sub-paragraph (2)(b) after “investigating” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”.
(10) In paragraph 19F (interview of persons serving with police etc during certain investigations), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) for “the Commission itself” substitute “a person designated under paragraph 19 (investigations by Director General)”.
(11) In paragraph 20 (restrictions on proceedings pending conclusion of investigation), in sub-paragraph (1)(b) at the end insert “or, where under paragraph 19 the Director General has personally carried out the investigation, a report has been completed by the Director General”.
(12) In paragraph 20A (as substituted by this Act)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) after “investigating” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3) after “and” insert “(where the person investigating is not also the Director General carrying out an investigation under paragraph 19 personally)”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (4)(b) after “investigation” insert “or, where the investigation is carried out under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally, finalise one,”.
(13) In paragraph 21A (procedure where conduct matter is revealed during investigation of DSI matter)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), omit “or designated under paragraph 19”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (2A) (as inserted by this Act), insert—
(2B) If during the course of an investigation of a DSI matter being carried out by a person designated under paragraph 19 the Director General determines that there is an indication that a person serving with the police (“the person whose conduct is in question”) may have—
(a) committed a criminal offence, or
(b) behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings,
the Director General must proceed under sub-paragraph (2C).
(2C) The Director General must—
(a) prepare a record of the determination,
(b) notify the appropriate authority in relation to the DSI matter and (if different) the appropriate authority in relation to the person whose conduct is in question of the determination, and
(c) send to it (or each of them) a copy of the record of the determination prepared under paragraph (a).”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (5), after paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) is notified of a determination by the Director General under sub-paragraph (2C),”.
(14) In paragraph 22 (final reports on investigations: complaints, conduct matters and certain DSI matters)—
(a) for sub-paragraph (5) substitute—
(5) A person designated under paragraph 19 as the person in charge of an investigation must—
(a) submit a report on the investigation to the Director General, or
(b) where the person in charge of the investigation is the Director General acting personally, complete a report on the investigation.”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (6) after “submitting” insert “or, in the case of an investigation under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally, completing”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (8) after “submitted” insert “or, in the case of an investigation under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally, completed”.
(15) In the italic heading before paragraph 23 (action by the Commission in response to investigation reports), for “response” substitute “relation”.
(16) In paragraph 23—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(b) before “under” insert “, or is otherwise completed,”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (1A) (as inserted by this Act), after “submission” insert “or completion”;
(c) in each of the following places, after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”—
(i) sub-paragraph (2);
(ii) sub-paragraph (5A) (as inserted by this Act);
(iii) sub-paragraph (5F) (as inserted by this Act).
(17) In paragraph 24A (final reports on investigations: other DSI matters)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
(2A) Sub-paragraph (2)(a) does not apply where the person investigating is the Director General carrying out an investigation personally under paragraph 19, but the Director General must complete a report on the investigation.”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3) for “this paragraph” substitute “sub-paragraph (2) or completing one under sub-paragraph (2A)”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (4) after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”;
(d) in sub-paragraph (5) (as inserted by this Act) after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”.
(18) In the italic heading before paragraph 24B (action by the Commission in response to an investigation report under paragraph 24A), for “response” substitute “relation”.
(19) In paragraph 28A (recommendations by the Commission)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—
(i) after “received a report” insert “(or otherwise completed one in relation to an investigation carried out under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally)”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) for “Commission itself” substitute “or on behalf of the Director General”;
(iii) in paragraph (c) after “24A(2)” insert “or (2A)”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a) after “receipt” insert “or completion”.
(20) In paragraph 28B (response to recommendation), in sub-paragraph (12) (as inserted by this Act) after “received a report on” insert “(or otherwise completed one on in relation to an investigation carried out under paragraph 19 by the Director General personally)”.
56 (1) Schedule 3 is further amended as follows (but these amendments apply only if this Schedule comes into force before the coming into force of Schedule 4 to this Act).
(2) In paragraph 19B (assessment of seriousness of conduct under investigation), in sub-paragraph (1) after “investigating” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”.
(3) In paragraph 20A (accelerated procedure in special cases)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—
(i) for “his” substitute “an”;
(ii) after “conduct matter” insert “or, in the case of an investigation by a designated person under paragraph 19, the Director General,”;
(iii) for “he” substitute “the person investigating”.
(b) in sub-paragraph (3) for “his belief” substitute “the belief referred to in sub-paragraph (1)”.
(4) In paragraph 23 (action by the Commission in response to an investigation report), in sub-paragraph (6) after “receipt of the report” insert “(or on its completion by the Director General)”.
57 (1) Schedule 3A (whistle-blowing investigations: procedure) (as inserted by this Act) is amended as follows.
(2) For “Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General”.
(3) In paragraph 1(1) omit “itself”.
(4) In paragraph 4(2)—
(a) for “it”, where it occurs in the first place, substitute “the Director General”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the”.
Part 3
Other Minor and consequential amendments
Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)
58 In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972—
(a) in the list of entries under the heading “Royal Commissions and other Commissions”, omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission;
(b) in the list of entries under the heading “Other Bodies”, insert at the appropriate place—
“The Office for Police Conduct.”;
(c) in the list of entries under the heading “Offices”, omit the entries relating to—
(i) the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission;
(ii) the Commissioners of the Independent Police Complaints Commission;
(iii) the Deputy Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
59 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—
“The Office for Police Conduct.”
Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)
60 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—
“The Office for Police Conduct.”.
Police Pensions Act 1976 (c. 35)
61 In section 11 of the Police Pensions Act 1976 (interpretation), in subsection (2A)(ba) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”.
Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (c. 4)
62 In section 4 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (representation etc at disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (5)(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”.
Aviation, Maritime and Security Act 1990 (c. 31)
63 In section 22 of the Aviation, Maritime and Security Act 1990 (power to require harbour authorities to promote searches in harbour areas), in subsection (4)(b)(i) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.
Police Act 1996 (c. 16)
64 (1) The Police Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In the following provisions, for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”—
(a) section 50(3A)(a) (regulation of police forces) (as inserted by this Act);
(b) section 51(2B)(a) (regulations for special constables) (as inserted by this Act);
(c) section 87(1) (guidance concerning disciplinary proceedings etc) (as amended by this Act).
(3) In the following provisions, for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”—
(a) section 84(5) (representation etc at disciplinary and other proceedings);
(b) section 88C(5)(d) (effect of inclusion in police barred list) (as inserted by this Act);
(c) section 88K(3)(d) (effect of inclusion in police advisory list) (as inserted by this Act).
(4) In section 54(2D) (appointment and functions of inspectors of constabulary)—
(a) in paragraph (a)—
(i) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct (“the Director General”)”;
(ii) for “that Commission” substitute “the Director General”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) for “that Commission”, in both places, substitute “the Director General”;
(ii) for “its” substitute “his or her”.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
65 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices: general) omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—
“The Office for Police Conduct”.
Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (c. 21)
66 In section 4I of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (5)(b) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.
Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (c. 11)
67 (1) The Commissions for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 18 (confidentiality), in subsection (2)(g)—
(a) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”.
(3) In section 28 (complaints and misconduct: England and Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct (“the Director General”)”;
(b) in subsection (2)—
(i) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”;
(ii) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”;
(c) in subsection (3) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(d) in subsection (4) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General”.
(4) In section 29 (confidentiality etc), in subsection (3)—
(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;
(b) for “its” substitute “the Director General’s”;
(c) in paragraph (a), for “Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(d) in paragraph (b), for “Commission” substitute Director General”.
Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48)
68 (1) In section 41 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (immigration and asylum enforcement functions and customs functions: complaints and misconduct)—
(a) in subsection (1) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct (“the Director General”)”;
(b) in subsection (2A) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(c) in subsection (3) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(d) in subsection (4)(b), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(e) in subsection (5) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General”;
(f) in subsection (6) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in both places, substitute “Director General.
(2) In the heading before that section for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (c. 20)
69 In section 107EE of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107EA orders: complaints and conduct matters etc) (as inserted by this Act), in subsection (5)(b) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)
70 In section 47 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (meaning of “interested person”)—
(a) in subsection (2)(k) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;
(b) in subsection (5) for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”.
Equality Act 2010 (c. 15)
71 In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities: general), under the heading “Police” omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and insert at the appropriate place—
“The Office for Police Conduct”.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (c. 13)
72 (1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 65 (disqualification from election or holding office as police and crime commissioner: police grounds), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “Office for Police Conduct”.
(3) In Schedule 7 (regulations about complaints and conduct matters), for “Independent Police Complaints Commission”, in each place, substitute “Director General of the Office for Police Conduct.”—(Mike Penning.)
This new Schedule contains amendments to the Police Reform Act 2002 and other enactments in connection with the re-naming of the Independent Police Complaints Commission as the Office for Police Conduct and the creation of the new position of Director General.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clauses 108 and 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Extent
Amendments made: 149, in clause 110, page 109, line 23, leave out “paragraph” and insert “paragraphs 15E and”.
This amendment and amendment 150 provide for the consequential amendment to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in amendment 108 to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, reflecting the geographical extent of that Act.
Amendment 150, in clause 110, page 109, line 23, leave out “that paragraph” and insert “those paragraphs”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 149.
Amendment 216, in clause 110, page 109, line 24, at end insert—
“() section (Combined authority mayors: exercise of fire and rescue functions)(11);”.
This amendment provides for the amendment to Schedule 1 to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 in NC22 to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom, reflecting the geographical extent of that provision.
Amendment 154, in clause 110, page 109, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) section 22(8), so far as relating to paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule (Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary), and those paragraphs;”.
This amendment is consequential on NS1.
Amendment 217, in clause 110, page 109, line 28, at end insert—
“( ) section (References to England and Wales in connection with IPCC functions)(2) and (3);”.
This amendment is consequential on NC23.
Amendment 218, in clause 110, page 109, line 39, after “sections” insert “62(2) to (5),”.
This amendment, together with amendment 219, provides expressly for the procedure relating to the exercise of the regulation-making power in clause 62(3)(f) to form part of the law of the United Kingdom. The regulation-making power may be used to add to the list of persons who are law enforcement officers for the purposes of Chapter 4 of Part 4 and who may therefore exercise the maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit by virtue of clause 64 (which also extends to the United Kingdom).
Amendment 219, in clause 110, page 109, line 39, leave out from “73” to end of line 40.
Please see the explanatory statement to amendment 218.
Amendment 220, in clause 110, page 109, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) sections (Application of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: general)(2) to (7), (Exercise of maritime enforcement powers in hot pursuit in connection with Scottish offences) to (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: other supplementary provision) and (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: interpretation);”.
This amendment, together with amendment 224, set out the extent of NC29 to NC39.
Amendment 151, in clause 110, page 110, line 3, leave out “and 13” and insert “, 12E to 12G, 12L, 12N, 12AE, 12AH, 12AL to 12AS, 14A to 14D, 15D and 17C”.
This amendment provides for certain of the consequential amendments in amendments 106 to 109 to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, reflecting the geographical extent of the Acts they amend.
Amendment 221, in clause 110, page 110, line 5, at end insert—
“() section (Combined authority mayors: exercise of fire and rescue functions)(5) and (8);”.
This amendment provides for the amendments to section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 and section 34 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 in NC22 to extend to Great Britain, reflecting the geographical extent of those provisions.
Amendment 152, in clause 110, page 110, line 7, leave out “and 104” and insert “, 104 and 114”.
This amendment provides for the consequential amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in paragraph 114 of Schedule 2 to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, reflecting the geographical extent of that Act.
Amendment 153, in clause 110, page 110, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) section22(8), so far as relating to paragraphs 6 to 14 of Schedule (Disciplinary proceedings: former members of MoD Police, British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary), and those paragraphs;”.
This amendment is consequential on the new Schedule NS1.
Amendment 222, in clause 110, page 110, line 7, at end insert—
“() section (Office for Police Conduct)(9), so far as relating to paragraphs 61 and 71 of Schedule (Office for Police Conduct), and those paragraphs;”.
This amendment provides for specified amendments in Part 3 of NS2 to have the same extent as the provisions amended.
Amendment 223, in clause 110, page 110, line 15, at end insert—
‘( ) Section (Office for Police Conduct)(9), so far as relating to paragraphs 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67 and 68 of Schedule (Office for Police Conduct), and those paragraphs, extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”.
This amendment provides for specified amendments in Part 3 of NS2 to have the same extent as the provisions amended.
Amendment 226, in clause 110, page 110, line 17, after “paragraphs,” insert
“and sections (Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel) and (Offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions relating to travel: interpretation)”.
This amendment provides for NC41 and NC42 to extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 224, in clause 110, page 110, line 19, leave out “extends” and insert
“and (Application of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: general)(1) and (8), (Restriction on exercise of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences) and (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: obstruction etc) extend”.—(Mike Penning.)
Please see the explanatory statement for amendment 220.
Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Commencement
Amendment made: 225, in clause 111, page 110, line 41, at end insert—
‘( ) Before making regulations appointing a day for the coming into force of any provision of sections (Application of maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: general) to (Maritime enforcement powers in connection with Scottish offences: interpretation) the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers.”. —(Mike Penning.)
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before bringing NC29 to NC39 into force.
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mike Penning
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. As is customary as we come to the conclusion of the Committee stage, we as joint Ministers will put some votes of thanks together, particularly to you, Mr Howarth, and to your co-chair, Mr Nuttall. Both of you have been very pragmatic in expediting the Bill.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. She is the new crime Minister, having taken over crime responsibilities from myself, when I took on something called fire.
I turn to the Opposition Front Bench, and I hope that this goes on the record. I think that this is the way that Bills should be scrutinised: agree on what we agree on, disagree on what we disagree on and talk sensibly inside and outside the Committee. We will never agree on everything but we can see that a rather large Bill has gone through Committee stage in probably record time, but with scrutiny in the areas of disagreement. I think that that is right. I pay tribute to the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople.
My own Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, has expedited these discussions brilliantly, together with his opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington: the Whips Office has done expertly. We have to say that, don’t we?
My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley is missing—it is outrageous —so I have a trainee PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, who has been doing absolutely brilliantly. I do not think she managed to pass me anything at all, which is very good.
The Bill managers have done brilliantly well. If I have the list right, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the devolved Assemblies and Administrations, and the Wales Office, the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office—I have probably missed one or two off—have all been part of a very large but very important Bill, and been part of the process. Legislation will obviously come forward through the Bill based on that.
Hansard, who hate me, because I never pass any notes to them—thank you very much indeed. The Doorkeepers have also done brilliantly well. Can I particularly thank the people who I give the hardest time to: the lawyers in the Home Office?
Jack Dromey
Further to that point of order, Mr Howarth. First, in terms of the team behind the Bill, can I thank the Clerks and all those who have worked with us throughout the Committee stage, for their professional support at all hours of the day and night, as we discovered on one particular occasion? Secondly, like the Police Minister—
Jack Dromey
Like the Policing and Fire Minister, I thank all those who have supervised our proceedings, including the Doorkeepers and Hansard, all of whom play a very important role.
I want to come straight to the heart of one thing that the Policing and Fire Minister said. The Bill has been professionally debated, with substantial common ground. Where there has not been common ground, we have disagreed not for the sake of it but in order to focus on areas in need of further probing and areas of disagreement. On the former, I welcome some of the commitments given to next-stage dialogue on issues relating to children and mental health. We will take advantage of the offers made. On the latter, there are areas of disagreement, particularly in relation to fire and volunteers. There are also areas where we hope the Government will go further in the next stages, such as pre-trial bail. All these things have been properly rehearsed, recorded and debated in the Committee.
Finally, I thank all Committee members. The debate has been conducted in a good-humoured way throughout. I also particularly thank my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, for her prodigious efforts throughout the Bill’s passage. We look forward to Report.
The Chair
On behalf of all those who must remain silent, I thank Committee members for the tributes that they have paid to everybody involved, including the Doorkeepers, Hansard, the Clerks and those who serve the Ministers. On behalf of my co-Chair and myself, I thank the Front Benchers and every individual Committee member. You would be amazed how often the Chair gets it wrong. Thank you for not noticing. It has been a good-humoured Committee, as has already been observed. Co-operation with the Chair has been excellent. On behalf of my co-Chair and myself, I thank each and every Committee member for that co-operation and good humour.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 April 2016 - (12 Apr 2016)
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Would everyone please ensure that all mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched into silent mode?
We first consider a motion to amend the programme motion agreed by the Committee on 24 March. The motion is on the amendment paper in the Minister’s name. I remind Members that the Standing Orders provide that a Minister must make such a motion and that if any member of the Committee signifies an objection, the proceedings on the motion will lapse. I call the Whip to move the motion.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 24 March 2016 be varied so that the Committee shall meet at 4.30 pm and 7.00 pm on Tuesday 3 May instead of at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on that day.—(Simon Kirby.)
The Chair
I should like to tell Members that, as a general rule, I and my fellow Chair do not intend to call starred amendments. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days, therefore amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.
The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the website. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for the debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or a similar, issue. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate I shall call again the Member who moved the leading amendment and, before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments or new clauses in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, the debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list. Decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. New clauses are decided after we have finished with the existing text, so after consideration of clause 232. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules, following the debate on the relevant amendments. I hope that that is helpful.
Clause 1
Overview of Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Dorries. It is a delight to serve under your stewardship. I also welcome all members of the Committee.
Clause 1 provides an overview of the Bill and, for that reason—and with your indulgence, Ms Dorries—it is perhaps worth my setting our consideration in context. The Bill is significant, bringing together as it does for the first time a set of powers currently used by the intelligence agencies and law enforcement. It adds checks and balances regarding authorisation and oversight, and provides a degree of certainty regarding those powers and those checks and balances, which up until now has not been there in that form. It certainly provides greater navigability. Many of the powers are contained in a variety of legislation passed over time, so the point made by the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee on Second Reading of the draft Bill—that it is hard to navigate the legislation that supports the powers—was well made. The Bill provides greater transparency and, I hope, greater clarity.
It is important to understand that privacy is at the very core of the Bill. Clause 1 deals with that core. There have been calls, and we may hear them again during our consideration, for privacy to be defined more explicitly, but my counter view, without wishing to be unnecessarily contentious at this early stage, is that privacy runs through the very fabric of the Bill and that to separate it out—to desiccate it in that way—would weaken the commitment to privacy that is at the heart of the legislation. The protection of private interests and the protection of the public are at the heart of all we seek to do in the Bill. In my view, it is therefore unacceptable to limit the privacy provisions to a single clause.
Perhaps it would be advisable for me to give a little more detail about what the Bill does in respect of privacy. By underpinning the powers and sensitive capabilities available to law enforcement and security services, the Bill provides—as successive Governments have, by the way—an appropriate degree of oversight of those powers. Furthermore, through the change to authorisation—for the first time and in groundbreaking terms—they answer the call of those who have argued that both the political masters who drive these things and the judiciary should play a part in reinforcing those safeguards, based very much on the core principle of necessity and proportionality which applies to all such powers.
It is fair to say that in sweeping away some of the cobwebs that surrounded the powers I have described—certainly in the view of some of their critics—the provisions here shed a light on some of the most sensitive powers available to our intelligence and security agencies. It follows absolutely the direction provided by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, that the capability examined in the Corston review of investigatory powers should be avowed and put on a statutory footing.
It is important that the public and Parliament understand that the powers I describe are there to keep us safe. It is also important that those powers are constrained in the way I have briefly described. The Bill places very strict controls on the use of those powers. They reflect the proposals of the 2015 report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee on privacy and security. They include limitations around who can use each of the powers; for what purposes and in what circumstances; how information can be obtained under the powers must be protected; when it can be shared and in what circumstances it must be destroyed; and, perhaps most importantly, the penalties—including criminal sanctions—for improper use of the powers.
In addition, the Bill delivers the strongest possible safeguards for the way the powers are authorised. I have spoken about the groundbreaking introduction of the double lock which means that politicians and the judiciary are involved in authorising powers. This maintains democratic accountability and adds a new element of judicial independence. No doubt we will discuss this in subsequent consideration of the Bill. Indeed, I note that amendments have been tabled that will allow us to do just that. However, I remain of the view that it is very important that this House and Ministers play a key part in the business of authorising these powers. The introduction of judges into the process of issuing warrants represents a highly significant change to the way the security and intelligence agencies operate—perhaps one of the most significant changes since they began in the last century. These things are not done lightly and should not be taken for granted. It is a very important change.
I spoke earlier about oversight and the Bill also introduces world-leading new oversight provisions, drawing together some of what is done already but adding visibility and transparency in the way that I mentioned. This is an opportunity for the new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be an effective advocate for the public. The commissioner will have unfettered access to the work of the security and intelligence agencies and new powers to inform people who have suffered as a result of serious errors. He or she will leave no question in the minds of the public or that of Parliament that these powers are used within both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Returning to my initial point about the clause, let us reflect on what the privacy safeguards amount to. In essence, they reflect the collective consideration of the three independent reviews and three Parliamentary Committees that preceded the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. There have been those who have surprisingly—some might say remarkably or incredibly—argued that the Bill has been rushed in some way. My goodness, I cannot remember a single other piece of legislation in my time in Parliament that has been published in draft preceded by three independent reports; has then been considered by three separate Committees of the House; and published in its full form and debated on Second Reading. The Bill is about to have consideration of the most serious kind—I say that, looking around at the cerebral members of the Committee—and will then, of course, proceed to the other place for similar scrutiny. I hesitate to say that it is unprecedented, but it is quite unusual and reflects the Government’s absolute determination to get this right. I hope that the Committee will move ahead as one in our determination to put both these powers and the safeguards—the checks and balances—in place.
The consideration of the Bill that has already taken place covers the vast proportion of the clauses. No doubt we will refer to some of those reports during the next few days and weeks. I am absolutely sure that all members of the Committee want what I want—for this legislation to be in a form that engenders complete confidence that those whose mission is to keep us safe have what they need to do so, but that the checks on the exercise of their powers are rigorous, robust and transparent. In that spirit, and with that hope about the further consideration, I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Our starting position is that in the aftermath of attacks such as those we have recently seen in Brussels, which are only the latest in a series of similar attacks, there can be no doubt that the security and intelligence services and law enforcement agencies need all the powers that are necessary and proportionate to deal with serious threats. That is the starting position on the Bill, so far as the Labour party is concerned.
As the Minister has said, it is a good thing that the powers that had previously been exercised by the security and intelligence services are now avowed on the face of the Bill. That is welcome, but those powers also need to be justified, clearly defined and limited, and there must be proper safeguards. The Opposition’s proper role in the process we are about to undertake is to robustly challenge the Bill’s provisions where they do not meet those criteria and to push back and probe. Through that process, we hopefully will improve the final product so that the Bill achieves what it needs to achieve, but goes no further than what is necessary and proportionate.
On justification, as the Minister no doubt knows, the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary on 4 April making a number of points, one of which was the need for a better assessment of the operational case and, in particular, an independent assessment of bulk powers. He said:
“Whilst I accept the broad argument advanced by the authorities that powers to extract information in bulk form may provide the only way of identifying those who pose a risk to the public, the operational case for bulk powers which accompanied the Bill’s publication has significant gaps. This was clear from contributions made at Second Reading from both sides of the House.”
Anyone who reads the operational cases will see that they are slim indeed, and more than half the printed case is introductory matter.
The shadow Home Secretary suggests in the letter that
“the simplest way to proceed would be, firstly, to produce a more detailed operational case and, secondly, to accept the recommendation of the Joint Committee and commission an independent review of all the bulk powers.”
The Labour party suggests that that review should conclude in time to inform Report and Third Reading. Obviously the Minister will probably not want to deal with the matter here and now, but I ask that a reply to the letter be prepared as soon as possible so that we can move forward on that issue.
The letter also deals with concerns about internet connection records, which we will deal with when we come to the appropriate clauses, but it particularly highlights the problems of definition in clause 54 and the question of the threshold for accessing internet connection records along with other comms data.
The letter also talks about the
“definitions of ‘national security’ and ‘economic well-being’”,
which we will probably start to debate today. The letter also raises meaningful judicial authorisation and oversight and the need for an overarching criminal offence of deliberate misuse and for effective protections for sensitive professions. Can a reply to the letter be prepared as soon as possible so that we can move forward, particularly on the operational case? If there is more work to be done, the sooner it starts the better. With luck it can then be finished in time for the next stage, which is Third Reading. Will the Minister ensure that there is a speedy response to that letter?
On the question of privacy provision, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. The recommendation of the Intelligence and Security Committee was that there should be general safeguards on privacy. Clause 1 does not provide that. The Minister says that the safeguards run through the Bill. I will make the cheap point, but I will make it quickly. The only amendment to part 1 in response to the Intelligence and Security Committee was the insertion of the word “privacy” in the title. It used to say “General protections”, and it now says “General privacy protections”. However, clause 1 in itself is clearly not enough. It is true that there are safeguards in the Bill, but there is also considerable inconsistency, and that is where overarching principles would play their part.
I will flag up for the Committee three examples of that inconsistency. It is the sort of inconsistency that an overarching provision would deal with. The first is in the draft code of practice on the interception of communications that is before the Committee, which we will consider further this morning. There is a strong proposition in paragraph 4.7 of the draft code, under the heading:
“Is the investigatory power under consideration appropriate in the specific circumstances?”
It states:
“No interference with privacy should be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means.”
So there is a clear proposition on necessity; it is not necessary if information can be obtained by other less intrusive means.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Dorries and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship. I would like to make some brief opening remarks on behalf of the Scottish National party in response to the Minister. We acknowledge the attempt to codify and modernise the law, and we think that the attempt is laudable. However, we think that the execution of this attempt is not laudable. We believe that there has been a rush to legislate, and it is not only we who say that. Members will remember that, when evidence was given to the Committee by Jo Cavan, the head of the Interception Commissioner’s Office, she spoke of an aggressive timeline for the Bill. When I asked her to elaborate on that, she said:
“It is a really complicated and significant piece of legislation. Although I broadly support the Bill, because it is a good thing to put a number of the powers used by the intelligence agencies on a clearer statutory footing and to try to improve transparency, I do think that the scrutiny process has been very hurried. That is of concern because there are some significant privacy implications to the clauses in the Bill. There is still a long way to go towards strengthening some of the safeguards. Also, a lot of the operational detail is in the codes of practice. It is really important that those are scrutinised properly, line by line.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 70.]
She agreed with me that the time afforded for scrutiny of the Bill is inadequate, particularly with regards to the international legal implications of aspects of the Bill.
Mr Hayes
I have no wish to delay us unduly or indeed to embarrass the hon. and learned Lady, but I remember the evidence that was given. As she will remember, I challenged the witness on it because, as I said earlier, I cannot recall another piece of legislation that has enjoyed such close scrutiny over such a period of time. Can the hon. and learned Lady think of another such piece of legislation?
Joanna Cherry
I do not recall legislation of such detail and such constitutional significance. I have only been in this House for nine months, but I have followed the operation of this House closely since I was a teenager. This is a massive Bill, and it is its constitutional significance that matters. I chaired an event last night at which the chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales spoke. She raised her concerns about the rush to legislate because of the constitutional significance of the legislation and its implications for the rule of law. The Minister does not embarrass me at all. I wholeheartedly stand by what I say. It is a widely held view, across parties and across society, that there is not sufficient time for the scrutiny of this legislation.
Joanna Cherry
I will make some progress, if I may. I would like to echo the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras about the proper role of the Opposition, which I spoke about on Second Reading. As he said, it is the proper role of the Opposition to robustly challenge the legislation, to push back on it and to probe, hopefully with a view to improving it. That is why my party did not vote the legislation down on Second Reading. We are honestly engaged here in a process of improvement, but if the Government are not prepared to listen to us then we may well vote against the legislation at a later stage.
I echo what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the failure to amend the draft Bill to deal with the ISC concerns regarding the lack of overarching principles on privacy. I also strongly echo what he said about a request for the Minister to clarify how the Committee is to approach the codes of practice which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, this Committee does not have the power to amend, and which contain some enormously important detail. Jo Cavan, the head of the Interception Commissioner’s Office, also drew attention to that in her evidence.
On Second Reading on the Floor of the House, I promised to table radical amendments. The SNP has tabled radical amendments to the part of the Bill we will look at today. We want to ensure that surveillance is targeted, that it is based on reasonable suspicion, and that it is permitted only after a warrant has been issued by a judge rather than by a politician. We want to expand the category of information which will be accessible only by warrant, and to ensure that warrants may not be provided without proper justification. We also want to remove the widely drafted provisions of the Bill that would allow modification of warrants and urgent warrants without any judicial oversight. Those provisions, if they remain in the Bill, will drive a coach and horses through the so-called double-lock protection in the legislation.
We have also laid amendments to ensure a proper and consistent approach to the safeguards afforded to members of the public who correspond with lawyers, parliamentarians and journalists. We want to put a public interest defence into the offence of disclosure of the existence of a warrant. Those are the sort of radical, principled amendments that we believe are required to render parts 1 and 2 of the Bill compliant with international human rights law, bring the Bill into line with practice in other western democracies and meet the concerns of the UN special rapporteur on the right to privacy. We recognise that the security services and the police require adequate powers to fight terrorism and serious crime, but the powers must be shown to be necessary, proportionate and in accordance with law. If the House is not about the rule of law, it is about nothing.
Simon Hoare
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I do not agree with her and her party that the Bill is the constitutional earthquake they represent it to be. However, she has just referenced a point that would mean constitutional upheaval, if I heard her correctly—namely, to remove any political input, and therefore democratic accountability, to this House and to elected Members, and to bypass it all to unelected, unaccountable judges, though I mean that in no pejorative sense. To effectively create massive cleavage between democratic accountability and the day-to-day action allowing those things to go ahead would be a constitutional upheaval. Have the hon. and learned Lady and her party colleagues considered that viewpoint in that context?
Joanna Cherry
We have considered it in detail and I will be addressing it later in my submissions to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman and I will have to differ in our view on this. I do not consider that there is anything constitutionally unusual in judges being solely responsible for the issue of warrants. That happens in a lot of other western democracies—it is called the separation of powers. The idea that Ministers are democratically accountable to this House for the issuance of warrants on the grounds of national security is nonsense. I will explain later why I consider that to be so.
I was trying to stress that the SNP position is that we recognise the necessity of having adequate powers. I hope to be writing the security policy for an independent Scotland before I am an old lady and I would want to have a responsible, modern security policy that dovetails with that of England and other countries in these islands, but I want to model it on what other western democracies are doing, rather than going as far as this Bill, which, without proper justification, goes beyond what other western democracies do. The SNP intends to table amendments to deal with what I called on Second Reading the fantastically intrusive provisions of this Bill regarding internet connection records and bulk powers. We also want to look at ensuring a proper oversight commission, but that is for a later date. I look forward to addressing amendments on parts 1 and 2 of the Bill.
Mr Hayes
The shadow Minister raised a number of issues, some of which related to the letter he mentioned—I have a copy—which the shadow Home Secretary sent to the Home Secretary. This consideration is an answer to the letter; I might even go so far as to say that I am the personification of the answer to the letter. None the less, it is important that a reply is drawn up, not least because that reply will be useful to the Opposition in helping to frame their further ideas. For that reason, I will ensure that a reply to the letter is sent in good time, so that all members of the Committee, mindful of that response to the original letter, can form their consideration accordingly..
Keir Starmer
I accept that we will deal with most of the points in the letter when we get to specific clauses—that is an appropriate way forward. The issue of most concern in the letter, which I ask the Minister to consider, is that of the independent assessment of bulk powers. The Committee will not be looking at the operational case in the way that is called for in the letter. It is simply a timing issue: if there is to be any movement here, it needs to be quick. A speedy response would be welcome.
Mr Hayes
Let me deal with that specific point. It is true that there will always be a debate about what is on the face of Bills and what is in supporting documentation. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the codes of practice. I emphasise these are draft codes of practice and, of course, it is important that the consideration by the Committee informs how their final version will be framed. The reason we published them was partly so that we could have a better debate here and learn from it in drawing up the final codes of practice.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know very well that there is a perennial argument about how much is placed on the face of the Bills because of the problem that creates in terms of rigidity, particularly in highly dynamic circumstances, such as those we face in relation to some of these matters. However, I accept that from a legal perspective what is on the face of the Bill adds additional weight to the protections that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks. I understand that argument and have no doubt it will permeate much of what we consider. I re-emphasise that the codes of practice are themselves not set in stone and will undoubtedly metamorphose as a result of our considerations.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a second point in respect of bulk powers and particularly the operational case that needs to be made for such powers. This is a highly sensitive issue. All Governments of all political persuasions have recognised that, because we are dealing with some matters that cannot be debated publicly. That applies to the operational case that the Security Services might need to make when requesting powers to intercept communications, for example, but it could be the case with a number of other powers.
Furthermore, I accept that there are particular sensitivities in respect of bulk powers. The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee have been briefed by the intelligence and security services as part of our considerations. He will know that GCHQ use bulk powers very extensively in a number of highly sensitive operations, and there is a limit to how much of that can be placed on the face of the Bill or even made available more widely.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will also know that the Intelligence and Security Committee has privileged access to more information than the House as a whole. It exists, in part, for that purpose. It provides a means by which the Government can be held to account by a Committee made up of members of all political parties in this House. The case that the shadow Home Secretary makes on the definition of the operational case for exercise of these powers is something that we will consider. However, I emphasise that we are treading on quite sensitive ground here and there may be a limit to how far the Home Secretary or I can go. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to acknowledge that.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful that the Minister will give further consideration to the matter. The reason it is of great concern is because, first, we are being asked to approve new powers in the Bill. I accept that some of the powers are obviously avowal of existing powers, but there are new powers and internet connection records is one. Of the avowal powers, this is the first time that Parliament has had the chance to debate them, so they are new to Parliament in that sense.
I take the point that members of the Committee have been briefed and some of us have experience of the operation of some of these powers, but therein lies part of the problem. I think there is a democratic deficit if we proceed only on the basis that a select number of people can know the detail, but the public cannot. Of course there are sensitivities. I do not think anyone is suggesting that a full operational case without any modifications, redactions and so on, could be published. I ask for consideration of something more than what we have that allows for independent assessment, which does not necessarily need to take place in the public domain, but can be viewed through the eyes of the informed member of the public who wants to be assured about the necessity of the powers without having to listen to politicians or others saying, “We’ve been briefed; trust us”, because in this day and age that approach is no longer acceptable. I hope the Minister and others will try to see this through the eyes of the informed and concerned member of the public who wants to be assured about what the Bill is actually bringing forth for the security and intelligence services and law enforcement.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to get into a great debate about this now because we are at the beginning of the Bill and this will come up again during further consideration. I acknowledge that the hon. and learned Gentleman has recognised there is a sensitivity about how much can be put in the Bill and how much can be debated in a public forum. He is right that we tread a tightrope between making sure that we have public confidence that the system is fit for purpose, but also proportionate, and on the other hand not tying the hands of those wishing to keep us safe. That is the tightrope that every Government of all persuasions has had to walk.
Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is right about a changing public mood is more debatable. Most surveys of the public mood suggest a very high level of confidence in our intelligence and security services and the powers that they exercise, so I am not sure there is a great public clamour for them not to be able to do some of the things they have to do. Contextually, given the threat we now face, I suspect most of the public would say they need absolutely all the powers necessary to face down that threat, so I am not absolutely sure that we do not occasionally see these things through the prism of a chattering class view of what the public should think, rather than what the public actually think. I am committed to the idea of politicians continuing to be involved in these things, because we have a regular and direct link to the British public and are in a pretty good position to gauge what their attitudes to such matters might be. So the issues are sensitive, but I appreciate the spirit and tone of the hon. and learned Gentleman and I am determined that we get this right in a way that we can both be comfortable with in the end.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how we might subsequently deal with issues around authorisation. We will have a chance to debate that at greater length as we go through the Bill, so it would be inappropriate to do so now. That point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. I think we are going to disagree about quite a lot of these matters, not because I do not want to move ahead in the spirit of generosity and unanimity where we can possibly do so, but I think that my position is more like that of the former Home Secretaries who gave evidence to the Committee, Lord Reid and Charles Clarke, who were very clear that the involvement of Ministers in authorising powers is an important way in which the public can be represented in these areas. Ministers bring a particular insight to such work. I was unsurprised by their consideration, but pleased that they were able to reinforce the view that I know is held by almost everyone who has been involved in the warranting process in modern times.
We heard from the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), in similar vein. Indeed, he was doubtful about giving judges any role in the process at all, and many others take that view. The Government, however—always anxious to achieve balance and compromise—developed the double-lock, which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned. It retains the involvement of Ministers, as Lord Reid and others argued we should, but introduces judicial involvement and, one might argue, adds a greater degree of empiricism to the process, as David Anderson recommended in his report.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister will recall that, under questioning by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Lord Judge, in his evidence to this Committee, expressed concern about the phrase “judicial review”. He said that it
“is a very easy phrase to use. It sounds convincing, but it means different things to different people…Personally, I think that when Parliament is creating structures such as these, it should define what it means by ‘judicial review’. What test will be applied by the judicial…commissioner, so that he knows what his function is, the Secretary of State knows what the areas of responsibility are and the public know exactly who decides what and in what circumstances? I myself do not think that judicial review is a sufficient indication of those matters.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 69, Q220.]
What are the Government going to do to take on board what that distinguished judge had to say about this matter?
Mr Hayes
Yes, but Lord Judge also went on to say in the same evidence session that what really matters is what Parliament actually wants. He wanted to be clear about what Parliament wants and to respond accordingly. I heard what Lord Judge said, but I also heard what Lord Reid and Charles Clarke said. Frankly, I see no evidence that the warranting process is not considered carefully by Ministers, that they do not take that work incredibly seriously, that they do not seek all the information they need to exercise reasonable judgment and that they do not apply the tests of necessity and proportionality diligently. Neither this Committee nor the Joint Committee heard evidence to suggest that there is anything faulty in that system.
I am a conservative, so I would be expected to say that if something works there is no good reason for changing it, but because I want to be moderate and reasonable—notwithstanding my conservatism—we introduced the double-lock. My goodness, we have already gone a very long way down the road.
Keir Starmer
We are going to get to this issue in due course. I will not take long, but it is important that I set it up, because the more thinking that can be done now, the more quickly we can deal with it when it comes up. There are two different issues. Lord Reid talked about whether the judiciary should be involved at all. Lord Judge asked, assuming that they are involved, about the test that they are to apply. He was concerned about judicial review because, as everybody knows, there are different forms of judicial review. Sometimes it involves close scrutiny, where the judges virtually make the decision themselves. In other circumstances, there is much more deference. He was concerned that, within that range, it is not clear what the judges are being asked to do.
There were a number of references in the questioning and on Second Reading to the necessity and proportionality tests. Of course, that is what the Secretary of State considers, but the judges’ function is different. On the face of the statute, their function is to review. The question is, what does that mean? We tabled amendments to that end. It is important that we do not confuse this matter. Lord Judge identified something very important, and when someone as distinguished as him says that what is on the face of the Bill is not clear enough, we have all got to go away and have a good, hard look at what the words are.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that we should not debate things that are going to be debated later—Ms Dorries, you will draw me to order if I do so anyway. The important issues around judicial review principles will be debated when we come to a subsequent amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will deal with those matters. Lord Judge drew attention to the basis on which the double-lock will operate. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right about that. My point in response to the hon. and learned Lady’s argument was about whether politicians should be involved in the process at all. I do not mean to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I certainly do not want to start off in anything other than a convivial spirit. However, given that the shadow Home Secretary’s letter talks about an equal lock, given that he has argued for the simultaneous presentation of the material to both parties and given the great debate about the same information being available to the judicial commissioner and the Home Secretary, I was slightly surprised to find that amendments had been tabled that would take the Home Secretary out of the process altogether.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Tort or delict of unlawful interception—
“Any interception of a communication which is carried out without lawful authority at any place in the United Kingdom by, or with the express or implied consent of, a person having the right to control the operation or the use of a private telecommunication system shall be actionable by the sender or recipient, or intended recipient, of the communication if it is either—
(a) an interception of that communication in the course of its transmission by means of that private system; or
(b) an interception of that communication in the course of its transmission, by means of a public telecommunication system, to or from apparatus comprised in that private telecommunication system.”
This new clause creates a civil wrong of unlawful interception.
Joanna Cherry
I will deal with new clause 3 in fairly short compass. The amendment was suggested to me by the Scottish division of Pen International, which is a world association of writers. It would introduce a tort, or a delict as we call it in Scotland, for unlawful interception. Such a tort or delict exists already as a result of section 1(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and I am not entirely sure why it has not been replicated in the Bill. I would be interested to hear from the Solicitor General or the Minister for Security why the Government did not include the measure in the Bill, and whether they will give it serious consideration. It would give a meaningful avenue of recourse and act as a motivation to intelligence agencies, police forces and the Government to ensure that all interception is lawfully authorised, on pain of an action for damages if it is not properly authorised. It is really a very simple new clause modelled on section 1(3) of RIPA. I am interested to hear what the Government have to say about this suggestion.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure to take this first opportunity to say that I am looking forward to serving under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and indeed to serving with all colleagues on the Committee.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for making her observations in a succinct and clear way. I am able to answer her directly about the approach that we are taking. One of the aims of the Bill is to streamline provisions to make them as clear and easy to understand as possible. She is quite right in saying that RIPA had within it this provision—a tort or a delict, as it is called north of the border, that would allow an individual to take action against a person who has the right to control the use or operation of a private telecommunications system and to intercept communication on that system.
The Government have fielded a number of inquiries about the non-inclusion of the RIPA provision in the Bill. The circumstances in which it applies are extremely limited, and as far as we are aware it has never been relied on in the 15 years of RIPA’s operation. The provision applies only in limited circumstances because it applies to interception on a private telecommunications system, such as a company’s internal email or telephone system. Where the person with the right to control the use or operation of the system is a public authority, there are of course rights of redress under the Human Rights Act 1998, such as article 8 rights.
The Bill is intended to make the protections enjoyed by the public much clearer and we feel that introducing that course of action or replicating it would not add to that essential clarity, but I have listened carefully to the hon. and learned Lady and we are happy to look again at the issue in the light of her concerns. On that basis, I invite her not to press her new clause and I hope we can return to the matter on Report.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for his constructive approach. I am happy not to press the new clause at this stage on the basis that the Government will look at it. I am happy to receive any suggestions about the drafting, which is mine. I had some discussions about the terms of the drafting with Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland and James Wolffe, the dean of the Faculty of Advocates, but any infelicities are my fault alone. I would be happy to discuss the drafting with the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Definition of “interception” etc.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
There are no amendments tabled to the clause, which we support, but I say for the record and for clarification that what is welcome in clause 3 is the spelling out in legislation of the extent of an interception—an issue that has bedevilled some recent criminal cases. Importantly, as the explanatory notes make clear, it is now provided in clear terms that voicemails remaining on a system, emails and text messages read but not deleted and draft messages stored on a system will count within the phrase “in the course of transmission” and will therefore be covered by the offence. We welcome that. I wanted to emphasise that point and put it on the record, because a lot of time and effort was spent when that phrase was not so clearly defined.
The Solicitor General
I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is right: we have moved a long way from phone tapping, which he, I and many others understood to be clear interception whereas, for example, the recording and monitoring of communications at either end of the process was not interception. As he rightly says, the internet and email have caught up with us, so as part of the Government’s thrust to have greater clarity and simplicity, this essential definition is a welcome part of the statutory framework that now exists.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Monetary penalties for certain unlawful interceptions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
Again no amendments are tabled to the clause, but there are some questions that arise from it. The explanatory notes say, and it is clear in the Bill, that the clause creates a power for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to impose fines where an interception has been carried out, but there was no intention. It relates to action that might otherwise be an offence, but the intention element is not made out. Against that background, I have some questions for the Solicitor General.
If the power applies where an interception is carried out but there was no intention to do so, it is hardly likely to have a deterrent effect because the person did not intend to do it in the first place, so what is the rationale and purpose of this provision? It is clear in schedule 1, which is related to clause 6, that the commissioner has very wide discretion in relation to the operation of the powers under the clause including, in paragraph 13, powers to require information from individuals
“for the purpose of deciding whether to serve”
an enforcement notice. Thus we have a provision that is premised on a non-intentional interception that then triggers quite extensive powers to require information with penalties for failure to provide that information. Schedule 1 states that guidance will be published on how the powers are to be exercised, but what is the real rationale and purpose? Why are the powers as extensive as they are and will the Minister commit to the guidance envisaged under schedule 1 being made public?
In clause 6(3)(c) there is reference to a consideration by the Commissioner that
“the person was not…making an attempt to act in accordance with an interception warrant”,
which suggests that that is outside the scheme of the provision. We have also noted that the provision relates only to a public telecommunications system. It is in many ways supplementary or complementary and we are not questioning it in that sense, but there is a number of unanswered questions. If we are to scrutinise and probe, it would be helpful to have those answered now if possible, and if it is not answered in writing.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his questions. I assure him that there is a very good rationale for the inclusion of these powers. They are a replication of powers that were added to RIPA in 2011. Monetary penalty notices followed a letter of formal notice that was issued by the European Commission setting out its view that the UK had not properly transposed article 5(1) of the e-privacy directive and articles of the data protection directive. In particular, the Commission identified:
“By limiting the offence in Section 1(1) RIPA to intentional interception, the UK had failed to create a sanction for all unlawful interception as required by Article 5(1) of the E-Privacy Directive and Article 24 of the Data Protection Directive.”
The Government rightly conceded the defective transposition that had been identified and therefore the monetary penalty notice regime was established to introduce sanctions for the unintentional and unlawful interception in order to remedy the deficiency.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that it is a step down from a criminal offence, where intention has to be informed, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security said when opening the debate, underpinning all of this is the importance of privacy, and the right to privacy is demonstrated in practical form by the inclusion of clause 6 and schedule 1. It is important so that we cover all aspects of intrusion because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, privacy is not just about confidentiality. That is often misunderstood, particularly in the light of recent debates about injunctions. It is about intrusion into the lives of individuals, and that intrusion by the authorities in particular should be marked in some way by the imposition of some alternative sanction if it cannot be criminal sanctions. Therefore, there is a very sound rationale for the inclusion of these powers and replicating them from RIPA, and therefore I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 7
Restriction on requesting interception by overseas authorities
Keir Starmer
I have a probing question. It is right to include a provision that makes it clear that the UK authorities cannot evade the protections and safeguards in the Bill by requesting that a foreign authority carry out on their behalf the interception of materials relating to a person in the UK. That is right in principle and we support that. It may be my limitation in going through the provisions in recent weeks, but I am not sure whether there is a sanction for failure to adhere to the clause’s provisions. In other words, it is good that it is there, but I am not sure whether anything formal will happen if it is not followed. Will the Minister answer that now or at least give some consideration to that?
The clause is important and right in principle, but I cannot find a sanction for failing to comply with it and there probably ought to be one. If it is somewhere else in the Bill, I will defer to those who know it better than I do.
Mr Hayes
I am happy to say on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that we will give consideration to that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Restriction on requesting assistance under mutual assistance agreements etc.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to make essentially the same point as I made on the previous clause, albeit more briefly. This is a good and right in principle clause to ensure that there are restrictions on requesting assistance under mutual assistance agreements, but again the sanction for breach is not entirely clear. That may be something that, under the umbrella that the Minister for Security just indicated, could be taken away to see what the enforcement regime is for these important safeguarding provisions.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that this mutual legal assistance regime definitely benefits from statutory underpinning. It has become increasingly important. Sadly we have all learnt that relying just on good will or informal arrangements is no longer sufficient, which is why the international work that I know hon. Members are aware of, particularly negotiations with the United States, are so important in speeding up the process and making it ever more efficient, particularly in the light of all the political controversies we have been dealing with in recent days. I undertake to deal with the question that he raises, which I think we can deal with in an umbrella form as he suggests.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Tort or delict of unlawfully obtaining communications data—
“The collection of communications data from a telecommunications operator, telecommunications service, telecommunications system or postal operator without lawful authority shall be actionable as a civil wrong by any person who has suffered loss or damage by the collection of the data.”
This new clause creates a civil wrong of unlawful obtaining of communications data.
Joanna Cherry
The new clause very much relates to what I said earlier about new clause 3. The intention is to create a civil wrong of unlawfully obtaining communications data as opposed to unlawful interception. Again, the drafting is mine and it could do with some serious tightening up, but my intention is to establish the Government’s attitude to the new clause. I hope that the Solicitor General will indicate that.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for the way in which she spoke to her new clause. I see that it very much follows new clause 3. Our argument with regard to new clause 4 is slightly different because it has a wider ambit than private telecommunication.
We submit that this tort or delict would not be practicable. Communications data are different from the content of communication. For example, one would acquire communications data even by looking at an envelope or searching for a wi-fi hotspot when turning on a particular wi-fi device at home. It would not be appropriate to make ordinary people liable for such activity. With respect to the hon. and learned Lady, its ambit is too wide. That said, it is only right that those holding office within a public authority are held to account for any abuses of power. That is why clause 9 makes it an offence for a person in a public authority to obtain communications data knowingly or recklessly without lawful authority. I place heavy emphasis on the Government’s approach to limiting and checking the abuse of power by the authorities.
On the new clause, the interception tool was always intended to address the narrow area that was not covered by the interception offence in RIPA, which is replicated in the Bill. As noted, the communications data offence is intentionally narrower. It would therefore be equally inappropriate to introduce a tort or delict in relation to the obtaining of communications generally or in the areas not covered by the new offence. Under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, communications data often constitute personal data. That act already provides for compensation for damage or distress resulting from non-compliance with the data protection principles and for enforcement in respect of failing to comply with the provisions of the act.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. and learned Friend think that the offence of misfeasance in public office would also add a civil remedy for any wrongdoing?
Robert Buckland
I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. She is quite right. In fact, not only is there the offence of misconduct in public office, as it is now constituted, having been reformed from the old offence of misfeasance, but we have provisions in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and, as I have already mentioned, the Data Protection Act 1998. I therefore consider that the new offence we are introducing in clause 9, combined with relevant offences in other legislation, in particular the provision in section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, provides appropriate safeguards. On that basis, I respectfully invite the hon. and learned Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Dorries. The Solicitor General has given examples of wide-ranging powers that are available to protect the public. I was grateful to listen to his contribution. However, during Second Reading I queried the Home Secretary’s position on the new offences that are being created. Many of the offences the Bill refers to, particularly in clause 9, relate to the regulation of investigatory powers. My concern is that later the Bill requires internet service providers, for example, to amass a large amount of personal data, and there is a danger that those data may be stolen rather than intercepted. I gave the example of a newspaper perhaps finding a low-grade technical operator in a telecommunications company, passing a brown envelope to them and stealing a celebrity’s internet connection records. I am concerned that the offence in clause 9 of unlawfully obtaining communications data does not go far enough.
I bear in mind the Solicitor General’s comments on other protections that are available, but would he or the Government consider an offence of not just obtaining but being in possession of unlawfully obtained communications data, which would strengthen the protections given to members of the public? We all know that the kind of scenario that I am expressing concern about has not been unknown in the last few years, as various court cases have demonstrated—though I should not discuss their details. Is the Minister satisfied that the protections he has outlined and those raised by the hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire are sufficient, or should we take this clause a bit further, to give the public broader and wider protection of their privacy and the security of their internet and telecommunications transmissions?
Keir Starmer
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend because I want to develop the point. This is a welcome clause, it is right that it is here, and we support it. However, we question whether it goes far enough. It only covers obtaining communications data. We think that serious consideration should be given to an overarching offence of misuse of the powers in the Bill. At the moment, there are specific provisions in relation to intercept which are replicated frim RIPA and we now have this welcome provision, but there is no overarching offence of misuse of the powers in the Bill.
It is all very well to say that there is the tort of misfeasance in public office. That is not the equivalent of a criminal offence. It has all sorts of tricky complications when one tries to apply it in practice. It is fair to say that there are other bits of legislation that might be made to fit in a given case, but it would be preferable and in the spirit of David Anderson’s approach for a comprehensive piece of legislation for an overarching criminal offence to be drafted, either out of clause 9 or in some other way, relating to misuse of powers in the Bill. It has been a source of considerable concern in the past and I ask the Government to think about a wider offence that would cover all the powers, because comms data are only one small subset of the issues and material information we are concerned with.
I have two short supplementary points. In subsection (3) there is a reasonable belief defence. It would be helpful if the Minister said a bit more about that. May I also foreshadow the inconsistency that we will need to pick up as we go along in the way reasonable excuse and reasonable belief are dealt with in the Bill? It is set out in subsection (3), but there is an inconsistency in other provisions that I will point to when we get there.
My other point is to ask the Minister to consider whether obtaining communications data unlawfully is a sufficient definition to make the offence workable in practice. I put my questions in the spirit of supporting the clause, but I also invite Ministers to go further and consider drafting a clause that covers the misuse of powers in the Bill, rather than simply saying that if we fish about in other bits of legislation or common law we might find something that fits on a good day. In my experience, that is not a particularly helpful way of proceeding.
The Solicitor General
Thank you, Ms Dorries, for allowing me to reply to a stand part debate on clause 9. I think we have elided the this and the previous clause, but I crave your indulgence to deal with everything in a global way. May I deal properly with clause 9 and set out the Government’s thinking on this?
The measure is all about making sure once again that those who hold office within a public authority are properly held to account for any abuses of power. The clause will make it an offence knowingly or recklessly to obtain communications data from a communications service provider without lawful authority. Somebody found guilty of that offence might receive a custodial sentence or a fine. The maximum punishment will vary according to whether the offence was committed in England and Wales, or in the jurisdiction of Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to point out the reasonable belief defence. The offence will not have been committed if it can be demonstrated that a person holding office acted in the reasonable belief that they had lawful authority to obtain the data. Where a communications service provider willingly consents to the disclosure of the data, including by making it publicly or commercially available, that would constitute a lawful authority.
The question about reasonable belief is about making sure that genuine error is not penalised, because there will be occasions when genuine errors are made. In the absence of such a defence, public authorities could be deterred by notifying genuine errors to the IPC. It is important that the Investigatory Powers Commission is an effective body monitoring failure and lack of best practice, and preventing future errors.
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we both have fairly considerable criminal litigation experience. In this area, I think a regulatory approach will be just as effective, and in some ways more effective, than a criminal sanction. I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Chester for reiterating the remarks that I remember him making on Second Reading, when he made some powerful points, but I caution that we are in danger of creating an entirely new criminal framework, catching people further down the line, which ultimately will only lead to more confusion and, I worry, the replication of existing offences.
An unauthorised disclosure by someone in a communications service provider would be covered by the Data Protection Act 1998, because those providers have duties and obligations under that Act just like any other holder of data. I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I will consider the matter, but my initial reaction to his question and that of the hon. Member for City of Chester is that the Data Protection Act covers such a disclosure.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I have heard Opposition Members’ arguments. Some thought has been given to this point and clause 49 puts a duty not only on people who work in public services but on postal operators, telecommunications operators and any person employed therein to not make unauthorised disclosures in relation to intercept warrants. That might help.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who served with distinction on the Joint Committee. That provision relates to creating a statutory duty, which, with respect to her, is slightly different from some of the arguments we are having about criminal sanctions. However, it is important to pray that in aid, bearing in mind the mixed approach we need to take in order to hold public office holders and public authorities to account when dealing with this sensitive area.
The Bill provides a great opportunity for us to put into statute a new offence, which will, together with the other agencies, provide a robust regime that will add to the checks and balances needed in this area in order to ensure that our rights to privacy are maintained wherever possible, consistent with the Government’s duty towards the protection of our national security and the detection and prevention of crime.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for that clarification. My concern about his reliance on, for example, the Data Protection Act is what happens in the scenario I described, which I do not believe is so unbelievable, bearing in mind the experiences that hon. Members of this House have had in the past few years with the theft of their information. One problem that his solution presents is that if, for example, my personal data were stolen and published, the only recourse I would have is to the telecommunications provider, which is in a sense a victim itself. The real villains and culprits—the people who stole the information and published it—would not be covered by the Data Protection Act, which is why I seek consideration of extending the clause or guidance from the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have already indicated that I will consider the matter further. I will simply give this solution. He mentioned the stealing of information. Information is property, like anything else, and of course we have the law of theft to deal with such matters. I do not want to be glib, but we must ensure we do not overcomplicate the statute book when it comes to criminal law. I will consider the matter further, and I am extremely grateful for his observations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
On a point of order, Ms Dorries, may I seek clarification on my position on new clause 4, which the Minister invited me to withdraw? I am minded to do so, having regard to what the Solicitor General said about the Data Protection Act and what the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire said about misfeasance in public office, but as a novice in these Committees I seek some guidance. If I press the new clause to a vote now and it is voted down, does that prevent me bringing it back to the Floor of the House?
The Chair
As I made clear at the beginning of our sitting, you could move the motion at the end of consideration, but that does not prevent you from bringing the new clause back on Report. This point in the proceedings is not the time for it.
Joanna Cherry
I realise that, but my point is about the conflicting information on the issue. If an amendment is pressed to a vote and voted down in Committee, some people tell me that it cannot then be brought before the House at a later stage; others tell me that that is not the case. I am anxious to have the Chair’s clarification.
The Chair
It is not normal, but it does sometimes happen; it is at the Speaker’s discretion. If voted down, you would have to retable the amendment and it would be up to the Speaker, who would know that it had been heard in Committee and voted down.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful. So if I withdraw the new clause now, I cannot be prevented from bringing it back later—I will withdraw it in Committee.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 11
Mandatory use of equipment interference warrants
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I will be very quick. The clause is welcome and we support it, but again my concern is that there is no enforcement mechanism or sanction. Will the Minister take it under the umbrella of these clauses that are intended to ensure good governance, effectiveness and that the proper routes are used, and look in an overarching way at what their sanction might be? I am asking a similar question to one I made before: what is the sanction if what should happen does not happen?
The Solicitor General
Yes, of course, we will do as the hon. and learned Gentleman asks. I welcome his endorsement of the importance of the clause, bearing in mind what it sets out and the clarity we are achieving through its introduction.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Restriction on use of section 93 of the Police Act 1997
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I make the same point again: the clause is a good provision but appears to lack any enforcement mechanism or sanction, so if it could go into the basket of clauses that are being looked at in relation to sanction, I will be grateful.
The Solicitor General
The clause confirms that section 93 of the Police Act 1997 may not be used to authorise conduct where the purpose of the proposed interference is to obtain communications, private information or equipment data and the applicant believes the conduct would otherwise constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and the conduct can be authorised under an equipment interference warrant issued under part 5 of the Bill. So it does not prevent equipment interference being authorised under the Police Act where the purpose of the interference is not to obtain communications and other data—for example, interference might be authorised under the Act if the purpose is to disable a device, rather than to acquire information from it.
That reflects the focus of this Bill. We are trying to bring together existing powers available to obtain communications and communications data. I emphasise that the measure does not prevent law enforcement agencies from using other legislation to authorise interference with equipment that might otherwise constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. For example, law enforcement agencies will continue to exercise powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to examine equipment that they possess as evidence. The result of this clause is that all relevant activity conducted by law enforcement agencies will need to be authorised by a warrant issued under part 5 of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
Based on what the Minister has just said, it may be that it is anticipated that any attempt to use other legislation in breach of this provision would automatically be refused. That is the bit where there might need to be some clarity, because in effect it will not be an application under this legislation; it would be an application under different provisions, so does this operate as a direction to any decision maker that that is an unlawful use of another statute? That is not entirely clear. I think that that is what is intended. If it is, that is a good thing, but I am not entirely sure that a decision maker would say, “I am prohibited by law from exercising powers available to me under other legislation.” I leave that with the Minister because it may be something that can be improved by further drafting.
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. While I will answer the specific question, I think it is important that I set out the fact that this provision is not the only means. What we are dealing with here is part 5 and the double lock and the enhanced safeguards. If any agency or authority fails to use new part 5 or PACE, for example, in other circumstances, they will be committing an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. Public authorities are no different from any other individual or body: if they are not complying with the existing legal framework by this or other means, they fall foul of the law themselves. I will endeavour to answer the other points raised about sanction but I urge the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Warrants that may be issued under this Chapter
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 13, page 10, line 16, after “content”, insert “or secondary data”
This amendment, and others to Clause 13, seek to expand the requirement of targeted examination warrants to cover the examination of all information or material obtained through bulk interception warrant, or bulk equipment interference warrant, irrespective of whether the information is referable to an individual in the British Islands. They would also expand the requirement of targeted examination warrants to cover the examination of “secondary data” obtained through bulk interception warrants and “equipment data” and “information” obtained through bulk equipment interference warrants.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 58, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from “examination” to end of line 18
Amendment 59, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from “examination.” to end of line 18 and insert
“of material referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, or British citizen outside the British Islands at that time.”
Amendment 60, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from “examination.” to end of line 18 and insert
“of material referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, or British, Canadian, American, New Zealand or Australian citizen outside the British Islands at that time.”
Amendment 83, in clause 13, page 10, line 22, after “6”, insert—
“In this Part “secondary data” means—
(a) in relation to a communication transmitted by means of a postal service, means any data falling within subsection (5);
(b) in relation to a communication transmitted by means of a telecommunication system, means any data falling within subsection (5) or (6).”
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendments 57, 59 and 60. Amendment 57 deals with secondary data; amendments 59 and 60 deal with place and whether someone is in the British Isles. I apologise, Ms Dorries: the provision and the amendment are complicated. With your permission I will take some time to set the context so that the amendment can be understood.
Clause 13 deals with warrants. Subsection (1) deals with targeted interception warrants, targeted examination warrants and mutual assistance warrants. Subsection (2) states:
“A targeted interception warrant is a warrant which authorises or requires the person to whom it is addressed to secure, by any conduct described in the warrant, any one or more of the following”,
and paragraph (a) deals with the interception of communications. That is content; paragraph (b) deals with secondary data from the communication; and paragraph (c) deals with disclosure. For targeted warrants under clause 13 there are specific provisions in relation to the content, secondary data and disclosure.
Secondary data for these purposes is further defined in clause 14, subsection (5) of which states:
“The data falling within this subsection is systems data which is comprised in, included as part of, attached to or logically associated with the communication”,
so it has an integral link to the communication and thus to the content.
The Chair
Order. Mr Starmer, if you could keep your comments to clause 13 with just passing reference to clause 14 and further clauses, that would be great.
Keir Starmer
I will, but on this particular occasion, I really think it is almost impossible to understand clause 13(3) without going into clause 14 and then, I am afraid, to a further provision, before coming back.
Keir Starmer
In passing, this is just really to explain what the amendment is intended to achieve. In order to understand what is in clause 13(2), we need to look to clause 14(4) to (6), which set out what secondary data means for the purposes of this part and, thus, is to be read into clause 13.
Clause 14(6) states:
“The data falling within this subsection is identifying data which…is comprised in, included as part of, attached to or logically associated with…is capable of being logically separated…and if it were so separated, would not reveal anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning”,
so it is integrally bound up with the content of the communication but capable of being separated from it.
So far as clause 13 is concerned, if there is a targeted interception warrant, the warrant deals specifically with content and secondary data, recognising the integral link between the two. That is right and we do not quarrel with that.
Clause 13(3) is different, providing that:
“A targeted examination warrant is a warrant which authorises the person to whom it is addressed to carry out the selection of relevant content for examination, in breach of the prohibition in section 134(4) (prohibition on seeking to identify communications of individuals in the British Islands).”
The purpose of clause 13(3) is different. We move from the targeted warrant to the bulk warrant—an examination warrant that provides authority to examine the content that would otherwise be in breach of clause 134(4). In order to understand that, I take the Committee to clause 119, to which that relates.
Clause 119 deals with bulk interception warrants, which can be issued if conditions A and B are satisfied. Condition A deals with
“the interception of overseas-related communications”
and with “obtaining…secondary data”. The definition of secondary data is the same in that part of the Bill as it is in the part that we have just looked at. I will not test the Committee’s patience by going to that definition, but it is a consistent definition of secondary data.
Condition B sets out that the bulk warrant authorises “the interception”, which is the content,
“the obtaining of secondary data”,
which is the same as a targeted warrant but in relation to the bulk powers, and
“the selection for examination, in any manner described…of…content or secondary data”
and “disclosure”. The bulk warrant allows the interception of the content and secondary data. In and of itself, it provides for the examination on the face of the same warrant.
For content, it becomes more complicated because there is a safeguard, which is in clause 134(4)—safeguards in relation to examination materials. Having provided a broad examination power, there is then a safeguard for that examination power in clause 134(4). A number of conditions are set for examining material that has been obtained under a bulk interception warrant. They are set out in subsection (3) and the first is that
“the selection of the intercepted content for examination does not reach the prohibition in subsection(4)”
which is that
“intercepted content may not…be selected for examination if— any criteria used for the selection of the intercepted content…are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, and the purpose of using those criteria is to identify the content”.
The long and short of it is that, going back to clause 13, a targeted intercept warrant authorises the examination of both content and secondary data.
For a bulk warrant—this is where clause 13(3) kicks in—there is provision for an examination warrant which provides an ability to look at the content, which in all other circumstances would be a breach of the prohibition in clause 134. The content of communications of individuals in the British Isles can be looked at when it has been captured by a bulk provision, but only when there is a targeted examination warrant. That is a good thing.
What the amendment gets at is this. What is not in clause 13(3) is any provision for an examination warrant in relation to secondary data, so for the targeted provisions these two are treated as one: secondary data integral to the content of communication. When it comes to bulk, they are separated and only the content is subject to the further provision in clause 13(3).
That is a material provision and is a big part of the legislation because, unless amendment 57 is accepted, a targeted examination warrant is not required for secondary data, which are capable of being examined simply under the bulk powers. The purpose of the amendment is to align subsections (2) and (3) and ensure that the targeted examination warrant is not required for both content and secondary data in relation to individuals in the British Isles. The result otherwise would be that, for someone in the British Isles, their secondary data could be looked at as long as it was captured under a bulk provision without a targeted warrant. That is a serious drafting issue of substance.
Our approach to some of the wider retention of bulk powers is this. Although we accept that a case can be made for retaining data that will be looked at later, the wide powers of retentional bulk are a cause of concern on both sides of the House. When it comes to examining what has been caught within the wider net, there are specific safeguards. In other words, as long as there is a specific targeted safeguard when someone wants to look at bulk or retained data, that is an important safeguard when they are harvesting wide-ranging data. That is a very important provision in relation to secondary data.
Amendments 59 and 60 go to a different issue. They are separate and I ask the Government to treat them as separate. The first is about content and secondary data as a hom-set and whether they should be protected in the same way throughout the regime of the legislation, however they are initially intercepted. That is an important point of principle that I ask the Government to consider seriously because it goes to the heart of the question of targeted access.
The second amendment relates to individuals in the British Isles. At the moment, clause 13(3) provides specific protection in relation to the content of communications for people in the British Isles. It is clear from clause 134(4) that that means not residing in the British Isles, but actually in the British Isles. Under clause 13(3), once I get to Calais, I fall out of the protection of that provision, as does everybody else in this Committee, because it is a question of whether someone is physically in the British islands. Therefore, a targeted examination warrant for the content of my communications gathered by bulk powers would not be needed once I got halfway across the channel. Until I went through the analysis, I did not fully appreciate that, and serious consideration is required for both content and secondary data. More generally within amendment 59 are provisions relating to individuals not normally in the British islands or within the countries specified in amendment 60.
I am sorry to have referred to other clauses, but I could not work this out until I went through that torturous route. The net result is a disconnect between content and secondary data, which goes to the heart of protection when it comes to bulk powers. Clause 13(3) is really important for bulk powers and is one of the most important provisions in the Bill, so we have to get it right.
The limit of clause 13(3) to individuals in the British islands is unsustainable and needs further thought. Amendments 59 and 60 intend to remedy that defect. If there is an appetite in the Government to look carefully at those provisions, there may be a different way of coming at the problem, but it is a real flaw in the regime as it is currently set out. I apologise for taking so long to get to that, Ms Dorries. It required a cold wet towel on one afternoon last week to work my way through this, but once we go through the exercise, we realise there is a fundamental problem that either has to be fixed or adequately answered.
Joanna Cherry
I am 100% with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his description of the clause. Indeed, many clauses of the Bill require the application of a cold wet towel or a bag of ice to the head followed by copious amounts of alcohol later in the evening.
Amendments 57 and 83 bear my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. I wish to emphasise the importance of those amendments, which foreshadow important amendments in respect of bulk powers that the Scottish National party intends to table at a later stage. Our amendments would apply the same processes and safeguards for the examination of information or material obtained through bulk interception warrants and bulk equipment interference warrants, irrespective of whether the information or material pertains to individuals in the British Isles, and to require a targeted examination warrant to be obtained whenever secondary data obtained through bulk interception warrants and equipment data and information obtained through bulk interference warrants are to be examined.
In order to gain an understanding of the background to this amendment, I invite hon. Members to look back at the evidence of Eric King to the Committee on 24 March. He explained to us how GCHQ examines bulk material. The targeted examination warrant available on the face of the Bill fails to cover the aspect of communication that is most used by agencies such as GCHQ: metadata, or secondary data, as it is referred to in the Bill.
Simon Hoare
The hon. and learned Lady might have chosen a better witness. If I recall, the gentleman in question admitted in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle that he had had no experience at all in the application for or determination of any warrants. He had never had any security clearance either, so I am uncertain why he is being prayed in aid.
Joanna Cherry
I must say that I do not like the approach of traducing witnesses. If I do not like a witness’s evidence, I will not traduce them; I will just try to forensically dissect their evidence. This is a distinguished witness with significant experience in this field.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not give way. I am going to finish. Because of his technical expertise, Mr King has been of enormous assistance to myself and my hon. Friends in the Labour party in drafting amendments.
Joanna Cherry
Hon. Members may “Ah” and “Um”, but Mr King has relevant technical expertise. I invite hon. Members to consider his CV.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not. I will continue to make my point. The amendment was tabled because there should be a requirement to apply for an examination warrant when seeking to examine secondary data. That would protect the privacy of our constituents—I am looking at Government Members—and us. It is not some idle attempt of the chattering classes to be difficult about the Bill; it is an attempt to make the Bill compliant with the rule of law and with the requirement to protect the privacy of our constituents. That is all it is about. Criticising and making ad hominem comments about a witness are not going to undermine the moderate—
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not give way. There will be plenty of opportunity for the hon. Lady to contribute later. I am conscious of the time, Chair, so I will briefly—
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not. I want to continue making my point. Without the amendment, which we support, a GCHQ analyst would be able to search for and view non-content material of anyone in the United Kingdom without a warrant. I do not believe that that is right, necessary or proportionate.
Let us look at what the Intelligence and Security Committee said. If Government Members do not like Mr King’s evidence, let us set him to one side and look at the ISC. Government Members might find its approach more palatable or less easy to criticise. In the ISC’s response to the draft Bill, it highlighted the significant concern that the secondary data, including that derived from content, would not be protected. It said:
“To provide protection for any such material incidentally collected, there is a prohibition on searching for and examining any material that relates to a person known to be in the UK (therefore, even if it is collected, it cannot be examined unless additional authorisation is obtained). However, these safeguards only relate to the content of these communications. The RCD relating to the communications of people in the UK is unprotected if it is collected via Bulk Interception. In direct contrast, if the same material were collected and examined through other means (for example, a direct request to a CSP) then the draft Bill sets out how it must be authorised”.
The ISC expressed a concern that the amendment attempts to address. Because no examination warrant is required for secondary data, a variety of highly intrusive acts could be undertaken without additional authorisation by individual analysts. That is all that the amendment is seeking to address. In my respectful submission, it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate.
Mr Hayes
As the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking—he recalled having a cold towel placed upon him last week—I wondered, as his peroration ranged across so many different clauses of the Bill, whether he wished the same fate for the whole Committee, although I fully appreciate his point on the complexities of this particular area of our consideration. They are such that, to get to the basis of why he tabled the amendments, it is necessary to look across a range of parts of the Bill.
In essence, this is probably the difference between us—perhaps it is not, but let me present that at least as my hypothesis. We recognise, as the Bill reflects, that different levels of authorisation should apply in relation to different investigative techniques. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is with us that far, but it is important to say why those different levels should apply. The differences plainly reflect the different operational contexts in which the powers are exercised, and that includes the different organisations, how they use the capabilities, and the statutory purposes for which those capabilities are utilised. We are absolutely clear that those differences are necessary, and that the safeguards that apply to different powers are satisfactory, coherent and effective.
Keir Starmer
I have checked the evidence, and perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee why it is necessary to distinguish between the protection offered to content and secondary data in relation to bulk warrants, when it is not necessary for targeted warrants. They are treated exactly the same for targeted warrants, but he says that it is necessary to distinguish between them for bulk warrants. What is the necessity? Can he spell it out, please?
Mr Hayes
I will try to do that during my response. If one recognises that a different process should apply in the exercise of different powers, contextualised around the operational function of the organisations that are exercising the powers and the purposes for which the powers are being exercised, one begins to appreciate that what might, at first reading, look like inconsistency is not an error or an inconsistency but is a necessary application of different sets of both powers and safeguards for different needs. I will address the hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific point as I go through my response.
Amendment 57 would extend the requirement to obtain a targeted examination warrant to circumstances in which an agency wishes to select for examination the secondary data, as opposed to content, relating to the communications of an individual who is known to be in the UK when the data have been obtained under a bulk interception warrant. Essentially, secondary data are less intrusive than content; their collection and the circumstances in which they may be examined are directly subject to double-lock authorisation. Furthermore, it is necessary to say that it is sometimes important, indeed essential, to examine secondary data to determine whether someone is in the UK. That does not provide an entire answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question on the difference, but it provides some answer to the argument about where someone resides at a given point in time.
The targeted acquisition of communications data, provided for in part 3 of the Bill, including data relating to individuals in the United Kingdom, currently requires the designation of an authorised person within an organisation. The hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged that we have taken further steps, which I will talk about later, following the recommendations of David Anderson—forgive me, but this is quite a complex area, and I need to go into it in some detail.
In contrast, bulk interception warrants, which authorise the collection of communications in bulk and set out the circumstances in which material that has been collected can be selected for examination, are subject to the double-lock authorisation of both the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. That means that the acquisition of content and secondary data, and the operational purposes for which any of the data can be selected for examination, is explicitly authorised by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner when the warrant is approved. The agencies can only select material for examination when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, in line with one or more operational purposes authorised when the warrant is granted.
Where the security and intelligence agencies wish to look at the content of the communications of an individual in the United Kingdom under a bulk interception warrant, they will need to obtain a targeted examination warrant, which reflects the recommendations from the independent reviewer, David Anderson. I draw attention to his report, “A Question of Trust,” with which members of the Committee will be familiar. The report addresses precisely this point in recommendations 79 and 80 on the use of material recovered under bulk warrants. The regime reflects the well-recognised distinction between less intrusive data obtained through these powers and content—
Investigatory Powers Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 12th April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 April 2016 - (12 Apr 2016)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 58, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from “examination” to end of line 18.
Amendment 59, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from “examination.” to end of line 18 and insert
“of material referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, or British citizen outside the British Islands at that time.”
Amendment 60, in clause 13, page 10, line 17, leave out from “examination.” to end of line 18 and insert
“of material referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, or British, Canadian, American, New Zealand or Australian citizen outside the British Islands at that time.”
Amendment 83, in clause 13, page 10, line 22, after “6”, insert—
“In this Part “secondary data” means—
(a) in relation to a communication transmitted by means of a postal service, means any data falling within subsection (5);
(b) in relation to a communication transmitted by means of a telecommunication system, means any data falling within subsection (5) or (6).”
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen. In your absence, under the stewardship of Ms Dorries, we had enlightening and rigorous scrutiny of the early provisions of the Bill and had got to the point of considering the third group of amendments. They are complicated, as illustrated by the shadow Minister’s opening remarks. I was about to go into some detail about the safeguards that we have put in place. So that we are all up to speed, I will mention that I had referred briefly to the recommendations made by the independent reviewer, Mr David Anderson, in his report, “A Question of Trust”, in relation to this area of the Bill—the use of material recovered under bulk warrants. I had reminded the Committee that the provisions before us reflect that advice. The Government have essentially taken the advice of David Anderson and built it into the Bill that we are now considering.
The current bulk access safeguards under the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 have, of course, recently been scrutinised by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. After extensive argument, the tribunal ruled that the current approach fully met the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights. In particular, the tribunal ruled that it was not necessary to apply the protections that apply to content to related communications data—the other data associated with a communication but not its content that has been redefined as secondary data in the Bill—to ensure ECHR compliance.
Both targeted and bulk warrants authorise the collection of content and secondary data. That, I think, clears up one of the doubts that some Committee members may have had. A bulk warrant also authorises the circumstances in which content and secondary data can be selected for examination. The Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner, when authorising warrants, agree the operational purposes that determine what content and what secondary data can be examined. In other words, at the point when the warrant is issued, both the judicial commissioner, in the arrangements that we propose, and the Secretary of State, in those arrangements and now, are fully aware of the operational reasons for the request. There is no distinction in those terms—again, I think this addresses some of the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras—between content and secondary data.
Where the difference comes is in relation to the additional protections for persons in the UK. In fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to this. The Bill makes it clear that examination of the content, once it has been collected, of data relating to persons in the UK can take place only when an additional warrant has been issued. People should bear it in mind that there will already be a bulk warrant authorising collection; this is a separate process from the collection of data. An additional warrant must be issued that specifically authorises examination. There is a warrant to collect data and another warrant to examine data, and at the point when those warrants are considered by the Secretary of State and, under these new arrangements, by the judicial commissioner, the purposes will be clearly defined. The Secretary of State will be aware of why the request is being made and why it matters.
We talked earlier, in a different part of our consideration, about authorising powers only where they are necessary because nothing else will do the job—the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to emphasise that those considerations, around the broad issues—they are no less important because of their breadth—of proportionality and necessity, will govern all these matters.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
To clarify, I think I heard the Minister say—if I misheard him, he can ignore this intervention—that two bulk warrants would be put forward at the same time; one for the intercept and one for the examination. However, I am not sure that is right. I had always read this as one warrant within which different types of conduct are authorised. Therefore, the warrant could—I am looking at clause 119(4)—authorise both the interception and the selection for examination. I may be wrong about that, but I had always understood that one warrant would authorise all the conduct in one fell swoop at the beginning, rather than there being two warrants. If I misheard, I apologise.
Mr Hayes
Essentially, in order to obtain collection—to have bulk collection and examination—a warrant is required. The Bill makes it clear that the examination of content of persons in the UK requires an additional warrant. That is the point I was making.
Authorisation for persons in the UK does not apply to secondary data, because it is often not possible to determine the location of a person without taking those data. The reason why it looks like there is an inconsistency in respect of a set of data—or it might be perceived that way, without fuller consideration—is that, in relation to secondary data, it is not always possible to determine where someone is until the secondary data have been collected.
The point I made earlier was that it is a well and long-established principle that non-content is less important and less intrusive than content. Content is likely to be more intrusive, so what we are describing in these terms replicates the existing position—the long-established practice—which, as I said, was upheld by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. This is the existing practice, and it has been examined and found to be appropriate and reasonable. I mentioned ECHR compliance in that respect.
I have described the existing regime and its examination, but the regime proposed under the Bill further enhances the safeguards that the security and intelligence agencies already apply when accessing data obtained under a bulk interception warrant. The access arrangements are set out in part 6 of the Bill: for example, secondary data, as well as content, can be accessed only for one or more of the operational purposes specified on the warrant and approved by the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner. The Bill also includes a requirement that an analyst must consider the necessity and proportionality of any access to any data obtained under a bulk interception warrant in line with the operational purposes. Without putting words into the mouths of Committee members, it could be argued that it is all very well setting out the operational purposes at the outset and that, further, at that point they might be deemed to legitimise the use of the powers in terms of necessity and proportionality, but that that might not be the case further down the line. It is therefore important that we have introduced further analysis of the data collected under the bulk warrant, rather than just when collection is authorised.
Extending targeted examination warrants to non-content data, including secondary data, which is what the amendments propose, would be disproportionate and impractical. That would radically change the bulk data regime, reduce its efficacy and place a substantial burden on the security and intelligence agencies, requiring them to obtain highest level authorisation for data that would often resemble the kind of information routinely collected under a part 3 authorisation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I remind the Minister that when I spoke before lunchtime, I highlighted the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee has a concern about secondary data derived from content not being protected. What does the Minister make of the ISC’s concerns? Why have the Government dismissed them?
Mr Hayes
I wondered whether the ISC might be raised in this respect. Of course the hon. and learned Lady is right. With her typical diligence she has identified that the ISC does indeed make that point. The answer to the question is that we welcome scrutiny and we invite consideration of these proposals. All of the Committees that looked at these matters made a whole series of recommendations, some of which the Government accepted with alacrity, some of which the Government continue to consider, and some of which the Government do not agree with. It is true that that point has been made, and I said that this might reasonably be argued. However, I think that we have gone far enough in this area in balancing the proper desire for effective safeguards with the operational effectiveness of the agencies.
Bulk collection is really important. Without giving away too much sensitive information, I can happily let the Committee know that as Security Minister I have visited GCHQ, as the Committee would expect me to do. I have looked at the kind of work the staff there do in respect of bulk data collection, and I have seen the effect it has. Contrary to what might be described as a rather crude view of what bulk collection is all about, it is not searching for a needle in any haystack; it is being highly selective about which haystacks are looked at. It is about trying to establish connections, networks and relationships between organisations and individuals; places and people. I have no doubt that without these powers the work of our intelligence and security services would be inhibited. However, I accept that safeguards are needed: I do not for a moment suggest anything else.
I turn now to amendments 58, 59 and 60. These amendments seek to extend the circumstances in which a targeted examination warrant is required beyond the current situation in the Bill, such that they are not limited to persons in the UK. The intention of amendment 58 appears to be that an individual targeted examination warrant would be required from the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner each time an analyst in an intelligence agency wished to examine the content of any communications acquired under a bulk data interception warrant. This would apply irrespective of where in the world the sender or recipient of the communication was located. As currently drafted, the Bill makes it clear that a targeted examination warrant must be sought if an analyst wished to examine the content of communications of individuals in the British islands which had been obtained under a bulk interception warrant.
Amending the scope of a targeted examination warrant as proposed would, in my view, fundamentally alter the operation of the bulk regime. I am advised to that effect by those who use these powers. There is plainly a rational justification for treating the communications of persons known to be in the British Isles differently to those of persons who are believed to be overseas. Within the UK, the interception of communications is a tool that is used to advance investigations into known threats, usually in conjunction with other capabilities and other tools. Of course, serious investigations of the kind we are talking about are complicated, and very often this will be only one of the means that are used to establish the patterns of activity of the networks I have described and the threats that I have outlined.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I seek the Minister’s clarification more than anything else. Is there a view in the Government that there is a difference between the external threat of people who are not in the British Isles and also are not British citizens, as opposed to those who are British citizens? Is it the Government’s view that we have a responsibility to protect the privacy of British citizens, as we are charged to do, as opposed to those who may present an external threat to the United Kingdom?
Mr Hayes
We legally have different responsibilities with respect to UK citizens. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. UK citizens are protected by all kinds of legal provisions, not only those in this Bill, far from it. He is absolutely right that different circumstances prevail. However, it is slightly more complicated than that, as he knows. We may be talking about people who are British but not in Britain at a particular time, or people who are not British but in Britain at a particular time. We may be speaking about people who are moving in and out of the country. These are often quite complex webs about which we are trying to establish more information. Of course, things such as surveillance and agent reporting will pay a part in this. All the conventional means by which these things are investigated would interface with the tools that the agencies currently use and are given greater detail and more safeguards in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should have an approach that is appropriate to the circumstances and the kind of people we are dealing with.
It is important to emphasise again that applications for targeting reception warrants will be supported by a detailed intelligence case. There has to be a clear operational purpose—a case needs to be made. That means that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the use of these powers is appropriate. The Bill quite rightly ensures that the agencies must provide the same detailed case if they want to examine communications of a person in the UK that have been intercepted under a bulk warrant.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about threats outside the UK is important, because it is often only through bulk powers of the kind detailed in the Bill that we are able to discover threats outside the UK, particularly in countries such as Syria where we may have little or no physical presence and limited cover in respect of the security services, for obvious reasons. In those circumstances, the amount of information we have to deal with being very limited, bulk interception plays a critical part. It will often be necessary to examine the communications of individuals outside the UK, for obvious reasons, based on partial intelligence—the limited intelligence we have—in order to determine whether they merit further investigation or in order sometimes to eliminate people from the inquiries. Many of the powers that I am describing—indeed many of the powers in the Bill—as well as identifying, qualifying and making further steps more exact, are about eliminating people from consideration, because once we know more, we know they do not pose a real or current threat. It is therefore really important that we understand that this plays a vital role in mitigating the threat to the UK from overseas.
Requiring an analyst to seek permission from the Secretary of State or the judicial commissioner every time they consider it necessary to examine the content of a communication sent by a person outside the UK would inhibit the ability of the security and intelligence agencies to identify new and emerging threats from outside the UK.
I want to emphasise that the scale and character of the threats we face have changed and continue to do so. This is partly because of changing technology, the way in which people communicate, the adaptability of those who threaten us and the complexities of the modern world. Unless we have powers that match—indeed, outmatch—the powers that are in the hands of those who seek to do us harm, we will simply not be able to mitigate those threats in the way that is needed in defence of our country and countrymen.
The current bulk access safeguards under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 have recently been scrutinised. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal found in particular that there was sufficient justification for enhanced safeguards to be applied only where an analyst is seeking to examine the content of people in the British Isles. Nevertheless, the Bill enhances the safeguards and while I am sympathetic to the aims of amendments 59 and 60, they present practical challenges in their own right.
As hon. Members will appreciate, overseas-based individuals discovered in the course of an investigation do not uniformly present their nationality and passport details to agencies, so in practical terms the agencies will simply not be able to do what the amendments require. The amendments could also give rise to discrimination issues. As I explained, there is a clear justification for applying different safeguards to persons located outside the UK, but it is by no means clear that it is necessary to apply different protections to people of a particular nationality. Accordingly, providing for such a distinction in law could place the UK in breach of its international obligations, particularly our obligation not to discriminate on grounds of nationality.
It is right that we take a view about people who are operating in a way that is injurious to our interests from outside the UK, but it is equally right that we do not make prejudgments. Again, we are trying to strike a balance in this part of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to place vital powers on a statutory footing that will stand the test of time. I believe that the strongest safeguards for the examination of communications, taking into account the challenges of identifying threats outside the UK, are necessary, and that we are in the right place with the Bill.
Finally, amendment 83 relates to the clause 14 definition of secondary data, which sets out how it can be obtained through an interception warrant provided for in part 2 of the Bill. The amendment seeks to replace the current definition in the Bill with a narrower one.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Owen, for my first contribution to this Committee.
Regarding amendments 59 and 60, is it not the position that bulk interception is provided for under section 8(4) of RIPA and is therefore subject to tests of necessity and proportionality? If it relates to a British citizen within the British Isles and an analyst wishes to select for examination the content of the communication of an individual known to be located in the British islands, the analyst has to apply to the Secretary of State for additional authorisation under section 16(3) of RIPA—similar to section 8(1). There are robust and extensive safeguards in place for this purpose.
Mr Hayes
I am delighted to be able to say in response to that extremely well informed intervention that my hon. Friend is right. The Bill does not actually add to bulk powers, contrary to what some have assumed and even claimed. In the sense that it reinforces safeguards and maintains the ability of our agencies to collect bulk data, it builds on what we already do. The Bill pulls together much of the powers in existing legislation; part of its purpose is to put all of those powers in one place, making them easier to understand and more straightforward to navigate. She is absolutely right; we took those powers in RIPA because they were needed to deal with the changing threats and the character of what we knew we had to do to counter them. That was done in no way other than out of a proper, responsible desire to provide the intelligence agencies with what they needed to do their jobs.
To return to amendments 59 and 60, when people are discovered to be outside the country and are subject to an investigation by the security services they do not usually present their credentials for examination, and it is important that the powers we have fill what would otherwise be a gaping hole in our capacity to do what is right and necessary. The aim of the Bill is to place vital powers on a statutory footing that will stand the test of time.
Amendment 83 relates to clause 14 and the definition of secondary data. It is important to point out that it has always been the case that an interception warrant allows communications to be obtained in full. Historically, that has been characterised in law as obtaining the content of communication and of any accompanying “related communications data”. However, as communications have become more sophisticated it has become necessary to revise the definitions to remove any ambiguities around the distinction between content and non-content data and to provide clear, simple and future-proof definitions that correctly classify all the data the intercepting agents require to carry out their functions.
Secondary data describes data that can be obtained through an interception warrant other than the content of communications themselves. Those data are less intrusive than content, but are a broader category of data than communications data. For example, it could include technical information, such as details of hardware configuration, or data relating to a specific communication or piece of content, such as the metadata associated with a photographic image—the date on which it was taken or the location—but not the photograph itself, which would, of course, be the content.
I want to make it clear that the data will always, by necessity, be acquired through interception. The definition does not expand the scope of the data that can be acquired under a warrant, but it makes clearer how the data should be categorised. Interception provides for the collection of a communication in full and the amendment would not serve to narrow the scope of interception. It would, however, reduce the level of clarity about what data other than content could be obtained under a warrant. It would also have the effect of undermining an important provision in the Bill. In some cases secondary data alone are all that are required to achieve the intended aim of an operation or investigation. That is an important point. Another misconception is that it is always necessary to acquire content to find out what we need to know. In fact, sometimes it is sufficient to acquire simpler facts and information. For that reason, clause 13 makes it clear that obtaining secondary data can be the primary purpose of an interception, and the kind of data that can be obtained under a warrant is also set out.
Narrowing the scope of secondary data would reduce the number of occasions on which the operational requirement could be achieved through the collection of those data alone, resulting in greater interference with privacy where a full interception warrant is sought. Where we do not need to go further we should not go further. Where secondary data are sufficient to achieve our purposes, let that be so.
Secondary data are defined as systems data and identifying data included as part of or otherwise linked to communications being intercepted. Systems data is any information that enables or facilitates the functioning of any system or service: for example, when using an application on a phone data will be exchanged between the phone and the application server, which makes the application work in a certain way. Systems data can also include information that is not related to an individual communication, such as messages sent between different network infrastructure providers, to enable the system to manage the flow of communications.
Most communications will contain information that identifies individuals, apparatus, systems and services or events, and sometimes the location of those individuals or events. The data are operationally critical to the intercepting agencies. In most cases, the information will form part of the systems data, but there will be cases when it does not. When the data are not systems data and can be logically separated from the communication, and would not reveal anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning of the communication, they are identifying data. For example, if there are email addresses embedded in a webpage, those could be extracted as identifying data. The definitions of systems data and identifying data make clearer the scope of the non-content data that can be obtained under the interception warrant.
The fact that the definition of secondary data is linked to clear, central definitions of systems and identifying data ensures that there can be consistent application of powers across the Bill to protect privacy and that data can be handled appropriately regardless of the power under which it has been obtained.
Christian Matheson
Mr Owen, it is traditional that hon. Members recognise the Chair. I do so not only because of your consummate skills in chairmanship, but because as the Member for Ynys Môn you bring back happy childhood memories of many childhood summer holidays in Benllech, Red Wharf Bay, Llangefni market and suchlike.
I listened to the Minister’s detailed explanations—I pay tribute to him for the length and the detail he went to—sometimes with the vision of a wet towel around my head invoked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. This is not a very politically correct thing to say and hon. Members may find it disappointing, but frankly I do not give a tinker’s cuss whether, in the defence of the realm, we seek access to information from outside the UK or outside British citizenry. Parliament has a responsibility to this country and we will exercise that. As we have discussed, we also have a responsibility to British citizens to respect their privacy. The crux of the Bill is the balance that we will achieve between those two competing demands.
I am not clear yet, particularly in respect of the point made by my hon. and learned Friend, as to whether the question of secondary data that will be extracted and that affects UK citizens has been correctly answered. If the Minister can give an assurance—I appreciate that he has already given a long and detailed answer—of his confidence that the privacy of UK citizens or people within the UK can be properly protected, I am sure we would be able to move on. The balance that we need to strike between protecting the privacy of UK citizens and protecting their personal security and the security of the nation is difficult.
Mr Hayes
To be absolutely clear, the means of the acquisition of content and secondary data and the operational purposes for which those data can be selected for examination will be explicitly authorised by the judicial commissioner and the Secretary of State. The operational case for the collection of those data must be explicit and sufficiently persuasive that the warrant is granted by the Secretary of State and by the judicial commissioner. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desires.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful for that assurance and explanation and, indeed, for the previous explanation. The Minister has gone into considerable depth on the matter and I am most grateful for that.
Keir Starmer
I, too, welcome you to the Chair of this Committee, Mr Owen. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
The assurance that has just been asked for cannot be given because the whole purpose of the provision is to enable the secondary data of any of us in this room that is caught by a bulk interception warrant to be looked at without any further warrant. If my data is swept up in a bulk interception warrant, even though I am not the target it can be examined without a separate warrant. That goes for every member of the Committee, every member of the public and everybody residing in the British Isles. The neat distinction between people here and people abroad breaks down in relation to this clause. I want us to be clear about that. The Minister is making the case that that is perfectly appropriate and necessary and that there are sufficient safeguards in place, but he is not making the case that this would not happen for those in the British Isles. It can and undoubtedly does happen, and it will happen under this regime. That means that all our secondary data are caught by this provision, even where we are not the primary target.
The Minister pointed to the double lock and the roles of the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner. He took an intervention on that, but I want to be absolutely clear on what those roles are and how necessity and proportionality play out. Clause 125 sets out what requirements must be met by a bulk interception warrant. Subsection (3) says:
“A bulk interception warrant must specify the operational purposes for which any intercepted content or secondary data obtained under the warrant may be selected for examination.”
The Minister points to that and says that there has got to be an operational purpose, which is true. However, we then read just how specific that operational purpose is likely to be:
“In specifying any operational purposes, it is not sufficient simply to use the descriptions contained in section 121(1)(b) or (2)”.
Those are just the general descriptions of national security and preventing serious crime, so it is not enough to say that the operational reason is national security or to prevent serious crime. Well, good—that that is all that had to be specified, it would not be very much. However, the purposes may still be general purposes, so the operational purposes are likely to be very broad—necessarily so in practical terms, given that it is a bulk warrant.
The role of the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner is to decide whether the warrant is necessary and proportionate according to those purposes. We keep using the words “necessary and proportionate”. We have to keep an eye on what the object of the necessity and proportionality is. The question for the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner is whether it is necessary and proportionate for the very broad operational purposes that are permitted under clause 125. It is not a very detailed, specific examination by the Secretary of State or the judicial commissioner; nor could it be.
At some later date, there is further consideration when it comes to examination. If it was suggested that at the later stage of actual examination, rather than authority for examination, it goes back to the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner, that is just plain wrong. It does not go back at all. All that the judicial commissioner or Secretary of State do is to authorise the general purposes under the warrant. As far as selection is concerned, that is governed by clause 134(1) and (2). Subsection (2) specifies that:
“The selection of intercepted content or secondary data for examination”
—that is at the heart of what we are talking about—
“is carried out only for the specified purposes”.
That relates to back to subsection (1). It continues,
“only so far as is necessary”
—necessary to what? It then refers straight back to the “operational purposes” set out in clause 125. Even at that later stage, the question of necessity and proportionality is against the very broad operational purposes. The Minister has been very clear about this and I am not suggesting otherwise, but the idea that there is some forensic and carefully curtailed exercise that looks in detail at the individual circumstances of the case is pretty far-fetched. In the end, all anyone has to do is ask whether it is necessary or proportionate to the general operational purposes upon which the warrant was issued in the first place. That is very different from the test set out for targeted interception. It is the test that will be applied to all the secondary data of anybody in this room who ever finds themselves caught up in a bulk interception warrant. That is not far-fetched. There will be many bulk intercept warrants, which may well capture the content and secondary data of many members of the public who are not targets in any way.
As a result, although I applaud the Minister for his long and detailed answer, it was not very persuasive regarding the necessity of this scheme or the effectiveness of the safeguards. Simply saying that secondary data may be necessary to determine location is hardly enough to justify the provision. I recognise that secondary data are different to content and that bulk powers are different from targeted powers, but in the end, when this is unravelled, it shows that there is no effective safeguard. In the circumstances we will not divide the Committee on the amendment, but I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage. It goes to the heart of the Bill. When properly analysed and understood, the safeguard in this respect is barely a safeguard at all.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, but I will offer this response. First, I direct the hon. and learned Gentleman to the “Operational Case for Bulk Powers”, which specifies the ways in which bulk powers will be used. The operational case will be specific. I am grateful to him for not pressing the amendment. I am happy to write to the Committee to reinforce our arguments and I think that we might reach a Hegelian synthesis—I am very keen on Hegel, as he knows. I agree that it is often necessary to examine the secondary data to determine the sender—he knows that that is the case—but I disagree about the lack of specificity on the operational purposes. We cannot give too much detail on that, for the reasons of sensitivity that he will understand, but I am happy to write to him to draw his and the Committee’s attention to the “Operational Case for Bulk Powers”, which is targeted at overseas threats but might, as he properly said, draw in some data from those who are in the UK. I hope that when I write to him he might decide not to bring these matters back further. I am grateful for his consideration.
Joanna Cherry
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Before lunch, I spoke to amendment 83, concerning secondary data. I did not speak to amendment 84, because it was tabled but not selected, but it is really a corollary: it proposes leaving out clause 14.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and I am grateful to him for his detailed explanation, but he does not take on board the concerns that I attempted to articulate on secondary data, notwithstanding the fact that similar concerns were articulated by the Intelligence and Security Committee. We will have to agree to differ for the time being. I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras about the other issues relating to the these amendments, in particular his pertinent and typically incisive point about clause 125(3).
Having sought clarification this morning from the Chair on the voting procedures, I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, because I think that I would end up with something of a pyrrhic victory. However, I emphasise that I stand by the necessity for the grouped amendments and wish to revisit them later during the passage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Obtaining secondary data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
I tabled an amendment to delete clause 14. I do not think it has been selected, but I have made my position clear. I wish to revisit this issue at a later stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Subject-matter of warrants
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 15, page 12, line 3, leave out “or organisation”.
This amendment, and others to Clause 15, seek to preserve the capacity of a single warrant to permit the interception of multiple individuals while requiring an identifiable subject matter or premises to be provided.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 5, in clause 15, page 12, line 8, after “activity” insert
“where each person is named or otherwise identified”.
Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 12, line 9, leave out “or organisation”.
Amendment 7, in clause 15, page 12, line 11, after “operation”, insert
“where each person is named or otherwise identified”.
Amendment 8, in clause 15, page 12, line 12, leave out paragraph (2)(c).
Amendment 9, in clause 15, page 12, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 52, in clause 27, page 21, line 7, leave out ‘or organisation’.
Amendment 53, in clause 27, page 21, line 8, leave out ‘or organisation’.
Amendment 54, in clause 27, page 21, line 13, leave out
‘or describe as many of those persons as is reasonably practicable to name or describe’ and insert ‘or otherwise identify all of those persons’.
Amendment 55, in clause 27, page 21, line 15, leave out ‘or organisation’.
Amendment 56, in clause 27, page 21, line 19, leave out
‘or describe as many of those persons or organisations or as many of those sets of premises, as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe’ and insert ‘all of those persons or sets of premises’.
Joanna Cherry
The effect of these amendments to clause 15 would be to retain the capacity of a single warrant to permit the interception of multiple individuals but require an identifiable subject matter or premises to be provided. Associated amendments to clause 27 would be required. This would narrow the current provisions, which, in my submission, effectively permit a limitless number of unidentified individuals to have their communications intercepted.
As drafted, clause 15 permits warrants to be issued in respect of people whose names are not known or knowable when the warrant is sought. That is confirmed by clause 27, which provides that a thematic warrant must describe the relevant purpose or activity, and
“name or describe as many of those persons…as…is reasonably practicable”.
The creation of thematic warrants in the Bill means that communications intercepted in their billions under part 6 could be trawled thematically for groups sharing a common purpose or carrying out a particular activity. The difficulty with that is that it provides for an open-ended warrant that could encompass many hundreds or thousands of people, and the expansive scope of these warrants, combined with the broad grounds with which they can be authorised, does not impose sufficient limits on the authorities’ interception powers.
The existence of thematic interception warrants was avowed by the Secretary of State in March 2015. The Intelligence and Security Committee has reported that the significant majority of section 8(1) warrants under RIPA relate to one specific individual but that some do not apply to named individuals or specific premises, and instead apply to groups of people. The current Home Secretary has apparently derived the authority to do so from a broad definition given to the word “person” that is found elsewhere in RIPA, despite the unequivocal reference to “one person” in section 8(1) of RIPA. I suggest that what has gone on in the past is a very unorthodox statutory construction.
Be that as it may, in considering the terms of this Bill the ISC has reported that the Interception of Communications Commissioner has
“made some strong recommendations about the management of thematic warrants”
and in some cases recommended that they be cancelled. The ISC has expressed further concerns about the extent to which this capability is used and the associated safeguards that go along with it. It has suggested that thematic warrants must be used sparingly and should be authorised for a shorter time than a standard section 8(1) warrant.
Reporting on the draft version of the Bill, the ISC noted that “unfortunately”—the Committee’s word—its previous recommendation about thematic warrants
“has not been reflected in the draft Bill”;
nor has it been reflected in the revised Bill, in which the scope for thematic warrants remains unchanged. It is not only the ISC that has concerns about this issue. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill also recommended that
“the language of the Bill be amended so that targeted interception and targeted equipment interference warrants cannot be used as a way to issue thematic warrants”.
Many lawyers believe that the scope of warrants permitted under clause 15 as drafted would fail to comply with both the common law and European Court of Human Rights standards, as expounded in a very recent decision in Zakharov v. Russia from 4 December 2015. In that case, the ECHR found that Russia’s interception scheme was in violation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Also, the Court cited the fact that Russian courts sometimes grant interception authorisations that do not mention a specific person or a specific telephone number to be tapped but authorise interception of all telephone communications in the area where a criminal offence has been committed. Although thematic warrants do not relate to geographical location, in my view and that of many far more distinguished lawyers, they are sufficiently broad to violate article 8 of the convention. Our amendments are required to make clauses 15 and 27 compatible with that article.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Is the purpose of the clause to address those circumstances where, for example, the security services or police know that someone has been kidnapped, but they do not know the names of the kidnap gang or even perhaps the number of gang members? The clause is designed to enable the security services to make the inquiries they need to make to save a life.
Joanna Cherry
I think I am correct in saying that this section is directed more towards security concerns than serious crime. I will no doubt be corrected, but I can only stand by what others who deal with surveillance issues have said in their evidence to the Committee. I would also like to point to what David Anderson QC said in his follow-up evidence to the Committee at paragraphs 4 and 5.
Joanna Cherry
David Anderson, in his typically helpful, studious and hard-working way followed up his oral evidence to us with some additional thoughts in written evidence. He has a section headed “Thematic Targeted Powers” in which he says:
“I recommended that the practice of issuing thematic warrants be continued into the new legislative regime…I envisaged their utility as being ‘against a defined group or network whose characteristics are such that the extent of the interference can reasonably be foreseen, and assessed as necessary or proportionate, in advance’—for example, a specific organised crime group”.
Perhaps that answers the hon. Lady’s question. He went on to say:
“I also recommended that the addition of new persons or premises to the warrant should…require the approval of a judicial commissioner, so that the use of a thematic warrant did not dilute the strict authorisation procedure that would otherwise accompany the issue of a warrant targeted on a particular individual or premises”.
His following statement is very important. He says:
“On both counts, the Bill is considerably more permissive than I had envisaged. Thus: The wording of clause 15 (interception) and still more so clause 90 (EI) is extremely broad”.
This answers the hon. Lady’s point. Even David Anderson, who envisaged thematic warrants having some utility against a defined group or network such as an organised crime group, says that the wording of clause 15 is considerably more permissive than he had envisaged.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. and learned Lady states the opinion that clause 15 is really aimed at dealing with the security services point. It is but, may I refer her to clause 18, which deals with the grounds on which warrants may be issued by the Secretary of State? It is very clear that it can be done for national security reasons but also for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I stand corrected. Fortunately I have the assistance of David Anderson on this point. He has made the point that whereas he sees envisaged their utility in identifying a defined group or network—for example, a specific organised crime group—he remains of the view that the wording of clause 15 is “extremely broad”. It should concern all members of this Committee that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation considers the wording of this clause to be extremely broad. If the Government will not take the Scottish National party’s word for it, then they can take the word of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I seek the Government’s assurance that they will go away and look again at clause 15 and clause 27 very carefully, in the light not only of what I have said but, more importantly, what has been said by Sir Stanley Burnton, Lord Judge and David Anderson.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her very detailed points. Does she accept that even though David Anderson thinks that the wording is too broad, the amendments that she proposes would make the provision too narrow? If the words “or organisation” are taken out then only a person or a premises will be identified, which would not catch the circumstances that David Anderson is thinking about. In her submission, the hon. and learned Lady identified that while the current wording was too broad, some of the organisations that she mentioned did recognise that in some circumstances the thematic powers were useful.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. and learned Lady makes a point that I have to take on board to a certain extent. I suspect that my amendments to clause 15 go further than David Anderson would if he were drafting an amendment to this clause. We are at a very early stage in this procedure. I am really seeking an assurance from the Government that they will take on board, if not my concerns, then at the very least the concerns of Sir Stanley Burnton, Lord Judge and David Anderson, and that they will take away clause 15 and clause 27 and look at them again.
Keir Starmer
I will be brief because a lot of the detailed work has been done. I listened very carefully to the Minister, not only today but on other occasions, and he indicated that the Government want to improve the Bill and that they do not have a fixed view. I therefore make these submissions in the hope that the Minister and the Government will not circle the wagons around the existing formula in clause 15 simply because those are the words on the page. The warrants are supposed to be targeted, but when reading clause 15(2) it is clear that they are very wide. I will not repeat the concerns of Lord Judge, Sir Stanley Burnton and David Anderson, but they are three individuals with huge experience of the operation of these warrants.
I take the point about kidnap cases or examples of that type. They are exactly the cases that Lord Judge and Sir Stanley Burnton will have seen in real time and reviewed, and that David Anderson will have reviewed after the event. When those three distinguished individuals say that they have concerns about the breadth of the clauses, they do so against huge and probably unparalleled experience of what the warrants provide for. I doubt that anyone would suggest that they are not alive to concerns about the warrants being practical and effective in the sort of circumstances that have been described.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
May I put a slightly counter idea to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West? I accept the comments of David Anderson and others, but in some instances it will not be terribly wrong to have broad definitions in the Bill. Getting legislation made in this place is a difficult and lengthy process. We must fetter those who wish this country and its citizens ill, so it is potentially a good idea to have some breadth in the definitions.
Keir Starmer
I understand the spirit underpinning the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which is that in certain circumstances a broad power can be helpful because future situations are not known. In this case, the breadth of the provision matters above all else, however, because it concerns the subject matter of the warrant. Lest anyone think otherwise, when one looks at the code of practice, one does not find that it restricts what is in the Bill. Paragraph 5.12 of the draft code says, in stark terms:
“There is not a limit to the number of locations, persons or organisations that can be provided for by a thematic warrant.”
In certain circumstances, the Minister and the Government might be able to point to things that are broad in the Bill but restricted by the code, but that would not be appropriate for the subject matter of a warrant and is not the situation in this case. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the intervention, however, because I need to put my concern on the table, and I invite the Government to take the matter away and have another look at it.
I am concerned that in reality, the broadly drawn warrants will be modified. We will get to the modification procedures later. The broad warrant will be signed off by the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner, but the modification, which may well add names as they become available, will not. There is therefore the further hidden danger that the provision is so broad that it will require modification procedures to be used more often than they should, in circumstances in which they are not adequate, for reasons that I will come on to.
At the end of the day, if someone with the authority and experience of Lord Judge, Sir Stanley Burnton and David Anderson—who have more authority and experience than anyone in this room—says that they have concerns about the breadth of the warrants, for the Government simply to say, “We’re not going to have another look at it”, runs counter to the spirit in which they have so far approached the scrutiny of the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
I wonder whether clause 15(1) is as wide as we think, given that subsection (2) seems to relate to a category of people that is not caught by subsection (1). We would not need subsection (2) unless it referred to a wider group than subsection (1). If that is right, someone must have particular characteristics to be caught under subsection (2), which suggests that subsection (1) is in fact narrow.
Keir Starmer
That is absolutely right. If subsection (1) was wide enough to incorporate subsection (2) we would not need it. Subsection (2) is there to enable a warrant to be granted in circumstances that would be constrained by subsection (1). It is permissive—that is why the word “may” is used.
It is subsection (2) that has been singled out. Sir Stanley Burnton was absolutely clear that the wording of the subsection was wide, and that was what he focused his attention on. If someone with the experience of the experts I have named says that there is a problem because the provision is too broad, I invite the Government, in the spirit of constructing a better Bill, to go away and think about that. Those people have unrivalled experience of seeing warrants in practice.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to detain the Committee too long on these amendments, but this is an important debate, because investigation of the kind we are discussing may not at the outset be able to identify particular individuals. The effect of the amendments would be to limit the ability of warrant requesting agencies to apply for a warrant against organisations, and to require the naming of individuals. It is not always possible to do that. That includes individuals using communication devices—it may be known that someone has received a telephone call from a particular number, but not necessarily know who or where they are.
Victoria Atkins
Would a horribly pertinent example be the man in the hat in Belgium? Until this week the security services abroad did not know who that person was and were desperately trying to find out his identity.
Mr Hayes
That is an example of what I meant. There could well be people, either here or travelling here, whose identity is known only in the broadest terms. They are part of a network, a wider group or organisation, but no detail is known about them. That does not apply only to terrorist investigations; it might apply to serious organised crime investigations, in which by their nature we are dealing with organisations that desire anonymity. That means that investigations are challenging and makes the powers in the Bill absolutely necessary.
It is perfectly possible that a terrorist or criminal organisation might be seeking to travel in or out of the United Kingdom. It might not be clear at the outset which individuals will be travelling, or that all those travelling share an identified common purpose and will be carrying on the same activity, as required by the definition of “group of persons”.
It is also important to note that the Bill imposes strict limits on the scope of the warrant in relation to organisations. We need to be clear that activity against an organisation must be for the purpose of a single investigation or operation, and the Secretary of State and judicial commissioner will both need to be satisfied that the warrant is sufficiently limited to be able to meet the necessity and proportionality case. It is not just that it needs to be necessary and proportionate; it must be sufficiently limited to legitimise that.
Joanna Cherry
I am thinking about the example of the man in the hat. Is that really apposite here? We are talking about targeted interception warrants and targeted examination warrants. We cannot intercept someone’s communications, or examine them, before we have identified who or where they are. Simply knowing that there is a man in a hat is of absolutely no use to us until we find some way to narrow it down and identify who the man in the hat is, even if just that he is a man living in a particular place.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Lady may have misunderstood. Part 2 targeted warrants, even if they are thematic, cannot be used to trawl information collected en masse or in bulk. Targeted interception warrant applications must specify the scope of the activity to be intercepted. They cannot be open-ended; they are time-limited and must provide sufficient information for the Secretary of State to assess that the activity proposed is necessary. Indeed, all targeted interception warrants will be time-limited to six months.
Where the interception of calls between a particular handset and a group of individuals, for example, may help to identify a kidnapper—we have heard the example of kidnapping—or show where a kidnapper is, the details of what they are planning or where they might be holding the victim, it is of course possible to identify individuals to whom the warrant relates at the point when it is sought. Where that is the case, the warrant requesting agency will be expected to add the identities of the suspects to the warrant as they become known. That is a further assurance and an important new safeguard, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras knows. It will allow the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner to oversee the conduct taking place under the warrant. That obligation will be given statutory force through the code of practice, as he said. Even though it will be in the code of practice, it will have statutory force.
Keir Starmer
Will the Minister confirm, just so we are clear what we are talking about, that that process, as envisaged in the code, is by way of modification and does not involve the double lock?
Mr Hayes
That is an interesting point. I will take further advice on that in the course of my peroration, which will be marginally longer than it was going to be as a result.
Because we recognise that it is important that these warrants are not open-ended, we have added that important safeguard. The fact that it is in the code of practice and not on the face of the Bill does not weaken its significance. I emphasise that it must have force and will be an obligation, as I have described it.
I will come back to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, but first I will deal with amendments 8 and 9, which would remove the warrant requesting agency’s ability to apply for a warrant for testing or training purposes. It is vital that those authorised to undertake interception are able to test new equipment and ensure that those responsible for using it are properly trained in its use. There are, however, strict controls that govern the handling of material obtained during such tests. We believe that it is right that it should be possible for equipment to be tested in scenarios where it can be checked that it is working properly, for example by armed forces on the battlefield. It would have serious consequences for our military if they did not have the ability to test equipment so that risks and mistakes are avoided.
Victoria Atkins
Returning to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West about the man in the hat, the reason for the ability to investigate communication devices and numbers to which names may not be attributed is precisely so such a person can be identified through devices seized from suspects who have already been arrested. Is my understanding correct on that? The hon. and learned Lady accused me of misunderstanding, but may I invite the Minister to clarify?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend is right, and I can enlighten the Committee by saying that I have seen this in practice. At the National Crime Agency I saw an investigation live, because it happened that while I was visiting, just such a warrant was being used. The identity of a number of those involved in a very serious potential crime was not known, and a warrant was used to piece together information from what was known to prevent an assassination. I will say no more than that for the sake of the necessary confidentiality, but that capability was needed to avert a very serious crime. That warrant was highly effective, and if I needed any persuading, it persuaded me then of the significance of the power we are discussing.
To return to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, thematic warrants can be modified by adding people, as I think he was suggesting, but only where it is in the scope of the original activity authorised by the warrant and the purpose does not change. It must be for the purpose that the warrant requesting agency gave without the double lock; he is right about that. However, the Secretary of State must be notified when a person is added, so there is a further check in terms of that notification. Modifications are not permitted to change the scope of the warrant. The provision is not open ended—I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting that it was, but he might have been interpreted as doing so.
Keir Starmer
We can probably pick up this baton when we get to clause 30, but I think the provision that the Minister has just mentioned comes from the code, rather than the Bill.
Mr Hayes
That is true, it is in the code. I think I indicated that earlier. None the less, it is an obligation. The reason we added to the codes, largely following the Joint Committee report, was that we wanted to provide additional assurances without the rigidity of placing too much on the face of the Bill.
There is always a tension—I spoke about it in our morning session—between how much is placed on the face of a Bill, which of course provides a degree of certainty but by its nature simultaneously provides rigidity, and how much is placed in supporting documentation. Codes of practice are important supplements to a Bill, and, in their final form, to an Act. It should be emphasised that they are not merely advisory documents—they are legally binding in their effect. As I also emphasised, these are draft codes of practice that we expect to publish in full, partly as a result of this Committee’s consideration and what we learn from it.
The warrant application process will allow the Secretary of State to understand the potential risk that communications will be intercepted incidentally to the purpose of testing or training, and to approve the measures to be taken to reduce the chance of communication being accidentally intercepted. Clear safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of the citizen, so I invite the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I am not minded to withdraw the amendment. For the same reasons that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras gave earlier, and the reasons that I gave in relation to amendments to clause 13, I will not insist on a vote just now—I suppose that means that I do withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to bring it back at a later stage.
The Chair
For clarification, when the hon. Lady says that she will bring it back at a later stage, it will be on Report.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Power of Secretary of State to issue warrants
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 17, page 13, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
This amendment, and others to Clause 17, seeks to remove the role of the Secretary of State in formally issuing interception warrants and instead requires Judicial Commissioners to issue such warrants.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 17, page 13, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 13, in clause 17, page 13, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 14, in clause 17, page 13, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 15, in clause 17, page 13, line 16, leave out paragraph (1)(d).
Amendment 16, in clause 17, page 13, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 17, in clause 17, page 13, line 22, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 18, in clause 17, page 13, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 19, in clause 17, page 13, line 27, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 20, in clause 17, page 13, line 31, leave out paragraph (2)(d).
Amendment 21, in clause 17, page 13, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 22, in clause 17, page 13, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 23, in clause 17, page 13, line 39, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”
Amendment 24, in clause 17, page 13, line 42, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 25, in clause 17, page 13, line 45, leave out paragraph (3)(d).
Amendment 26, in clause 17, page 14, line 5, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 27, in clause 17, page 14, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 101, in clause 17, page 14, line 11, leave out “For the power of the Scottish Ministers to issue warrants under this Chapter, see section 19.”
This amendment reflects the removal of the role of the Scottish Ministers in formally issuing interception warrants sought by Amendment 36 (which proposes leaving out section 19).
Amendment 28, in clause 17, page 14, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 33, in clause 18, page 14, line 30, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Amendment 34, in clause 18, page 14, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioners”.
Keir Starmer
To some extent the amendments overlap with the discussions we will no doubt have on clause 21 and new clause 5. The effect of this group of amendments is to replace the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner as the primary and only decision-maker in relation to these categories of warrants.
This morning, the Minister said that he was surprised that we had tabled these amendments and I will give him three short answers to that. The first is that from the outset the Labour party called for judicial authorisation before the concept of the double lock was introduced. That was our primary and preferred position. Obviously, the introduction of the double lock, which involves a degree of judicial authorisation, is somewhat better than the Secretary of State being the sole determining decision-maker. Therefore the fact that we are supportive of a situation that is better than the current situation is hardly enough to knock us out from our primary position. The third position—and this is why it overlaps with clause 21—is that to some extent this all depends on what role the judges have. If they are nearer to decision-makers under clause 21, the relationship with the Secretary of State is very different from the position if they are simply long-arm reviewers. I will reserve that for the discussion we will have on clause 21.
So far as the principle in favour of these amendments is concerned, I can be clear. They have been drafted to reflect, as far as possible, the detailed proposals of David Anderson in his report. Members of the Committee have probably seen that they are deliberately drafted to reflect the approach that he suggested was right—particularly when one takes into account new clause 5. I will summarise his reasons, rather than reading them verbatim, laid out in paragraphs 14.47 and 14.57 of his report. He indicates four reasons for the proposed structure. The first is the sheer number of warrants that the Home Secretary has to sign per year. As he sets out in paragraph 14.49, there are thousands of warrants per year, details of which are in the footnotes. Dealing with those warrants is a huge imposition on the Secretary of State’s time, and they could be dealt with in a different way.
There is an important sub-issue here. Points have been made, this morning and on other occasions, about the accountability of the Secretary of State in relation to national security and foreign affairs. I understand how and why those points were made. As David Anderson points out, 70% of the warrants that the Secretary of State routinely signs off are in fact police warrants that do not raise issues of national security or matters of foreign affairs. In many respects, they are no different from the sorts of powers that the police exercise when they search and seize, or exercise other powers available to them through the usual routes of going to the Crown court. His starting point is that it is no longer sensible for the Secretary of State to handle these thousands of cases, particularly since 70% are in fact police cases, not involving national security or foreign affairs.
Secondly, in paragraph 14.50 David Anderson deals with improving public confidence. Thirdly, at 14.51 he deals with the position in the US, where there is a growing insistence that if warrants are to be complied with by those in the US, judicial sign-off of the warrant is required. David Anderson’s concern was that, unless we move to a different system, we might find that warrants would not be honoured when we needed them to be honoured in other jurisdictions. That is obviously a serious point that I know the Government have taken into account.
The fourth reason, in paragraph 14.52, is that there is an established and well-functioning system for judicial approval by commissioners in comparably intrusive measures, when applied for by the police. He lists them as property interference, intrusive surveillance and long-term undercover police operations. Other police activities that require to be warranted go straight to the commissioner, not via the Secretary of State. Since 70% of those cases are the police exercising not dissimilar powers of interception under warrant, there is a powerful argument to say that that category of cases, if nothing else, ought to go straight to a judicial commissioner. That would be modelled on David Anderson’s analysis, for the reasons that he has set out in those paragraphs.
I would like to highlight paragraph 14.56(a), because it has been said today and on other occasions that an important political accountability goes with the role of Secretary of State in relation to these warrants. Yes, that is the case to a certain level, but it must not be misunderstood. I have yet to find an example of any Secretary of State from any political party, certainly in recent history, ever accounting to Parliament for an individual warrant.
Victoria Atkins
What I genuinely do not understand about this argument is that, given that the Secretary of State is not permitted or authorised to account publicly for a warrant, how on earth will that be any different for a judicial commissioner? The nature of the material is sensitive, regardless of whether it is reviewed by the Secretary of State or by the judicial commissioner.
Keir Starmer
The point I am making is not that that judicial commissioner could be more accountable, or that there would be some forum in which the judge could go and explain. I completely accept that that is a limitation. I am meeting the argument against this proposal, which is that at the moment the Secretary of State has some political accountability which would be reduced or taken away if this amendment were accepted.
The point David Anderson makes is that it is of course a criminal offence to disclose that the warrant has been signed, so in fact the Secretary of State could not go to the Dispatch Box even in an extreme case. She would commit an offence if she went to the Dispatch Box to be held accountable for an individual decision. That is exactly why David Anderson writes as he does in paragraph 14.56 of his report. If any other members of the Committee have found an example of a Secretary of State ever actually being held accountable for an individual warrant, I personally would like to see the Hansard report of that taking place.
Suella Fernandes
On the question of accountability, there is a clear line of accountability to the Executive in the form of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is a body of reviewers—elected, accountable and within the parliamentary and democratic process—who have access to this confidential information and can review the actions under this function. That is a clear line of accountability, which exists and is exercised.
Keir Starmer
Again—and I will be corrected if I am wrong on this—the statutory prohibition on the Secretary of State ever saying whether or not she signed a warrant applies across the board, whether in a Select Committee or in any other parliamentary proceedings. In other words, first, she could not be asked a question about an individual warrant because there would be no basis on which it could be put and, secondly, even if it were asked she could not answer it. I take the point that is being made but, wherever the accountability is placed, to hold the idea that there is individual accountability for the hugely important decisions that are made on individual warrants is to misunderstand how the regime works.
Lucy Frazer
One witness—I forget now who it was, but I think they were on the legal panel—said that there is accountability both ways. If the Secretary of State gets it right and there is no terrorist attack, there is nothing to be accountable for. If she gets it wrong, she is extremely accountable for the consequences of something that happened when she made the wrong judgment call about whether to issue a warrant.
Keir Starmer
I recall that evidence, but it is very difficult to see how that could work in practice, because none of us would ever know—nor could we know—whether a warrant had been put before the Secretary of State and whether she had signed it. That is prohibited for us and for the other oversight mechanisms. That is the problem. I accept the broader political accountability—if something goes horrendously wrong, one would expect the Home Secretary to make a statement about what the Government had been doing. However, the idea that on an individual, warrant by warrant basis there could be anything amounting to accountability is what David Anderson was driving at in his report, and it has never happened. That is the best evidence.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman is so wrong about this that I have an embarrassment of riches on which to draw. He is philosophically, politically and factually wrong, but let me deal first with his factual inaccuracy. The Home Secretary can talk about specific warrants to the ISC. The ISC does conduct detailed investigations into particular cases, as it did into the murder of Lee Rigby, when it scrutinises data in considerable detail. Of course all of that cannot be made public, because of the nature of the investigation, but the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands—perhaps because of inexperience—the role of the ISC in those terms. I will deal with his philosophical and political problems later.
Keir Starmer
Perhaps the Minister will point me to an example of the ISC ever making public any criticism of or comment about the Secretary of State’s exercise of the powers in a way that could in any way be described seriously as politically accountable.
Mr Hayes
With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he can hardly claim that the ISC is a puppet or poodle of Government given its report on the Bill. The ISC is extremely robust in its scrutiny of Ministers. It makes its views known to Ministers and is not frightened to make known to the House its views about the proposals, policies and performance of Government.
Keir Starmer
I do not think that the Minister was listening to what I said. I asked if he could point me to a single example of the Intelligence and Security Committee ever commenting publicly—in a way that could be accountable to the public—on the exercise by the Secretary of State of her powers to issue a warrant. It is all very well making generalised points, but I am asking for yes or no—the Minister must know.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the ISC could not ask the Secretary of State about particular warrants, but the ISC can and does ask the Secretary of State about particular warrants in pursuit of its inquiries into specific cases. Of course, because of the character of the ISC, rather like the practice of Ministers, it cannot make all that information publicly available. The whole point about the ISC is that it does not make all that it considers publicly available, but that does not mean that Ministers are not accountable to the Committee, which is made up of Members of this House from many political parties.
Keir Starmer
The answer to my question appears to be no, there has never been an example of the ISC or any Committee ever commenting publicly on the exercise by the Secretary of State of her specific powers to issue warrants or not. That is what leads David Anderson to the view that the political accountability card is overplayed in the discussion.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
This is a very important aspect of the debate. On the last remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, about David Anderson’s potential conclusion about political accountability being overplayed, I was interested in the arguments, but the fundamental point is the source of the authority that allows the Secretary of State as a democratically elected politician to make the decisions. Also, in particular in the context of national security, it is well set out in case law, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that proper deference should be paid to the Executive on important decisions of national security. That is at the top end of the scale, then we move down—or across, in a different context—and is that not the issue?
Keir Starmer
I have already accepted the general proposition that if some catastrophe occurred, the Secretary of State would be required or expected to make a statement, setting out what in general terms had been done. I accept that level of political accountability. I am talking about the specifics of signing off warrants and, therefore, what would be lost if the Secretary of State’s role were taken over by the judicial commissioner. There is a question of deference on national security and foreign affairs, but we will get to that when we reach clause 21, because that deals with the scope of review by the judicial commissioner. The point I was making before the interventions, however, was drawing attention to David Anderson’s paragraph 14.5, in which he sets out the reasons why the political accountability card is overplayed.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that we had the privilege of listening to two Labour Home Secretaries, Lord Reid and Charles Clarke. I asked Mr Clarke about his relationship with the security services and his experience of warrantry in the dreadful hours following the 7/7 bombings. I asked him how useful or important that was in the vital hours thereafter and his answer—I will be quick, Mr Owen—started with the words “critically important”. Does that affect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s view in any way?
Keir Starmer
No, it does not. With all due respect, thinking on accountability and safeguards in this field is on the move. The sort of regime that was perhaps thought appropriate five, 10 or 15 years ago is now accepted as not appropriate. One of the points of this legislation in many respects is to bring it up to date and make sure that scrutiny and safeguards are more powerful. The fact that an ex-Home Secretary thinks their role was very important and need not be interfered with did not surprise me, but neither did I find it persuasive.
I have probably exhausted my point. The amendments are intended to reflect the position set out by David Anderson for the very good reasons that he draws attention to in paragraph 14.56(a): the political accountability card is overplayed in resisting this argument.
Joanna Cherry
I just want to address the joint amendments briefly. I want to draw attention to amendment 101, which was tabled on behalf of the Scottish National party and reflects a later amendment to delete clause 19. Scottish Ministers issue warrants at present in relation to serious crime. If the amendments were taken on board, their role would be replaced by judicial commissioners, and they are comfortable with that. I simply draw attention to that consequential amendment.
I support everything that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has said in support of the group of amendments to clause 17. I have just three points to make: three reasons why I support the amendments. First, I associate myself with the argument that arguments concerning Ministers’ democratic or political accountability for surveillance warrants are misconceived and misplaced. Secondly, one-stage judicial authorisation is the norm in many comparable jurisdictions. Thirdly, and picking up another point made by David Anderson, judicial authorisation would encourage co-operation from technical firms in the United States of America.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for exploding the myth, also exploded by David Anderson, that Ministers are democratically accountable for their role in issuing warrants, because of course it is a criminal offence to disclose the existence of a warrant, and that will remain the case under clauses 49 and 51.
What is often advanced and has been advanced by Government Members is that a corollary to this argument is that Ministers are politically accountable for the agencies and will be required to resign if things go wrong. That is incorrect. Although the Home Secretary is responsible for setting the strategic direction of the Government’s counter-terrorism policy and the Cabinet Minister is responsible for MI5, MI5 is like the police: operationally independent. MI5’s director general retains operational independence for day to day decision making. Historically, when terrorist attacks have tragically succeeded, they have not led to political resignations in this country. Despite inquests and inquiries following the terrible tragedies of the 7/7 attacks and the ghastly murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, and despite the fact that those inquests and inquiries uncovered internal errors in the agency’s handling of information relating to those responsible for the attacks, this did not result in the political accountability that is now so strongly claimed.
The reality is that the oversight we have for such decisions and the accountability for the agency is provided by a patchwork of mechanisms, including the ISC—although I dissociate myself with the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on the limitations of the ISC—and also by public inquiries and legal challenges brought against the Government. No doubt we could argue that such oversight and accountability as there is in relation to the operation of the security agencies could be enhanced, but it is simply not correct to argue that political accountability is provided by the ministerial sign-off on warrants, because it is not. I have been in the House for only nine months, but when questions around these issues are asked of Ministers, I have seen them repeatedly reply, probably quite properly, that they cannot answer for reasons of national security.
My second point is that one-stage judicial authorisation is the norm in comparable jurisdictions. It happens in America, where federal, investigative or law enforcement officers are generally required to obtain judicial authorisation for intercept. A court order must be issued by a judge of a US district court or a US court of appeals judge. In Australia, law enforcement interception warrants must be issued by an eligible judge or a nominated administrative appeals tribunal judge. In Canada, it is unlawful to intercept private communications unless the interception is in accordance with an authorisation issued by a judge. In New Zealand, police can only intercept a private communication in tightly prescribed circumstances, including requiring a warrant or emergency permit that can only be issued by a High Court judge. If the United Kingdom wants to be able to claim that it is in a world-class league for good practice in surveillance, in my submission, it should adopt one-stage judicial authorisation.
Those of us who are lawyers in the Committee or have ever dealt with the law are familiar with the concept of a judge being got out of his or her bed in the middle of the night to grant an interdict in Scotland or an injunction in England, in civil matters of far less importance than the sorts of matter the Bill deals with. In the aftermath of—God forbid—another attack in the United Kingdom such as 7/7, judges would be as readily available to deal with warrants as Ministers of the Crown are at present.
Thirdly, judicial authorisation would encourage co-operation from US technical firms. That point was pressed home by David Anderson QC in his review, when he said that given the United States tradition of judicial warrants, Silicon Valley technical firms feel uncomfortable with the United Kingdom model of political authorisation. Those firms operate in a global marketplace, which underlines the need for us to adhere to procedures fit for a world-leading democracy. The United Kingdom is alone among our democratic allies with similar legal systems in permitting political-only authorisation. The SNP supports the amendments for those three reasons.
Mr Hayes
This is an important debate, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said. The shadow Minister is wrong, as I described earlier, factually, philosophically and politically. I will try to deal with those in turn.
The factual case is this. Accountability is a much more sophisticated thing than the shadow Minister suggests. Accountability is about who makes decisions, as well as about the decisions they make. People who are elected, by their nature, are accountable to those who elect them. The judgments they make and the powers they exercise reflect that direct relationship with the electorate. It is almost undeniably true that those of us sitting in this room and others like us are bound to be more influenced and affected by the wider public because we do not do a job unless they continue to have faith and belief in us. We are elected by them; we are answerable to them.
The Home Secretaries, the Northern Ireland Secretaries and the Foreign Secretaries who make these decisions are elected constituency Members of Parliament who every day, every week and every month are communicating with constituents who have profoundly held views about the very matters over which those Secretaries exercise their judgment, in a way that people who are not elected simply do not. That line of accountability to the wider public should not be understated or underestimated.
Keir Starmer
How would a member of the public ever know, and therefore be able to judge, whether a Secretary of State had made a mistake in relation to a specific warrant?
Mr Hayes
I am prepared to acknowledge that I may not have made the argument sufficiently clearly, rather than to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not understand it. I was making the point that those who are missioned to make the decisions are likely to be more in touch with the sentiments, values, views and opinions of the public than those who are not elected, because of who they are and the job they do. That is not a particularly difficult concept to grasp, so I am amazed that he does not grasp it.
Keir Starmer
Perhaps the Minister can point me to the provision in the Bill that permits or requires the Secretary of State to take into account the wider public’s views. There are strict legal tests of necessity and proportionality, and the idea that judges could not apply them to specified organisational purposes and so on is to underplay their duty. I have done loads of control order cases and TPIM cases in front of judges and they make such decisions day in, day out.
Mr Hayes
Here is the nub of the difference between us. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a former lawyer who has happily now become a politician. I am a politician who has never had the disadvantage of being a lawyer. Luckily, I have many hon. Friends in the room who are able to supplement my skills in that regard. My fundamental point is that as a constituency Member of Parliament, with all the communications, contacts and understanding that that necessitates in respect of popular opinion—I reapply for my job, as he will, every five years—I am likely to be more in tune and in touch with popular sentiment when exercising all kinds of judgments, including judgments about the Bill, than someone who is not. That is not a particularly controversial view. It is an affirmation of the importance of representative democracy, and we are, after all, Members of a representative democratic forum.
Christian Matheson
Does the Minister understand the point my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras is making about how a balance must be struck between being in touch with popular sentiment—the Minister made that case well—and being correct in terms of legal procedures?
Simon Hoare
I thought my right hon. Friend was about to give a tinker’s cuss, but obviously he refrained from doing so. I think he will agree that the main difference between the two Front Benches is the point made by the hon. Member for City of Chester in an earlier intervention. If the first duty of Government is the protection of the realm and Government can send troops on to our streets and into foreign battlefields and so on, suddenly passing any responsibility for or involvement in the granting of these warrants off to unaccountable judges would be an abdication.
Mr Hayes
I do take that view. The hon. Member for City of Chester did not explicitly articulate, but implied that there needed to be a balance between refusing to abdicate that duty, and indeed affirming it, alongside the affirmation of representative Government that I have already made, and taking into account the significance—as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras argued, David Anderson made this point clearly in his report—of judicial involvement, not least as a means of reinforcing the system. As he very honestly said, part of David Anderson’s consideration was whether we could make what we do stand up to challenge, and having a judicial involvement through the double lock is a way of creating a system that is more robust and resistant to challenge: a system that people can have greater faith in, in that respect.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way again. Having grown up in a village in rural Cheshire, I probably am quite bourgeois and certainly quite liberal, but I am finding the arguments of Government Members somewhat absurd, in that they seem to have a lack of trust in the judiciary to implement the law and understand what was meant from the original drafting of a law. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras was trying to convey the sense that the balance was not quite there.
Mr Hayes
No, the double lock will provide the judicial commissioner with the same information—the same explanation of need—as that offered to the Secretary of State: the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary. What is more, they will apply the same test of proportionality and necessity, for it is indeed just that: a double lock. Unless both the judicial commissioner and the Home Secretary approve the application for the warrant, it will not happen. It is true that any party can ask for further information and the re-presentation of the warrant, and that may occur if there is uncertainty about the case that has been made, but the double lock has real effect. It is not that we do not believe in the judicial side of this deal; it has equal weight to the political involvement, but it is important that the Executive retain a role in this.
Let us be clear, the effect of these amendments will be to take the Executive out altogether—a substantial change in the Labour position. I suspected, unhappily, that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras might be a bourgeois liberal; I did not know he was going to be a born-again Bolshevik.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure I appreciate the tone with which the Minister is now conducting the debate, to be perfectly honest. To some extent, his comments have lost sight of the point I was making and that David Anderson made. The Minister invokes defence of the realm and national security, and so on, and has forgotten that 70% of these interception warrants are warrants for the police to exercise their powers—not particularly different to a lot of the other powers they exercise. They get search and seizure, they go into people’s houses, they get their letters and they read them, so there is nothing special about content in an intercept to say, “It must be the Secretary of State: only she is in touch with real people.” The police can get a warrant from a judge; they do so every day of the week. They go into people’s houses, they get all their documents and they read the lot, so the idea that that is a function that cannot be exercised unless someone is democratically elected is very hard to sustain.
The Chair
Before the Minister continues, let me say that the shadow Minister will have an opportunity to respond.
Mr Hayes
I just say to the shadow Minister that he may not appreciate the tone, but I could be much tougher. The reason I could be much tougher is because these amendments—which I take great exception to, by the way—stand in direct contrast to the tone of the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks when the draft Bill was published, when he welcomed the idea of a double lock. Speaking of the Home Secretary, he said:
“She has brought forward much stronger safeguards, particularly in the crucial area of judicial authorisation. It would help the future conduct of this important public debate if the House sent out the unified message today that this is neither a snooper’s charter, nor a plan for mass surveillance.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 973.]
That warm welcome of the double lock was affirmed several times since. It then metamorphosed into an equal lock, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and others said that the information provided to the judicial commissioner should be equivalent to that provided to the Home Secretary, and I can even understand the argument that the process might be simultaneous. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I at least understood it, though our case was that the matter should go first to the Home Secretary and then to the judicial commissioner. I thought it might be the Opposition’s settled position that they wanted simultaneous consideration, but these amendments take the Home Secretary out of the process altogether. I can only assume that this change of heart—this about-turn—is not to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s taste, because I know that he is a very sensible chap and I cannot believe that he really believes that the Executive should be removed from the process altogether. Either there has been a command from on high—thus, my point about Bolsheviks—or, I hope, these are merely probing amendments that seek to reach one of the earlier positions I thought he might take.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West mentioned in her opening speech and on this point the importance of international comparison. Did the Minister notice that she did not refer to paragraphs 8.46 to 8.48 of David Anderson’s report, in which he extensively analyses the comparative jurisdictions?
Mr Hayes
For the sake of brevity and to make sure I do not fall out in the future, I am going to say that, yes, I did notice it.
The shadow Home Secretary, speaking of the Home Secretary, went on to say:
“The two-stage process that she advocates seems to have the merits of both arguments: it will provide public and political accountability, and the independence that is needed to build trust in the system.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 974.]
That is exactly the same point that I made to the hon. Member for City of Chester: it has, in the words of the shadow Home Secretary, the “merits of both arguments”.
Perhaps the shadow Minister will forgive me if I sound a little more arch than I normally do, but I feel that this is such a surprising set of amendments, which is so out of keeping with what I hoped was emerging as a settled position on the balance between the Executive and the judiciary. I thought we would end up with a debate on this, but not one between two positions—our measured, compromise position, and a much more extreme position that I did not expect the official Opposition to adopt. I urge him to think about this again, because I think we reached a good settlement in the terms that I described. That is my political point.
Returning to my original point for a moment, given the evidence provided by the former Home Secretaries, John Reid and David Blunkett, and the former Northern Ireland Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), I think the balance of opinion lies on our side of the argument. I note the Joint Committee’s report and the fact that the ISC was silent on this issue in its most recent report. I feel that the balance of the argument lies with the proposals in the Bill. Perhaps we can look at the detail—I am happy to do that. Perhaps, in the spirit of trying to make positive progress, we can look at the information is provided to each party under the double-lock or at how the timing works—I do not know. I am not going to make any commitments on that, but I am more than happy to have a measured and reasonable debate about this. However, to take the Executive out of the process is politically very unwise, if I might say so, of the Opposition, and it is certainly not acceptable to the Government.
On the philosophical point, the shadow Minister understands—he is an educated and interesting man—that this strikes at the very heart of the separation of powers. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said in evidence that
“these are executive decisions. They are operational decisions and must be made by a democratically elected Minister, accountable to Members of Parliament.”
He did not want the judiciary involved at all. We did not take that route because we listened to David Anderson and others, but I take the former Minister’s point.
Finally, so that we do not have any factual inaccuracies, the ISC made a clear recommendation on warranting in the Lee Rigby report that I mentioned earlier. The ISC does comment on warranting, contrary to what the shadow Minister says. It can both interrogate the Home Secretary on specific warrants and comment on warrants in respect of a particular investigation or inquiry. There is a line of accountability, as well as one to the wider public in the general terms that I described, to a well respected Committee of this House, which was established for exactly that purpose. On that basis, and having heard the argument, I urge Opposition Members to think again about these amendments.
Keir Starmer
In the exchanges we have had, I have probably said all I needed to in response to the Minister’s points. David Anderson might be surprised to find out that he is associated with the Bolshevik opposition apparently represented in the amendments. The amendments represent and reflect his thinking, but that is as may be—I will not press the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
On a point of order, Mr Owen, the amendments are also in my name, so will I, too, have to state my position on them?
Joanna Cherry
I would like to respond to one or two of the points made by the Minister, if I may briefly.
The Chair
There is a bit of a job share going on among the Front Benchers and I am getting a little confused. The mover of an Opposition amendment is the person who finishes on behalf of the Opposition. Mr Starmer has had the opportunity to do that and you have had your opportunity to speak; we are now going to vote.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what you are saying, Mr Owen. My position is that the amendments are crucial to the Bill. I am not insisting or objecting—
The Chair
Order. The Question is that the Committee agrees to withdraw the lead amendment. If you do not wish that to happen, you may object and we will proceed to a vote.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 17, page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) No warrant issued under this Part will be proportionate if the information sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 93, in clause 27, page 21, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) A warrant issued under this Chapter must state the specific purpose that is to be achieved by the warrant.
(2B) A warrant issued under this Chapter must outline the options for obtaining the relevant data and confirm that other less intrusive options have been tried but failed or have not been tried because they were bound to fail and the reasons why.”
This amendment, and others to Clause 27, seek to preserve the capacity of a single warrant to permit the interception of multiple individuals but would require an identifiable subject matter or premises to be provided (in similar vein to the amendments to Clause 15).
Keir Starmer
I mentioned amendment 61 this morning. The interception of communications draft code of practice—at paragraph 4.7, as I indicated this morning—states:
“No interference with privacy should be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means.”
That is a clear and correct statement of principle.
Subsection (4), as drafted, is not so clear. It simply suggests that, if the information can reasonably be obtained by other, less intrusive means, that is a factor to be taken into account, but is not decisive, as set out in the draft code of practice. In our view, the Government cannot have it both ways: if the code is right, it should be elevated and put on the face of the Bill. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve, replacing subsection (4) and replacing it with what is, in essence, paragraph 4.7 of the draft code of practice, which in our view is the right way to articulate necessity in such circumstances.
The Chair
If you wish to speak to any amendment, you may make your position clear at that time, even if you are not the mover of the amendment—
Joanna Cherry
My name is not on amendment 61, but is on amendment 93, but that is an amendment to clause 27.
The Solicitor General
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, for the first time in what I am sure will be a number of important sittings.
May I address the amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras? I am grateful to him for rightly pointing our way to paragraph 4.7 of the draft code. Indeed, by reference, paragraph 4.8 gives a clear basis for the decision maker to assess the nature of the proportionality. Therein lies something of the problem with regard to the approach to be taken in the clause. It is tempting, on the face of it, to include the test in the primary legislation, but it might provoke more questions than answers.
Naturally, when one makes a bald statement about proportionality, people want to know more, so where does one end in terms of adding to the primary legislation the detail that is necessary for decision makers to reach a considered conclusion? My simple argument is that the amendments therefore are not necessary. What makes this the right balance is the combination of the primary legislation that sets out the framework and a living document—the code of practice—that will be more easily amendable and accessible in terms of any changes that need to be made in the light of experience and practice.
We do not want to end up with a situation where this type of warrantry can only be obtained when all other avenues have been exhausted, a bit like the position when one comes to an ombudsman. That would be an artificial scenario to end up with and would cause problems operationally. I can think of examples where the exhaustion of other avenues will just not be practicable. For example, in a kidnap situation where an individual’s life might be in danger, this type of warrantry would probably be the most appropriate step to take before any other type of intervention. Of course, there are occasions where other means of intelligence gathering, such as live human intelligence sources, might be high-risk or result in a higher degree of collateral inclusion.
I am concerned that we do not end up, despite the best intentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman, with an inflexible approach on the face of primary legislation. It is far better, in my submission, to keep the balance as it is, as clearly outlined in the code of practice and the framework within the clause.
Suella Fernandes
I echo everything that the Solicitor General says. Is not the amendment trite, in that it is clear for any practitioner, judge or decision maker that the question in the amendment—whether the information sought could reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means—is part and parcel of, and essential to, the proportionality test?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is a danger when dealing with primary legislation of gilding the lily. I mean that in the spirit of co-operation that I know we have managed to engender in these debates, in the main. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for the way he has approached this, but it misunderstands the amendment. Of course, whether information could be reasonably obtained by other means is relevant to the assessment of proportionality and necessity. The amendment proposes that, having taken all the factors into account, if it transpires at the end of that exercise that the information could have been reasonably obtained by other less intrusive means, it is not proportionate—that is the end of the exercise. That, in our submission, is the right test that should be on the face of the Bill. At this stage, I will withdraw the amendment with a view to raising it at a later stage if it is appropriate to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Grounds on which warrants may be issued by Secretary of State
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 18, page 14, line 20, after “security”, insert “or”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 85, in clause 18, page 14, line 20, after “security” insert—
“where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”
This amendment, and others to Clause 18, seeks to require that the grounds for an interception or examination warrant are tied to a threshold of reasonable suspicion of criminal behaviour; and that reference to a separate ground of “economic well-being, etc.” is deleted from the face of the bill.
Amendment 86, in clause 18, page 14, line 21, after “crime” insert—
“where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”
Amendment 31, in clause 18, page 14, line 21, leave out “or”.
Amendment 32, in clause 18, page 14, line 22, leave out paragraph (2)(c).
Amendment 35, in clause 18, page 14, line 33, leave out subsection (4).
Joanna Cherry
These amendments would delete the separate ground for interception of economic wellbeing from the face of the Bill and require that grounds for interception are tied to a threshold of reasonable suspicion of criminal behaviour.
The Bill re-legislates for RIPA’s three broad statutory grounds for issuing surveillance warrants. The Secretary of State may issue warrants for interception, hacking and so on
“in the interests of national security…for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.
That final ground can apply only where it relates to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British islands.
I support the amendments because all three main statutory grounds are, in my submission, unnecessarily vague and are left dangerously undefined. As the decision will continue to lie with the Secretary of State, the test will be met by whatever he or she subjectively decides is in the interests of the national security or economic wellbeing of the UK, having regard to popular sentiment rather than to what is necessary and proportionate, as we have now heard from the Minister’s own mouth. The tests mean that individuals are not able to foresee when surveillance powers might be used, and they grant the Secretary of State a discretion that is so broad as to be arbitrary. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that the Bill should include a definition of national security, and I call upon the Government to produce such an amendment. If the Government sprinkle the Bill so liberally with the phrase “national security”—indeed, it is the Government’s job to defend national security—they need to tell us what they mean by that phrase, so I call upon them to define it.
The Joint Committee also recommended that the phrase “economic wellbeing” should be defined, but the ISC went further and said that economic wellbeing should be subsumed within a national security definition, finding it unnecessarily confusing and complicated. I heartily endorse the ISC’s view in that regard. The third ground is an unnecessary repetition unless there is something sinister behind the definition of “economic wellbeing,” and many Members of the official Opposition, and indeed of my own party, have serious concerns about what that might be about.
Recently, the Prime Minister went so far as to say, ridiculously in my view, that the Labour party is now a “threat to national security”. I am not a member of the Labour party, although I once was when I was a student.
Joanna Cherry
I am very happy to join Labour in many aspects of this Bill, but I have taken a slightly more radical path in middle age as an SNP MP. It is a disgrace to suggest that the Labour party is a threat to national security, and such loose language shows us that the continued undefined use of the term “national security” in enabling legislation is not sustainable.
The ISC also queried both the agencies and the Home Office on the economic wellbeing ground, and it reported that neither the agencies nor the Home Office have “provided any sensible explanation.” I hope that we might get a sensible explanation from the Government today, and I wait to hear whether we get one. Regrettably, the recommendations of the ISC and the Joint Committee have been dismissed, and the core purposes for which the extraordinary powers can now be used remain undefined and dangerously flexible within the Bill.
That is the nub of my concerns about the definitions of “national security” and “economic wellbeing.” The SNP amendments go slightly further than the Labour party is prepared to go at this stage by requiring reasonable suspicion. At the moment, the three grounds contain no requirement for reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or intends to commit a serious criminal offence, nor even suspicion or evidence that a serious crime has been or is going to be committed. In my submission, that gives licence for speculative surveillance.
Briefly, on the national security ground, the courts have in the past responded with considerable deference to Government claims of national security, viewing them not so much as a matter of law but as Executive-led policy judgments. As a legal test, national security is meaningless unless the Government attempt to tell us what they mean by it. The second ground is similarly broad and open-ended because the Government have not sought to clarify the circumstances in which national security, as opposed to the prevention and detection of serious crime, will be in play.
I invite the Government to table an amendment to tell us what they mean by national security, to explain why it is necessary to have a ground revolving purely around economic wellbeing, to explain why they have discounted the recommendations of the Joint Committee and the ISC, and to tell us why there is no requirement for reasonable suspicion in these grounds.
Simon Hoare
In opening, let me address what I detect is the elephant in the Committee Room, as amplified by the amendment as it was. As I made clear in the July 2015 debate on the Anderson report and on Second Reading, I am not a lawyer, so I view the proposal through the narrow prism of the man on the Clapham omnibus, for want of a better phrase: a practical proposal to try to keep my constituents and others as safe as the Government possibly can. I do not view it through the perfectly proper prism of trained legal eyes and I would not be able to do that.
Coming to the breadth point that the hon. and learned Lady who speaks for the SNP has been making, it is clear to me that, from a legal point of view or from a lawyer’s point of view, the narrower, tighter and more prescriptive the language in statute, the better. It narrows, eliminates, eradicates or whatever the opportunity for a wider debate about the interpretation of this or that word, almost like Coolidge, whose immediate response when told that a senator who had always opposed him had died, was: “I wonder what he meant by that.” I think we should be rather careful. I make no apology for viewing this as just an ordinary guy—a father, a husband, a constituent and a Member of Parliament—who believes it is my duty to support any Government of the day who are seeking to keep our country safe.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that, as Members of Parliament, we have a duty to protect our constituents’ civil liberties and privacy? Lawyers look for narrow definitions and certainty not for their pleasure, but to protect their clients. The reason why Members of Parliament should look for narrow definitions and certainties is to protect their constituents.
Simon Hoare
Up to a point, Lord Copper. I find myself in broad agreement with the hon. Member for City of Chester. Likewise, I could not give a tinker’s cuss about most of these things as long as I can look a constituent in the eye were something horrible to happen on the streets of Shaftesbury, Blandford Forum, Gillingham or any of the villages in my constituency. They might look at me and say, “Mr Hoare, are you convinced that you supported everything you possibly could to avoid this atrocity?” I would prefer to say, “Yes, I did.” If it impinged upon or offended against the virgo intacta of civil liberties as a sort of purist academic—I use that word not in an abusive way—definition, I would side with the security argument at every step and turn.
I am not using that as the Luddite argument that someone who has done nothing wrong has nothing to be afraid of. It is absolutely right that to govern is to choose. It straddles that often imperceptible divide between the application of the rule of law and discharging the first duty of the state—to keep the realm safe—and preserving the sacred and long-cherished liberties and freedoms that we all enjoy.
I accept what the hon. and learned Lady says on that point, but it is not just Liberty and Amnesty and other organisations that have access to legal counsel. It is not that the statue, as it emerges through all our processes, would be available only to us and the good guys. It would be available to those who wish us well, but I am going to hazard a guess that one or two of those who wish this country ill—whether in terms of national security, serious crime or acting in an injurious way to our economic wellbeing—may just have recourse to a legally trained brain or two themselves. They, too, would be able to say, “Ah, we’ll do it that way”, because the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Defence Secretary would be so hogtied by the narrow definitions contained in the statute of the Bill, because people sought to stand—this is a phrase I used on Second Reading—like vestal virgins, defending the flame of civil liberty, because that is the flame that must be defended above all others and national security must be secondary to it. That is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable position to take, but it is one with which I profoundly disagree. It offends everything that motivates me as a politician.
We need to be very careful about having, either in the proposed amendments or during the progress of the Bill in Committee and on Report, an obsessive regard to trying to narrow down our language. Providing that the double lock with the judicial oversight remains for all circumstances whereby these warrants and other facilities can be granted—as long as that judicial view is there—that would seem to be in order to secure the provision for the short, medium and longer term, so that we do not have to come back through the legislative process to continually update the narrow language in the Bill to reflect circumstances or address scenarios that, without sounding too much like Donald Rumsfeld, in 2016, we did not think existed or could exist.
It is not from some sort of bovine, recidivist, reactionary, “We are the law and order side of the Tory party” sentiment that I find this quest for the narrowing down of our language to be wrong. It would fetter and constrain the decisions of Ministers and those who, on a daily basis, put their lives at risk under the rule of law to keep us safe. I shall be opposing this set of amendments, just as I will any other amendment, not because my Front Bencher or my Whip advises me to, but merely because I think that there is nothing intrinsically wrong—this is the non-lawyer’s approach—in having broad definitions that provide accountable scope to those who take the decision, so that they are able to take those decisions in response to circumstances as they arise.
Christian Matheson
There has been the requisite level of jousting and debate, and sometimes temperatures have risen a little bit, but I have found Ministers at least prepared to justify their arguments and to listen to other arguments. I say that, importantly, because this clause and the amendments are of profound importance to me and to many Opposition Members. I have absolutely no doubt that there are occasions when attacks on the United Kingdom can be carried out on an economic, rather than a military or criminal, basis. Let us consider a hypothetical example of a country that is adept at undertaking cybercrime against the London stock exchange to manipulate stock market activity or shares, or to bring the stock exchange down. That, of course, would have a serious effect on the operation of the City of London. I accept that that can happen.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West talked about criminal activity. I have no doubt that the activity in the scenario I described would be considered criminal activity, but when my good friend the hon. Member for North Dorset talked about the elephant in the room, I thought he was going to mention the real elephant in the room and he did not. The real elephant in the room, certainly for me, is that, on such a broad definition of economic activity, the activities of trade unions in the United Kingdom could be brought under the scope of the Bill. I ask Members not to try to intervene to correct me because unfortunately that is the case. That is the real elephant in the room.
I do not believe that Ministers today do not consider trade unions to be an important and relevant part of civil society, but on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) gave the example of the Shrewsbury pickets, whose case was examined by the Secret Intelligence Service, and made the point that their convictions still stand. Indeed, there are right hon. and hon. Members of this House today who were right hon. or hon. Members of the House or indeed the Government in the 1980s when trade unions were seen as “the enemy within” and banned from representing members at GCHQ because it was considered that trade union membership and activity was incompatible with a commitment to international security, which is a position that is as absurd as it is downright insulting. I genuinely believe that Government Members have moved on from that positon.
Government Members may well wish to point to subsection (4), which suggests that:
“A warrant may be considered necessary as mentioned...only if the information which it is considered necessary to obtain is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.”
They may feel that that gives sufficient protection. I must say that, in my experience, unfortunately it does not.
At this point I remind the Committee that I am a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions and I was formerly a senior official with Unite. That experience gives me insight that I wonder whether Ministers and Government Members, through no fault of their own, do not have. My plea is that they bear in mind that our economy is a globalised one, employers and industries are globalising and, in response, trade unions have had to do the same. Trade unions will gather together in bilateral agreements or bilateral alliances. In the UK, they may well join international trade union organisations such as the IMF—I should point out that that is the International Metalworkers Federation rather than any large economic body—or, as I did, they may well form a globalised trade union with other trade unions so that they meet globalised employers on the same basis and cannot be picked off, one against the other.
In the past, for example—this was quite a regular occurrence—I found myself in Canada on negotiations with mining and mineral extraction employers based in Brazil, working with trade unions from outside the UK. There were disputes with British Airways, which at the time was incorporated through International Airlines Group in Spain, and I found myself in Bangladesh working with the Bangladeshi trade unions that we were trying to form to help them develop trade union strength against the exploitation of shipbreakers. Globalised trade unions pursuing genuine avenues of trade disputes with globalised employers are a modern-day reality.
When the hon. Member for North Dorset talked about the elephant in the room, I thought he was going to mention the great fears that Opposition Members have that trade union membership could be seen as damaging to the nation’s economic wellbeing. If we seek to amend the clause to give the greater clarity that I understand Government Members do not wish to see, it is for good reasons of bitter experience—reasons that Ministers are perhaps not aware of, because of their own personal experience.
Keir Starmer
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, whose comments I endorse. I saw the Ministers nodding that they will take that away and consider it, and I am grateful for that indication. Rather than the broader points that have been discussed so far, I will concentrate my comments on clause 18(2)(c), which deals with
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.
The short point is this: if economic harm to the wellbeing of the United Kingdom is so serious that it amounts to a threat to national security, it is covered within subsection (2)(a). If harm to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom is a serious crime, it is already within subsection (2)(b). The Intelligence and Security Committee has made the point that
“if ‘national security’ is sufficient in itself, then ‘economic well-being…so far as [is] relevant to the interests of national security’ is redundant, since it is a subset of the former.”
The ISC went on to say:
“We have questioned both the Agencies and the Home Office on this matter and neither have provided any sensible explanation. In our opinion, this area is already sufficiently complex so drafters should seek to minimise confusion wherever possible. We therefore recommend that ‘economic well-being’ is removed”.
The Committee makes the same point that if economic wellbeing is already subsumed into paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraph (c) is not necessary. The Committee has asked repeatedly what paragraph (c) covers if not what is already within paragraphs (a) and (b), and I ask that question here today. I ask the Minister or anyone else to give me a single example of what it is envisaged paragraph (c) covers that does not fall within paragraphs (a) and (b).
Subsection (4) has been referred to today and on Second Reading as providing some sort of comfort that subsection (2)(c) is not a matter of concern. It says:
“A warrant may be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) only if the information which it is considered necessary to obtain is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.”
To be clear, that does not mean the communication itself is outside the British islands, but that the communication relates to acts or intentions of persons outside the British islands. I endorse everything that was said about trade union and other activities that may be outside the British islands, but the suggestion that this provision would only catch communications outside the British islands is a wrong reading, in my submission.
The question on the table for the Minister is whether a single example can be given of something coming within subsection (2)(c) that does not come within subsections 2(a) and (2)(b). If not, how can the clause be justified?
Mr Hayes
I start my contribution to this short debate by confessing a pretty profound prejudice, which is that I am committed to and supportive of trade unions. I am a member of a trade union; my father was a shop steward; my grandfather was chairman of his union branch. I come from a long history of trade unionism, and I believe that the trade union movement in Britain has done immense good for the interests of the people. I am a Disraelian Tory, and so I believe in the elevation of the people, in which trade unions have played an important part. I could wax lyrical about one of my heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, in terms of the elevation of the people, but we do not have time for that. When I approach this clause and this subject, I do so with that profound prejudice. By the way, just as an aside, prejudice is immensely underrated in the modern age, but it is important that we balance all that is rational with all that we feel. Feelings matter.
I make it categorically clear that, as the hon. Member for City of Chester generously said, not only individual Ministers in this Government, but the Government as a whole have no intention that these powers should be used for the kind of political purposes he describes. That is not our intention. Actually—it is always good to go further than one’s officials want—I think we might need to be more emphatic about that in some form, because I want to make it crystal clear that the kind of scenario that he describes cannot happen in our country.
Our country is a free and open place where we celebrate the differences between people and the role played by the trade unions. I am prepared to go as far as necessary down the road to make that categorically clear. To that end, I suggest that I meet Frances O’Grady of the TUC to discuss this. I know her well. I went on a joint business-trade union delegation with her to Germany to look at apprenticeships when I was Skills Minister. I am more than happy to engage with the trade union movement to see what more we can do.
However, let us return to the point about economic wellbeing and these amendments. At the outset of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised that threats to economic wellbeing could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect and could be the business of a foreign potentate or another source of malevolence. He described a cyber-attack, which might be an attack on our critical infrastructure, on our financial services system or, heaven knows, on Government itself. The age we live in means that cybercrime, perpetrated either locally or internationally, is a threat that we must recognise and have the means to address, so it is right that the law—this Bill, which I hope will become an Act—includes reference to the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK, but it is equally true, as the Opposition argued on Second Reading and elsewhere, that that interest is closely tied to national security.
One argument that has been made is that if we were to define national security more tightly, we might assuage fears of the kind the hon. Gentleman described. The trouble with defining national security more tightly is that that might of itself create additional rigidity that is unhelpful to the agencies in pursuit of their work. Successive Governments have hesitated to describe national security prescriptively, and having looked at these matters closely I understand why. Successive Governments have affirmed the idea that a small number of law enforcement agencies, the security and intelligence services and the armed forces need to be able to seek and use interception warrants for national security, for preventing and detecting serious crime and in the interests of economic wellbeing. I am reluctant, therefore, either to take economic wellbeing out of that list or to define national security more narrowly. I think that the breadth of those definitions is important for operational effectiveness.
There may none the less be more that we can do to deal with political fears, if I can put it in those terms. The existing law is clear that none of these powers can be used in the interest of a political party or in a particular political interest, but it may be that we can do more to offer reassurance. I am going a little further than we have until now because I want to create a bridge that we can cross. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide some protection, because they deal particularly with the issue of the interests of any political party being served by the powers. A case has been made about the Shrewsbury 24. Indeed, there was a debate in Westminster Hall on that very subject—I have the transcript here with me—promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who is a very good man and a very proud trade unionist; I know him well. The events at that time preceded the legislation that tightened protection. Notwithstanding that, I have heard the argument that has been made today.
The other reason why I do not want to significantly change the language on economic wellbeing, although I understand the argument about ambiguity, is that the phrase “economic wellbeing” reflects the language in domestic legislation—as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will know—the European convention on human rights and the European Union directive that covers the scope of interception powers. It is difficult to think of a better, more appropriate or more widely recognised term. Substituting another term could be taken to imply that the agencies should not engage in certain activities in the future that they undertake now. One can easily imagine a future judicial commissioner querying why the language has changed from that used in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and asking whether what the agencies do should change, too.
I am hesitant to make that fundamental change. I am not sure it would do anything for transparency. Indeed, removing economic wellbeing and placing what is done under the broader umbrella of national security might lead to less, rather than more, clarity in the process. As the hon. Member for City of Chester described, some of the events that would be included under the heading “economic wellbeing” could be sudden and of crisis proportions, such as the cyber-attack to which he and I referred, and require prompt and decisive action. Such crises are, by their nature, unpredictable and we must not limit the agencies’ ability to deal with them.
Joanna Cherry
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I noted that he said he wanted to provide a bridge on the issue of national security and can perhaps deal with issues and political fears related to that, but that he does not want to significantly change the language on economic wellbeing and is not happy with the SNP amendments in relation to reasonable suspicion. I do not want to get too bogged down on trade union rights and I certainly do not want to kick down the bridge that the Minister wants to build, but I have to say that, on trade union rights, actions speak louder than words. This Government have introduced some of the most draconian anti-trade union legislation that has been seen in this country for many years—worse than Mrs Thatcher’s. In that context, I do wonder whether we can be assured about the Government’s intentions in relation to trade unions. However, the Minister is an honourable man; I take him at his word and will listen to what he has to say in the future on this issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 21, page 17, line 4, leave out from “must” to “the following matters” in line 5 and insert “determine”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 89, in clause 21, page 17, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Keir Starmer
This is where we pick up the discussion about scrutiny. As the amendments to clause 17 were withdrawn, the premise here is that of a dual function, carried out first by the Secretary of State and then by the judicial commissioners. To be clear, we welcome the involvement of judicial commissioners, and the amendments focus on their role in the process. We have had the discussion about whether the judicial commissioners should be the default decision-makers—this is a different exercise.
What is clear in clause 21(1) and (2) is that what is envisaged in the Bill is a review exercise by the commissioners. That is clear from the words “must review”. Subsection (1) states that the judicial commissioner must review the person’s—in this case, the Secretary of State’s—conclusions as to necessity and proportionality, and subsection (2) states that
“the Judicial Commissioner must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.”
It is therefore a review mechanism, and it is a review according to judicial review principles.
Two problems arise from that. The first is that it is not, therefore, truly a double lock. A double lock denotes a decision by the Secretary of State, which survives in clause 17, and a decision by a judge—a judicial commissioner—under clause 21, but this is not that sort of double lock.
The second problem, the reference to judicial review, is equally profound. Committee members will remember my question to Lord Judge:
“Do you agree with me that as the Bill is currently drafted, it is not clear what Parliament intends”—
in relation to judicial review of warrants—
“and therefore it will fall to the judges? In other words, it is broadly enough drafted to cover a longer-arm review or a closer intense review depending on what judges decide as cases evolve. It could accommodate both approaches.”
That is the problem with judicial review here.
I will quote Lord Judge’s response, because he captures the real cause for concern here:
“I think ‘judicial review’ is a very easy phrase to use. It sounds convincing, but it means different things to different people. People say, ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’—that was a case decided by the Court of Appeal in 1948 or 1947, and it has evolved. Personally, I think that when Parliament is creating structures such as these, it should define what it means by ‘judicial review’. What test will be applied by the judicial—I call him that—commissioner, so that he knows what his function is, the Secretary of State knows what the areas of responsibility are and the public know exactly who decides what and in what circumstances? I myself do not think that judicial review is a sufficient indication of those matters.”––[ Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 67-68, Q220.]
That is one of the most experienced and well-respected judges in the country indicating that in those circumstances judicial review is not a sufficient indication of the test.
Amendment 62 would require the judicial commissioner to decide for him or herself on necessity and proportionality. Amendment 89 would take out the reference to judicial review. The scheme and structure of the Bill would therefore be retained. There would be a double lock. Both the Secretary of State and the judicial commissioner must be satisfied that necessity and proportionality is made out, at which point the warrant would come into effect, unless of course it is an urgent warrant. There would be clarity about the role of the judge.
In previous exchanges, it has been accepted that the judicial commissioner will see the material that is before Secretary of State and therefore can make that decision. The lock therefore becomes what we have termed an equal lock, where both parties make a decision on the substantive merits of the case. That gets rid of the potential ambiguity with which Lord Judge was concerned. It would then be absolutely clear that this is truly a double lock. It is a simple and straightforward amendment that would bring real clarity to the exercise.
Suella Fernandes
I am listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman with interest, and I appreciate his exploration of the meaning of this term. What is his opinion of Lord Pannick’s assessment of the insertion of judicial review? He concludes that it is sufficient, flexible but clear and strikes the right balance.
Keir Starmer
I know and respect Lord Pannick hugely, but there is no guarantee in the Bill that his preferred way of approaching this under judicial review principles is the one that will be carried out in practice; he has no control over the test that will be applied. Lord Judge’s concern is that some judges may consider that this is an area where they virtually take the decision, which is what they do in certain cases involving particular human rights issues, where they get very close to the decision, while other judges will be much more deferential.
With the best will in the world, Lord Pannick puts forward the view that judicial review will work, but there is no guarantee of that. Unless it is set out in the Bill, the test will be simply left to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Nobody, in this formulation, could argue that a judge who applied long-arm reasonableness was acting in any way other than in accordance with the test.
Obviously, I respect what Lord Pannick says, but Lord Judge was making a different point that goes back to accountability, to some extent. He was alive to the fact that once judges are involved in the decision-making process, a torch will be shone on them in relation to these warrants. There will be inhibitions on what they can say and the circumstances in which anybody could hold them to account. We have rehearsed that. I read into his answer that he wanted absolute clarity and a tightness of test so that the judges knew what they were to do and could operate within those confines, thus protecting themselves from the suggestion that they had applied too close or too loose a test. It is partly about clarity, with one eye on judicial accountability in the longer term for the decisions that have to be made.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. and learned Gentleman earlier cited Sir Stanley Burnton and said, pretty much verbatim, that he would encourage Government Members to look carefully at any submissions that Sir Stanley Burnton made, as he was extremely knowledgeable. On this issue, Sir Stanley said that he was happy with the test and that it might be difficult to draft it more tightly. Another experienced member of the panel who gave evidence, Lord Reid, specifically stated that he thought the judges’ role was
“about oversight…and not about decision making.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 84, Q259.]
Keir Starmer
Sir Stanley is a friend and colleague, and I have had the privilege of appearing in front of him on a number of occasions in cases involving national security, in particular control order cases. I think that what he was indicating was that, in his experience and on his own approach, as any of the cases will demonstrate, he is in favour of intense review by the judge. He anticipates that the measure allows that intense review. I have no doubt that that is the approach he personally would take, because that would be consistent with the approach that he has always taken in such cases.
Suella Fernandes
It is an important issue. Evidence to the Joint Committee from Sir Stanley Burnton and Lord Judge was unequivocal, in that Wednesbury unreasonableness would have no place in this context. That seems to be maintained by Sir Stanley Burnton in the evidence that we have received more recently. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that Wednesbury unreasonableness has no role in this context, especially by virtue of reference to necessity and proportionality?
Keir Starmer
The reference to proportionality and necessity does not help in this context, because the question for the judge on this formula is not, “Is the measure necessary? Is it proportionate?” Judges often make, and are well used to making, that decision. The decision for them on this formula is whether, when the Secretary of State decided that it was necessary and proportionate, she was exercising her powers in a way that cannot be questioned, applying the principles of judicial review. That is the real difference.
Whether I think the long-arm Wednesbury test is appropriate is neither here nor there. So long as we have clause 22(2), it is open to a judge to apply the old-fashioned Wednesbury test, because that is within the principles of judicial review. The case law obviously varies. The closest possible scrutiny is usual in control order or TPIMs cases, but there are many other examples involving national security where the judges have persistently said that long-arm review applies. There are two strong lines of case law, and I am arguing that one is better than the other. The point is whether the Bill is clear enough about the test to be applied.
This is a real opportunity, as much as a challenge, for the Government. The provision is a new one, and it is a double lock if properly applied. It ought to be substantive. The judge ought to decide whether a warrant is necessary or proportionate. As long as he or she does, the warrant comes into existence and can be relied upon. In the 21st century, that is the right approach when such a provision is going into statute for the first time.
Lucy Frazer
I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that he favours the same test being applied by both the judge and the Home Secretary. If so, that is in conflict with Sir Stanley’s evidence. He said that he would give significant weight to the view of the Home Secretary. If he gave significant weight to the Home Secretary, necessarily he would be reviewing what the Home Secretary has done. If that is appropriate, the word should be “review”, whether it is judicial review or not. It is a review, not an assessment afresh of the same decision.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. There are several different positions here, and we are finding our way. The amendments would take out the review element and make it clear that it is a double lock. There would then be a separate decision by the Secretary of State and a decision by a judge on the same material. Of course, a judge would always give weight to the Secretary of State’s view, but they would still come to a decision of their own. That is position No. 1, and let me be clear that that is what the amendment is aimed at—a true and equal lock.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that amendment 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and I, would specifically take out subsection (2) and the reference to judicial review? That would make clear what he is saying: amendment 62, which I also support, would amend subsection (1) so that the judge would determine the review in regard to necessity and proportionality, and judicial review would come out completely.
Keir Starmer
I agree. I notice that my name is not on amendment 89. I think it should have been, because amendment 62 only works if subsection (2) comes out, but that is neither here nor there at this stage. I am not quite sure what happened, but given that both amendments have been tabled, it does not matter one way or another.
To be clear, the position is that it should be a substantive decision by the judge according to necessity and proportionality, and those terms obviously have their own special application. Through amendment 89, the review, whether by judicial review principles or otherwise, would come out, making it a true double and equal lock.
It is a new approach and a new provision, so it is for Parliament to decide on the appropriate way forward, but the amendments would give clarity and a real safeguard with an equal lock. That is the position. There probably is a fall-back position, which is that if it is to be a review of some sort, amendment 89 should stand on its own feet—that the review should not be on the principles of judicial review, and something more would need to be written into the Bill.
I do not know what response the Minister will give, but this matter goes to the heart of the issue, and it may be that further consideration needs to be given to the precise test. As it stands, the test is insufficiently precise and will lead to difficulties in its application. It is a matter of real concern to the judiciary. Lord Judge does not make such comments without a good deal of thought. If he is concerned about the provision, the Government should be, too. The simple way through is to have a simple but substantive double and equal lock.
The Solicitor General
The debate has been interesting. On a point of order, Mr Owen, I want to ensure that we are dealing with both groups of amendments. The grouping that I have seeks to group new clauses 1 and 5 in one group—
The Solicitor General
That is fine. I am grateful to you, Mr Owen. I will address those amendments, rather than the new clauses, which will be dealt with in the usual way, but the purport of the argument is similar.
To summarise, amendment 89 would remove the provision in the Bill that specifies that when reviewing the decision by a Secretary of State or a Scottish Minister to issue a warrant, the judicial commissioner must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court in an application for judicial review. Instead, the amendment would require him or her to determine the necessity and proportionality of a warrant for him or herself.
There has been a lot of debate on the important report by David Anderson and the Royal United Services Institute review. They have played a huge part in bringing the Bill to germination and its current state. There is a danger here. I listened very carefully to the evidence of Lord Judge and, indeed, asked him a number of questions. The dilemma that I put to him still remains. I can see the attractiveness in seeking to narrow or prescribe the particular criteria to be applied by the commissioners in every instance, but there is a danger that, in doing so, we fetter the proper discretion of judges exercising their review function in looking at each case purely on a case-by-case basis.
The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras set out his stall very clearly. He prays in aid the equal lock, as he calls it. In essence, he wants a different approach from that which the Government say we should take. We make no apology that the decision made by the Secretary of State is reviewed by the judicial commissioner before coming into force. That is a very simple, staged approach that clearly reflects the way in which case law is going and is also ahead of the curve when it comes to the development of judicial oversight of warrantry in these particular cases.
I will deal with the Anderson carve-out, if I may use that phrase. The problem with the genuine intention of David Anderson in trying to carve out what he recognised to be an important part of the function of Government—namely, national security and foreign affairs, where he recognised that the Executive are the part of our constitution best placed to deal with those matters—and then creating a certification process is that that, in itself, is juridicable. An Executive decision will be made that is, in itself, capable of challenge. My concern is that, however well intentioned attempts to create a hard and fast definition that creates a theoretical space for Ministers to act might be, we will end up with further difficulty, further lack of clarity and, frankly, further litigation that means that the Bill is not future-proof in the way that I want it to be.
Keir Starmer
To save time—I probably should have made this clearer an hour ago when we were rowing about other things—I had seen this certification clause, or new clause 1, as going with the amendments to clause 17. In other words, it was my acceptance that, on certain measures, there ought to be a certificate from the Secretary of State for the limited accountability that I accept is there. Therefore, if it is helpful, amendments 62 and 89 are intended to be taken on their own, not cluttered by the certification process, which possibly would have been better discussed under clause 17.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I remind myself that we will be able to debate those new clauses but I thought it important to look, in essence, at the full picture of David Anderson’s recommendations, bearing in mind that we had quite a lively debate about the role of the Executive. It would be a mischaracterisation of Mr Anderson’s view about the role of the Executive to say that somehow there was a wholesale move away from the Executive’s position with regard to warrantry and what Government Members certainly strongly feel is the important role of the Executive.
Coming back to where we are with regard to the judicial review test, we have already heard reference to the noble Lord Pannick. The intervention he has made is powerful and it is important that he thinks the test is robust. The criticism is, perhaps, not justified. Of course, that is not the only basis on which we have reached that conclusion. We all know—those of us who are lawyers and those who are not—the growing importance of judicial review in our public life. It is a concept that has evolved and that will continue to evolve. It is flexible, too.
Joanna Cherry
It is so general. I have advised people on the potential for judicial review. Does the Minister agree that it is difficult to advise a client on the potential for judicial review in the absence of a reasoned decision? In this Bill, there is no duty on the Secretary of State to give a reasoned decision, so judicial review scrutiny will be happening in a vacuum in the context of a decision for which no written reasons have been given because the Bill does not demand it.
The Solicitor General
Herein lies the problem. We have the judicial lock—the commissioners, of course, will be giving reasons—so that there is a check and balance upon the decision of the Executive. The hon. and learned Lady makes a proper point, because Executive decisions are administrative decisions that are judicable. I want to avoid further unnecessary and, frankly, unhelpful litigation that will get in the way of the important work of warrantry, which has to be undertaken, bearing in mind not only the interests of national security but, looking down the scale, the various scenarios that will confront commissioners, such as serious crime cases. The flexible scrutiny will allow differing approaches to be taken. Returning to the main point, I am worried that we might end up creating something that is too inflexible, which will create injustice rather than solve the problem.
Joanna Cherry
But how will the judicial commissioner scrutinise the Secretary of State’s decision, having regard to judicial review principles, when she is under no duty to give reasons for it? How will they do it practically?
The Solicitor General
They will have access to all the material that the primary decision maker has. The hon. and learned Lady is right to ask the question but, simply speaking, the judicial commissioner will have access to the material that the Secretary of State has. In fact, the judicial commissioner will be able to ask for more material, so there should not be any fear that the vacuum she mentioned will exist in relation to the judicial lock.
Returning to the obvious experience of judicial commissioners, I am keen to ensure that we end up in a position where commissioners feel that, on a case-by-case basis, they are not only free to agree with the Secretary of State, but are absolutely free to disagree. If there is not that element of flexibility, this double lock will be meaningless. Again, without casting any imputation upon the good intentions of those who have tabled amendments, my concern is that, first, this amendment is based on a difference of opinion on the nature of the judicial commissioner stage. Secondly, there is a danger that we might end up in a position where decisions are being second-guessed in a way with which the judiciary would feel uncomfortable, and where the balance between the actions of the Executive and proper scrutiny by the judiciary is not clearly delineated.
Suella Fernandes
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a similar inclusion of a reference to judicial review has worked well in other legislation and in other regimes, such as in relation to control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures? We have a history of such references not causing major problems.
The Solicitor General
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would not be right for me to make an easy draw-across to the TPIM regime. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has experience of TPIMs, and I was on the Bill Committee that passed the TPIM law back in 2011, so I have a keen interest in the evolution from what were control orders to TPIMs. The point is staring us all in the face: myriad different circumstances will confront judicial commissioners. It would be too easy for the Committee to come to a conclusion that, somehow, we should create an artificially hard and fast set of criteria that would prevent the judicial commissioners from exercising their duties when considering the varying scale and nature of the applications that they will receive.
Simon Hoare
My understanding of what the Solicitor General is saying—perhaps he will confirm this—and my reading of the Bill is that the bar is being set a lot higher than the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West seems to imply. The onus in the first instance will be on those who will be making the case for the warrant. The Home Secretary, for example, will then review it to see whether it passes the tests in the Act and will do so, as will the author of the case before the Minister, in the knowledge that they will be, for want of a better phrase, peer reviewed by a commissioner. Therefore, the review of the review of the review is almost a triple lock of the case made by the authority seeking the warrant.
The Solicitor General
That is an interesting way of putting it. I want to make it clear that the review is on an appeal. There is a danger that we will end up mistakenly looking at some sort of a de novo application entirely on its merits, not an appeal. There are other mechanisms by which this matter could be taken further up. At this stage, it is part and parcel of the decision being made. That is an important point of clarification.
Keir Starmer
Can the Solicitor General point me to the words in clauses 1 and 2 that would make it wrong for a judge to apply long-armed judicial review principles to a decision?
The Solicitor General
I am not going to point to that because, as I have said, it is important to have wide discretion. But equally, as Sir Stanley Burnton said, there will be other approaches and judges will be compelled to take a much closer look or hands-on approach—I think Sir Stanley said “stringent approach”—when looking at the case. But that will depend on the case before the commissioner. For example, a case of extreme importance with potentially draconian impacts deserves a very close look under the microscope. That is important. What I want to get across is that there should be not a sliding scale, but a gradation and wide discretion in the test that allows differing approaches to be taken.
In response to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I would be surprised to see bald decisions on Wednesbury unreasonableness. Bearing in mind that, most of the time, European convention on human rights points will have to be engaged, and, by dint of that, necessity and proportionality will have to come into play anyway. Perhaps the point is too axiomatic to be made, but it is important that we do not get too fixated by a worry that judges will take an old-fashioned clubbish approach to whether the Home Secretary is totally out or order. I do not believe that will be the case, bearing in mind the calibre and experience of the commissioners who have done the work up to now and who I expect will carry on doing it in the unified commission that we will create.
In a nutshell—the point does not improve on repetition—there is a danger that in going down the seductive line of seeking greater clarity, we may end up fettering the reviewer’s discretion, which I do not think is in anyone’s interest and does not support the thrust of what all hon. Members want: an effective lock mechanism that properly involves the judiciary in a way that is unprecedented but welcome in our mature democracy.
Joanna Cherry
I have heard nothing that answers what in my submission is a knockout point about lack of reasons. I am not tooting my own trumpet because it was not my idea. I got the point from my learned devilmaster, Laura Dunlop QC, a distinguished silk at the Scottish Bar and former law commissioner. I asked her to look at this and she said the first thing that occurred to her was how can there be scrutiny under judicial review principles when there is a vacuum of any reasoning. I have not heard any answer to that question in what the Solicitor General has said, with all due respect to him.
On that basis, I remain of the view that amendments 62 and 89 will be essential in due course, but following the course of action we have taken today, I will not insist on them at this stage. I reserve the right to bring them forward at a later stage, about which the Chairman has advised me.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Solicitor General. I have listened carefully to what he has said. There is a difference between us, because I seek to ensure through the amendment that the judicial commissioner is a proper decision maker.
To make the argument that the judges might be fettered is really to misunderstand the amendment that I have tabled. The duty of the judge is to apply the test that Parliament sets out in statute. That is straightforward, and if Parliament is clear about the test, the judge is exercising his or her duties properly in applying the test. There is no question there, but there is this fundamental point between us as to whether it should be review or decision making. I think that is clear enough.
In light of the argument, at this stage I will not push this amendment to a vote, but I will reserve it for a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 21, page 17, line 13, leave out from “a” to “grounds” and insert
“decision of the Secretary of State to issue a warrant,”.
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to take account of the fact that Clause 21 may also apply in a case where a warrant has already been issued (see Clause 22).
Mr Hayes
These are minor drafting changes, to take account of the fact that clause 21 may also apply in cases where warrants have already been issued by the Secretary of State, and that urgent procedures are covered in clause 22, and that clause 21 may also apply in a case where the warrant has been issued by Scottish Ministers. They are uncontentious changes, and I beg to move the amendment on that basis.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendment made: 3, in clause 21, page 17, line 15, leave out from “a” to “grounds” and insert
“decision of the Scottish Ministers to issue a warrant,”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to take account of the fact that Clause 21 may also apply in a case where a warrant has already been issued (see Clause 22).
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 21, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“(6) In consideration of any warrant pursuant to this Part, a Judicial Commissioner may instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(7) A Judicial Commissioner must instruct a special advocate when considering applications for a warrant—
(a) in the interests of national security; or
(b) involving the consideration of items subject to legal professional privilege.
(8) For the purposes of these proceedings special advocates are persons appointed by the relevant law officer.
(9) The ‘appropriate law officer’ is—
(a) in relation to warrants in England and Wales, the Attorney General,
(b) in relation to warrants in Scotland, in relation to (7)(a), the Advocate General for Scotland, and in relation to (7)(b), the Lord Advocate, and
(c) in relation to warrants in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
(10) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if—
(a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
(b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, and
(c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 21, page 17, line 23, at end add—
“(6) In considering a warrant pursuant to this Part, a Judicial Commissioner may instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(7) In considering a warrant pursuant to this Part which is being sought—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) in the interest of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security; or
(c) involving the consideration of items subject to legal professional privilege,
a Judicial Commissioner must instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(8) For the purposes of this section a special advocate is a person appointed by the appropriate law officer for the country of the United Kingdom to which the warrant relates or mostly relates—
(a) for England and Wales, the Attorney General,
(b) for Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland, and
(c) for Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
(9) A person may only be appointed as a special advocate by the—
(a) Attorney General, if the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
(b) the Advocate General for Scotland, if the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, and
(c) the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, if the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 17, line 23, at end insert—
“(6) In consideration of any warrant pursuant to this Part, a Judicial Commissioner may instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest.
(7) For the purposes of this section a special advocate is a person appointed by the appropriate law officer for the country of the United Kingdom to which the warrant relates or mostly relates—
(a) for England and Wales, the Attorney General,
(b) for Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland, and
(c) for Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
(8) A person may only be appointed as a special advocate by the—
(a) Attorney General, if the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990,
(b) the Advocate General for Scotland, if the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, and
(c) the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, if the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 45, in clause 23, page 18, line 22, after “addressed”, insert—
“(c) any Special Advocate appointed.”
Amendment 46, in clause 23, page 18, line 23, after “warrant”, insert
“, or any Special Advocate appointed,”.
Keir Starmer
I am very happy to speak, particularly on amendments 38 and 39. May I just be clear with Committee members about the difference between the amendments? They are alternatives. They are provisions that are intended to allow the judicial commissioner to instruct a special advocate to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant, or the wider public interest.
The difference between the two amendments is that amendment 39 is purely permissive, so that, if a judicial commissioner thinks that he or she wants the assistance of a special advocate, amendment 39 allows that. Amendment 38 is more prescriptive, because it sets out certain circumstances in which a special advocate should be appointed. However, they are deliberately put in alternative form.
I will speak predominantly to amendment 39. There will be circumstances, no doubt, where the judicial commissioner wants assistance from somebody other than the Secretary of State in conducting the exercise that he or she is conducting. If the test remains as set out in clause 21, there may be points that the judicial commissioner wants to hear about, to hear upon and to take into account. This amendment provides a mechanism for him or her to do so.
Experience in the past has shown that, if a clause such as this, or similar to this, is left out, problems arise. Then, there is an attempt, usually by the court, to find its own inherent jurisdiction to allow an amicus or somebody else to be instructed. And it is not straightforward, because some courts and tribunals have inherent jurisdiction and others do not. There are many arguments about that, which we probably do not need to rehearse this afternoon.
This amendment cuts through all that by saying that, if in any given circumstances, a judicial commissioner wants to hear submissions from “A.N. other party”, it allows him or her to have someone make those submissions, either in writing or in person.
I am not personally wedded to the special advocate scheme. If the Solicitor General thinks there is any merit in that argument, I am very happy to work with the Government on a proposal to achieve the same end, but I think that the fall-back of relying on inherent jurisdiction is inherently risky.
Joanna Cherry
SNP amendment 102 is very similar to amendment 39, which the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras spoke to, but there are two differences. First, on the areas in which a judicial commissioner must instruct the special advocate, I have deleted
“in the interests of the economic well-being”
in line with an earlier amendment. Secondly, in relation to the appropriate Law Officer who appoints special advocates, I have inserted, for the purposes of subsection (7)(b), the Lord Advocate as opposed to the Advocate General. The reason for that is that subsection (7)(b) deals with
“the consideration of items subject to legal professional privilege”,
which would relate to devolved rather than reserved matters in general terms. In my submission, it would be respectful for the Lord Advocate as well as the Advocate General to be consulted about special advocates.
I am wedded to the notion of special advocates. I do not have a huge amount to add to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, other than to point out that David Anderson QC, in paragraph 18 of his written evidence to this Committee submitted following his oral evidence, states that he would
“like to confirm my view that the right of the Judicial Commissioners under the dual lock system should be clearly acknowledged”
and
“use standing counsel to act as amicus where appropriate in relation to applications for the approval of warrants”.
The special advocate scheme that I advocate goes a bit further than that. The purpose of the special advocate would be
“to represent the interests of any person or persons subject to the warrant or the wider public interest”
in the protection of privacy. The amendment would place a judicial commissioner under a duty to appoint a special advocate in a case involving a claim of national security or one that is subject to legal professional privilege. The appointment of the special advocate would ensure that the material produced to support an application is subject to adversarial testing as far as possible. That is the broad thrust of the amendment.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. The hon. and learned Lady was very clear about the different basis of her amendment. My concern is that there are two schools of thought here. There is the amicus curiae school of thought, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. One of the roles of the Law Officers is, when we are approached by various jurisdictions, to consider whether the attorney himself should intervene or whether the court should have an amicus appointed. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to talk about some of the confusion that can exist in regard to inherent jurisdiction. I am going to take that point away and consider it.
I am concerned about a full-blown replication of the important special advocate system that we have to assist, for example, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or of the genesis of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the closed material procedure. There is an important difference between the public interest in having special advocates and this type of scenario. In such cases, there are affected parties—usually respondents to important applications—for whom huge issues are at stake and who need that sort of quality representation within what we accept are exceptional and unusual departures from the principle of open justice. That is why special advocates were created. They perform an invaluable and important role.
I do not see the read-across from that to this scenario. What we have here is an investigatory procedure. It takes place at the early stages—to take a case example—of the investigation of a crime or a threat to national security. There may not be at that stage an identifiable suspect; there is, therefore, a difference and a difficulty in identifying the prejudice that could be caused to the interest of an individual who is a party to the proceedings. It is a different scenario and, tempting though it might be to introduce that type of regime, it would serve only to introduce delay, bureaucracy and extra expense with no tangible benefit to the integrity of the system.
In a nutshell, I will consider carefully the amicus curiae point, but I have wholly to reject a wider approach and the creation of a special advocate system which, frankly, would go beyond even the American jurisdiction, with which comparison is often made—in the foreign intelligence surveillance court in the US they have amici curiae available to assist the court. On that basis, I urge the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I have nothing to add. In the light of what the Solicitor General has said I will not press the amendment. I look forward to what he produces and to further discussing that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add either.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss:
New clause 1—Power of Secretary of State to certify warrants—
“(1) The Secretary of State may certify a warrant in those cases where—
(a) The Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the conduct authorised by the warrant is necessary pursuant to section 18(2)(a) (national security) and relates to—
(i) the defence of the United Kingdom by Armed Forces; or
(ii) the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.
(b) The Secretary of State considers that the conduct authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.
(2) A warrant certified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) is subject to approval by a Judicial Commissioner.
(3) In deciding whether to approve a warrant certified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1), the Judicial Commissioner must determine whether—
(a) the warrant is capable of certification by the Secretary of State under subsection (1); and
(b) in the opinion of the Judicial Commissioner, approving the warrant is necessary on relevant grounds under section 18(2)(a) and subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section.
(4) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a warrant certified by the Secretary of State under this Section, the Judicial Commissioner must produce written reasons for that decision.
(5) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a warrant under subsection (3), the Secretary of State, or any special advocate appointed may ask the investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the warrant.”
This new clause is intended to replace existing Clause 21 and provides for the Secretary of State to certify warrants in cases concerning defence or foreign policy before they are considered by a judicial commissioner.
New clause 5—Power of Secretary of State to certify warrants—
“(1) The Secretary of State may certify an application for a warrant in those cases where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that an application is necessary pursuant to section 18(2)(a) (national security) and involves—
(a) the defence of the United Kingdom by Armed Forces; or
(b) the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.
(2) A warrant may be certified by the Secretary of State if—
(a) the Secretary of State considers that the warrant is necessary on grounds falling within section 18; and
(b) the Secretary of State considers that the conduct authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.
(3) Any warrant certified by the Secretary of State subject to subsection (1) is subject to approval by a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) In deciding to approve a warrant pursuant to this section, the Judicial Commissioner must determine whether—
(a) the warrant is capable of certification by the Secretary of State subject to subsection (1);
(b) the warrant is necessary on relevant grounds subject to section 18(2)(a) and subsection (1)(a) or (b); and
(c) the conduct authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.
(5) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the person’s decision to approve a warrant under this section, the Judicial Commissioner must produce written reasons for the refusal.
(6) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, approves or refuses to approve a warrant under this Section, the person, or any Special Advocate appointed, may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to issue the warrant.”
The Solicitor General
We have dealt admirably with many of the issues in the clause and I will not speak to the stand part debate.
Keir Starmer
I do not wish to speak to new clause 1. It stands or falls with the clause 17 amendments and is to that extent withdrawn along with them.
Joanna Cherry
My new clause 5 is in the same category as new clause 1, the ground of which I think we have covered. The new clauses are slightly different, in that they followed David Anderson’s initial recommendation, but we will obviously revisit the matter at a later stage so I will not take up time unnecessarily to labour the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Approval of warrants issued in urgent cases
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 22, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) A warrant under this section can only be issued in an emergency situation posing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to a person.”
This amendment, and others to Clause 22, seek to require urgent warrants can only be issued where it is necessary in an emergency situation posing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury; require that a Judicial Commissioner must immediately be informed that such a warrant has been issued; and reduce the period within which a Judicial Commissioner must decide whether to authorise the warrant to 24 hours after issue.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in clause 22, page 17, line 30, after “must”, insert “immediately”.
Amendment 41, in clause 22, page 17, line 35, leave out from “ending” to the end of line 36 and insert
“24 hours after the warrant was issued.”
Amendment 42, in clause 22, page 17, line 35, leave out from “ending” to the end of line 36 and insert
“48 hours after the warrant was issued.”
Joanna Cherry
Bear with me a moment, Mr Owen, I have my notes in a bit of a schmozzle, as we say in Scotland—[Interruption.] Or as they say in Ireland, to be accurate. In Scotland they would say they were in a fankle. If you give me two minutes, I will sort myself out.
Joanna Cherry
Thank you, Mr Owen, and apologies to Committee members. The purpose of the amendments is to—sorry, I have lost my train of thought completely.
The Solicitor General
I think we were dealing with urgent cases. I hope that is of some assistance.
Joanna Cherry
Yes, I am very grateful to the Solicitor General. I skipped ahead to modifications, so I will skip back to urgent. The purpose of the amendments is to specify that urgent warrants can be issued only when they are necessary, in an emergency situation that poses an immediate danger of death or serious physical injury, and that a judicial commissioner should be informed immediately that an urgent warrant has been issued. They also seek to reduce the period within which a judicial commissioner must decide whether to approve the issue of a warrant to 24 hours after its issue.
There were differing recommendations from the Joint Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think I am correct in saying that the ISC recommended 24 hours and the Joint Committee 48. In terms of case law, recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights suggest that 48 hours would be an absolute minimum, so I would insist on that as a fall-back position.
Victoria Atkins
I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Boston and Skegness, on the Joint Committee, where we debated this in great detail. It is right to say that it was not a unanimous decision of the Committee to change the time limit for the urgency provisions. Indeed, I said to the Committee that if that point was ever raised, I would make clear that the decision was not based on any evidence we heard. I will not say that members of the Committee drew the figure out of the air, but—[Interruption.]
Victoria Atkins
Okay, out of the air. The Joint Committee arrived at that figure on the basis of no evidence. That may assist the hon. and learned Lady.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so precise and clear about that. Essentially, the concern about clause 22 is that the scope of the urgent mechanism is extremely broad and ill defined. In my view, it could fatally undermine any safeguard provided by a mechanism for judicial authorisation or indeed judicial review in the double lock.
The Bill provides that an urgent warrant can be issued by the Secretary of State in a case where she considers there is an “urgent need”, which is not defined. We then have the three-day period. As the hon. Lady said, no specific reason has been given for the selection of three days. The Joint Committee took the view that it should be shortened significantly to provide for approval within 24 hours. I think the ISC suggested 48 hours—I apologise if I have got that the wrong way round.
The purpose of the amendments is to remove the urgent provision in the Bill altogether or to restrict it to very limited circumstances, with the urgent authorisation having to take place during a 24-hour period. The concern underlying the amendments is that in their absence, the provisions for urgent warrants in the Bill will drive a coach and horses through even the double lock provision, because they will enable the judicial authorisation part of the procedure to be bypassed in very loosely defined circumstances. That is the case as precisely as I can put it.
Keir Starmer
I will be brief. There is a real concern about the provision for urgent cases being three days. Although we need such a provision, that period allows warrants to be operable before the double lock can apply, and therefore the period should be as short as possible.
The problem is not only that three days is too much but that three days can, I think, be five days, because it is three working days, and therefore there is the potential for three days to morph into more than three. If I am wrong about that, I will happily be corrected. I have put my name to the amendments suggesting 24 and 48-hour periods, to give the Government the option to reduce the threshold to either of those and put it in terms of hours, which removes any possible confusion about the use of the word “days”.
The Solicitor General
This is, of course, an important issue that has already seen a good deal of consideration for the Government and a move away from the original proposal to three working days; the hon. and learned Gentleman is right about that.
Although we are considering the matter carefully, at this stage the right balance is being struck between the interests of the security services and the other agencies in ensuring that crime is detected and prevented at the earliest possibly opportunity, and the interests of preserving the balance between the rights of the individual and the need to deal with crime and threats to national security. I am happy to consider amending the relevant draft codes to deal with the question about the notification to judicial commissioners, so that it is made clear on the face of the code that that should happen as soon as reasonably practicable. That wording is more appropriate than “immediately”, given that it may take a small period of time to draw together the materials that the commissioner will wish to review when considering whether to approve the warrant.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West made a point about decision making in a vacuum. The commissioner will have the decision of the Secretary of State and all the materials upon which that Minister has made the decision, as well as access to further material. I think it is clear that the decision maker will have everything they need and more to come to an informed and reasoned decision based upon the principles of judicial review. On the basis of my undertaking to consider amending the draft code of practice, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras feels able to withdraw the amendment proposing the word “immediately”.
Let me deal with the central points about the decision and the length of time within which the warrant should be approved. The effect of the amendments would be to reduce that, and I recognise that the Joint Committee that undertook the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill made a similar recommendation. We have therefore responded in an appropriate way by shortening the window within which urgent action can be taken. That has been widely welcomed. It is an important consideration and an example of how, throughout this procedure, the Government have taken note of reports, listened and acted accordingly on those recommendations.
It is not in anybody’s interests to create so tight a statutory framework that decisions end up being rushed. I therefore consider that the three working days now provided for in the Bill should give sufficient time for the judicial commissioner to be presented with and to consider the grounds upon which the Secretary of State decided to issue the urgent warrant. My worry is that by reducing the time period even further, we would give the commissioner even less time, which would lead to the sort of decision making that would perhaps not be in anybody’s interests, let alone those of the state.
Amendment 91 seeks to define urgency on the face of the Bill and to replace the definition currently provided for in the draft statutory codes of practice with a narrower definition. As the Committee will appreciate, we must provide law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies with an operationally workable framework. We will have failed with this Bill if we provide the agencies with the powers that they need, but with ones that cannot keep up with the pace and scale of the threats that we face. I know that it is always a challenge for legislators to try and—to use the modern phrase—“future-proof” legislation, but it is important that we create a framework that is not only clear and simple to understand, but sufficiently flexible to take into account the fact that, from month to month, the nature of the threat changes.
I am afraid that the effect of the amendment would be to curtail that ability because the definition would be too narrow. The draft statutory codes of practice, which we have all been considering, define urgency, which is determined by whether it would be reasonably practicable to seek the judicial commissioner’s approval to issue the warrant in the requisite time. That time period would reflect when the authorisation needs to be in place to meet an operational or investigative need.
The code sets out the three categories with which we are familiar: first, where there is the imminent threat to life or serious harm, and I gave the example of a kidnap case earlier. The second is where there is an valuable intelligence-gathering opportunity, where the opportunity to do so is rare or fleeting—that might involve, for example, a group of terrorists who are just about to make that trip overseas and are making the final preparations to do so. The third is where there is a time-limited significant investigative opportunity—here I speak with years of experience of dealing with drugs cases—such as the imminent arrival of a major consignment of drugs or firearms, when timing is of the essence.
I am afraid that narrowing the definition of urgency so that it only relates to an immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to a person would mean significant lost opportunities when it comes to investigation and gathering of intelligence. It would have an impact on the ability to act in a way that would allow interception at a time, for example, that would be apposite to capture a particular drugs seizure.
Another example would be the terrorist cases that I deal with week in, week out—in terms of the function of the Law Officers granting consent to prosecution. If, for example, a group was making final preparations to travel out to Syria to join Daesh, it would cause a problem for the security and intelligence agencies if they were not able to seek urgent authorisation to intercept telephones because there was no immediate danger of death or serious physical injuries.
In my considered opinion, I am afraid that the amendment would allow a significant gap in the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ ability to keep us safe. I do not think that any hon. Member in this House wants that to happen. I know that it not their intention but it is my genuine concern. On that basis, I invite hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I have listened carefully to the Solicitor General. The difficulty for him and the Government is this: according to recent case law from Strasbourg, a 48-hour timeframe for authorisation would be the maximum to harmonise the process with that recent case law. The case of Zakharov v. Russia included that a complaint for urgent interception could occur without judicial authorisation for up to 48 hours. There really is no reason why the UK should allow a longer period for approved surveillance than Russia. The difficulty with three working days is that if they fall over a weekend, it can mean five days or, indeed, if it is a bank holiday weekend, six days. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Failure to approve warrant issued in urgent case
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 23, page 18, line 7, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment, and others to Clause 23, would require a Judicial Commissioner to order that material collected under an emergency warrant which he does not subsequently authorise, be destroyed, except in exceptional circumstances.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
Amendment 44, in clause 23, page 18, line 9, leave out paragraphs (3)(b) and (c) and insert—
“(3A) If the Judicial Commissioner determines that there are exceptional circumstances, the Judicial Commissioner must instead impose conditions as to the use or retention of any of that material.”
Joanna Cherry
I will keep this fairly brief. The amendment would require a judicial commissioner to order that material collated under an urgent warrant that he does not authorise subsequently be destroyed, except in exceptional circumstances. As the Bill stands, should material be obtained under an urgent warrant that is later unapproved by the judicial commissioner, the judicial commissioner may, but is not required to, order destruction of material obtained. Once again, it is my argument that the provision, as it stands, creates a significant loophole that could be used to bypass the legal protections that purport to be provided by the judicial review mechanism.
An urgent warrant allows the relevant agency to access material that it may not be authorised to access in law. Permitting the retention of that material in anything other than exceptional circumstances creates a clear incentive to use the urgent process in inappropriate cases so, in order to ensure that the applying agencies—the agencies that apply for warrants—only use the urgent process where strictly necessary, the Bill needs to ensure that there are no advantages to be gained from seeking an urgent warrant where it is not strictly necessary. The amendment would ensure that where a judicial commissioner does not authorise the use of the warrant retrospectively, the position must be that the material collected is destroyed, except in exceptional circumstances.
The Solicitor General
I am once again grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for setting out her place clearly and with admirable succinctness. There is a problem with the amendment because it very much begs the question of what might constitute exceptional circumstances. The question of who will determine whether the threshold had been met in a given instance is also raised. Introducing that caveat to the Bill would unnecessarily complicate the commissioners’ decision-making process. The commissioners will be extremely well qualified to decide how material should be used when cancelling a warrant. They will take into account all the relevant circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and the clause, as drafted, allows them to do just that without the necessity of introducing subjective terms.
The amendments also suggest that the only two viable options following the failure to approve a warrant issued in an urgent case are to destroy the data or, in undefined exceptional cases, to impose restrictions on their use. That is unnecessarily limiting. There may be occasions when vital intelligence is acquired that could be used to save lives or to prevent serious crime, and where using that intelligence may not involve any further undue incursions into privacy. In that situation a judicial commissioner may wish to allow the intercepting agency to continue with its work without restriction in the interests of the great benefit it might have. Of course, that is a decision for the commissioner to determine, and clause 23, as drafted, allows just that. I am afraid that the amendments would mean that a judicial commissioner could not choose, after carefully considering the facts of the matter at hand, to allow such vital work to continue unrestricted. My worry is that the unintended consequences of such a proposal could seriously inhibit the work of the intercepting agencies.
Finally, the amendments would entirely remove the ability of a commissioner to decide what conditions may be imposed upon material selected for examination. By removing clause 23(3)(c), the remainder of the clause would relate only to material obtained under a warrant. Of course, a targeted examination warrant does not authorise the obtaining of any material, but rather the examination of material obtained under a bulk warrant, which is why clause 23(3)(c), as drafted, includes a specific provision that allows a judicial commissioner to direct how material that has been selected for examination under a rejected urgent warrant should be used.
In effect, the amendments attempt to change a carefully constructed safeguard that gives judicial commissioners absolute control over the actions of the intercepting agencies. I fear that the unintended result of these amendments would be an overall reduction of the judicial commissioners’ powers. For those reasons I invite the hon. and learned Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Members of Parliament etc.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 24, page 18, line 38, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
‘(1) This section applies where a warrant issued under this Part would seek to authorise any activity which may involve access to special procedure material.
(2) Special procedure material subject to subsection (1) will include—
(a) communications which are subject to legal professional privilege;
(b) journalistic material which a person holds in confidence; and
(c) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of the relevant legislature.
(3) The warrant subject to subsection (1) may only be granted on application to a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) The Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) a criminal offence has been committed;
(b) the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of that offence;
(c) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail;
(d) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) importance of the prosecution, and
(iii) importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege, the integrity of journalists’ sources, and/or communications with members of relevant legislature.
(5) Material is subject to legal professional privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made in—
(i) connection with the giving of legal advice, or
(ii) connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) A person holds journalistic material in confidence for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it is held subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation;
(b) it has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.”.
This amendment establishes a consistent approach to the safeguards afforded to parliamentarians, legally privileged material and journalists seeking to protect their sources.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 24, page 18, line 38, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
‘(1) This section applies where a warrant issued under this Part would seek to authorise any activity which may involve access to special procedure material.
(2) Special procedure material under subsection (1) will include—
(a) communications which are subject to legal professional privilege;
(b) journalistic material which a person holds in confidence;
(c) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of a relevant legislature.
(3) A warrant under subsection (1) may only be granted on application to a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) To approve a warrant under subsection (3), a Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) a criminal offence has been committed,
(b) the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of that offence,
(c) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail, and
(d) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) the importance of the prosecution, and
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege, the integrity of journalists’ sources, and/or communications with members of a relevant legislature.
(5) Material subject to legal professional privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice or;
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) A person holds journalistic material in confidence for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it is held subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation; or
(b) it has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.”.
This amendment establishes a consistent approach to the safeguards afforded to parliamentarians, legally privileged material and journalists seeking to protect their sources.
Amendment 63, in clause 24, page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 64, in clause 24, page 19, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) Where a warrant is likely to cover special procedure material, the procedure set out in subsection (2C) applies.
(2B) Where a warrant is likely to cover excluded procedure material, the procedure set out in subsection (2D) applies.
(2C) Further to requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant likely to cover special procedure material if —
(a) There are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed,
(b) There are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection to the offence at (a),
(c) Other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because it appeared that they were bound to fail,
(d) It is in the public interest having regard to—
(i) the democratic importance of freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR to grant the warrant; or
(ii) the democratic interest in the confidentiality of correspondence with members of a relevant legislature.
(2D) Further to the requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant likely to cover excluded procedure material in accordance with provisions in Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and Schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
(2E) An application for a warrant under this Part must not be granted where the information could be sought using a warrant under Schedule 1 of PACE, unless seeking this information under PACE would defeat the purpose of the investigation.
(2F) In this section “special procedure material” means—
(a) special material as defined in section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or
(b) correspondence sent by or intended for a member of the relevant legislature.
(2G) In this section “excluded procedure material” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.”.
Amendment 80, in clause 225, page 176, line 44, at end insert
“and for the purposes (and only the purposes) of this Act, including the application of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), a “criminal purpose” includes the purpose of—
(i) doing or facilitating anything involving an imminent threat of death or serious injury or an imminent and serious threat to national security, or
(ii) concealing, or impeding the detection or prevention of, the doing or facilitation of any of those things;”.
Keir Starmer
I will speak first to amendment 92, which is on page 18 of the amendment paper. The amendment would introduce additional protection for three special categories: those involving legal professional privilege; that involving journalistic material; and that involving members of a relevant legislature, including MPs. I will also address amendment 63, which is on page 19 of the amendment paper and would remove clause 24(2), to be replaced by amendment 64. For the benefit of the Solicitor General, I indicate that I will address only the principle. Having reviewed the wording, the amendments would not achieve the intended purpose for all the categories I mentioned, and therefore the amendment 104 will not be pressed to a vote. I am therefore speaking to the principles relating to legal professional privilege, journalistic material and members of a relevant legislature.
Joanna Cherry
Picking up on what the hon. and learned Gentleman just said, the purpose of amendment 104 is to address a lack of consistency of approach in the Bill regarding the protection afforded to correspondence with Members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers. I stress that the purpose behind the amendment is not to seek a particular privilege for parliamentarians, lawyers or journalists, but to protect the correspondence of members of the public with lawyers, parliamentarians and journalists.
The Bill contains different approaches. Clause 24 affords protections to Members of Parliament subject to targeted interception warrants, but not to journalists seeking to protect their sources. Similarly, although the provisions later in the Bill on access to communications data to target journalistic sources provide for authorisations to be subject to judicial review, access to other comms data that might engage the privilege afforded to Members of Parliament or to legally privileged material is not so protected.
Amendment 104 would provide consistency of approach to all three categories of privileged information, modelling the approach broadly on the provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—an English Act for which I must say I have much admiration. I am still trying to get to grips with it, but I think it is a good piece of legislation. It protects legally privileged material and journalistic material from interference during police searches.
The amendment would also provide a special procedure for access to MPs’ and journalists’ correspondence, which would be dependent on independent judicial authorisation, as opposed to authorisation by politicians. With all due respect to the Home Secretary, I did not find her triple lock on protection for parliamentarians terribly convincing. That is not a point about the present Government—it could apply to any Government of any persuasion—but it seems to me that having the Prime Minister as the triple lock does not give the appearance of political impartiality. Where parliamentarians’ communications are being interfered with, the authorisation should be judge-only.
Last night, I chaired an event with speakers from the Bar Council, the Law Society of England and Wales and the National Union of Journalists. They all consider that the protections in the Bill for journalists, for legal professional privilege and for parliamentarians are not sufficient. My own professional body, the Faculty of Advocates, which is the Scottish equivalent of England’s Bar Council, also considers that the protections in the Bill are not sufficient, as does the Law Society of Scotland.
I will quote what the Law Society of Scotland said in its evidence to the Joint Committee:
“On the 14 December we provided oral evidence to the Joint Committee, alongside the Law Society of England and Wales, expressing our shared and serious concerns in relation to professional legal privilege and the provisions of the Bill. Legal professional privilege”—
referred to in Scotland as the obligation of confidentiality—
“is key to the rule of law and is essential to the administration of justice as it permits information to be exchanged between a lawyer and client without fear of it becoming known to a third party without the clear permission of the client. Many UK statutes give express protection of LPP and it is vigorously protected by the courts. The ‘iniquity exception’ alleviates concerns that LPP may be used to protect communications between a lawyer and client which are being used for a criminal purpose. Such purpose removes the protection from the communications, allowing them to be targeted using existing powers and not breaching LPP.”
I do not wish to be seen to be making any special pleading, either as a lawyer and a politician or on behalf of the journalist profession. It is more about special pleading on behalf of the members of the public who contact journalists, parliamentarians and lawyers, and who wish to do so in confidence for a very good reason.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for seeking not to get ahead of himself with respect to the arguments on legal professional privilege. I feel a degree of sympathy, because the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West was inevitably going to deal with these matters in the round. Although different considerations apply to each category—parliamentarians, journalists and legal professionals—both hon. and learned Members are absolutely right to lay emphasis not on individuals in those professions but on the client, the source and the constituent. That is why these roles have a special status: it is about the wider public interest. The Government absolutely understand that and we place it at the very heart of our consideration of how warrantry should operate in these areas.
As you will know, Mr Owen, there has already been significant movement by the Government as a result of the various reports that we know all too well. I am delighted that matters of legal professional privilege are now in the primary legislation in great measure. The debate will therefore be about the extent to which safeguards are placed in the primary legislation and about what form they take. I will heed the hon. and learned Gentleman’s exhortation and not stray too far into that area.
I will therefore deal with the amendment to clause 24 and the question of parliamentarians. We heard last year the Prime Minister’s statement about the issue and the important requirement that he or she is to be consulted before the Secretary of State can, with judicial commissioner approval, issue a warrant to acquire communications sent by or intended for a Member of a relevant legislature. The clause applies to all warrants for targeted interception, with the exclusion of warrants authorised by Scottish Ministers, and includes the all-important requirement for the Prime Minister to be consulted before a targeted examination warrant can be issued to authorise the examination of a parliamentarian’s communications collected under a bulk interception warrant.
Part 5 contains similar provisions for equipment interference carried out by the security and intelligence agencies. The important protection in clause 24 will apply to the communications of Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, United Kingdom MEPs and Members of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. It is important to observe that for the first time, what was a doctrine for the best part of 50 years is now codified and enshrined in primary legislation.
It is important to remember in the spirit of the wider public interest that nobody, least of all parliamentarians, is above the law. The Wilson doctrine has perhaps been misunderstood for many years as a blanket exemption for parliamentarians, but that is exactly what it was not. It was actually an explanation that there will be times when the national or the public interest demands that the communications of Members of Parliament be intercepted because there might be criminal purpose behind them. We hope that that will never happen, but sadly human experience teaches us otherwise. It is therefore important to strike a balance between the proper exercise of the privileges of being a Member of this place or of the other Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom and the principle of equality before the law.
The amendments introduce the concept of special procedure material and try to combine the approach to the safeguards afforded to the three categories that I have discussed. To put it simply, I submit that what is on the face of the Bill and in the accompanying codes of practice already provide those safeguards and indeed go beyond what can be encompassed in primary legislation. At this stage, I will not say anything further, because I want to deal with points that I know hon. Members will raise about the other categories.
Keir Starmer
Can I ask the Minister about journalistic sources? I am concerned that there is nothing about them on the face of the Bill. He will know how anxious journalists are about this. Will he consider whether something should be put on the face of the Bill? There is an inconsistency: in other parts of the Bill, such as clause 68, there is express provision relating to journalists. There is something in the code of practice, but there is nothing on the face of the Bill, which is the problem. Without committing himself to a particular form of words, will he commit to considering one and perhaps liaising with us about what form it could take?
The Solicitor General
I am mindful of the fact that my colleague the Security Minister is meeting with the National Union of Journalists. I cannot commit the Government to a particular course of action, but let me put this on record. We are absolutely committed to the preservation and protection of a free press and freedom of expression in our democratic society. That includes the ability of sources to provide anonymous information to journalists, which is absolutely vital if we are to have throughput of important information that needs to be in the public domain.
At the same time, there is a danger. We must not unduly fetter, on the face of the legislation, the important work of our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. We live in an age of constant blogging and other social media tools. Journalists themselves do not like being defined as a profession. I have been criticised in the past for using that terminology when talking about journalists, for example in the context of the Leveson process. Now, however, there are increasingly wide and loose definitions of who are journalists and what journalism is, and my worry is that that will, and does, inadvertently prevent legitimate investigation of those who are threatening our national security or who are planning to commit serious crime.
Keir Starmer
I have already indicated that I am not putting the amendment to the test. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
That is my position as well. I am happy to have addressed the principle at this stage and to look at an amendment at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Items subject to legal privilege
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 25, page 19, line 22, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 25, page 19, line 31, leave out paragraph (3)(a) and insert—
“(a) that compelling evidence indicates that the items in question consist of, or relate to, communications made for a criminal purpose such that it is necessary to authorise the interception, or (in the case of a targeted examination warrant) selection for examination, of those items, and”.
Amendment 82, in clause 37, page 31, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) But this section does not authorise interception of a communication containing items presumptively subject to legal privilege.”
Amendment 75, in clause 42, page 33, line 30, at end insert—
“(4) But this section, nor section 43 or section 44, do not authorise interception of a communication containing items presumptively subject to legal privilege.”
Amendment 76, in clause 45, page 35, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) But this section does not authorise interception of a communication containing items subject to legal privilege.”
Amendment 81, in clause 225, page 177, line 6, at end insert—
“presumptively subject to legal privilege”, in relation to an item, means that disregarding any question of criminal purpose, the item falls to be treated as subject to legal privilege;”.
New clause 2—Items subject to legal privilege—
“(1) A warrant under this Chapter, or under Chapter 1 of Part 6, may not authorise conduct undertaken for the purpose of doing anything in relation to—
(a) a communication, insofar as the communication consists of matters subject to legal privilege; or
(b) related communications data, insofar as the data relate to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), legal privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice, or
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(3) Communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.
(4) An application which contains a statement that the purpose of a warrant is to access communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal purpose, but which would otherwise attract legal privilege must be considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
(5) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a warrant sought under subsection (3), if satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the communications are made with the intent of furthering a criminal purpose;
(b) that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made;
(c) that the material concerned is likely to be relevant evidence;
(d) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail; and
(e) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) the importance of the prosecution, or
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) A code of practice issued under Schedule 6 must contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken pursuant to a warrant to which this section applies resulting in accidental acquisition of a communication, or communications data, falling within subsection (1); and
(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in acquisition of such a communication or data.”
This new clause is intended to replace existing clause 25 and seeks to clarify the approach to legal privilege in line with existing law.
New clause 6—Items subject to legal privilege—
“(1) A warrant under this Chapter, or under Chapter 1 of Part 6, may not authorise conduct undertaken for the purpose of doing anything in relation to—
(a) a communication, insofar as the communication consists of matters subject to legal privilege;
(b) related communications data, insofar as the data relate to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), legal privilege means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client and any other person with or in contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings;
(c) items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and made—
(i) in connection with the giving of legal advice; or
(ii) in connection with the contemplation of legal proceedings or for the purposes of such proceedings.
(d) communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.
(3) An application which contains a statement that the purpose of a warrant is to access communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal purpose, but which would otherwise attract legal privilege must be considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
(4) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a warrant sought under subsection (3), if satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the communications are made with the intent of furthering a criminal purpose;
(b) that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made; and
(c) that the material concerned is likely to be relevant evidence;
(d) other proportionate methods of obtaining the information have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail;
(e) it is in the public interest that the warrant is granted, having regard to the—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed;
(ii) the importance of the prosecution; and
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
(5) A code of practice issued under Schedule 6 must contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken pursuant to a warrant to which this section applies resulting in accidental acquisition of a communication, or communications data, falling within subsection (1);
(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in acquisition of such a communication or data.”
This new clause clarifies the approach to legal professional privilege on the face of the Bill and brings it into line with the spirit of existing case law, the common law and PACE.
Keir Starmer
We come to this late, but the provision is an important one. I will try to be brief and to the point. The clause deals with legal privilege. I acknowledge that the Government have responded to the various recommendations so far, setting the provision out in a different form in the Bill.
There are, I am afraid, still problems. I have been discussing those with the Bar Council, which is concerned about the form in which the provision appears in the Bill. I invite the Committee to look at the clause. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) deal with a situation in which the purpose of an intercept warrant is to target material subject to legal privilege and, correspondingly, in relation to targeted examination. Those subsections are relevant to the targeting of material subject to legal privileges. Subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) serve a slightly different purpose, which is the position if a warrant, although not targeted, may be likely to include items subject to legal privilege.
The difficulty with the first three subsections—this is the strong view of the Bar Council, borne out in the code of practice itself—is that
“Legal privilege does not apply to communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose (whether the lawyer is acting unwittingly or culpably).”
If the communication furthers a criminal purpose, legal privilege simply does not apply. If left unamended, subsections (1), (2) and (3) would allow the targeting of legally privileged material which does not further a criminal purpose, and therefore falls outside the limits of legal privilege itself.
The Bar Council’s point, which is a good one, is that once legal privilege is properly understood it becomes clear that legally privileged material should not be targeted. If the argument is that we may have to target communications between a lawyer and client in which they further a crime—I accept that there have been examples of that—in those circumstances the material has already lost its legal privilege and therefore does not need to be targeted. In fact, something that is not legally privileged is being targeted. It is a very serious point, and new clause 2 was intended to help set out what the Bar Council suggests is a better formulation of clause 25. Subsection (3) of new clause 2 makes it clear that:
“Communications made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not subject to legal privilege.”
It approaches it on that basis in order to meet the argument that you cannot ring-fence something which, under the cloak of legal privilege, is in fact furthering a criminal intent. If that is right, it logically follows that clause 25(1), (2) and (3) should not stand as they are currently drafted. New clause 2 is essentially an alternative provision.
In other words, the test in 25(3) of “exceptional and compelling circumstances” is on the one hand welcome, though it is not welcome in a clause that targets legally privileged material that should not be targeted for the reasons I have outlined.
Lucy Frazer
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for thinking of this as I speak. Is there a risk that we could be unclear as to whether a communication is subject to legal privilege, and think that it is in furtherance of a criminal offence, and then it turns out not to have been? Is there a loophole or lacuna in the legislation that does not cover that eventuality?
Keir Starmer
There is. That is a very good point, and it is one that I have discussed with the Bar Council. In those circumstances, what is being targeted is material that is not legally privileged, though there might be something that is legally privileged within it. There should be safeguards put around that, and I readily accept that examples will arise, probably also in the bulk powers, in which, although the intention is not to target legally privileged material, it is very difficult to have a warrant which does not run the risk.
An example would be when there is a suspicion that a lawyer and client may be involved in some activity that would take the communication outside of legal privilege, but it is impossible to say at what point of the conversation or exchange it loses its legal privilege. That is an obvious example. The answer that the Bar Council gives to that, and that I agree with, is that in those circumstances, rather than having a warrant to target the legally privileged material, there is a regime that recognises that it may be that, when targeting what can legitimately be targeted—namely, the part of the communication that has lost its privilege—there is a risk that privileged communications are incidentally picked up. There should be a provision for dealing with that material and its disclosure.
The powerful point about subsections (1), (2) and (3) is that it is wrong, in principle, to target legally privileged material. It is possible to have a warrant that runs the risk, with a separate set of safeguards to ensure that, if the risk materialises—as it will in some cases—there are provisions for ring-fencing, safeguarding, and not disclosing that material. That is the intention behind the Bar Council amendment.
It may be that further tweaks or improvements can be made, but that is an important point of principle that I invite the Solicitor General to take away and consider. A clause that satisfied the Bar Council in terms of the legal protection of this important privilege would be a prize worth having. Although the Bar Council recognises, as I do, the movement that the Government have made here, they simply have not got this right, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) are focused, in a sense, on communications that are likely to include items of legal privilege, such as a warrant that touches on a solicitor or lawyer communicating with clients, where it is thought that privilege has been lost but also elements where it has not been lost. In those circumstances, the Bar Council’s view and my view is that what is set out is again simply not strong enough, because there is no test or special provision.
New clause 2 is a comprehensive clause that would deal with that issue. In a sense, it goes with amendment 80, which amends a much later provision. It is intended to tidy up and clarify what the Bar Council says properly represents legal privilege and a regime for protecting it.
Suella Fernandes
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not think that there is a special level of safeguard incorporated in the clause? A higher bar needs to be overcome. Only in “exceptional and compelling circumstances” will privilege be circumvented. Is that not a high standard to meet?
Keir Starmer
I accept that it is a high standard to meet, but it is focused on the wrong target. If it is wrong in principle to target legally privileged material on the basis that that material might involve communications that further crime, on a proper understanding, that material has already lost its legal privilege. Having a higher test to target something that has not lost its legal privilege is a good thing, but it is not enough. Material that has not lost its legal privilege should not be targeted, because it is in fact not furthering crime. The proper way to deal with it is to recognise that what one really wants to target is communications that have lost their privilege. However, there is a risk of including—unintentionally, because one does not want to target it—other material, and that requires a different approach and a different regime. That is really the point. It is good to have a threshold, but the threshold does not work within the confines of this scheme.
I urge the Solicitor General to view the clause in that light and to reflect again on it. A lot of work has been done to try to get it into a better state, but that has not met with the approval of the Bar Council and, following analysis and discussion with the council, I can see why. New clause 2 is the council’s attempt to get it right. It has spent a lot of time on it and is very concerned about it. I invite the Minister to reflect again and commit to looking again at the clause, perhaps with us and the Bar Council, to try to get a clause that meets with the approval of everyone concerned. If that can be achieved, it will be a prize worth having; if it cannot, it will be a waste of a bit of time on a good cause.
The Solicitor General
Although it comes at a late hour, this is an important debate. We have come a long way on this issue. There was silence as to the presence of legal professional privilege in the draft Bill. The Government have rightly listened to the evidence and have now made important amendments to clause 25.
Keir Starmer
I and the Bar Council would like an example of that. If it is being advanced that even where the iniquity exception is not made out—in other words, it is properly legally privileged communications—there none the less may be circumstances in which the privilege yields under the Bill. We need to be clear about the circumstances he envisages. In a sense, he is suggesting that the communications can be targeted once they have lost their quality in cases where the iniquity exception is not made out—in other words, where it is a proper professional exchange between lawyer and client, fully protected until now. We had better have an example. The Bar Council will be very interested, because this issue goes to the heart of the privilege.
The Solicitor General
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has looked at the code, and the example I will give him is the example in the code under paragraph 8.37. I will read it into the record, because this is an important point. The example is:
“An intelligence agency may need to deliberately target legally privileged communications where the legal consultation might yield intelligence that could prevent harm to a potential victim or victims. For example, if they have intelligence to suggest that an individual is about to conduct a terrorist attack and the consultation may reveal information that could assist in averting the attack (e.g. by revealing details about the location and movements of the individual) then they might want to target the legally privileged communications.”
In other words, that is not the furtherance of a crime, because the legal adviser is not hearing or in any way participating in the outline of a plan. There might be information in there that seems to the adviser to be innocent information about the suspected terrorist living in a particular location or associating with particular individuals, but which, because of the surrounding intelligence in the case, may well give a basis for the intelligence agency to target that individual, because the information means more to the agency.
Keir Starmer
The Minister points to an example that I have discussed with the Bar Council. I must put its view on the record, which is that in those circumstances, there would be an offence if someone was not providing the relevant information about that sort of incident to other than the lawyer. We may need to take this discussion forward in an exchange of letters, with the benefit of what the Bar Council has to say, but in its view that is not a good example for what would be an exceptional incursion into legal privilege. That is why I urge the Minister, rather than batting this back at this stage, to take the opportunity to have further discussions with the Bar Council to get this provision into a form that is acceptable to all.
The Solicitor General
I am always happy to discuss matters with the Bar Council. As one of the leaders of the Bar, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I go to regular Bar Council meetings. I was with it on Saturday, and I listen carefully to what my friends and colleagues at the Bar have to say.
However, the example I am giving explains the situation. There might be information that is entirely innocuous to the lawyer. Let us say that there is a consultation happening. The lawyer might ask a few questions about the address and associates of the person that do not, to him or her, disclose an offence being committed, but which might, in the wider context, provide the security and intelligence authorities with evidential leads that build a wider picture of which the lawyer will be unaware. That is not the furtherance of a crime; it is innocent. What would be innocuous information to the lawyer might mean something more, because a wider context might give the appropriate agency the grounds upon which it could then make its application for warrantry.
There is a distinction. I am not saying that it will be commonplace—far from it. That is why we have worded the terms of the clause very carefully. We talk about “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. I cannot imagine a higher threshold for an applicant to meet than those words.
An additional attraction is that, for the purposes of this legislation, we do not try to define what is meant by legal professional privilege. It is a bit like the argument about parliamentary privilege—the more we try to modernise and define it, the more it ceases to exist as a meaningful concept. One has to be careful about using vehicles like the Bill to define what is a very wide-ranging principle that applies to myriad circumstances involving lawyers and their clients. Although I am in the spirit of dialogue, that is why I would strongly hesitate before adopting the amendments.
Victoria Atkins
I have listened, with great care, to the submissions made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and I have some sympathy with the position that he has put forward. One of the issues that has consoled me is that any such warrants that are proposed will have to meet the threshold of the double lock, namely the Home Secretary and the judicial commissioner, who, I imagine, will be very careful to protect legal professional privilege. Is my understanding correct?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend sums it up admirably. We have taken a different approach from RIPA, and rightly so. We have listened to the concerns expressed by the wider community, not just members of the profession, and are fully cognisant of the importance of legal professional privilege. It was part of my daily professional life for nearly 20 years so, as a Minister and as a lawyer, I fully understand its importance. Therefore, I hope that the example I have given gives an important insight into what we regard as “exceptional and compelling circumstances”. For those reasons, I urge the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I will not take much time. The Solicitor General prays in aid the dangers of over-defining, but the danger of the clause is that it will cut across legal professional privilege. Let us be realistic about what that means: wire taps to listen to privileged legal communications where the iniquity exception does not apply. A lawyer will never again be able to say that a communication—even one within the proper limits of a legal communication—is protected, because there could be no such guarantee. There will always be the possibility that it will not be protected. At the moment, it can be said that as long as it does not fall into the inequity exception, a communication is protected. In the other examples that have been used, it would not be interceptors; it would be bugs in cells. In the end, that is the road that will be opened by this proposal. A lawyer believes that they are having a confidential discussion on proper terms and appropriately with their client, yet that is intercepted. That is why I think the Bar Council feels so strongly about it.
Of course, there is a danger in defining legal professional privilege, but there is a much greater danger in getting to a position where a lawyer can never again say, “I guarantee that, as long as it is within limits, this is a protected communication.” That is at the heart of the Bar Council’s concern. I have said all I need to say. That is the problem.
The Solicitor General
We have to be careful about this. We have prison rules, for example. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I know that there are already certain prescribed circumstances and scenarios that exist. I am not advocating a coach-and-horses approach that can be taken by authorities who have a cavalier regard for LPP. This is a very prescribed exception. The words “exceptional and compelling” are strong. He paints a nightmare scenario—I know that he does so with genuine concern for a privilege that he and I hold dear—but I think that we are getting the balance right and that what he envisages will not come to pass.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for standing to give way. I was trying to think of circumstances in which legal professional privilege—the relationship between the lawyer and their client—might not be as sacrosanct as the client might expect. For example, if the lawyer considers that there is a risk that their client is involved in money laundering, even if they are not, there are circumstances in which that right is circumscribed. That might not be a perfect example, but we are in the territory of there being the risk of great harm or wrongdoing and evidence that persists of that.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the intervention, and I recognise that point. The concern is that, if passed in this form, the Bill will allow interception where there is no question of the inequity exception. Perfectly lawful, proper, appropriate communications between lawyer and client, which are fully protected and recognised in all other circumstances, would come within the scope of an intercept warrant.
At this stage—particularly at this hour—I will not press the point. I urge the Solicitor General to keep at least a residual open mind, so that if a better version of the new clause can be tabled at a later stage, which meets some of the concerns he has outlined, he might look at the proposal again. As I say, this is an issue of real concern to the profession. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Simon Kirby.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
backbench business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Jim Shannon to move the motion, I must explain that we are having technical difficulties. The debate is hugely over-subscribed—many people want to speak—so it is likely that after Jim Shannon has spoken I will impose a time limit. However, there is no connection between my clock and the clock on the wall, which is going to be a difficulty for speakers. When Jim Shannon has spoken, I will explain what we are going to do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
I thank all Members who have very energetically turned out in large numbers to support this debate. I am going to keep my speech to 15 minutes to give everybody else a chance to participate. I thank the shadow Minister for being here, and it is good to see the Minister in her place. We always get a good response from her, so I look forward to that.
Yesterday, we had a digital debate in preparation for this debate, and I have got some stats to give hon. Members an idea of how it went. It was organised by Lucinda Blaser and the staff of my office. We reached almost 3 million Twitter accounts, and a total of 1,100 tweets were sent throughout the day. There was an enormous amount of interest outside this House in yesterday’s debate, and the same is true of today’s debate.
I want to speak about the issues that concern me. It is hard to find someone whose life has not been touched in some way by Alzheimer’s or dementia. People up and down the country—unfortunately including many in my constituency—are affected by those indiscriminate diseases. Alzheimer’s and dementia know no class, colour, creed or gender; they can affect any of us. It is extremely important that we have this opportunity in Westminster to discuss advances in ways of tackling the disease. This debate raises awareness and puts the issue of dementia and Alzheimer’s on the agenda for the whole of the United Kingdom. All Members will bring their own knowledge of this subject to the House. We will hear contributions from Members from across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
According to the Alzheimer’s Society, our ageing population will increase the trends. In 2015, 720,000 of the 856,000 people known to have dementia were in England, 45,000 were in Wales, 70,000 were in Scotland and 21,000 were in my home nation of Northern Ireland. In my trust area, which includes Lisburn, North Down, Down and Ards, the level of dementia is 25% higher than that of England after age standardisations. We have a higher level of dementia and Alzheimer’s in my constituency than anywhere else in Northern Ireland.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this absolutely vital debate. This is not just about the total number of cases of dementia that are now being registered; it is about the increase down the line. In my constituency, we are looking at an estimated increase of 30% over the next five years in reported dementia cases. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the increasing incidence of dementia?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely on the button on this issue. Very quickly on the figures, because stats can sometimes overawe us, it is estimated that by 2025 1.1 million people will have dementia and Alzheimer’s, and by 2051 2.1 million people will have the diseases. The numbers are enormous.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on such an important topic. On the increase in numbers, does he agree that some vital work is being done on mitigating the symptoms of Alzheimer’s, not least in many care homes and residential homes in my constituency? Equally, we have to focus on palliative care for people with Alzheimer’s at the end of their life.
Jim Shannon
I was going to come to that issue. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is not just about the diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer’s, but about the follow-up, the path of care and how we help the whole way through. I will touch on some of those things later in my speech.
We must not abandon or diminish our efforts to find a cure. We have to take into account the reality we face and carefully plan for the future, so that all those with dementia and Alzheimer’s can get the care and support they so desperately need. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is the issue we have to address.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
We are talking about end-of-life support, but we have to take a practical approach. One of the charities in my constituency—Community Concern Erewash—has a project to dementia-proof houses in Erewash to help people in the early stages of dementia stay in their houses for longer. They are doing things such as labelling drawers and rooms, so that people know exactly know where they are and can navigate their house for longer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such practical measures will make a difference?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The simplest things can make a difference. It is about improving quality of life and letting people with dementia and Alzheimer’s have a life with their families.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He makes a very important point, which is that we are concerned not only about those with the condition, but about their carers, of whom there are now 750,000. Does the hon. Gentleman agree—I have been talking to my local Alzheimer’s Society about this—that we have to ensure that we have information and provide access to support and networks so that carers do not feel isolated, as they often do?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. In the digital debate yesterday, there was mention of the clusters for those caring for people with dementia. There are 82 across the UK mainland, including some in our area and in Scotland and Wales. Lots of things are happening, and we need to see them develop.
To be fair—I know the Minister will say this in her response—the Prime Minister made very good comments about the 2020 challenge on dementia, which contains some marvellous things that can pave the way forward. The simple things can really make a difference and change people’s lives easily.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate. He is talking about getting the simple things right. In the Medway towns, we have dementia cafés—one is located in Medway—where families and sufferers can be brought together to share their experiences and get the support they need in their local area, which is absolutely vital at that time.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
This is such an important debate, and it is really important that we air all of these issues. It is about the simple things in many cases, but it spreads across a wide network. One of the respite centre residents of Dementia Care—an excellent charity in my constituency—was recently admitted to hospital for a routine procedure but was not released from hospital until 3 am, which threw their entire programme for the next day. More carers were needed to get them back into a routine. Simple things make a huge difference to such people and those who care for them.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady speaks with knowledge. I thank her for that contribution.
There are ten key indicators of the quality of life of people with dementia: communication difficulties; relationships; environment and surroundings; physical health; a sense of humour; independence; a sense of personal identity; the ability to engage in activities and the opportunity to do so; difficulties with eating, drinking and swallowing; and, of course, their experience of stigma. All of those things are important.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As he draws these strands together, there is one problem that we should focus on. Local authorities have many statutory responsibilities, but as a result of the significant cuts to their budgets, these areas—they are not statutory responsibilities but, as a number of colleagues identified, they play a huge role in enabling people to manage their condition, stay active for longer and provide respite for their carers—are being cut back, which will ultimately have a long-term cost for the health service.
Jim Shannon
Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman has a focus on the issue. We will throw that ball in the Minister’s direction and perhaps she will answer that as well.
Dignity and quality of life are far too easily taken for granted, but simple things are so often lost when someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or dementia. To do what we can to facilitate a better quality of life for those who through no fault of their own are so diagnosed is what I hope we came to this House to do—to make a difference. Yesterday, it was deeply encouraging to see from the digital debate how many bodies are active in the field of dementia and Alzheimer’s.
There are many issues to consider as part of dementia awareness, although one that is often overlooked is sight. I met an optician from Newtownards last week, and what I learned prompted me to mention the subject now. All too often, it is assumed that someone with dementia will gain no benefit from a sight test and vision correction, simply because they have a cognitive impairment or might not work, drive or read. Good eye health and good vision, however, can play an important role in supporting the wellbeing of a person living with dementia. Again, I ask the Minister for a better strategy. I know that opticians’ organisations would be happy to assist. Good vision can greatly increase a person with dementia’s sense of independence, allowing them to continue to participate in daily tasks and activities and in obtaining a good quality of life.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman intend to cover why there is an increase in dementia? Many of us are dementia friends, but why is there an increase in this awful illness? Do we know?
Jim Shannon
I would need to the wisdom of Solomon to answer that question. Personally, I do not know; perhaps it is society or how we live. People are living longer and, by the very nature of living longer, we have such problems. There are probably a number of issues involved and reasons for that. However, early diagnosis, follow-on care and end-of-life care are fundamental.
There is a need to raise awareness among people with dementia and their carers about the disruptions to vision and eye health that might be concurrent with or arise from dementia. We therefore need to emphasise the importance of regular sight tests and eye examinations.
The Mental Health Charter for Sport and Recreation has done some interesting and outside-the-box things for people living with dementia. Along with partners, they have delivered a dementia-friendly swimming initiative, which is steadily expanding across the country. That is an absolutely fantastic way to help improve quality of life. It is amazing how not-for-profits are putting in the hard graft to make heart-warming things such as that happen, often with no funding. It is amazing what a group of dedicated, selfless individuals can do, as has been mentioned.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for missing his opening remarks. Will he take the opportunity to commend the many local communities that have sought dementia-friendly status, meaning that a visit to the shop is not too embarrassing or a stigmatising event for sufferers or their carers?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has clearly hit on a very salient point.
In relation to the science and medical sectors, I ask the Minister about the significant spend on and moneys set aside for the investigation into how dementia happens, which the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked about in his intervention. That money will help to find a cure—and we need to find a cure, because we have to give hope. To give hope, we have to have medical interventions and the investigations leading to them.
Maggie Throup
The hon. Gentleman is talking about a cure. Recently, I visited the department of human genetics at the University of Nottingham, which is working hard on a genomics project to identify the change in the genes that might cause dementia and Alzheimer’s, so there is light at the end of the tunnel, although it is a long way off. Great work is being carried out, however, not only in Nottingham, but in many places in the UK and throughout the world.
Jim Shannon
We have to encourage all medical advances.
The number of people living with the condition in the UK is revealed as more startling when we take into account the unsung heroes—the carers.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. He made an important point about the unsung heroes, the carers. Does he agree that often the people who provide the care in the home rely on outside visits, but those are short-term visits, which are not really the answer to support the carer or the person suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or dementia? More work on policy development and resources needs to be invested in by Government in the vital area of caring.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for a valuable intervention.
Carers UK estimates that, of the 6.5 million carers in the UK, 670,000 people care for friends or relatives with dementia. It is estimated that the NHS saves some £11.6 billion each year because of those unsung heroes; their contribution as volunteer carers is very valuable. Carers may end up providing more than 100 hours of care per week, and all too often the outside world is completely oblivious to their efforts—even those who know the carers might be oblivious, because they do not know what is happening. Anyone who has lived with someone with dementia or Alzheimer’s, or knows a person who does, knows the problems. People with dementia can often unknowingly become agitated, even violent, and night-time wandering and shouting can have a serious impact on carers’ sleep patterns, let alone sufferers’.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Talking about awareness and carers, does he agree with me that a large number of carers might not even be aware of, but need to be taught, how to help and look after? We need an awareness campaign.
Jim Shannon
We do need an awareness campaign—perhaps it starts with this debate today, working its way through to our constituencies and the people we represent.
Too often, carers are left to suffer in silence. The existing services on offer are not publicised enough and are not up to standard. The main social security benefit available to carers is the carer’s allowance. Those providing more than 35 hours of care a week are entitled to only £62.10. Further to that, carers may incur sanctions on how much they can earn on top of the allowance. Dementia carers save the NHS more than £11 billion every year, but they get only £62.10 per week for giving up their lives for someone less fortunate. I know the Minister’s Department is not responsible for that but, with respect, it is not a good reflection on Government given the hours spent by carers. Times are tough for the public finances, but it must be highly insulting to carers for them to see some of the things happening in the news when they are getting only £62.10 a week.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Familiarity has been mentioned, and that is an important role for carers to play. My own grandmother deteriorated every time she was in hospital, because of the lack of familiarity. Does my hon. Friend support John’s Campaign, which encourages the provision of more time and greater support for carers in the hospital setting, as well as greater flexibility about the hours they can be there with their loved ones?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend makes a salient point. He always hits on the issues that we should all be aware of.
I welcome the fact that the Government are developing a new carers strategy. I can only hope that this debate will raise awareness of the need for urgent and large-scale reform of the way in which the Government treat carers. I welcome the dementia-friendly communities strategy and the clusters of dementia groups. In my constituency we have a number of homes where patients with dementia and Alzheimer’s are looked after directly. I also have a dementia friends group who come together in the Church of Ireland church in Newtownards. They bring together all the people of Ards and North Down who want to participate. They give them art, they give them music and they give them a chance to interact, and it is marvellous what happens.
Briefly, I want to mention some of the things that happen in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland dementia strategy has a list of achievements to its credit in recent times, which I bring before the House to help the debate: £6.25 million in the Dementia Together Northern Ireland project; the appointment of dementia champions—perhaps the Minister will give us some thoughts about dementia champions in the whole of the United Kingdom, because things are happening, but I would like to hear about them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On dementia champions and dementia friends, will the hon. Gentleman join me in praising the wonderful work that is done by them, especially in providing sufferers with familiarity—the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)? One of the ideas is to provide sufferers with things such as memory boxes to trigger the memory, which helps terrifically with this dreadful disease.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. On Northern Ireland, he may be aware that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation supports the Dementia without Walls programme, and one place in which it has done something is in a city with walls—the Derry Engaging and Empowering Dementia project has included: work at the level of schools and everywhere to ensure that everyone is more aware of dementia; and Derry having the first dementia-friendly pantomime in Ireland last December, in the Millennium Forum.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for giving an example of some of the good things happening throughout the whole country.
I tabled an early-day motion some time ago to highlight what can happen in people’s homes, and I suggested issues such as smoking, drinking, diet, excessive weight, healthy weight and social interaction, which is so important. Many may enjoy a tipple or an alcoholic beverage, but for too long alcohol has been overlooked as a cause of dementia. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked what some of the causes are, and that is one of them. No one is saying to people to go cold turkey or to hang up their dancing shoes, but the facts are there and they need to be heard.
We have alcohol-related dementia, which is formally attributed to alcoholism, and conclusive evidence now shows that heavy drinking over a long period increases the chance not only of dementia in the long term but of early onset dementia. To illustrate that, Alcohol Concern has provided comparative data showing that the brains of men who drank more than four units of alcohol a day—approximately two or three drinks a day—over 10 years age at a higher rate than those of light or non-alcohol drinkers. The brains of men who regularly drank alcohol appeared between 1.5 and 5.7 years older than their healthier counterparts. Those are just some of the things we have got to address.
One other thing we have done in Northern Ireland is provide funding for dementia-specific nurses, new studies into treating dementia—seven studies are taking place in Northern Ireland—and we have clinical leads for research. That is what we need to do. I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and right hon. and hon. Members for coming to participate in the debate. I hope that my comments and the interventions have helped to focus attention and that we can do a lot more in advancing the race against dementia and Alzheimer’s, supporting the carers better and furthering awareness of the potential causes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Given the technical difficulties, the number of people who wish to speak and the fact that I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at around 10.30 am, if my arithmetic is right, we are due to go over that time. I will put on a time limit of four minutes and not add time for interventions, because that gets too technically complicated. I hope that is clear. That will probably take us just over 10.30 am. The Clerk tells me that, to aid right hon. and hon. Members, a bell will be rung one minute before the end of their speech time limit.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I cannot wait to hear the bell! I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. We know that there are more than 800,000 people with dementia in the UK today and that by 2040 that number is expected to double. I did a bit more digging into my constituency and found that Aldridge-Brownhills is ranked 220th by age standard prevalence.
My constituents are concerned about this subject—they have written to me about it—and probably most of us in the Chamber have been affected through knowing someone who has or who has had it. We often wrongly associate it with age, but the reality is that more than 40,000 younger people—people under 65—currently live with the condition, so I hope that one result of this debate will be a recognition that it does not just come with age.
Research also shows that dementia costs the UK a staggering £23 billion a year, which is more than the cost of cancer, heart disease or stroke. It is equally concerning that the diagnosis rate has been historically low. That is why I welcome the Government’s objective and the work they are doing to be a world leader in fighting dementia and their commitment to improve diagnosis, care support and research. That must be welcomed. However, it is worth recognising that as vital research goes on, the condition does not go away. We must recognise dementia’s impact on families. It can be very difficult to look after someone who has dementia and, especially in the early stages before they are diagnosed, trying to understand what the problem is and how to help them.
As has been touched on, we also need to recognise that it can be difficult and distressing for those with dementia when they go into hospital. To be in a different environment, away from familiar surroundings, is hard at the best of times, but it is even more so for those with dementia. Time in hospital can have a negative effect on the health and wellbeing of people with dementia and, as has been highlighted, delays in discharge can also exacerbate problems.
We have talked about the role of carers—not just the paid carers, but the unpaid carers who are there 24/7, looking after their loved ones. They do not get any respite and they often have a hard time of it. [Interruption.] Thanks for the bell. A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to do the “dementia friends” training session with the Alzheimer’s Society and to help to organise some training sessions. The one thing I took from those sessions is that all of us—even those who are not carers or do not know much about nursing and the care profession—can do some small, practical things that can make a big difference to people with dementia. In my constituency, we have a dementia-friendly café, and I am looking to set up a dementia friends session, so that we can pass on the word and encourage more people to get involved. I hope that others will do the same.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his excellent speech and on securing the debate.
In the north-east, there are an estimated 25,841 people living with dementia. In coastal constituencies such as mine, South Shields, the figures are higher than average due to large elderly populations. Over the coming years the figure is projected to rise locally and nationally, with more than a million people forecast to be living with dementia in the UK by 2021. I am sure the absence of any mention of the NHS or social care in the recent Budget was of little comfort to those who have loved ones living with dementia.
As the numbers of people in need of care and support rise, real action from the Government is lacking. Yes, we have the Prime Minister’s commitment to making England
“the best country in the World for dementia care,”
and we are told that research investment has doubled and policies for improving diagnosis rates are in place, and that there are a million dementia friends, but commitment, research and reliance on charities are no substitutes for the care and support that thousands of people with dementia need right now.
Anyone who has ever had to make the heart-wrenching, emotional decision to have a member of their family placed in a residential or care home, even for a short while, will know that good care, dignity and respect are the cornerstones of providing loved ones with the safety and security they once enjoyed in their own homes. I know about that from my own gran, who was one of the strongest and bravest people I ever knew. As she got older, this strong woman became physically frail and, worse still, her mental health deteriorated too. Gran had dementia and, after many stays in hospital and some painful discussions, our family decided that she needed to be admitted into a care home. She escaped from the first home and was found alone, shivering in a field. At the second home she seemed happy enough, but she suffered an injury through carelessness of staff. If my gran had had carers at home, she would probably have had only one or two visits a day, with all of her getting up, getting dressed, meal times and bed times dictated by the times her care company could come, not when was best for her.
The thing is, though, gran’s story is not unusual; because in an age of increased need and reducing budgets, respect, dignity and choice are always the first to go. They cost nothing on the balance sheet in the first place, yet they mean so much to the people receiving care. This view is supported by the Alzheimer’s Society, which has reported that more than half of carers felt that their loves ones were not treated with understanding and dignity in hospital.
At present, we have a crisis in adult social care and in the NHS. Local authorities predict a £4.3 billion gap in adult social care by 2020, and NHS England and the Nuffield Trust estimate that by 2021 the NHS funding gap could have grown to £30 billion a year. Residential and care home providers and organizations that provide home care say openly that they do not know how much longer they will manage, because they have realized what we all know: there is no real profit to be made in good quality care.
The average cost of a year’s dementia care is £32,250 per person. I have always known that if we are really going to care for people living with dementia and support their families, we need to formulate policy starting with them and their needs. That is the approach that I took when I was a local councillor, and I am proud today that building has actually begun on South Shields’s £9 million centre of excellence for older people, an integrated care services hub with a focus on dementia, which I worked tirelessly on before coming to this place. I know that I do not have all the answers, but I know that the Government need to be more inventive and creative, and to address the crisis right now.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I realise that Members often curl their lip when Conservative Members stand up to tell the Prime Minister how brilliant he is; but since he put dementia on the global agenda in 2012 the horizon has changed remarkably. Between 2012 and 2015 something like £60 million was pumped into research, and there are incredibly ambitious targets for the doubling by 2020 of dementia and Alzheimer’s research. That includes all sources—Government, private and charity.
The issue is all about capacity building; £300 million is now being pumped in, of which £150 million is earmarked for a dementia research institute and an international discovery fund of 130 million quid. However, we must face the fact that the field of dementia research is still very small in comparison with others, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the £26 billion annual cost is more than the combined cost to the country of cancer and heart disease. Despite that, only three new drugs have been discovered in the past 15 years.
Something has to change, and that is why the Government’s announcement of a dementia research institute is so important. It is important for three reasons, the first of which is security for researchers. I do not know how many hon. Members know any scientific researchers, but they are as interested as anyone else in having a career. When they pick a specialism to devote their lives to, they need to know that there is a future in it, and the likelihood of funding to sustain them throughout their career. At the moment, dementia does not provide that. A dementia research institute will do it. At the moment about 70% of PhD graduates in dementia research leave academic research within four years of starting. That is not good enough if we are to find a cure.
Secondly, in the search for a cure, a single molecular target is highly unlikely. There is not a silver bullet to cure dementia. There are many different types of dementia and different underlying influences. If we are to find therapies and cures, and things that will assuage dementia and allow people to live with it, we will need a huge amount of collaboration. In the past 20 or 30 years, the private sector has spent about £30 billion researching dementia across the piece, but that has been happening in different silos, often with researchers working on the same dead ends, and wasting the money three or four times. It is critical that we should collaborate, particularly internationally, in the search for a cure.
Finally, given that there will be no single molecular target, it is unlikely that there will be significant advances on a cure in the next 10 or 15 years. One of the Cinderella research areas, which does not get much funding or concentration, is care, therapy and management. One of my key wishes with respect to the new dementia research institute is that it should become a soup-to-nuts research institute, looking at diagnosis, care, therapy, psychology and support for families, as well as a cure. The Government announced about 18 months ago that the institute would be up and running within five years. That means there are only three and a half years left, and I would be pleased if the Minister updated us on progress, with respect to announcing a location, funding, and who will host the institute. Only once we have that centre of global excellence will we be in a proper position to tackle what is likely to be one of the top five public health challenges of the next century.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I congratulate my ever-industrious friend who secured this important debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Regardless of where any of us live in these islands, I am sure we agree that, from the point of diagnosis until the end of life, every person living with dementia deserves nothing less than the best care society can provide. In Scotland approximately 90,000 people are living with dementia, about 2,000 of whom live in my constituency. There is barely a family who have not been affected by that awful disease. Indeed, there is probably not a person in the Chamber who has not been affected by the illness. Yet all too often those who suffer from dementia are stigmatised and discriminated against, because their symptoms are sometimes difficult to handle, so they are sometimes treated with less respect and dignity than other members of society. That is unacceptable and must change.
I am delighted that the Scottish Government have made tackling dementia a national priority and that since 2008 they have funded the Scottish dementia clinical research network, which has brought together academics, clinicians, carers and people living with dementia, with the aim of turning scientific discoveries into safe and effective treatments. That collaborative approach is to be commended. Since coming to power, the SNP Government in Holyrood have put those living with dementia, and those who care for them, at the heart of their policy making. In 2011 they published the standards of care for dementia in Scotland, which gave people suffering from dementia guaranteed rights—the right to a diagnosis; the right to access to a range of treatments, care and support; the right to be regarded as a unique individual and treated with dignity and respect; the right to be as independent as possible and to be included in the community; the right to have carers who are well supported and educated about dementia; and the right to end-of-life care that respects the wishes of the person concerned.
I applaud the Scottish Government for the great work they are doing, but it is important to recognise that it would not all be possible without an army of people committed to caring, and to making and implementing policies. Scotland is blessed with a volunteer corps and carers who make that possible. In Argyll and Bute 2,000 people are living with dementia. A couple of months ago I was privileged to be invited to open, in my home town of Helensburgh, the brand new Alzheimer Scotland dementia resource centre, which has taken dementia care—figuratively and literally—from the back and side streets on to our high street. Our community now has a central hub, where people trained to provide support and education are constantly available. There is a drop-in centre, a performance area and a café, as well as space for individual and group therapy. It is a wonderful resource and I congratulate Alzheimer Scotland and its staff on achieving so much and making that happen—particularly Susan Russell, the service manager, and Jean Armitage, the policy and engagement manager. We know that dementia is a growing problem and that we have to tackle it; but let us not forget that there are already wonderful people making things happen in the community.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate and for his long-standing focus on the issue. Last September when I was able to secure a debate on this subject I was very grateful to him for attending, and for his eloquent words, and I want to reciprocate today.
The subject is one of great significance—a significance that grows every day as our population ages and our life expectancy grows. It is an issue that is personally hugely important to me. I have supported the Alzheimer’s Society for many years, and recently in the House I co-hosted with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) a dementia friends session for Members and staff. I am very grateful for all the work that she does on this issue.
Dementia is incredibly cruel. It can take a person away from us, even while they are still with us. As the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) set out, the basic facts are stark. My hon. Friend in particular drew attention to the challenge of early-onset dementia, which can often be forgotten, and we must remember the specialist services and support that people with early-onset dementia need and cater for them.
This is not a party political point. The Labour party should be very proud of its record in government on this subject, and I believe that this Government and this Prime Minister can rightly be proud of ours. We have heard a lot about the importance of awareness and understanding, care and treatment and research. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was characteristically modest in talking about the Dementia Research Institute. The one thing he omitted to say was that it was his idea, and he should be rightly proud of what he has set in motion.
The aspect of this important issue that I want to focus on is the organisations and individuals who do so much to care for and support those with dementia. Setting aside for a moment the human impact of dementia, the estimated cost of dementia is £23 billion per year, with a large proportion of that effectively met by families and voluntary carers. We must remember the army of 670,000 all too often unsung heroes who help and care for people with dementia, as well as organisations such as Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, of which I am a member, and local councils and CCGs.
Last year, I had the pleasure of visiting the Poppies Memory Café in Syston, and later this month I will visit the Thrummy Drummer dementia support group in Thurmaston. Both do vital work in supporting those with dementia in Charnwood and providing respite to carers. Alongside the excellent support services in my constituency that play such a vital role for those with dementia and those who care for them, there is another service that is sadly under threat as we speak today. The CCG recently took the decision to cease funding the service based in the Birstall resource centre in School Lane in my constituency, which Age UK has run for many years. It provides a vital lifeline for 19 people with severe dementia and respite for their families and carers, with a further eight people waiting for referrals. The service is not only much valued but extremely well used in Birstall. The removal of CCG funding will cause the service to close, which will have a devastating impact. A glance at the CCG board papers suggests that the decision is not financial; its budget has actually increased.
It is deeply disappointing that the CCG has taken that decision. While I am grateful to the CCG for the time it has taken to set out its views to me, I remain unconvinced of their logic. The reality is that that service is of huge importance to everyone. I suggest that its closure would be a tragedy for those who use it and that the CCG is taking a short-term view in closing it; costs to the NHS will go up in the long term. I would like to take this opportunity to say that it is time for the CCG to pause, think again, accept that it has got this wrong and reverse the decision.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I had not intended to speak; I thought my name had been withdrawn from the list. None the less, having sat and listened to this debate, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to do so. I will not take even the four minutes that you suggest, Mr Stringer.
This is an immensely personal issue for many families across the country. I reflect on a couple I know very well. The lady of the household started to forget things. She started to repeatedly cook the same menu for her husband, who got rather tired of shepherd’s pie day after day. Those warning signs led to her being referred to a memory clinic, which did indeed diagnose the early stages of dementia. Where that will lead, the family does not know. I emphasise what a harrowing experience it has been for that family. Support services are available in west Wales, where they live, but there is a concern and fear that as this terrible disease goes on, the terrible decision to which the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) alluded with her family might have to be made and the lady of that household will have to go into some form of residential care.
I want to highlight some of the challenges we have in rural Wales. There is a spectre of couples having to be parted, sometimes over very large distances, which causes agony for other members of the family who want to give support. Of course, the support that is available—often for too short periods—is invaluable to those families, but the lack of residential care in close proximity to where the families reside is a very real problem.
I reiterate the point I made in an intervention to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I congratulate him on securing this debate because awareness of this devastating disease is so important. We must praise the wider community, including the community councils and district councils that have sought dementia-friendly status so that the everyday pursuits we all enjoy can still be enjoyed by everybody in society, including those with dementia and Alzheimer’s.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this crucial debate. The attendance is a great testament to the importance of this issue.
I mentioned in my intervention that we were facing a tidal wave in the United Kingdom, and unfortunately my constituency of Solihull is at the crest of that wave. The latest figures I have, produced by the Birmingham and Solihull dementia strategy forum, show that the estimated number of people with dementia is 13,819 in Birmingham and 2,798 in Solihull. That number is predicted to grow by 31% to 3,800 in Solihull and by 18% to 16,300 within Birmingham. My constituency has an acute problem because it has an older population—clearly an older one than Birmingham. In fact, in the ward of Silhill, from which Solihull gets its name, 40% of people are over 65.
This is a hot topic nationwide and an acute one within Solihull. That is one reason why I decided to become a dementia friend in 2014. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I took part in a sponsored session. One of the most telling things I remember from that session in Solihull was the discussion about how memory is like two bookcases full of books. If we shake those bookcases, books from different levels fall out. They are never really interconnected; they simply lose their place, and over time more books are lost.
People’s progress down the road of dementia can be fast or slow. Something that was talked about at that session was the idea of “living well” with dementia, which seemed an odd choice of words at the time. We, as a society, have to ensure that we enable people to live as well as possible with dementia. As part of that, we need tailored care packages. Solihull CCG, for example, is leading the way with its virtual wards and trying to help people through step-down facilities from the local hospital. We had a major campaign in Solihull to save ward 10, a specific step-down facility. That led to the creation of a new facility, Ardenlea, over the road, which looks after individuals who are coming out of hospital at the most vulnerable time, when they already have the mighty battle of dementia on their hands.
We need to stop providing care and services in silos, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said. We need to stop thinking that this is someone else’s responsibility. Dementia care in our society is everyone’s responsibility—that means Members of Parliament, GPs, nurses, healthcare professionals and wider society. We must consider how shops are designed, how we design support services and how we talk to people and interact with them. We need to get dementia-friendly and get on top of this issue, because it is going to be the issue of the 21st century.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate.
I am not sure that there is a scarier disease out there. This is a disease where a person loses their mind, no longer remembers who they are or who their family and close friends are, and lives in a world of isolation where they are constantly trying to make sense of what is happening around them. My dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and dementia in 2006. From then on, we mourned the loss of him, piece by piece. We watched him deteriorate from a once handsome, articulate and thoughtful family man to an apparently empty shell, apart from small glimmers of recognition that are, in some ways, harder to bear.
With an ever-ageing population, this dreadful disease is becoming more prevalent. It puts pressure on families, services and communities. This cruel disease often means families can no longer care for their loved ones at home, leading to one of the most heart-wrenching decisions a family ever has to make. They may be able to remain at home, but that often puts a strain on the carer or carers looking after them, more often than not family members. Support must be put in place to allow carers to continue looking after their loved ones for as long as practically possible. They need respite and time away to recharge their batteries. They need aids and adaptations to make life a little easier. They need support from other carers and to be able to seek solace from those going through the same thing.
So what is the future? It is widely recognised that a number of risk factors affect a person’s chance of developing dementia, including age, genetics, medical history, lifestyle and even environmental factors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said, the Scottish Government have made dementia a national priority. We believe that a rights-based approach to dementia care, treatment and support is vital and we will build on that with the upcoming third dementia strategy. The strategy for 2016 to 2019 will set out key priorities: to improve support in all areas of dementia care, particularly palliative care and end-of-life care; to prevent avoidable hospitalisation, because unfamiliar surroundings can cause untold distress to dementia suffers and their families; to redesign dementia services; and to capitalise on community assets and grassroots initiatives, such as the excellent South Ayrshire Dementia Association in my constituency and many more like it. As the number of people with dementia in Scotland and the UK grows, it is of the utmost importance to have good care in place. The Scottish Government will continue to reduce the risk factors for dementia by encouraging and enabling healthy and social lifestyles.
None of us knows what is in front of us. I can only hope and pray that a cure is found one day and we can stop our loved ones being slowly taken away from us in such a cruel way.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising this important subject.
Sadly, there is no cure for dementia, but diagnosis is important for understanding and so that support can be provided. Many welcome supportive initiatives have been developed in the community. For example, in my constituency, the local council has taken the lead in helping to make Burnley a dementia-friendly town and even offers free training to licensed taxi drivers. The initiative is part of a town-wide campaign to encourage residents and businesses to become more dementia-aware, helping Burnley to become a dementia-friendly town.
Raising awareness of dementia among transport services is vital. Some people living with dementia may lose the confidence to drive and become reliant on public transport. Taxi drivers may have friendly, familiar faces for people living with dementia and, if they have gone through a dementia information session, may be better equipped to understand their customers’ needs.
Suffering from dementia is difficult, as is caring for someone with it. It is important to recognise the needs of carers and to give them maximum support. I have seen the problems close up. My grandmother suffered dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease. She moved from experiencing bouts of mild confusion to a total inability to cope unaided. As my family struggled to care for her, there was little if any specialist support or understanding, and eventually the family were forced to make the hard decision to admit her to residential care.
Things have improved since then: awareness has increased and more support is available. Projects such as the Butterfly project, which many hospitals have adopted and which helps to identify sufferers and to train hospital staff, are welcome developments. Sadly, however, carers are still too often undervalued and under-supported.
Last year, when doing research for my private Member’s Bill in which I tried to introduce free hospital car parking for carers, I talked to many carers, including several who were caring for loved ones suffering from dementia. I was affected by many of the stories I heard. One lady told me she had given up her full-time job to care for her husband who had developed dementia. At home, she fed, dressed and comforted him. When he fell and broke his hip and had to be hospitalised, she continued to provide the same care. She visited him every day, staying long hours, helping with his basic care and bringing calm. If she had not been able and willing to take on that role, it would have fallen to NHS staff.
It is estimated that carers save the NHS billions of pounds every year. At the same time, because caring duties may necessitate them leaving paid employment, many carers suffer financial hardship. I am shocked that the Government chose not to support my Bill, which would have offered some small assistance to carers. It would have sent a strong message of support to carers up and down the country that we value them. The way forward must be to increase awareness and to properly resource support for dementia sufferers and their carers.
Mention has been made of the Prime Minister pumping money into research, which is welcome, but while there is no cure, I would like the Prime Minister to pump money into improving care. That is not only the decent thing to do; it makes sound economic sense.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and pay tribute to him for his excellent speech, which will have touched many hon. Members here, as evidenced by the turnout today, and our constituents.
My father’s mother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s years before I was born and my only memories of her, albeit fond, are of her diminished self. My father has told me about how kind, warm and generous his mum was, but Alzheimer’s changed her personality and made her short-tempered, intolerant and at times aggressive. She was nothing like the big-hearted and loving wife and mother her family knew so well. In her final months, she was unable to recognise my dad, and that was heart breaking for him and the rest of the family. I remember that distinctly.
As a young boy, it was difficult for me to understand why she kept asking if she was a pest and required an answer every time. She seemed remote and at the time I did not know why. On one visit to us in Orkney, when my grandfather was admitted to hospital for an operation, she insisted on going to the shops to buy sweets for my brother and me, but would not hear of anyone taking her. In the end, my parents had to compromise, so I went with her: a four-year-old guiding and making sure a 71-year-old found her way and got home again.
I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for my grandfather, my dad and my auntie to watch that slow decline in someone who was once central to the whole family—a war-time wife and mother, and a proud, capable and clever woman. The way my grandfather cared for her well into his 70s was phenomenal and incredibly touching. When she was hospitalised, he visited her twice a day, his own health suffering after years of devoted care and worry.
It is difficult not to speak about the negative impact of Alzheimer’s because the results are real and devastating. It is also difficult to see beyond the illness, when for so many loved ones that is what dominates their daily lives for many years, but wonderful work going is going on to help people with different forms of dementia and their families. In my area, NHS Lanarkshire is working with Dementia Friends Scotland and Alzheimer Scotland to run a dementia friends programme at Wishaw general hospital that supports staff to recognise the signs of dementia and supports them in recognising that people with dementia can live fulfilling lives when given the care, support, respect and dignity they deserve.
It is important to put on the record the five key messages of the dementia friends programme: dementia is not a natural part of ageing; it is caused by brain disease; it is not just about losing your memory; it is possible to live well with dementia; and there is more to the person than dementia. It is important that we are all mindful of our language and actions. This debate is helpful in highlighting some of the issues that the dementia friends work so hard to bring to the fore. We all recognise the challenges faced by those with dementia and their families. We cannot hide away from them. They are faced from diagnosis through to end-of-life care.
If I had more time, I would have liked to touch on some of the Scottish Government’s excellent work. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) mentioned it and I thank him. In February, they introduced the Carers (Scotland) Bill, which enshrines in law for the first time in Scotland the rights of carers, coupled with a commitment, if re-elected, to raise the level of carer’s allowance to match that of jobseeker’s allowance.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for raising the matter.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for co-operating with the time limit on speeches, but if I am to get the last two speakers in, I must reduce it to three minutes.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Stringer, for allowing me the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Bradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust on winning a national gold award for its work in the state-of-the-art dementia assessment unit at Lynfield Mount hospital.
The 850,000 people living with dementia today deserve to be properly supported to live dignified lives, but worryingly an Alzheimer’s Society poll found that 90% of people suffering from dementia felt that the support they received after diagnosis was inadequate, and 73% of GPs—the medical practitioners who arguably are on the front line in managing dementia in our communities—believe that our health and social care system is confusing for people with dementia and, importantly, their carers. As a society, we need to support dementia sufferers soon after diagnosis, so that they are properly prepared to manage their symptoms, especially as the symptoms will worsen as the illness progresses. They are best placed to plan and prepare their affairs, but they must be helped to do that. At present, those suffering from dementia are not properly supported by the Government.
As a society, we should also be supporting the legion of selfless carers across the country, who contribute £11.6 billion to the UK economy each year through that unpaid caring. Often, carers feel unsupported and isolated. We must ask ourselves as a society whether it is fair that those carers, contributing £11.6 billion in unpaid service each year, are allowed to feel unsupported and isolated.
That prompts the question: what more should the Government be doing? We are fortunate that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. An initiative run by the Alzheimer’s Society is already being piloted in communities. The carer information and support programme is aimed at family members and friends after a relative has been diagnosed with dementia. It involves attending information sessions in a group environment. The Prime Minister’s commitment, as shown by the “Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia 2020”, is commendable, and I am happy to place on the record my support, but the target date of 2019-20 is simply not ambitious enough. I therefore call on the Minister to commit in her remarks to exploring what extra funding can be made available now, not in 2019-20, to support the roll-out of the carer information and support programme to communities across our country.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his exceptional speech and on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to speak, however briefly, in the debate as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, as the only MP—I think that is still the case—who is a dementia friends champion, and as a former carer for my mum, who had Alzheimer’s disease. As we have heard today, if anyone’s life has not already been touched by someone who has dementia, it soon will be.
I commend the Government for their commitment and, in particular, the Prime Minister’s challenge and the investment in research funding that was announced last year at the World Health Organisation’s first ministerial conference on global action against dementia. It needs global action; we cannot act in isolation. It is estimated that by 2018 the global cost of dementia will be $1 trillion. I therefore ask the Minister to update us on the longer-term plans for building on that research investment and, specifically, what funding has been set aside to meet the challenges that make up the Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia and whether we are on track.
In addition to research, we need to ensure that hospital services take into account the specific needs of people with dementia. We know from the recent Alzheimer’s Society campaign, “Fix Dementia Care”—my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) mentioned some of the results—that 57% of carers, families and friends of people with dementia felt that the person they cared for was not treated with understanding or dignity in hospital; only 2% of hospital staff understood the specific needs of someone with dementia. We obviously need to address that. Could I put in a plug for the APPG report? Seven out of 10 of the people in hospital are not actually there for their dementia, but for something else. We have a report coming out next Wednesday on dementia and comorbidities, and I hope that people will be able to join us for that.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) will mention this in her winding-up speech, but we cannot divorce the issues in relation to social care from dementia care. I called on someone, just in a regular door-knock, and she obviously had dementia. She was on her own. She greeted me with an empty medication bubble pack and just said, “I don’t know what to do.” Too many people are isolated in that way. So many demands are placed on family carers. I hope that the Minister can address some of those issues.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have gone slightly over time because of the unusual circumstances, so could the Front-Bench spokespeople bear that in mind? You have marginally over seven minutes, and that will leave just over a minute for Jim Shannon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Seven minutes?
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. This subject is close to my heart, as I am sure it is for many people here in Westminster Hall, given the attendance today. I am sure that many hon. Members have a close friend or a family member who has suffered from dementia.
There is no doubt that dementia is a horrible disease that robs sufferers of their personality and their memories—everything that makes them them. The disease also puts severe strain on families and family relationships, as they try to understand and come to terms with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said, it is important to make the point that dementia is not a natural part of ageing.
Some 90,000 people in Scotland are living with dementia, and we have heard today about the different factors that come into play in treating dementia, whether that is research, caring for people with dementia or supporting people who are caring for them. A number of my hon. Friends have mentioned the Scottish Government’s rights-based approach to dementia. Dementia is a disease and it can have a cure. It is great to have heard from many hon. Members about the work going on in their constituencies, whether it is universities or charities that are looking to research a cure.
There has been a lot of talk about carers as the unsung heroes of dementia care. An organisation in my constituency, the Forget Me Not Club, provides more than 500 hours of free care a week. I was amazed at the expertise that the people there had. Heather Morrison and her team do a fantastic job. They told me a couple of stories that I would like to share. They had one client who would continually stamp on the kitchen floor and the family could not work out why the person was doing that. It turned out that the kitchen floor had been designed in tiles of black and white and they thought that the black tiles were raised, so they were trying to stamp them with their feet. That was one part of their dementia. Another sufferer would not wash with soap when they went to the bathroom. It turned out that the soap was the same colour as the sink and bath. They could not see it, which was why they would not wash.
The expertise and experience of the people who work day in, day out with those suffering from dementia is so valuable, and it is so important that we praise the carers. That is why I welcome, as my hon. Friend did, the passing of a carers Bill in the Scottish Parliament earlier this year to enshrine in law for the first time the rights of carers. Furthermore, the Scottish Government’s carers strategy recognises that carers must be seen as equal partners in the delivery of care, as their support enables people to live at home, in their own communities, safely, independently and with dignity. I also welcome the Scottish National party’s pledge to raise carer’s allowance to match jobseeker’s allowance if re-elected.
We have heard that familiarisation is a very important part of tackling dementia and caring for people who have dementia. Not going into hospital and not becoming institutionalised is so important for people with dementia, which is why the Scottish Government identified, in their proposal for the national dementia strategy for 2016 to 2019, a number of challenges to be dealt with, including tackling avoidable hospitalisation, which worsens outcomes for people with dementia every time.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the risks of alcohol as well as other lifestyle factors in contributing to dementia. It is important that we tackle the public health issues around that. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government are taking steps to encourage people to remain physically and socially active, to discourage isolation and to encourage behaviour that has been recommended by the Caerphilly study.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. Does the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) agree that the Torbay Dementia Action Alliance’s memory café is exactly the sort of community initiative that can help to provide support to patients suffering from and living with dementia, and to their carers?
Stuart Blair Donaldson
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of strategies and community initiatives. In my constituency, another initiative is live music appreciation. Dementia sufferers and their carers can go along, listen to live music and join in if they want to. That was my first interaction with the Forget Me Not Club in my constituency, and it was a great thing to see.
Finally, the Scottish Government’s national dementia strategy also incorporates Alzheimer Scotland’s five pillars model of post-diagnostic support. Alzheimer Scotland does a fantastic job in providing advice, support and all manner of things for those suffering from dementia and for their carers. Its five pillars model includes:
“Planning for future decision-making…Supporting community connections…Understanding the illness and managing symptoms …Peer support… Planning for future care.”
All the things that charities, local communities, communities and the Government do will help people to live well with dementia.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. I recognise the remarkable amount of work that he does on social care and carers, and I thank him for that. We have had some excellent contributions from 14 hon. Members—almost too many to mention, so I will not mention them all. We are making some progress but we have a long way to go to improve care for people with dementia and support for their carers.
The Labour Government launched the first ever national dementia strategy, appointed the first national clinical director for dementia, and commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to develop the quality standard for dementia. Together, those began the process of establishing memory clinics, providing better training for GPs and improving the quality of dementia care for people in hospital. I thank the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for mentioning that record. It is welcome that the Government are carrying on that work through the Prime Minister’s important challenge on dementia 2020. I am sure that hon. Members here today agree with the aims of that challenge but we have to accept that there is a long way to go before they become a reality.
Dementia is a distressing condition. In the long term we should be aiming for a cure, but while working to find a cure we must put equal emphasis on the care provided to people with dementia and the support provided to their families and carers. Carers UK reminds us that the symptoms of dementia can make providing care particularly difficult. People with dementia—we have heard about this in the debate—can grow agitated and violent, and night-time wandering and shouting can disrupt carers’ sleep.
Families report challenges in finding services that have the expertise to provide the right care and support. Of course, that means that it is more difficult for carers to get practical help or to take essential respite breaks as they do not have, or they lose confidence in, the quality and appropriateness of the care available. I welcome the strong case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) for better support for carers.
The care sector has a turnover rate of 25% so even when a care package at home is arranged, high staff turnover makes it harder to build familiarity and trust. For people with dementia, receiving care each day from someone they see as a stranger can be upsetting and confusing, and can make them more likely to refuse support, putting further pressure on their family carers. It is clear that improvement is needed, so can the Minister say whether the carers of people with dementia will be a key strand of the upcoming carers strategy?
I applaud the Alzheimer’s Society “Fix Dementia Care” campaign, which wants to ensure that people with dementia receive the highest standards of care in hospital, in care homes and in the home. It is of great concern that a survey of carers of people with dementia found that only 2% believed that hospital staff understood the specific needs of people with dementia, more than half felt that the person they cared for was not treated with understanding and dignity in hospital, and nine out of 10 felt that the person with dementia became more confused while in hospital.
The Alzheimer’s Society is calling for all hospitals to publish an annual statement of dementia care. In my area, it was pleasing that Salford Royal recorded information for patients with dementia and that the records showed that Salford Royal’s performance on a number of elements of care was better than national averages. However, other local hospitals did not record that information so there is much to do to bring that up to standard.
As part of improving hospital care for dementia patients, listening to carers would be a step forward. Nicci Gerrard is leading John’s Campaign for the right for family carers to stay with people with dementia in hospital, as we heard earlier. Nicci’s father John suffered a significant decline when he was in hospital for five weeks. Although the family felt that individual nurses and doctors were kind, conscientious and respectful, restrictions on waiting times meant that the family could not sit and talk to John, read to him, make sure he ate or keep him attached to the world.
John’s Campaign calls for the families and carers of people with dementia to have the same rights as the parents of sick children. They should be allowed to remain with them in hospital for as many hours as they are needed or are able to give. I understand that 272 hospitals across the UK have pledged their support to John’s Campaign. Will the Minister outline what is being done to improve hospital care for dementia patients and whether she supports John’s Campaign?
As well as improving hospital care, there are real concerns about the state of social care. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services reports that £4.6 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets and that 300,000 fewer people are receiving publicly funded services than in 2009-10. Social care has been an easy target for cuts. I am concerned now that the Chancellor’s aim to find a further £3.5 billion in savings by 2019-20 will hit council and social care budgets even further.
The Government have stated that, by 2020, they want to see an increase in the number of people with dementia being able to live at home with more personalised support available to them and their families. That is a laudable aim, but the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme last week showed just how poor home care can be, with time clipped from care visits, careworkers working very long days and not being paid for travel time, care needs neglected, and no time for the careworker to talk and listen to the person receiving care.
This year and next year are tough years for social care funding because home care and residential care providers bringing in the so-called national living wage have estimated they will face costs of £330 million in 2016-17 with no additional funding for this Government policy. The better care fund only provides £100 million extra next year, so this year is a problem. It is not surprising that careworkers say that issues with their pay and conditions prevent them from delivering good quality care. Unison found that three quarters of domiciliary careworkers do not have enough time to provide dignified care and that 84% of service users not getting enough time for care are people with dementia.
Caring for someone with dementia is not just about aspects of physical care. It is about conversations—knowing the person and knowing what is a comfort to them. Across hospitals, primary care and home care, we need to improve staff training and understanding of how to support people living with dementia and how to support and work with their family carers.
Carers UK reminds us that carers are the experts in the care needs of the person they care for, so it is heartening that today, Dr Julie Wray of the School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and Social Sciences at the University of Salford is launching her book, “Supporting families and carers: a nursing perspective”. I hope that her nurse colleagues use the book to develop their knowledge of how to work with carers of people with dementia. They are the people who make such a vital contribution to the care of all those people.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I call the Minister. Would you leave a couple of minutes for Jim Shannon to sum up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I will do my best, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. In the time available, and leaving a couple of minutes at the end, I will not be able to cover all the points raised in this excellent debate. I have never seen the Chamber this full at this time on a Tuesday morning, which is testimony to the importance of this subject.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a steadfast advocate for this vital cause. There is a great turnout on both sides of the Chamber, and it is clear—explicitly so in some speeches—that dementia and Alzheimer’s are topics that touch many of us in the Chamber today. As others have said, dementia and Alzheimer’s affect 850,000 people in the UK and impact widely on carers, families and wider society. I put on record at the outset my thanks to the wonderful national charities in this field. We value our close working relationship with them, and we value the way that they push us to be the best we can. From what has been said in this debate, it is clear that they have formed important local relationships.
Many hon. Members have made the point that dementia is a global problem that requires international collaboration to find global solutions, and the EU is helping to keep dementia on the international agenda, with the recent Italian and Luxembourg presidencies and the current presidency of the Netherlands prioritising dementia. It is an important issue and a shared agenda. Members on both sides of the House have been generous in supporting the Prime Minister’s 2020 challenge implementation plan, and I echo the support expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for the previous work, because we are building on important work done by the previous Labour Government. This is not a partisan issue; it is a challenge to us all. That is true internationally, too. The UK’s international leadership has been strong, and I hope that the UK’s presence will put dementia at the EU’s heart, building on the work that has already been done.
On working with Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Strangford knows, healthcare is a devolved matter, with each Administration responsible for its country’s healthcare, but there are many key collaborations and joint initiatives across the UK, notably in research. For example, the Medical Research Council funds dementia research across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, and people in all parts of the UK can sign up to “Join dementia research.” The subject of research has rightly has been much touched on. In particular, the challenges were ably outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who explained why there are particular challenges in this area.
I will reiterate some of the commitments that the Government have made. There will be: up to £150 million for the UK-wide Dementia Research Institute; £300 million to invest in dementia research by 2020; an increase in the total funding for dementia research from the National Institute for Health Research, research councils and charity partners; and more opportunities to participate in research. By 2018, 12% of people newly diagnosed each year will be registered on “Join dementia research,” with 10% participating, but there is more to do. Understanding the causes of dementia will help us to drive the development of treatments and industry innovation. Through things such as the dementia discovery fund, we want to ensure that we have innovative international approaches to making the most of the opportunities that come in the search for a treatment or a disease-modifying therapy, on which we have set ambitious targets.
I also stress, because it has come up again in this debate, the importance of research that also helps us to know best how to support, how to care for and how to improve the lives of people. We are funding things that will have immediate benefits within the next 12 months, as well as things that we hope will bring about a cure or a disease-modifying therapy. One example is that we have commissioned a £20 million research initiative on living well with dementia, funded by the NIHR and the Economic and Social Research Council, which focuses on issues that really matter to people in terms of the practical, day-to-day challenges. Again, there will be opportunities to talk about those in the House.
We have made big progress. Record numbers of people are joining dementia research. We have ambitious targets in that regard, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House can help us to meet them. Diagnosis is vital, as has been mentioned in the debate. Again, huge improvements have been made in the diagnosis rate, from 42% in 2010-11 to 67.4% at the end of February 2016, an increase of around 25 percentage points, but there is more to do, particularly to drive out variation. There is still considerable variation, but ongoing and regular effort is being put into that. I pay tribute to the considerable leadership being given by the NHS’s national clinical director, Alistair Burns.
Meaningful care has rightly been highlighted by Members on both sides as one of the biggest challenges. I am supported by an excellent team of officials in this area, and they are well aware that this is a challenging area. In particular, post-diagnostic support is challenging for the person who is diagnosed, but it is especially challenging for their carers and family. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) was right to pay tribute to some of her local initiatives and to highlight how big this area is. The joint declaration on post-diagnostic dementia care and support was signed by leaders across the health, social care, local government and voluntary sectors, and it is the first time that we have had an unequivocal joint commitment to improving care and support for people with dementia and their carers following diagnosis. We want to see joined-up plans for health and care support in every area, with personalised care plans for every person with dementia. With NHS England and other partners, we have developed ways to drive that and to measure it within our implementation plan.
Members have rightly said that carers play a pivotal role. I am all too aware of the strain that a dementia diagnosis puts on other family members, which has been rightly highlighted in this debate. We recognise and pay tribute to the pivotal role that carers play. I have touched on progress in research, but I emphasise that we want to see people with dementia, their families and carers live well and have meaningful support.
Time does not allow me to talk in any detail about the carers strategy, but we have launched a call for evidence to inform the cross-Government national carers strategy on what more can be done, and there is clearly much to do in the field of dementia. I encourage all Members to contribute to that, and to encourage their local groups to do so. Carer’s allowance has been touched on. We are rightly being challenged on the money being spent on care, but we are spending more than £2 billion a year on carers’ benefits in Great Britain, supporting more than 750,000 carers. The rate of carer’s allowance has increased since 2010, but I am afraid that time does not permit me to go into detail. I am sure there will be occasions to do so in other debates.
We are further supporting the implementation of improved rights for carers—including carers for those with dementia—enshrined in the Care Act 2014. That is backed by £104 million of funding in 2015-16. The better care fund brings the great promise of more important work on integration, and there are some exciting examples of local initiatives, particularly coming out of Greater Manchester. Again, there will be other opportunities to talk about how the better care fund and those integrated vanguard models can lead the way to more improved care and support for people with dementia.
The role that charities and communities play in enabling people with dementia and their carers to live well through initiatives such as sport, music and dementia cafés has rightly been mentioned. There are some wonderful initiatives, including the Sporting Memories Network, and I pay tribute to all the local initiatives mentioned by hon. Members. I was recently privileged to visit an initiative led by the Manchester Camerata and its music therapist—wonderful work is being done there. There are some 1.5 million dementia friends in England and Northern Ireland doing wonderful work, and a public awareness campaign is under way in Northern Ireland.
There is little I can say in the time available on risk reduction other than that it is vital. Dementia is not an inevitable part of ageing, and up to 20% of those diagnosed with dementia have vascular dementia, the effects of which can be minimised or prevented altogether by a healthy lifestyle. Members are right to draw attention to work on factors such as alcohol, exercise and weight—I hope there will be a chance to say more about that in a future debate. I ask Members to encourage their constituents to take up their free NHS health check. We are piloting initiatives on early-onset dementia awareness.
Let me end by congratulating all hon. Members on their contributions. I refer them to our implementation plan, which was launched last month and has much detail about how we are responding to the Prime Minister’s 2020 challenge. As I close and leave a few seconds for the hon. Member for Strangford to respond, I reiterate that the Government’s commitment to this subject is absolutely undimmed, and it is clear from the contributions this morning that Parliament’s commitment to this important cause also burns brightly.
Jim Shannon
In the very short time that I have, I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and hon. and right hon. Members for their significant contributions. All political parties have participated, and all regions have taken part. We all want the same things: advances to find a cure to a global problem; more money to be spent on medical research; thanks to the carers, paid and unpaid; and diagnosis, follow-up care and end-of-life care. Make the simple changes. I thank everyone for their personal stories, too.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
National Defence Medal
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the National Defence Medal.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is a short debate covering a vast subject, and I hope to chart a way forward to a more substantial debate in the near future. I know that a number of hon. Members will want to contribute, and I am keen to allow that, because the topic is worthy of considerable discussion. However, if time runs short, I hope that Members will excuse me if I fail to take as many interventions as they or I would like.
When I began exploring the subject and took on the task of leading this debate, I was concerned about having time to do the research necessary to do justice to the subject, but as it turned out, I need not have worried. Many people have been generous in sharing their knowledge, for which I thank them sincerely, and copying me in on their correspondence with the Government. I appreciate the many people who have taken the time to get in touch with me, both before and since I secured this debate. However, any errors in my speech are mine alone.
In the time allotted, I cannot hope to cover all the anomalies thrown up by the current policy, but there is one that I cannot let pass. Today is the 51st anniversary of the death of Warrant Officer John F. Lonergan of 131 Parachute Engineer Regiment and Sergeant Cyril Atfield of the Royal Army Pay Corps, both of whom were killed at Al Milah, 60 miles from Aden, South Arabia, in what is now the Republic of Yemen.
The deployment of 131 Para Regiment to South Arabia was the first time a Territorial Army regiment had been sent into conflict since 1945. In the engagement that led to the deaths of those men, five others were wounded and one officer was awarded an MBE for gallantry. It is surely undeniable that all the men were in a dangerous situation as a result of their service, but because of tight medal rules, none of the others involved in the engagement would receive a medal to acknowledge their service, unless they happened to be around long enough to receive one for long service.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am not sure that that is accurate. They would qualify for the General Service Medal, Arabian Peninsula, even though they were killed within the 28 days, if their commanding officer put them forward for one.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Gentleman sincerely for that contribution. I will speak about that particular medal, so his intervention is useful.
Much is said about the British medal policy being based on risk and rigour, but as Al Milah demonstrated, anyone who steps forward as a member of the armed forces may find themselves sent into a foreign land, sometimes to be woken at night by the sound of incoming fire. To me, that is self-evidently a dangerous proposition, and it certainly strikes me as enough risk to demand that we recognise it. However, this debate is not about an action or actions that took place a long time ago. It must be about what is right here and now, and that is what I hope that we can address.
One piece of correspondence shared with me relates to the action in Al Milah. It is yet another Ministry of Defence rejection of recognition for the service of Warrant Officer Lonergan, Sergeant Atfield and other members of the armed forces who placed themselves in harm’s way in Yemen at that time. The request was not for bravery medals; it was simply that they be awarded the General Service Medal with clasp South Arabia, which was awarded to other members of the armed forces in Yemen at that time. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) has been pursuing the case.
The letter from the MOD quotes Winston Churchill in 1944, in a debate about the medals to be issued at the end of the second world war. I have curtailed it for brevity, but I hope that Hansard will display the citation for Members’ benefit. He said that
“a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of less value…A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does not admit of a perfect solution…All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
I argue that those points are as valid now as they were then.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
I have a constituent called Glen who has been campaigning on this issue for many years. He was drafted through national service to serve as a non-commissioned officer in the Suez emergency in the 1950s, yet he feels that he has never received adequate recognition for the years that he dedicated to service and the sacrifice that he made. Surely we should do all that we can to honour those drafted to protect our country.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Lady makes a valuable point. There are many people in a similar position. They feel that they are being missed out, and that people do not understand or recognise what they have done.
The difference between my position and that of the MOD is that I believe we must take account of changes in context. As John Maynard Keynes said:
“If the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for consideration. She will be aware that there are many ex-service personnel who did not receive an operational medal during their service with the armed forces. Some of them were not on the front line: submariners on nuclear deterrent duty, for instance, or those in the Royal Observer Corps. May I make a plug for those in the Ulster Defence Regiment who served in Northern Ireland? Some of them also do not meet the criteria. There are a number of people I feel should be considered. Does she feel that the Minister should refer to them in his review?
Kirsten Oswald
I agree. I have been contacted by people who have served in many and various ways but are not entitled to a medal. It is an issue of concern, and I hope that we will hear more about it from the Minister. It does not matter how many independent reviews, staffed largely by people embedded in the status quo, take place; the changing facts provide the challenge facing the Government. The facts have changed. It is time that British medal policy changed to reflect them, and that it followed the example set by Commonwealth and other countries.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She is absolutely right to say that many people are concerned about having their contribution recognised, particularly people who served in Northern Ireland and feel that they were not recognised for their contribution in the same way as people who served in more recent battles. I wrote to the Prime Minister on behalf of Robert Scollick, my constituent, and the Cabinet Office response said:
“I have to tell you there are no plans for further work on this issue, nor can I offer you a time scale when it might be sensible to return to this issue.”
I wish the hon. Lady luck in bringing to the Government the idea that the time to discuss it is now.
Kirsten Oswald
I agree that it is time to re-examine the issue. Things have changed. We must remember that our armed services are now made up entirely of those who have joined up voluntarily. They do so entirely of their own volition, and they clearly understand the potential peril that they face.
One of the other ways in which the context, and therefore the facts on which to base a decision, have changed involves the adoption of the armed forces covenant in 2010. On page 4, we find the commitment that performing any form of service in the armed forces deserves recognition and gratitude. Indeed it does, but unfortunately, for too many of those serving in our armed forces at present, we do not always deliver them. The armed forces covenant is mentioned often in this place, but such lofty words do not always translate into real and proper consideration of how we ought to support our service personnel and veterans.
Consider the recent poor outcomes of the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or the lengthy struggle to extract fair compensation for service personnel suffering from mesothelioma. The UK Government do not always do enough or act at an appropriate speed. A tangible recognition of service undertaken by means of a national defence medal would be only one way to continue to improve how we deal with our service personnel. We should surely be considering all our obligations.
Significantly, the most recent medals review, led by Sir John Holmes, recognised that the case for a National Defence Medal was worthy of consideration. I agree with him that such a decision would be significant and that it requires a broad political consensus; I am pleased to see a range of Members here. At the time of the review, the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals advised specifically that the issue might usefully be reconsidered in the future, going so far as to consider how criteria might be applied for such an award. I do not propose to do so here, but I agree that the matter would have to be examined properly so that a clear award framework could be set out.
I am interested in the principle of a medal being awarded and that is what we should consider today. In the meantime, Ministers have agreed that the eligibility requirements for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, which is currently awarded only to other ranks and not to officers, should be harmonised in the future, and I hope that today’s discussion will be a way to further that debate.
Having examined the argument against a UK national defence medal, I found it to be thin and inconsistent. Medals are already awarded for service, or sometimes just for being somewhere at the right time. While some people with just 10 years of service may have two Jubilee Medals, I have been contacted by a former member of the RAF who served for 20 years but received no medal at all. It is impossible to argue that that is a coherent position. Many people leave the service with no medal while some people who joined in 2000 and left in 2012 have received two medals without seeing any operational postings. How does that policy address Churchill’s plea that recognition should
“give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and…hurt the feelings of the fewest”?—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I am aware of the General Service Medal; in fact, I received one with a clasp for air operations in Iraq. However, I have a constituent who, as the hon. Lady just said, served in the Royal Air Force for 26 years in RAF Germany, during the cold war, which we could argue was a series of operations, without receiving a medal. So the hon. Lady has lots of support as she considers how we can recognise that type of commitment to our nation and our security with a national defence medal.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection; that story about his constituent is illustrative of the stories of members and former members of the armed services who have contacted me. There are people in so many different situations who fall down gaps that we perhaps did not realise were there.
How can this situation possibly be justified? If, as Churchill said, we want
“to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved”
medals, is it any wonder that some people might consider that they are not being recognised equally? And is it any wonder if some former members of our armed forces consequently shun Remembrance Day events and other commemorative events? That concern has been raised with me and it is a great shame that some of those who have served, sometimes in very difficult situations, are not entitled to a medal, which causes them to be anxious about remembrance ceremonies. That is very unfortunate and entirely avoidable.
In the same 1944 debate that Churchill spoke in and that I have quoted, Leslie Hore-Belisha MP commented on exactly that kind of discrepancy in recognition. He said:
“The fact that such anomalies exist is no excuse for deliberately adding to them. It is the function of good legislation and administration to remove them and, if not to remove them, at any rate to diminish them.” —[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 908]
That is what we should consider. The British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign advances the simple and logical proposition that one way of diminishing such anomalies is to ensure that all members of the armed forces get the recognition they deserve for stepping into that role.
Other Governments have recognised this issue and acted to recognise the contribution made by their service personnel. The UK Government should now do the same, and acknowledge in this tangible way the work and the willingness to face peril that is common to everyone who signs up as a member of our armed forces.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I am sure she will agree that when people sign up for the military, they sign up to put life and limb on the line for this nation, and for them not to have a medal that recognises that contribution is part of the insult, given that—depending on which operation they were involved in and what medals were awarded—they have made that core decision to put their life and limb on the line for the nation, which would be recognised by this medal we are discussing.
Kirsten Oswald
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That intervention absolutely gets to the crux of this issue. The Australian Government have recognised that point with their new defence medal, which was instituted in 2006, and they describe the purpose of that medal as being to recognise
“the outstanding contribution to our proud military history made by Australian men and women in uniform.”
That is all of them. Similarly, when New Zealand instituted its defence medal in 2011, the country’s Defence Minister, Wayne Mapp, described the basis for issuing the medal as follows:
“Many thousands of New Zealanders have met the demanding requirements of military service. They have served their country and community loyally and well...Up to now, there has been no recognition of this service, on which the Government places high value. This medal remedies that.”
That is exactly the type of recognition that I am looking for.
Here, however, the Ministry of Defence seems to place great store on the argument that a national defence medal would devalue other awards, which is an absurd proposition. When I asked a question about this topic at business questions recently, the Leader of the House of the Commons said he did not think that medals should be handed out in this way, and that the value of medals for particular examples of valour and service would perhaps be devalued by the issuing of a national defence medal. I could not disagree more. People who join our armed forces do so knowing that they are putting themselves into peril, and it is high time that we recognised that.
I believe that those who have been awarded medals for bravery do not feel that their awards are devalued because other colleagues receive the same campaign medal as they do, and nor would they feel that their awards were devalued by the receipt of a national defence medal. Those who were awarded a General Service Medal do not feel that it was devalued because others were awarded it, too. Arguments such as that made by the Leader of the House of Commons are simply camouflage for an unwillingness to listen.
Having already quoted Churchill, I will close my remarks today by doing so again, and this time I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to his advice. Writing on the conduct of negotiations between states, he advised:
“In war and policy one should always try to put oneself in the position of what Bismarck called ‘the Other Man’. The more fully and sympathetically a Minister can do this, the better are his chances of being right.”
I commend those sentiments to the Minister and I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to take forward the recognition by Sir John Holmes that the case for a national defence medal deserves proper consideration.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this debate. I am aware of the early-day motion on this issue that she has previously tabled, and I know, both from that and her comments today, how strongly she feels about it.
Her Majesty’s armed forces are the best in the world. Our service personnel have served Britain with honour, and are serving with honour at this very moment in many parts of the world. Their history is an inspiring story of courage, heroism and sacrifice, and it is because of our brave armed forces that we are protected. It is because of their inspirational work that our country stands safe, or at least as safe as any other country in the world. I take this opportunity to thank all those, both past and present—and, indeed, their families—who have served in our armed forces. This Government truly value their service. It was this Government who finally enshrined the principles of the armed forces covenant in law, to ensure that those who serve or have served, and their families, are treated fairly. The Government continue to work with businesses, local authorities, charities and community organisations to support our forces through services, policy and projects.
I am proud, for example, that we have committed to spend 2% of our national income on our military every year until 2020. We have also given over £450 million from LIBOR funds to military-related charities and schemes, and we are taking seriously the mental health of our veterans, launching a survey to try to understand their needs. We are providing mentoring, training and advice to our ex-servicemen and women through the veterans employment transition support programme, and we have invested £15 million to improve prosthetic services. We have given £20 million to eight projects to improve accommodation for veterans.
Let me now address the main point of today’s debate. Military honours and medals are one way, but only one way, that we can recognise the exceptional service of those brave men and women who go beyond even the high expectations of their comrades, commanders and country. It is vital for all who receive one that we do not devalue its importance.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Last year the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), then a Defence Minister, said that British military tradition dictates that
“medals are not awarded as a record of service but in recognition of specific campaigns or operations, acts of gallantry or outstanding service.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 587.]
I recognise that, but we already have a long service and good conduct medal, so would it not be in the best of British tradition to incorporate a national defence medal, in recognition of the service that good men and women of this country give to protect all of us?
Mr Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is true that we have a long service and good conduct medal, which was introduced as far back as 1830. It rewards other ranks who have completed 15 years of regular service, but not officers—I think it started at 21 years, and over time has come down to recognise those levels of service.
I will directly address the hon. Lady’s concerns later in my comments, but first I want to go back to something I have already referred to. Medals are one way, but not the only way, of addressing the concerns that some veterans have. Another method is memorials. Memorials are lasting public reminders and are places of pilgrimage for veterans and their families, the latest example of which is the memorial to Bomber Command, which was opened on 28 June 2012 by the Queen. There was a huge campaign for a memorial of that type. We also have the world war two memorial, the National Memorial Arboretum near Tamworth, which contains a number of other memorials, so we should not treat this issue in isolation. There are other ways of recognising the massive contribution that the military and their families have made to this country over many centuries.
Let me also say, however, that there is no simple way of doing that. It is impossible to satisfy all who have served their country. It is no easy task to set the limits or where the line falls for who receives a medal and who does not. There will also be disappointment on the borders of such decisions. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said that Churchill addressed the matter directly on the Floor of the House back in 1944, and she was good enough to put on the record part of what he said. I would like, however, to add the first part of what he said:
“The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it it is of less value. There must, therefore, be heartburnings and disappointments on the border line.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]
Those words ring as true today as they did then, and in many ways the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire has today encapsulated the anguish involved in trying to make decisions that are fair to everyone. There will never be a perfect solution regarding the distinction between those who deserve medallic recognition and those who do not.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Minister talks about those who deserve, yet the litany of those whom many would argue are deserving—from nuclear testing and Northern Ireland to suffering through front-line service in the cold war—should not be dictated by a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons in 1944, but by the lived experience of personnel who have served their country and the Crown with distinction, based on how we perceive our community today, not in 1944.
Mr Wilson
Of course what has happened since 1944 should not necessarily be dictated by 1944, but in that quotation Churchill summarised the issues and the anguish involved. I was merely trying to reflect that in my comments, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire did in hers.
Kevin Foster
Does the Minister agree that the slight difference between today and 1944 is that in 1944 adult men and women of a particular age were conscripted, under threat of imprisonment, at a time of war? What sets the veterans of today apart is that they volunteered to serve our country.
Mr Wilson
Of course there is a clear difference between what happened in the second world war and what happens today, but Churchill’s comments summarised the issues that needed to be carefully weighed up when making the decision. There is a strong lobby in the military for not making the changes, as well as the one we are getting from veterans about the national defence medal. The Government’s job is to try to make decisions about where the line falls in a fair and honourable way, and that is not easy. We will upset one group of people whichever decision we come to.
Although the Ministry of Defence instituted the armed forces veterans lapel badge in 2014 as a way of identifying all those who had done military service, it has never been the tradition here in Britain to consider service in the armed forces as the sole justification for a medal. It was right, therefore, that in 2012 the Prime Minister gave medallic recognition its appropriate attention, by commissioning Sir John Holmes, a retired senior diplomat, to review the awarding of military medals. I can assure hon. Members that great thought has already been given to all the points raised this morning. Sir John’s review team received more than 200 submissions and spoke to more than 50 people, including representatives of various veterans’ groups. Sir John independently reviewed a number of cases as possible candidates for changed medallic recognition, one of which involved Arctic convoy personnel and led to the Arctic convoy medal being given.
The national defence medal was worthy, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire pointed out, of full consideration in the 2012 review. Its supporters seek recognition for all those who have served, irrespective of where they were called upon to do so. The review estimated the cost of the medal at £475 million, and although it went far beyond the narrow consideration of cost, there would be implications for other activities and choices if the Ministry of Defence had to take that burden.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The Minister talks about the veterans badge. I am sure it must be clear—it has been mentioned in this very hall before—that the badge is not officially sanctioned and is therefore not a medal.
Mr Wilson
No, but as I made clear earlier, there are different ways of recognising the sacrifice that people have made for their country. Although the badge is not a medal, it is a recognition of service.
British campaign medals are not awarded as a record of service as in some other countries, but as a result of particularly difficult circumstances of service life—risk and rigour, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said. Although some Commonwealth countries have their own equivalent of the national defence medal, namely Australia and New Zealand, the review felt that that did not present a strong enough case for us to do so. Sir John’s proposals were considered by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, and the Committee could not see a strong reason for introducing such a medal at this time. Sir John published his final report in the summer of 2014.
The Government have taken unprecedented action to support our military, investing in areas from housing to social and medical care, and we will continue to do that. Unlike what happened under previous Governments, in recent years we have seen major investment in mental health, veterans’ accommodation and veterans’ hearing. We have seen multimillion pound investments in supporting our veterans, something done under no previous Government. We value all our military as brave heroes who keep, and have kept, our country safe, but following the most complete and far-reaching review of military medals for a generation, Sir John Holmes recommended not to introduce a national defence medal. That was no easy task, and I repeat what Churchill said: that there will be
“heartburnings and disappointments on the border line.”
Sir John’s review was published less than two years ago and, given that the circumstances remain exactly the same, we do not feel there is significant value in revisiting the matter. That position is not in any way intended to disparage those who have served their country. As I said at the outset, the Government have the highest regard for all those, past and present, who have served in the armed forces, and we will continue to do all that we can to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
HIV: Women and Girls
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tackling HIV in women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and her ministerial colleagues for their ongoing commitment to international development and the 0.7% spending target, despite the best efforts of the august Daily Mail and other media. It is good to see that our ministerial colleagues remain firm in their commitment to international development.
As chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, I called for this debate to provide an opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the challenges ahead in the response to HIV and AIDS and, in particular, in ending the AIDS epidemic as part of the sustainable development goals. I want to use the debate as an opportunity to press my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Government’s commitment to the SDGs, which were adopted in September 2015 by UN member states to galvanise efforts to meet the needs of the world’s poorest by 2030.
The final framework outlined in the agreed text contains 17 goals and 169 targets—it is not a brief document. One of those targets is:
“By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases”.
If the aim of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 is to be achieved and if we are to bend the curve of the epidemic to manageable levels, the bulk of the progress must take place in the next five years. Without that, the epidemic could spiral out of control, and we can expect a spike in treatment resistance. Investment not made at this stage will lead to greater treatment costs at a later date. The joint United Nations programme on HIV—UNAIDS—agrees and has released fast-track targets. The 90-90-90 targets aim to ensure that by 2020, 90% of people living with HIV know their status, 90% of them are accessing treatment and 90% of those accessing treatment are virally suppressed. If we achieve that, the number of onward transmissions of HIV will be significantly reduced.
Meeting the targets is a stepping stone that will ultimately make it possible to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 and avoid an estimated 28 million HIV infections. The latest figures released by UNAIDS show that nearly 16 million people are now accessing antiretroviral therapy, or ARVs. That compares with the figure of 1 million 10 years ago. That is good progress. In 2014, there were 2 million new HIV infections, compared with 3.4 million in 2001. Those figures show that progress is being made, but they underline the need to do more.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that unfortunately, as a result of stigma, prejudice and discrimination, many people with HIV and AIDS are driven underground and therefore do not seek treatment? We must do all we can to deal with that injustice and prejudice.
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes good points. We often think of stigma and prejudice as affecting poorer parts of the world and, unfortunately, many parts of the Commonwealth, but stigma remains an issue even in the UK. Even in the UK, people seeking treatment for HIV will often go to a sexual health clinic outside their local area because they are afraid of the stigma that can be attached to being seen as being HIV-positive. We have made significant progress, but a lot remains to be done in the UK and in particular the developing world. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
There are still around 20 million people living with HIV who are not accessing ARVs. Just half of those living with HIV are simply not aware of their status. I want to talk about some of the key issues facing the AIDS challenge and the HIV challenge. Since 2000, adolescent deaths have tripled. AIDS is the leading cause of death for adolescents in Africa and the second greatest cause of adolescent deaths globally. Some 60% of new HIV infections are among young women. Globally, HIV/AIDS remains the biggest killer for women of reproductive age. More than 5,000 young women and girls acquire HIV every week. In southern Africa, adolescent girls and young women acquire HIV seven years earlier than their male peers, which has a devastating impact on their life chances. HIV/AIDS is a major barrier to the ability of women and girls to participate in education and to become and remain economically active. If we want to achieve gender equality across education, health and economic participation, we have to tackle HIV/AIDS in women and girls.
We know what needs to be done to achieve the target to end the epidemic by 2030. We know that we need to challenge and end the stigma and discrimination faced by those living with HIV/AIDS. That stigma acts as a barrier to people being tested and accessing the services they need. We need to improve access to treatment for those who are diagnosed as having contracted the virus. With just 25% of girls having a full understanding of how HIV is transmitted and prevented, we need to improve education. We also need to tackle violence against women and girls. Adolescent girls and young women who have experienced sexual violence are 50% more likely to have acquired HIV.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his chairing of the all-party group. Given that the highest incidences of HIV and AIDS among women and girls tend to be in countries with strong historical links to Britain, does he accept that we have a particular responsibility to show international leadership on the issue? Would this not be a good time for the Minister to announce that the Secretary of State will, as a result, be attending the 2016 UN General Assembly high-level meeting on ending AIDS in June this year?
Mike Freer
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. It is still a shame on the Commonwealth that so many of our Commonwealth partners continue to discriminate against people with HIV and against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Later, I will go on to mention some of the challenges with our withdrawal from many of the middle-income countries. It leaves many marginalised groups and many criminalised groups bereft of support, whether that is treatment or even just accessing healthcare in general.
On the Durban conference later this year, the hon. Gentleman will not have seen the answer to my written question that was published about 10 minutes ago, but the Department of Health will be sending ministerial colleagues to represent the UK and the Department for International Development is sending officials. The UK will be represented at the Durban conference—that is hot off the press.
Let me turn colleagues’ attention to some of the other issues. This is not just about the wide range of complexities, whether it is access to treatment, violence, education or economic participation; it is about how we approach research and development, both in dealing with HIV/AIDS and, in the developed world, in accessing the medical tools most needed to meet public health needs. The UK has an important role to play in meeting those ambitious objectives.
Historically, DFID has been a leader in the global response to HIV and AIDS and was viewed as one of the most forward thinking and effective agencies. When he responds, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm how DFID’s research and development is progressing, so that we can ensure that our standing as a world leader in that field will remain. At one time, the Department had a large dedicated policy team engaged in the AIDS response. It showed financial leadership through increased funding of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, but I am concerned that its AIDS and reproductive health and rights team has gradually reduced in capacity and was renamed the sexual and reproductive health and rights team, with HIV being theoretically mainstreamed across DFID’s work.
There is increasingly a perception that DFID does not have the focus on HIV and AIDS that it once did. To be fair, every Minister I have spoken to in the DFID team, including the Secretary of State, has confirmed that HIV/AIDS remains a Government priority and an integral part of the Department’s work; yet the newly published UK aid strategy makes no reference to HIV or AIDS and gives no indication of how the UK intends to contribute to meeting the SDG target to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030. I checked the DFID website, and as far as I can see it appears to be silent on eradicating HIV as a departmental goal. It used to be a specific target and there used to be specific mention of what the Department was doing to eradicate HIV, but the website currently appears to be silent on that issue. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister explain why HIV has not been explicitly included and commit to putting that right?
Mr Gareth Thomas
When the hon. Gentleman researched the DFID website, was he able to find any speech by the Secretary of State or one of her ministerial colleagues on Britain’s contribution to HIV/AIDS that had not been provoked by a debate like this one, or by other House of Commons debates or questions?
Mike Freer
To be fair, I did not search through all the speeches given by colleagues in the Department. I did see that the most recent targets and policy statements ended in 2015, when the SDGs were agreed, and that some of the other policy documents dated back as far as 2013. To be fair to colleagues in the Department, I am sure that they have made speeches, but I did not search the database. I was searching the targets and policy pages. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to direct me to what I have missed, but it appears that the website is currently silent on specific targets and policies.
Can my right hon. Friend the Minister reassure me that he will ensure that the HIV response is given a clearer and explicit inclusion in the strategies to meet the needs of women and girls in order to support gender equality, as well as all the other related issues? Addressing HIV is a key component of the women and girls agenda, and I hope he will confirm that it will be made a specific target and policy of the Department and will be clearly and explicitly mentioned on its website. The lack of a clearly articulated HIV strategy sends out a signal that HIV is being deprioritised and absorbed into other areas.
Mrs Helen Grant
DFID has put a lot of money into the global fund—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm the amount, but it is something like £1 billion—which has done some great work in tackling AIDS and HIV. Government support for that sort of multilateral aid is very important. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that, following the multilateral aid review, investment in funds such as the global fund will continue to be significant?
Mike Freer
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our commitment to the global fund is outstanding—I believe we are its second-largest donor. My concern is that, because we are the second-largest donor, the global fund listens to the mood music from the UK Government. One issue that I have raised on many occasions is how our withdrawal of aid from middle-income countries, stopping much bilateral aid and moving through to multilateral aid, leaves many marginalised groups bereft. No transitional funding is put in place. We have started to see that kind of emphasis being reflected in the priorities of the global fund because it takes its lead from its major donors, which is understandable.
If the mood music coming from DFID is to deprioritise and, unintentionally, to leave marginal groups bereft, so the global fund will, perhaps by accident, also leave those marginal groups bereft, as it follows the UK lead in targeting non-MICs. I understand the strategy for MICs, but there is a significant risk that those groups that are most at risk in MICs are, through either cultural differences, stigma or criminalisation, left to fend for themselves. That cannot be a good outcome for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to address that.
It would be a catastrophic mistake to lose the focus on HIV/AIDS because we are on the brink of finally being able to control the epidemic as a public health threat. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how his Department is planning to meet the SDG target to end the AIDS epidemic by 2030, particularly for women and girls? What assessment has been made of the Department’s capacity to implement the target? The challenge of achieving universal access to ARV therapy remains ahead of us. As I mentioned earlier, something in the region of 20 million people living with HIV are not accessing treatment.
Last year the all-party group on HIV and AIDS conducted an inquiry into access to medicines that revealed some of the challenges that many low and middle-income countries face in accessing medicines. Treatment prices remain prohibitive in many countries. The price of treatments is primarily driven by licensing costs and decisions about what the market will sustain. Intellectual property rights grant exclusive rights to manufacturers that can make drugs without competition, which leads to high prices.
Affordable first-line treatments are now available in low-income countries in the form of generic drugs. That has been a major step forward in increasing access to treatments. However, the cost of second and third-line treatments remains prohibitively expensive, as such products are largely protected by patents, which keep the price high. Many middle-income countries are excluded from licensing deals that allow generic production, forcing them to purchase drugs at inflated prices. That restricts access to treatment. If a large proportion of people with HIV are women and girls, they will be excluded, because the health system will simply not be available or the treatments are too unaffordable to be universal.
International donors, including the UK, have been scaling back bilateral overseas development for MICs, thereby expecting national Governments to increase domestic funding. As I have mentioned several times, that leaves marginalised groups bereft of access to treatments, and some treatments will simply stop being provided.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this extremely important debate. Does he agree that the issue is not only access to treatments but access to technology? During the Easter recess I was interested to read about portable methods for monitoring and assessing HIV. It is clear not only that joined-up thinking is needed across Departments—including Health and DFID—but that we should look at STEM subjects and our contribution to technological advances to ensure that people in rural communities have access to treatment through advances in technology.
Mike Freer
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I visited South Africa and saw some of the work being done by Médecins sans Frontières in the townships there. What was interesting was that, despite the poverty, virtually everyone had a mobile phone. Many of the treatments, including the prompts to adhere to ARVs and other information, could be provided by harnessing technology. There is a huge gap that can be tackled, particularly in remote communities. Through the use of mobiles and other forms of remote technology, we have an opportunity to get information to people in remote areas and ensure that they have access to education and, if necessary, some form of treatment. Access to technology is a major challenge that colleagues in the Department for International Development can perhaps look at through the Global Fund.
We need to look the cost of new drugs. I hope that DFID can take a lead in looking at how the current research and development model prohibits access and innovation. Let me give an example about paediatric treatment. In South Africa and elsewhere, there is an absence of paediatric antiretrovirals. In the clinics in many of the townships of South Africa, doctors and nurses have to crumble the tablets and, almost through guesstimates, come up with a dosage suitable for the child or baby because paediatric antiretrovirals are not financially viable for the drug companies. The existing models work against providing universal access to ARVs and containing and defeating the epidemic. I believe that DFID can take the lead in looking at a way of de-linking the cost of research and development from the demands of profitability.
A proposal is under discussion to create a global R and D fund that would operate through a combination of grants, milestone prizes and end-goal prizes. If it were based on an open innovation-type approach, it could reward all those who have taken part, entered the process and contributed to developing the new treatment. That idea is not pie in the sky; it has not been developed by those who seek to undermine the pharmaceutical industry. That kind of development is championed by none other than the Prime Minister. In fact, the Conservative party manifesto contained a pledge—my right hon. Friend the Minister looks puzzled—that this country will
“lead a major new global programme to accelerate the development of vaccines and drugs to eliminate the world’s deadliest infectious diseases”.
I challenge colleagues in DFID to take the lead in looking at different ways of funding R and D to reduce the cost of second and third-line antiretrovirals. The Government have been generous in maintaining the 0.7% funding and in the money allocated for the global fight against malaria and the Ross fund.
Tackling HIV and AIDS in women and girls is a task we cannot shirk. It cannot and must not be subsumed into the main work of the Department and mainstreamed. We need explicit targets and action that we can hold the Government and Ministers to account on. I thank colleagues for attending today, and I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister’s response and other colleagues’ contributions.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Buck, and to follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who gave a measured and constructive speech. I will try to continue that tone.
This debate is a timely opportunity to ask whether the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleagues have, perhaps inadvertently, downgraded the Department’s work on HIV and AIDS. Ministers rarely mention HIV and AIDS unless pushed. There is—granted, my exploration of DFID’s website was only cursory—no record of a serious ministerial speech on this issue unprompted by Parliament for a very long time. There is no sign of a push to signal Britain’s continued interest in the major international efforts to tackle the factors that still drive the spread of HIV and AIDS. Given the urgency of the investment that is needed if we are to achieve the 90-90-90 targets, which the hon. Gentleman spoke about, it is disappointing that the Secretary of State does not appear—unless the Minister has news for us—to have a major plan to do the advocacy work that is needed at an international level.
The 10 countries that had the most people living with HIV in 2014—the last year for which figures are available—are South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Zambia, Malawi and Ethiopia. They are all countries in which DFID has a significant bilateral programme or with which our Government have a long history and good connections. Britain’s continued influence with the countries that have the most people living with HIV is unlike that of any other country in the G7 or globally. It is therefore all the more important that Britain continues to show leadership on this issue.
Similarly, the slightly different list of the countries with the highest incidence of HIV among adults, as opposed to the general population, comprises countries with which Britain has a close relationship at Government level or, with one exception, where DFID has significant programmes. Again, that highlights the importance of Britain’s role in galvanising further investment in antiretroviral programmes and in championing the legal and cultural changes that are necessary to improve the response to HIV and AIDS.
The Department’s work focusing on girls and women is important and very welcome, and it is strongly supported on both sides of the House and among the non-governmental organisation community. I commend the Secretary of State for that work. However, I continue to be surprised by the apparent lack of interest in the impact on women and girls of being HIV positive. HIV and AIDS continue to be the biggest single killer of women of reproductive age globally. Despite that fact, the impact of HIV on women as a priority group is not frequently discussed or reflected in ministerial policy.
Mrs Helen Grant
The hon. Gentleman is making very important points about women and girls, but does he agree that they should be included as decision makers, not simply as victims and recipients of aid?
Mr Thomas
Absolutely. Britain’s international leadership on this issue is important because one of the things that we, as a country, should be championing is the cultural change that is needed in countries so that, as the hon. Lady says, women and girls become more active decision makers. At the moment, in too many cases, they are not. I gently bring her back to the important point she made about the strong support given by Britain to the global fund. I welcome that investment, but it is not enough to outsource leadership on HIV and AIDS from ministerial offices to the global fund. Political change is needed in countries as much as investment in health services, with which the fund helps. I fear that that is the important missing link in Britain’s response at the moment.
On 16 March, at International Development questions, I asked the Secretary of State specifically whether her Department’s spending on HIV and AIDS would be rising or falling over the comprehensive spending review period. In her reply, she said that the Department was planning shortly to publish the results of its bilateral aid review. Will the Minister set out for us whether he expects bilateral HIV-specific programmes to be rising, when up to now they have been in decline?
I am told by some of the NGOs that follow the Department’s work on HIV and AIDS closely that no mention of any such work seems to be in the aid strategy published by the Department last November. It would be good to hear from the Minister why that omission has happened. Furthermore, the sexual and reproductive health team, which has responsibility for HIV and AIDS work—certainly on the basis of ministerial answers to written questions—appears to be prioritising a series of other issues. They are very important issues, granted, but they are issues other than HIV and AIDS. Again, it would be good if the Minister explained that choice to downgrade the work on HIV and AIDS by the sexual and reproductive health team in DFID.
I come back to the first intervention that I made on the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green. He mentioned the Durban meeting, but I gently suggest that the UN General Assembly’s high-level meeting on ending AIDS, which is to take place in New York in June, is equally important. That is surely the perfect opportunity for the Secretary of State to set out Britain’s continuing commitment to and willingness to play a significant leadership role in tackling AIDS.
In addition, Britain could ask the new Commonwealth secretary-general to prioritise a discussion of the work needed in Commonwealth countries to tackle the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Foreign Office ambassadors and senior staff could perfectly reasonably be tasked to talk to senior figures about what more might be done in countries with particular challenges in tackling AIDS.
Mrs Helen Grant
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. At those various international meetings, global ministerial commitments to tackle issues such as forced marriage and early marriage are also key factors in fighting HIV and AIDS.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A series of factors drive the spread of HIV and AIDS. A health response is needed—we have rightly talked about the need to invest more in antiretroviral AIDS therapy and to improve health services more generally. A series of cultural practices need challenging and gender empowerment issues need addressing.
The only way that such things can happen is if political leaders are willing to step up to the mark. The challenge needs to come from a country such as Britain that has shown great leadership on the issue in the past; we will work with and support them, but we want things to change. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the Secretary of State is willing to show that kind of leadership in future.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.
We are discussing HIV, which curses the lives of people in all walks of life across the globe. Yet many of the women who are infected are unaware of the status of their condition and are unable to access the treatment that they rightly need to go on to live a long and sustained life. I thank the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for securing this debate on tackling HIV and AIDS specifically in women and girls.
Perhaps due to the lingering stigma attached to HIV since the time of the virus’s discovery more than 30 years ago, its impact on women is often disregarded in policy. Recognising that the barriers, stigmas and issues of access to services and treatment all require further consideration, let us use today’s debate to turn the trend on its head—we must recognise that, globally, HIV is the No. 1 killer of women of reproductive age.
We must also recognise the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target, which we heard about from the hon. Gentleman: the ambition by 2020 to have 90% of all people living with HIV knowing their HIV status; 90% of all people with diagnosed HIV infection receiving sustained antiretroviral therapy; and 90% of all people receiving antiretroviral therapy having viral suppression. That should be not only an ambition but a reality, and we must ensure that we do all that we can to make that the case.
There are, without doubt, issues of HIV infection among women in the UK, but the heaviest concentrations of HIV infection are in the developing world. In such places, women are most affected. In sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the highest burden of HIV, 57% of people living with HIV are women, and figures from 2014 show that, among women of all ages, there were 12,500 new HIV infections every week. Those figures are huge. The effect of infection on each life is devastating; the lives of young girls, future women, will be devastated unless we do more to act. We must ensure that the UK plays a prominent role in securing a future for them. It is vital to consider how aid programmes funded by the UK and the devolved Governments can help to change that deadly trend.
There is a correlation between disproportionate rates of HIV infection among women and gender inequality. Gender inequalities have far-reaching consequences for women living with, and at risk of, HIV. To name but a few, issues include domestic violence, the role of sexual violence and the lack of access to income and property. Only last month, with the Women and Equalities Committee, I visited the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which focuses primarily on women’s economic empowerment. We must ensure that we unpick such gender issues and learn how best to tackle them. I ask the Minister how DFID intends to monitor and track the progress of sexually transmitted disease and to set targets for achieving those goals. The disease will not disappear by itself, and ultimately we must do all that we can to end the epidemic.
Advances have been made to improve access to antiretroviral treatment, but socioeconomic barriers for women to overcome remain. In particular, UNAIDS research identifies food insecurity as a barrier to adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Without adequate dietary intake, people undergoing antiretroviral therapy cannot experience the full benefits of treatment. That can create a vicious cycle. Women are usually those involved in producing, purchasing and preparing food. When a woman is HIV-positive, household food security is impacted as responsibilities shift to the younger women in that household, often raising additional issues of food insecurity for their families.
It is believed that 90% of HIV-positive children contract the virus from their mother during pregnancy, delivery or breastfeeding. Inadequate nutritional status may increase the risk of HIV transmission, and women therefore need access to information and replacement feeding options to minimise the risk of transmission during breastfeeding. It is unacceptable that the number of women and girls contracting HIV infections continues to be a growing trend, especially in developing countries. Young women aged between 15 and 24 are five times more likely to be affected than young men of the same age. The problem of HIV in Africa is complicated and there is no magic bullet. However, we must do more to educate men and boys about how they can prevent this disease, so that we prevent such harrowing statistics. Adolescents between 15 and 19 make up 74% of the new HIV infections that affect young girls and women.
The Scottish National party believes firmly that the empowerment of women is key to tackling and battling global poverty, and we are not alone. The First Minister is quoted as saying that the SNP sees the empowerment of women as the key in battling global poverty. Scotland’s First Minister has said:
“For virtually every nation, fully empowering women is probably the single simplest way, in which they can sustainably increase their productive potential. Gender equality can help to transform the global economy.”
The World Bank has said:
“Putting resources into poor women’s hands while promoting gender inequality in the household and in society results in large development payoffs.”
The UN General Secretary has said that
“removing the barriers that keep women and girls on the margins of economic, social, cultural and political life must be a top priority for us all—businesses, governments, the United Nations and civil society.”
The Scottish Government have taken action where possible to help the world’s most vulnerable people through their small grants programme. This programme supports NGOs to make a big impact and reduce poverty worldwide. The grant also includes using community sport to educate young people about HIV and using technology for a mobile phone app to improve emergency care in Zambia.
The HIV crisis is impacting developing nations, but it can be stopped. In order to best contribute, UK aid must focus on education about HIV transmission and on empowering women who are at most risk of infection. I urge the Minister to consider the effects of HIV on women and girls. How does the Department intend to monitor and track its progress in achieving the sustainable development goals? It is the responsibility of all Governments wherever possible to provide leadership in this debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to my questions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing it. Many of us have an interest in this issue. I suspect that many more would be here if it was not for other duties and debates elsewhere, because the issue certainly resonates with us. We are here today because we want to highlight the issue for those in other parts of the world. We are taking steps here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we need to encourage countries and Governments to take steps elsewhere.
Worldwide there are some 900 million adolescent girls and young women in the 15 to 24 age group. Despite being 12% of the entire population of the world, too often for cultural or political reasons those young women are left without a voice or any say or control over their own bodies. We are all aware of the issues across the world and the violence against women. Rape seems to be a method of violence and war that some soldiers inflict on women wherever they have the opportunity to do so. We have had many debates in Westminster Hall that have highlighted the rape of women and girls and the brutal, horrible violent acts that take place against them. We recently had a debate on Burma and the Rohingya people.
Across the Sahara and across Africa, rape seems to be a weapon of war and we must highlight this issue. I often say we have to be a voice for the voiceless, and so we do. In this House we have to be a voice for those who have no voice, who do not have anyone to speak up for them, and the debate today is an opportunity to do just that.
Women have limited access to healthcare in developing nations and little or no access to education. Systems and policies skewed against them in some of the more gender-oppressive nations combine to create obstacles that block adolescent girls and young women from knowing how to and being able to protect themselves against HIV. We need a loud awakening of some of the Governments across the world so that they understand what is going on.
Despite the fact that the world is becoming more global, there are still regions in the world where young women and adolescent girls remain at a much higher risk of HIV infection than their male counterparts. It is shocking that, despite this fact being known, there seems to be no real progress, and girls in the age group I referred to still account for a disproportionate number of new infections among the young people living with the infection. There are an estimated 340,000 to 440,000 new HIV infections among young women aged 15 to 24 each year. If that does not shock us, I do not know what does. Despite making up only 12% of the population, they accounted for 60% of all new infections.
Poverty plays a big role, but the elephant in the room, as so often, is that although it is a global issue, there are clear issues in particular regions that exacerbate the case. It is true that some cannot afford access to care, treatment and preventive measures, but more often than not it is the cultural or political treatment of women that means they are unable to access the treatment, care and preventive measures that they need. Fifteen per cent. of women living with HIV are aged 15 to 24, a shocking 80% of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. We know that that is an extremely impoverished area of the world, but we also know that the culture and policy towards women there is a far cry from the relative gender equality we enjoy here in the west.
Indeed, up to 45% of adolescent girls in those poor regions reported their first sexual experience to be forced. That is another shocking statistic. It is estimated that around 120 million girls worldwide have experienced rape or other forced sexual acts at some point in their life. The magnitude of those figures should shock us all. They remind each and every one of us exactly what the issues are and it is why this debate is so important. From a collection of more than 45 studies from sub-Saharan Africa, it was revealed that such relationships were common between younger women and older male partners, and relationships with large differences in age are associated with unsafe sexual behaviour and the low use of condoms.
Women who experienced violence from a partner were 50% more likely to have contracted HIV than women who had not experienced such violence. In fact, of all the age groups, even married girls and women in the 15 to 24 age group are most affected by spousal physical or sexual violence. Some of the Members who have spoken already, including the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), who spoke just before me, mentioned DFID. Again, the background notes supplied for this debate are very helpful. I want to put this note on the record:
“DFID has committed to putting girls and women at the heart of its development assistance. As well as continuing a focus on women and girls in DFID’s bilateral HIV programmes, more work is required to capture, measure and maximise the HIV related benefits of DFID’s wider work with women and girls.”
Hon. Members who have spoken have expressed some disquiet over the DFID policy in relation to its ever being successful. The Minister always responds in an energetic and knowledgeable way, so I am sure he will be able to indicate and reaffirm DFID’s response. If there is a shortcoming—I perceive that there is—DFID must address that as well.
The note continues:
“Global progress on reducing new infections in women and girls remains a priority for DFID.”
I hope that that is the case. Negative gender stereotypes and harmful norms are equally damaging. Adolescent girls and young women face significant barriers in accessing health services or protecting their own health. Lack of access to comprehensive and accurate information on sexual and reproductive health means that adolescent girls and young women are not equipped to manage their sexual health or to reduce potential health risks. Furthermore, they are less able to negotiate condom use. They have limited access to HIV testing, modern contraception and family planning, and are less able to adhere to HIV treatment. Those facts cannot be ignored.
Queen Nana Adwoa Awindor of Ghana, who chairs the African Queens and Women Cultural Leaders Network, has underscored the important role that cultural and traditional leaders have to play in the fight against HIV and AIDS, saying:
“It is our responsibility to ensure that harmful traditional practices that promote the spread of HIV such as early marriages and female genital mutilation are eradicated”.
What she is saying is, “Change traditions and protect the people.” I hope that today’s debate will in some way do that.
ln sub-Saharan Africa, only 26% of adolescent girls possess comprehensive and correct knowledge about HIV, compared with 36% of adolescent boys. In that context, according to UNICEF, among girls aged 15 to 19 who reported having multiple sexual partners in the previous 12 months, only 36% reported that they used a condom the last time they had sex. There are basic, simple issues that must be addressed by DFID and through the Minister’s Department, but also by the Governments responsible for the countries where HIV and AIDS are epidemic. There is a need for relentless pressure to be exerted, using the international bodies at hand, such as the UN, on the Governments of the countries in question. The things I have talked about are not acceptable in the UK, and we are addressing them; they should not be tolerated anywhere else in the world.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing what has been a considered and useful debate on tackling HIV and AIDS in women and girls. I congratulate him too on his work as chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, of which I am a member. There were useful contributions from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who brings considerable experience to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley)—I shall reflect in particular on some of what she said—and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of being a voice for the voiceless. I do not think there is any question of his voice not being heard. He spoke with his usual commitment and passion.
This debate is timely, as has been mentioned, taking place as it does in the context of the adoption of the sustainable development goals. Indeed, some of us will be back tomorrow for a debate on the implementation of those goals in the round. However, today’s debate is a useful opportunity to reflect on the particular issue of tackling HIV and AIDS, for all the reasons that we have heard, in particular the need to make rapid progress now that the goals are agreed. The number of people around the world living with HIV and AIDS continues to rise, despite the progress being made, and indeed partly as a result of it, given the enhanced longevity from treatment—an HIV infection need not be a death sentence per se. Nevertheless, transmission continues to increase and, as we have heard, in particular parts of the world that may affect women and girls disproportionately.
Three themes arise from what we have heard in the debate: general issues and challenges, such as those I have touched on; the steps and strategies needed to tackle those challenges; and the ways in which we fund and prioritise those steps. I will reflect briefly on those, making sure, of course, that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to all the questions that have been asked.
We have heard that HIV/AIDS is the No. 1 killer of women of reproductive age around the world. In our part of the world it is sometimes difficult to comprehend that, because it is not necessarily true in every individual country, or in developed countries such as ours. However, in developing parts of the world it is of particular concern. During the recess I was in Zambia with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The overall prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the country is 12.4% of the population—some 500,000 women. Yesterday I welcomed Jacqueline Kouwenhoven, who is Dutch born but is a Member of the National Assembly of Malawi. She is the Member of Parliament for the Rumphi West constituency. In Malawi the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among men is 8.1%, but among women it is 12.9%. That is a pretty stark demonstration of the disparity, and the disproportionate impact that HIV/AIDS has on women, which is reflected in other statistics we have heard in the debate. I think others have discussed how 74% of new HIV infections in 2014 among adolescents in Africa were among girls and women. That is 12,500 new infections every week, and it gives us a sense of the scale of the challenge.
There is a challenge in two respects. First, there is a challenge for the individuals, as HIV/AIDS limits their life chances and lowers their life expectancy, limiting their ability to work, contribute to society and live flourishing, dignified lives of their own. However, there is also a broader development challenge, in the form of a barrier to societal and economic development, starting at household level, because younger children may be taken out of school to provide care or take up income-generating activities. That has a knock-on effect on whole societies. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East quoted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, on the importance of empowering women fully, as the simplest way for countries to increase their productive potential sustainably. Interestingly enough, the quotation came from a speech given to the Chinese Friendship Association in Beijing in July 2015. As we have come to expect, Nicola Sturgeon is not afraid to be a voice for the voiceless and to speak out, without fear or favour, around the world on issues of gender equality. That goes to the heart of the point made about the need for political leadership—both an holistic response to a holistic challenge, and political leadership to drive that response forward.
The steps needed to tackle the spread of HIV and AIDS among women and girls in particular fall into two key areas. The first is prevention, in its broadest sense. We have heard a lot in the debate about education, including education specifically for awareness—of status, safe practices and cultural barriers. All those things are important, and we have heard about some of the support that the Scottish Government are providing. A particularly interesting example came about through the small grants scheme, which allows the funding of small, innovative programmes. The Yes! Tanzania programme conducted a feasibility study on using its sports facilities to educate young people about the transmission of HIV and AIDS, and used the study to put the lessons into practice. It will deliver both sport and sexual health training to more than 60 community sports coaches, teachers and peer leaders, and through that method will reach more than 2,000 young people in Arusha in Tanzania. Hopefully it will go on to measure the impact of the work.
Using small grant funding can be a useful and innovative way to try out new techniques and to reach young women and men in particular, through forums where they might not traditionally have expected to receive such education. It would be useful to hear the Minister reflect on whether there any lessons he can learn from that kind of thing.
Jim Shannon
I would like to reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Elim Church in my constituency—to give just one example—does fantastic work in Swaziland with young boys and girls who have HIV/AIDS. Some of the good work that the hon. Gentleman has been discussing, and that he asks DFID to do, is also being done by church groups throughout the United Kingdom. I mentioned the Elim Church, but the Presbyterian Church, the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Baptists and the Roman Catholic Church all do it as well. It is good to recognise some of the good work that other groups do.
Patrick Grady
I am sure we can all give examples from our constituencies or broader areas of interest of specific projects or programmes that have made a difference. An issue relating to some of the broader questions that have been asked about DFID is to do with its different priorities: the way in which it is leveraging the 0.7%, which we all welcome, and how that can be done as effectively and as holistically as possible. Having some flexibility to try to innovate in new areas and support small, dynamic projects is definitely one area for consideration.
There is the important question of education specifically about HIV/AIDS, which we have heard about, but there is a broader question of education as well. Although it is true that, as I have said a number of times—my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said it too—there is no silver bullet to global development, educating women and girls is about as close as we can get. Broader access to education—not just education on HIV/AIDS but, more broadly, education that trains and empowers women with the skills they need to take into society—can reverse the negative spiral that I spoke about at the beginning of my remarks. That economic empowerment is crucial.
Angela Crawley
I want to highlight again the need to educate men and boys on their role as community leaders, partners, fathers and brothers, because they also have a role to play in education.
Patrick Grady
Indeed. Speaking from my 36 years’ experience as a man, I entirely agree about the need to tackle all these issues. Education, in a range of different forums and of both men and women, is important.
Access to treatment is also crucial. It has been interesting to read in some of the documents supplied in preparation for the debate about the progress made in terms of prophylactic and preventive treatment such as the dipivirine ring trials and various other medical advances, which are incredibly encouraging. It is important that they are invested in and supported. That is why the points made, especially by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, about intellectual property in the development of pharmaceuticals is key. That has come up in numerous Westminster Hall debates on international development, in particular on tackling preventable disease. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to take forward those proposals—I was interested to hear that movement in that direction appeared in the Conservative manifesto.
Just as with education, where specific education and improvements in education across society as a whole is needed, the same is true in treatment. We need to be able to treat the specific symptoms, effects and infections and boost the overall level of wellbeing of society as a whole. That is where questions of food security and so on come in.
Dr Lisa Cameron
In addition to a medical model, does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that couples counselling is also offered to help in coming to terms with HIV diagnosis, reducing stigma and the risk of violence and desertion by a partner, and ensuring that adaptive coping strategies are applied?
Patrick Grady
That is a useful point. My hon. Friend brings considerable experience of those issues to the debate, so it is useful to have her contribution.
That brings us to funding and prioritisation. I generally echo all the questions directed at the Minister so far. On the prioritisation that DFID is prepared to give to the sustainable development goals, every credit is due to the Government for the role they played in the negotiation and establishment of those goals, which are a hugely comprehensive framework for global development. We now have a road map that can take us to the kind of world that we know is possible, which will allow us to reach other targets such as the 90-90-90 target, which has been referred to. However, I do not think I am alone, even in the Chamber, in being slightly disappointed by the lack of emphasis given to the sustainable development goals in the Command Paper, for example, or the lack so far of a joined-up Government approach or even of information about that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East raised questions about monitoring.
Other mechanisms also need to be considered. The Global Fund is due for replenishment, so it would be interesting to hear a timetable from the Minister for the Government’s commitment. They have said repeatedly that they are prepared to give up to £1 billion, so my question has repeatedly been: if they are prepared to give up to £1 billion, why not just give £1 billion? The Global Fund knows how much money it needs and the UK has an opportunity to show global leadership by committing as much as it can to that replenishment.
Finally, the point about middle-income countries is crucial. I spoke about Zambia earlier on, and the definition of a middle-income country stretches from a GDP per head of something like—I do not have the figure in front of me—$1,500 to $13,000. In that vast range, a country can suddenly become a middle-income country and find itself less able to access the resources and support that helped it to attain that status. It would be interesting to know how the Government intend to support countries as they transition to middle-income status to reduce the risk of back-sliding in so many areas, not least HIV/AIDS transmission.
HIV is a preventable and treatable disease and we have the knowledge and ability to reduce transmission and improve access to treatment, especially with regard to women and girls. If we do that, we boost development, help to build stable societies and grow economies. Everyone benefits, but we must have the political leadership and willingness to invest effectively.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Let me first say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. When we first met 30 years ago, giving out leaflets on the streets of Paddington, who would have guessed that I would be my party’s spokesperson on development, but you would be a member of the august Panel of Chairs?
Let me congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing this important debate. Let me say a word about the position of women and girls in the UK and remind the House that the part of the population with the most disproportionate incidence of HIV/AIDS is African women. The reason they have that level of infection is because if people think the level of stigma in the population as a whole against HIV and AIDS is bad, for men who have sex with men in the African community it is so much worse. It is all about stigma, so anything we can do in this Chamber to break down that stigma will save lives not just in the global south, but in communities in some of our constituencies.
As we have heard, the number of women and girls living with HIV continues to increase in every region of the world. As a group of politicians, we should pause and think about what that means to people’s lives and hopes. This is not just abstraction and about position papers; it is actual people’s lives. Last year I was privileged to visit Uganda on a wonderful trip, organised by the Aids Alliance and Stop Aids, to meet the men and women working on Uganda’s HIV/AIDS response at Government level, at non-governmental organisation level and at grassroots level. It was an amazing trip.
I visited 10 different projects in all during my time in Uganda, but three stand out. One was a project involving the Lady Mermaid Bureau and Crested Crane Lighters. This was a project for female sex workers—actually, we could not consider those women victims. We went to the market where they plied their trade. They spoke to us about their fears, their experience of police harassment, their hopes, their efforts to get information and protection to younger sex workers, and their hopes for their children. This is the sort of grassroots project among a marginalised community that is so important to fund and support if we really are to roll back HIV/AIDS in those communities.
I also met the Uganda Youth Development Link, which is a genuinely young persons-led project—the chair was 28 years of age. It is a network of young people from 10 to 30 living with HIV/AIDS, and they pointed out that one of the problems with HIV response in the global south is that it does not reach young people: it is not reaching under-18s; the work is not being done in schools. In what are very young societies, if we are not focusing on under-18s or doing the work in schools, we are not doing what we need to do to reach the goal of eradicating HIV/AIDS.
I saw many projects in Uganda, and my trip brought it home to me that, in the end, it is not about what we say here in this House. It is not even about what the big NGOs and the UN can do. It is about communities and empowering people—particularly women and those in marginal communities—to offer leadership and to roll back this scourge.
We have made a great deal of progress on HIV/AIDS, but it is important that we do not roll back on that progress now that our goal of eradicating altogether is within sight. I hope the House will forgive me if I remind it of Labour’s record on this issue. We have continued to be a champion in the AIDS response, leading the first global promise to deliver universal access to HIV treatment, care and support by 2010 at the 2007 Gleneagles G8 summit.
The Government are to be applauded for their contribution to the Global Fund, which has disbursed $27 billion on programmes for HIV, TB and malaria, and programmes supported by the Global Fund had saved 17 million lives by the end of 2014. However, there is a concern about bilateral spending and the absence in the Government’s programmes and policy of a specific commitment on HIV/AIDS. Commendable as the Global Fund and the Government’s support for it are, bilateral aid for HIV continues to be important to meet the gaps that the Global Fund cannot fill and to equip affected communities—whether it is the young people or the brave and vibrant sex workers I met in Uganda—with the skills, tools and information they need to help the Global Fund to meet its goals.
Sadly, it would appear—I am content to be put right by the Minister—that UK bilateral funding for HIV has been decreasing, and many are concerned that it may come to a complete end. I would stress to the Minister that we cannot end aid dependency or stop thousands of lives being lost to AIDS month by month in regions of the world if we do not equip communities, including marginalised ones, with the tools to tackle and treat HIV/AIDS.
We need to build the capacity of communities to demand their rights. Ending AIDS by 2030 requires investment in communities and support to demand their rights, and the evolution of the Global Fund clearly demonstrates the value of such investments. There are still challenges in ensuring that key populations—for example, LGBT populations or sex workers—have a voice, but the Global Fund has developed strong human rights principles and places a value on the inclusion of those populations in governance structures. That evolution is driven by the affected communities, but it needs strategic bilateral funding.
As colleagues have said, the sustainable development goals have committed to ensuring that no one is left behind. The UK Government, in their new aid strategy, have committed to leading those efforts. Delivering on that promise, however, will require ensuring that those who are most marginalised, vulnerable and excluded can benefit from efforts to deliver the SDGs, including the goal on ending AIDS. The Global Fund cannot achieve that alone.
We have to consider the practicalities. I saw in Uganda last year that condom use—which is not a high-tech medical intervention, but a vital one—in the global south has gone down. There has been an increase in new infections, and under-18s are not yet a target group. Forty per cent of the Ugandan population are under 30 years of age. That very high proportion of young people is true across the global south, and one challenge faced by groups seeking to work on HIV/AIDS is the rise of vicious anti-human rights legislation on homosexuality and the LGBT population. In Uganda, we found that that was a major obstacle in the communities that needed to be reached.
I will mention one more group that I met in Uganda. Icebreakers Uganda is a youth-led LGBTI organisation that we visited in Kampala. Think what it means to be an LGBTI organisation in a country that has passed legislation that could end up with people losing their lives for admitting to being LGBTI. Despite the challenges, the organisation offers services in 14 districts in Uganda, runs a 24-hour service and has a house and centre for men who have sex with men. Due to the punitive legislation and criminalisation, the organisation has to be very careful about how it works, but it continues to work.
I commend the Government for their contribution to the Global Fund. It is unfortunate, as we have heard, that we have only promised 80%, not 100%, of what we should be providing. I stress the importance of making HIV/AIDS a specific goal and a specific issue in relation to women and girls. The Government cannot expect to be taken seriously in their concern for women and girls if the issue of HIV/AIDS is not only high up the agenda, but explicitly so in the speeches that are made, on the Department’s website and in the availability of funding.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who spoke with infectious enthusiasm about her experiences in Uganda, the programmes she saw there and the genuine commitment to community empowerment.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for focusing his forensic intellect and our attention on this vital life-and-death question, on the eve of the replenishment of the Global Fund, with the UN’s high-level meeting on ending AIDS and this year’s AIDS conference coming shortly thereafter. This is a year in which we must make a change in the trajectory of this disease with respect to women and girls.
I clearly have to reassure my hon. Friend. I do not believe that this is the best forum in which to take him through the Department’s website, but I am confident that we can arrange a time to do so, perhaps when there is a screen in front of us. On the goal that he found absent, the high-level departmental goals will not specify every disease upon which we want to make an impact. I put it to Members this way: we put our money where our mouth is—follow the money. We are the second largest donor in the world in response to the AIDS epidemic.
In 2014-15, we spent some £374 million on our response to AIDS. In the current cycle, we have committed £1 billion, subject to the 10% burden share, to the Global Fund. We support UNAIDS, UNITAID, the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Robert Carr network for outreach to civil society. All those things are vital, and they have had an impact. The response to the AIDS epidemic has seen in the past five years 15 million adults being treated for the disease, 1 million babies of infected mothers being able to avoid infection themselves and a two-thirds reduction in the number of new infections—and yet, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in sub-Saharan Africa 50% of the people who are infected do not know it, and among young women, only 15% know they are infected. Clearly, this has to be our main effort if there is any prospect of us getting to zero: to zero new infections, zero—
Catherine McKinnell
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow, because he is making a very important speech. I have listened carefully to the debate, which I commend the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for securing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Secretary of State, that because of what the Minister is saying, the Government should be very clear that that is their aim. I still do not understand why they have not explicitly stated it in their information. I hope he is coming to that point.
Mr Swayne
I hope that I will be given the chance to get there, and that my statement today will be regarded as something of an explicit statement in lieu of what Members have not been able to find on the website, but that is a question we might come back to.
As I was saying, this has to be our main effort if we are going to have any prospect of getting to zero: to zero new cases, zero deaths and, as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) pointed out so importantly, to zero stigma and discrimination—a vital part of the equation.
How are we going to achieve that? I believe that the proper principle is to deploy our resources where the need is greatest, where the burden is greatest and where the resources are fewest. I have to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green in respect of his perfectly proper concern about middle-income status countries. The reality is that the Global Fund deploys half its resources in middle-income countries and specifically has programmes to deal with neglected, vulnerable populations in high middle-income countries. We have given £9 million to the Robert Carr fund specifically to address some of those issues.
I put it to hon. Members that as countries develop and become wealthier—I accept entirely that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out, there is a question of what defines a middle-income country, and there is a wide spread—there has to be an expectation and a challenge to them to start deploying more of their resources to deal with the problems of healthcare and AIDS in particular. It is very much part of the Addis agenda that countries deploy their own resources, and part of the challenge to us and to the Global Fund is to hold them to account for doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green was right to challenge me on the issue of research and development. I do have concerns, but we are the leading investor in product development partnerships, which delink the market incentives for research and development and replace them with the prioritisation of public health objectives. Some 11 new products are now on the market in low-income countries as a consequence of the partnerships that we have developed. In addition, we have invested. We are the fifth largest funder of UNITAID and have put €60 million into its programme for developing diagnostics and treatments. Indeed, there is also its groundbreaking development in the treatment of paediatrics, with some 750,000 treatment regimes for children.
Ms Abbott
I agree with the Minister that as countries get wealthier, in principle they should take responsibility for their own HIV/AIDS programmes. However, when there are allegedly middle-income countries that are members of the Commonwealth but which, to all intents and purposes, are going backwards on LGBT rights, does Her Majesty’s Government not have a responsibility to intervene with the type of projects that would make it easier to access marginalised communities?
Mr Swayne
I accept entirely that there is a challenge to all the developed world and all right-thinking countries to hold those regimes to account for their treatment of human rights and respect for human rights. Nobody should be left behind—that is the principle that we have to abide by—and we must find programmes and measures to deal with that. I accept that the hon. Lady is right on this issue.
On the issue of research and development, we are alive to this problem, but let us consider it a work in progress. I accept entirely that there are still problems, but I am glad that the World Health Organisation is now implementing what it calls an observatory on research and development, and that a working group will be set up to drive the matter forward.
The issue of condoms was raised by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am very much in favour of the distribution of high-quality male and female condoms. What is more, I want to see much wider distribution of the benefits of microbicides, which were raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North with respect to the rings and gels that are being used and in which we have invested some £20 million. I believe that that is essential.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised a key point—I think his words were that AIDS is being used as “a weapon of war.” He is right about that, and I want to see reproductive and sexual health as a key part of our response to any humanitarian emergency.
Of course, I want to see a successful replenishment of the Global Fund. That is essential—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North is signalling that he wants a commitment to be made now, but I am going to have to disappoint hon. Members over a figure and commitment now. That has to be left to the Secretary of State and it can only be done once the bilateral aid review and the multilateral aid review have been published. However, I am impressed by the way in which the Global Fund has attempted to address our preoccupation with women and girls and to make its response to women and girls central to its strategy. We now want to see how that changes things on the ground, because women’s needs are highly complex and our response has to be correspondingly comprehensive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green asked me on a number of occasions how we were going to address the needs of women and girls, and it is a response that goes well beyond what we can do specifically to address the issue of AIDS. It is a question of changing culture and of changing law. It is a question of changing the perception of human rights. It is a question of changing economic development and of giving women the power to protect themselves. It is about empowering women and giving them information and access to family planning services. It is about giving them an education and a livelihood. All these things will empower women to ensure that they are enabled to negotiate the terms under which sexual intercourse takes place. However, I tell my hon. Friend this: a world free of AIDS—one in which absolutely no one is left behind—is one in which the rights of a girl are promoted and protected from the minute she is born.
Mike Freer
We have had a very good debate. I reiterate the point that if the Department’s commitment to women and girls is comprehensive, it has to include and specify dealing with HIV and AIDS. I thank colleagues and the Minister for taking part today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tackling HIV in women and girls.
Worcester University Arena: Disabled People and Sport
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Worcester University Arena: supporting disabled people into work through sport.
It is a great pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to hold this debate under your chairmanship on my birthday and in the week after Worcester’s first successful Disability Confident jobs event in our magnificent Guildhall. I thank the University of Worcester and Leonard Cheshire Disability for the valuable briefings they provided ahead of today’s debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the people of Worcester with the vison to create a leading centre for disability sport in the heart of my constituency. I am delighted to do so with a Minister who, as a local lad, not only knows Worcestershire well but is a dedicated sports fan and passionate about improving the life chances and opportunities for work for disabled people.
My hon. Friend knows well how impressive the facilities at Worcester University Arena already are because he visited them with me last year and was able to meet some of the phenomenal and inspiring athletes who use them. He will recall meeting Sophie Carigill, captain of the GB women’s wheelchair basketball team, David Green, the Vice Chancellor, and Mick Donovan, head of sport at the university, who launched his vision for an international centre for inclusive sport there.
The Minister needs no explanation that the Worcester University Arena was the first purpose-built wholly accessible basketball venue where not only the viewing facilities and playing facilities but the changing rooms, accommodation and media facilities are entirely accessible to wheelchair users. He does not need to be told about the transformational part this can play for wheelchair athletes because he has seen it and heard about it himself. With him, I heard Sophie give the moving and important feedback that coming to play in the arena was the first time she had felt normal since her tragic car accident, and that she was not being specially catered for. She just felt that the venue allowed her to perform on an equal footing. With the Minister, I met other athletes with disabilities ranging from sight loss through to deafness and learning difficulties, who were inspired by the idea of a new international centre for accessible sport at the university.
Newly acquired land to the west of Worcester and around the existing arena for expansion, and plans to extend its reach further into blind cricket, football and tennis, as well as more wheelchair sports, has the potential to transform not only Worcester’s facilities for accessible sport, but those of the UK. Such a centre can play a crucial role in supporting more disabled people to achieve their ambitions, including accessing work. I want to set out today some of the evidence for that, some of the reasoning behind it and some of the reasons why I believe this venture deserves the Government’s support.
We know that too few disabled people have access to sport and I am glad that the new sports strategy set out by our hon. Friend the Sports Minister has made increasing disabled participation and the experience of watching sport key priorities, as well as increasing diversity in sports leadership and administration. Research from Leonard Cheshire Disability ahead of the Paralympic games highlighted the necessity of this and found that over half—57%—of disabled people surveyed said they had completed no moderate-intensity physical activity in the previous seven days, compared with just 24% of non-disabled adults. Of those surveyed, 41% identified lack of suitable activities and exercise provision as the main barrier, with inaccessible facilities and fear of injury also being identified as significant barriers.
Leonard Cheshire Disability said that the employment rate for disabled people is currently around 46.7% compared with a record rate of around 80% in the rest of the population. In Worcester, the employment rate is even higher, but a recent report from the city council’s scrutiny committee, which I support, has pointed out that it is still a concern that disability unemployment remains stubbornly high. The disability employment gap nationally stands at around 33% and, like Leonard Cheshire Disability, I warmly welcome the Government’s worthwhile and progressive goal of halving that gap. That is the right thing to do not just for disabled people but for the whole economy.
Social Market Foundation research suggests that if the disability gap was halved and those who fell out of work as a result of disability were reinstated, we could see another 600,000 people in work and the economy would be boosted by an estimated £13 billion. I welcome the progress that has been made with 293,000 more disabled people working over the last two years, but I share the Minister’s conviction that there is much further to go.
The Minister and I spoke about these issues at the last Conservative party conference and competed with each other in our enthusiasm for the employment goal, but I admit that I have learned a great deal from him in his determination to achieve it. I have shamelessly plagiarised his approach to reverse jobs fairs under the Disability Confident banner and it is greatly to his credit that the event in Worcester last week has been widely heralded as a success. It was supported by a number of local businesses, including Sanctuary Housing, Malvern Instruments, Dolphin Computer Access, Wits End Wizardry and Waitrose, whose first store in Worcester is due to open in June. It was attended by a wide range of local disability charities, including the wonderful Headway, Sight Concern, ASPIE, the Aspire Academy and the Royal British Legion, as well as the Access to Work and Disability Confident teams at the Department for Work and Pensions. I thank all those who took part, especially local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce and the Worcestershire local enterprise partnership who came along and made pledges.
The most impressive team at the Disability Confident event was the team from the University of Worcester, comprising two wheelchair athletes, Alex Giles and Tom Horrocks, and the England and GB blind football star and University of Worcester communications manager, Will Norman. Each of these athletes spoke about the vital importance of the facilities the arena provides, the huge potential of its future development and the employability benefits, such as communication skills and teamwork, that accessible sport has given them.
Will Norman is not only a brilliant role model in his sporting achievements, but a wonderful ambassador for the university and its wider support for job opportunities for people with disabilities. He is a highly successful communications professional, as well as a national athlete and footballer, who has written passionately about the benefits of supporting disability sport and real inclusion that treats those with disabilities not as other, but as part of the whole.
We were joined at the event by a former student of the university whose testimony is worth bearing in mind because it exemplifies both the challenges that disabled people may face and the huge success they can achieve when those challenges are overcome. Jordan Powell, aged 24, a graduate in history and politics at the University of Worcester, said he spent two years not even getting interviews for hundreds of jobs until he deliberately neglected to tell recruiters he was disabled. Within one week of not declaring it on job forms he was offered interviews at four different companies, and now works in telesales for London estate agent, Ludlowthompson. He said:
“In two years I applied for jobs every day, I went for hundreds of them and couldn’t get anything,”
He continued:
“So I decided not to tell people and within a week I’d got four interviews—I’m now a telesales executive and I’ve smashed sales records for my company.”
Jordan came to see me some months ago in my surgery in Worcester to share his story and his concerns about the prejudice and fear that too many employers still feel towards disabled people. He explained that he felt that much of the prejudice was based on unfounded fears that they would not be able to support someone with a disability, and said that he wanted to help address those fears. He told me how Ludlowthompson had gone out of its way to make him welcome and even offered to tear its offices apart if it would help him, but that other companies had invited him to interviews that were upstairs and then failed to make allowances or adjustments when he turned up in a wheelchair. Within months of getting the job with Ludlowthomson in Worcester, he was setting new records for the company, and he told me that it was having to rewrite its remuneration policy to take account of the level of sales he has recently been achieving.
I was delighted when Jordan, who has also run as a council candidate for the Labour party in Worcester, agreed to work with me on a cross-party basis to deliver the recent Disability Confident event. His testimony was a powerful addition to it. The head of human resources at Sanctuary Housing, the largest residential social landlord in the country, said she had been convinced by his testimony and that he has changed some of Sanctuary’s policies and made it a more disability-confident employer.
Jordan also told me how playing accessible football at the university helped to build his confidence and enabled him to recognise that being in a wheelchair need be no impediment to achievement. Jordan’s story is by no means unique. The facilities that the university arena offers have already impacted thousands of people both with and without disabilities. In its first 12 months of operation it welcomed over 500,000 people, including 150,000 children, and staged 70 major national and international sporting events, 40% of which had a disability focus.
A direct impact of inclusion by design has been that Worcester has welcomed thousands of disabled and non-disabled athletes. Activities range from beginner classes for youngsters who have never engaged in sport to international junior wheelchair basketball championships. Student coaches currently deliver outreach wheelchair sports and inclusive sports sessions in more than 50 partner schools in the region and present inclusive coach education programmes and workshops in the arena to more than 60 disability organisations each year.
The economic impact of the arena for the local community has been estimated as at least £9.4 million.
The university’s unique disability sport coaching degree is developing the next generation of inclusive coaches who have an impact on hundreds of local schoolchildren who will go on to have an impact at local, national and international level. Significantly, more than 300 students on other degree courses at the university have selected specialist modules on inclusion and disability sport coaching. One of the most impressive things to see on a visit to the arena is not only the many students with and without disabilities training to teach disability sports, but the number of disabled athletes and students training to coach sports in mainstream settings. What a wonderful example it would set to have in mainstream schools more sports and PE teachers who themselves have overcome the challenge of a disability and can demonstrate to students of all abilities their passion for and achievement in sport.
It is no wonder that Sir Philip Craven MBE, president of the International Paralympic Committee, who officially opened the venue, said:
“I’m blown away by the University Arena. It goes to show what can happen when you have the right people with the right attitudes—they’ve created a wonderful place. This facility has clearly come from a passion for sport—a passion for everybody being involved in sport.”
The arena now forms the heartbeat of the university’s recently launched international centre for inclusive sport, which has attracted partners from around the world in all forms of sport, including universities in Europe, the US and China and international disability sport governing bodies from around the world, which will be invited to conferences and workshops to share good practice for the benefit of youngsters on their programmes.
The European wheelchair basketball championships of 2015 attracted 400 athletes and officials and were viewed in person or online by more than 200,000 spectators. That was the single most successful inclusive Paralympic sporting event since the London 2012 Paralympics, which did so much to inspire a generation about the potential of disabled athletes and increase the media following of accessible sport.
Subsequently, there has been a surge in interest from universities and sporting clubs wishing to visit Worcester and look at ways of replicating the design and inclusive agenda of our arena. For Worcester as a city, the spectacle of hundreds of athletes in national team colours arriving in their wheelchairs has already done wonders for local people’s appreciation of disability confidence and disability sport in general. I am delighted that the city continues to build on that legacy and that later this year the Worcester Warriors, my local rugby team, will host the county’s first international mixed ability rugby tournament, in conjunction with charities including Combat Stress. I am proud that our local premiership rugby team are the first in that league to be supporting mixed ability sport.
The arena has also delivered direct benefits in terms of employment for people with and without disabilities. In recent years, thousands of University of Worcester students have actively engaged in work placements with a focus on disability sport. It is significant that a vast number of graduates have secured posts throughout the UK that specialise in disability and disability sport-related activities. Many of them have disabilities themselves. Just a short round-up of recent examples would include a wheelchair user in a sports media post, a visually impaired student who is now in a media post, wheelchair users and power wheelchair users who have secured coaching roles, a double amputee who is a sports development officer in the south of England, a deaf student who is now a teacher in a special school for pupils with behavioural problems, a blind footballer working for a leading telecommunications company, a power wheelchair user who is now a community power wheelchair coach, a wheelchair user doing performance analysis for the GB wheelchair basketball team, a blind student who is now working for a national company as a provider of disability equality training and another blind student who is now working for a national foundation supporting disabled and disadvantaged people.
Many current University of Worcester disabled students are also employed as ambassadors for the university in outreach work throughout the UK to inspire others. The list of non-disabled students who have entered careers as strategic leaders, coaches, teachers or support workers for those with disabilities is too extensive to include in this speech. Beyond that are hundreds more—
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this extremely important debate to Westminster Hall. I am heartened by the work that he is describing. Will he do the all-party parliamentary group on disability the honour of linking us to the university arena and also coming to speak in that forum in order that we can look at continuing that work elsewhere?
Mr Walker
I would be delighted to do that and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I would also be delighted to extend an invitation to the all-party group to come and visit the Worcester arena, because I think it is a genuinely unique national asset and something that we should draw to the attention of that group, so I am very grateful for the intervention.
Beyond that are hundreds more people who will be inspired to believe in themselves and develop their skills at both competitive and participatory level by the arena and the access to sport that it provides. Crucially, it is not just a venue for international level or even university level sport, but a key facility for encouraging and supporting basic participation and inclusion for groups ranging from schools to hospices to the elderly. Charities such as Whizz-Kidz nationally and Acorns Children’s Hospice locally have already benefited from its facilities, and I expect many more to do so as the international centre for inclusive sport widens its scope and reach.
The arena received some of its initial funding from the national lottery’s Iconic Facilities Fund and later received the Guardian award for a building that inspires. I suggest that its contribution, both present and future, to disability confidence and disability employment is one more reason why it should continue to inspire and be an icon.
I know that the Minister shares my enthusiasm for this inspirational Worcester landmark. I urge him to ensure that colleagues across Government share the knowledge of what it does and can do for disabled people. I ask for his continuing support as we seek to create in Worcester a genuine gold standard for disability confidence, with a gold-clad heart in our international centre for inclusive sport. I hope that he will continue to work with me to ensure that Worcester can become a beacon for disability confidence and to improve the lives, the life chances and the working opportunities for disabled people.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am sure that there will be general rejoicing on the streets of Worcester today, but let me add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the occasion of his birthday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, wish my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) a very happy birthday. He highlighted the fact that I was a local Worcestershire lad. I remember, on my 18th birthday, on that Saturday afternoon, purchasing a record from Pure Records—happy memories.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a real local champion. The majority of my response will be on sport, but first I want to comment on his hosting of the Disability Confident event and the success of his own reverse jobs fair in engaging with the local business community to create crucial opportunities for disabled people to get into work, as part of our commitment to halve the disability employment gap. All too often, businesses lack the confidence to make what are often very small changes. In introducing such employers to the vast wealth of support groups, charities and organisations that will help disabled people to find work, my hon. Friend can be very proud of what a great success he made of that event. There are people who will now get an opportunity that, had he not made that effort, they would never have had.
I am delighted to talk about sport. Clearly, it is crucial to healthy, active lifestyles—disabled people are twice as likely to be inactive as non-disabled people. Sport can directly create job opportunities, as has been highlighted throughout this debate, and we also saw, in the case of Jordan Powell, how it helped to build his confidence to go on to find work. Sport creates role models to inspire people, in particular young people, and also, all too often forgotten, there is the actual enjoyment in sport. Certainly my visit to Worcester arena was really enjoyable. There were inspirational people delivering transformational opportunities. There is a track record of success where it has genuinely made a difference. The irony was that before I arrived to see all those healthy, active people, I had a McDonald’s breakfast, as I had arrived early, so there is still some way to go for me.
The facilities at Worcester arena are fantastic. It caters for disability by design—it is not an exception, but a given. The arena was specifically designed to be accessible to all. This is not just about the physical structure; it is also about the need to allow assistance dogs—they are welcome throughout. There is an induction loop system throughout the building. There is also the extensive training for staff and the awareness. It is just a case of disability being a given, not the exception. The people who designed the arena did not just think about the obvious, such as where the sport would take place. This goes right across the board. It includes the changing rooms and the accommodation. The student halls were built at the same time, and people were working on the assumption that outside term time, when the competition events took place, they would become accommodation for the athletes. As a given, they were 100% fully accessible, as were the media facilities. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the facility was busy. That seems like a silly, obvious thing to say, but actually too often we go to iconic buildings and they are amazing but hardly anybody is using them. That is not the case with the arena, which is permanently in use and therefore able to attract major sporting events, which is brilliant for creating role models. That was not an accident; inspirational people realised that they had to work in partnership.
The arena was created in conjunction with organisations such as Sport England, through its Iconic Facilities Olympic Legacy Fund—a catchy title—as well as with the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, Basketball England, Badminton England, many other sporting groups, the local authority, local businesses and the local community. It is not just the students who benefit, although it is great that they do; people come from far and wide to benefit from the fantastic facilities. By listening to and engaging with them at the concept, we got a facility that would always be a success.
Underlying all that was the aim to ensure that the facility was commercially viable. Too often, a ribbon is cut and the great and the good turn up to celebrate the opening. Without a good business plan behind that, there would be savings on the maintenance, opening times, programmes and activities. Right from the beginning, it was understood that the facility should never lie dormant for long periods of time and should maximise commercial opportunities—students, local sports clubs and the community, as well as the elite and professional athletes.
I was interested to see that Worcestershire County Cricket Club, Worcester Wolves, Aston Villa Football Club, Birmingham City Football Club, West Bromwich Albion Football Club and many other groups were taking part. Those are household names and they provided support, including enjoyment, performance analysis—that would have been a pretty painful thing for me during my sporting career—and fitness and nutrition advice. That was my McDonald’s breakfast; they knew I was coming. The arena has become the home ground for sporting clubs such as the Worcester Wolves basketball team and the GB men’s wheelchair basketball team. That is a fantastic legacy.
It does not stop there. The ambition is to continue to expand to create further partnerships. Worcestershire County Cricket Club is looking to do a lot more with its Chance to Shine programme and new inclusive cricket centre. As a cricket fan, I would be delighted to make a return visit. The arena really has helped with Sport England’s narrative of saying that where it is providing funding, major capital investments are required to make its facilities accessible.
Sport England goes further by publishing free online tools and guidance to support designers, building owners and operators to create accessible facilities. Having such a success story makes it an easier sell, as it can say, “Look, this isn’t an inconvenience for you. By making those changes at the beginning, you will benefit commercially and with usage. This is a win-win for everybody.”
We want to ensure that not just the people who go along to Worcester Arena benefit but that, right across the board, accessible sporting opportunities are a given. Part of that is ensuring that the topic is part of the education of the next generation of PE teachers. The University of Worcester has led on that, because it is a given that it is part of its education process. It is integral, as it is part of modules.
I know how important educating PE teachers on the subject is because, randomly, I was selected to open a PE conference on behalf of the Government—I think somebody misread somebody else’s biog and attached it to me, so I had to do a keynote speech on the topic. I had to be very creative that morning. One thing that came back to me was the number of PE teachers who wanted to offer more accessible sporting opportunities but feared that perhaps they would get it wrong, end up doing something where they might be sued, that there would be an accident or that things would not go right. As a given, the next generation will have that confidence. I give credit to the English Federation of Disability Sport and to Sainsbury’s for their successful course to upskill existing PE teachers to ensure that PE staff have that confidence. I pay tribute to the PE teachers I met, and there were hundreds. There is a genuine appetite to do this.
I do millions of visits. One of the most fun visits I ever did was to see the Swindon Vixens disability netball team—young adults who had never ever had an opportunity to enjoy sport. They were put through a weekly one-hour session with professional coach. The session was enjoyable but structured, and they were gaining genuinely good skills. The enjoyment levels of those young adults was such that I genuinely thought they might explode! The serious side of it was that one of the girls lost 3 stone in the first few months of doing netball because it was the first and only time that she had ever had a sporting opportunity.
Dr Lisa Cameron
The Minister’s information shows very clearly—I hope he would agree—that sport is not just about physical activity and physical health, but about mental wellbeing, mental health, self-esteem and self-confidence.
Justin Tomlinson
I could not agree more. I am delighted that the hon. Lady has extended an invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to speak at her all-party parliamentary group. I spoke there previously and I know what an engaged group it is. That is a great opportunity to highlight the topic further.
The Government are bringing forward the sport strategy. Part of that will be how Sport England spends its £170 million to make sport a practical and attractive lifestyle choice for disabled people. That is vital because currently only 4% of elite coaches are disabled. Jordan Powell was a great example of how sport gives young people the skills and behaviours that are linked to school attainment and employment opportunities. Across sport, there is a lack of disabled employees, but there are lots of examples of how we are creating more opportunities.
Sports bodies and groups are currently not capitalising on the talent, skills and diversity of the entire population. I am forever highlighting the fact that one in six people in this country have a disability. Their combined spending power is £212 billion. It is called the purple pound. It is not Nigel Farage’s utopian dream; it is something that has been highlighted by sporting groups making those changes and I have heard, time and again, just how they have benefited from doing so.
We are not resting; we are not waiting for this all to happen by accident. I set up a round table, which included the Sport and Recreation Alliance, Sport England, the English Federation of Disability Sport, the Youth Sport Trust, the Amateur Swimming Association, the Tennis Foundation, the Royal Yachting Association, Boccia England, British Wheelchair Basketball and Disability Rights UK. The aim was to look at how we can further shape the sport strategy. I have regular meetings with many other sporting organisations, including the Premier League and the Football League, about making facilities more accessible for disabled supporters, as well as with the Rugby Football Union and the British Paralympic Association. Some fantastic work is going on and, at the heart of that, Worcester arena is held up as a shining, beaming example.
I pay tribute to Channel 4, because there are also employment opportunities in the media. It has been successful in securing the rights to cover the Rio Paralympics and made a genuine commitment that half its presenters for that event will be those with a disability. It is not just doing that to tick a box—that would do a disservice to potential disabled presenters. The channel wants people who have a talent to take advantage of the opportunity to further their careers and to have further opportunities, whether with Channel 4 or other media organisations. It has gone right back to the training colleges and the performing arts people, saying, “Look, we wish to recruit. You find people who have the enthusiasm and the talent. You train them.” There are genuine job opportunities coming from there, which is a real credit to those organisations.
I went on a brilliant visit, championed by a fantastic constituency MP who is held in such high regard. I saw that as we visited all those people. There were so many inspirational people who have made Worcester arena such a success. I am excited that it does not stop there and that there will be further opportunities. My hon. Friend made it very clear that he felt that Worcester arena was gold standard. I think it is platinum standard. In material terms, that is even higher rated.
I hope that many other organisations can look and learn, and create the same sorts of enjoyment and opportunities that Worcester Arena does. It is a real tribute to my hon. Friend that he has highlighted that today. He will have a further opportunity to showcase all the fantastic work that is going on right at the heart of his community with the all-party parliamentary group. Once again—what a way to celebrate my hon. Friend’s birthday.
Question put and agreed to.
Supported Housing
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future funding of supported housing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The House was told by the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 21 March 2016 that the Government
“have no further plans to make welfare savings beyond the very substantial savings legislated for by Parliament two weeks ago, which we will now focus on implementing.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1268.]
That assurance to the whole House was repeated the following day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The purpose of this debate is to remind the Government of the consequences of imposing the local housing allowance on supported housing. The proposals will definitely be a further cut in welfare provision. The local housing allowance was introduced in order to cap the housing benefit given to private landlords. The cap is locally set, and it limits the amount of housing benefit to a figure based on the lowest 30% of the rental market in each local authority. In Newcastle upon Tyne, the city that I have the honour and privilege of representing in this place, it would mean a cap of £90 a week on housing benefit for a one-bedroom flat or £60 a week for a room in shared accommodation—£60 a week is the benefit offered to anyone under 35 years old who is single and has no dependants. It is a quirk of the system that supported housing in more prosperous boroughs is less badly hit by the measure because private sector rental levels, on which the calculation is based, are higher.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentions prosperous boroughs, and the London Borough of Ealing would, on paper, count as one of them. Does he agree that it is a scandal that, even in my constituency, groups such as YMCA West London are being hit? One of my very early engagements as an MP was with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). We went to look at YMCA West London’s refurbished hostel in south Ealing. After the summer Budget and the 1% cut in social rents, YMCA West London wrote to me and said that, because it had used all its cash reserves to refurbish the hostel on a business plan that assumed future rental levels, it was looking at staff cuts, service reductions or possible closure. Is that not a scandal?
Mr Brown
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should have said “relatively prosperous.” The distinction will be clear to people in the north-east of England, but perhaps less so to her constituents. She raises another important point, which is the uncertainty hanging over the arrangements, and I will have more to say about that later.
Returning to the Government’s intention, the changes introduced in the autumn statement extended the cap into the social sector, in line with the provisions that already pertained in the private rented sector, which means that the rate paid to private renters on housing benefit will apply to the social sector, too. The measure will apply to new tenancy agreements signed after 1 April 2016, with the rate changing on 1 April 2018.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that, during the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, Members on both sides of the House encouraged Ministers to introduce the moratorium—the 12-month review—on these specific housing developments, which gives us, on a bipartisan basis, an opportunity to consider the work being undertaken by specialist housing providers and to try to find consensus to offset what were originally envisaged to be quite draconian changes.
Mr Brown
I would like to find a consensual way through this, but maybe the Government should have thought about these matters before applying the measure to social housing. If they propose reform, they should think about what the reform should be and then introduce it, rather than introducing it in such a heavy-handed way and then saying, “Maybe we’ve gone too far. We had better have a review.” Like the hon. Gentleman, I would be fascinated to know what the review has come up with, because it is due about now. In fact, I think the Minister said it was due in March 2016.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Does he agree that the Government should have given due consideration to those people who suffer from mental illness and who will be affected by these “draconian” cuts, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) put it, to their housing benefit?
Mr Brown
I certainly agree, and I intend to go through a range of people who are affected by the measure. When I was researching for this debate, I found that the list was far more extensive than I originally thought. The measure is projected to save the Exchequer £120 million in 2018-19, rising to £225 million by 2020-21. The Government have said that they will delay the imposition of the cap on supported housing for one year, and they are currently reviewing the application of the cut to such housing. They have said that the review will
“provide a foundation to support further decisions on protections for the supported housing sector in the long term.”
Perhaps the Minister will explain what that means and tell us when the review will report, because we are all interested.
The uncertainty is damaging enough. Supported housing is a type of social housing that includes a care element. It allows those who cannot live by themselves without care to live independently with a support worker and with dignity in a place to call their own. Due to the very nature of supported housing—including a care element—it is more expensive, and thus a cap limiting weekly rent to as little as £60 will mean that much of it is unaffordable. In essence, the most vulnerable, those who need care in order to live, will have their housing benefit cut. Supported housing for vulnerable adults and young people who need help to live independently can include housing for people with learning difficulties, social problems or mental health issues; vulnerable older people; women fleeing violence; people with physical disabilities; and servicemen and women. Surely if anyone is especially entitled to our consideration, support and affection, it must be those groups, and particularly ex-service personnel.
The Byker Community Trust in my constituency runs supported housing for veterans of the armed forces. The trust has low rents because it is a relatively young stock transfer organisation. Comparatively, it is one of the cheapest in Newcastle upon Tyne. However, the rents for veterans will significantly exceed the local housing allowance cap. Veterans in supported housing in the Byker Community Trust will have a shortfall of £32.50 a week if they are over 35 years old. If they are under 35 years old, they will need to find an extra £63.48 a week to cover the cost. The Army values the provision, and indeed it has supported its introduction. One veteran told me that
“the army does everything for you when you are service personnel, adjusting to civilian life was difficult.”
He did not know what he would do without the project.
Supported housing includes housing for young single people who are at risk of sleeping rough, begging in the streets and spending what little money they have on legal highs. Uncared for, they need the constructive intervention of adults. Supported housing is an appropriate and proportionate way of responding to those problems, which are covered by a range of Government agencies.
Tyne Housing in my constituency has a site in Newcastle East at St Silas’s church. It provides supported housing and day services for vulnerable and isolated people. The housing is provided mainly through single-person flats and supportive workshops to help people lead a full and fulfilling life. That specialist housing project is exactly the type of provision that will be hit by the cap. The project’s leaders tell me that as a result of the Government’s changes, the project will have to close; it is as straightforward as that. Those affected are vulnerable and need our help, but if the Government proceed with the cap as proposed, they will fail those people. The local cap on funding for supported housing could have huge repercussions. The National Housing Federation has released figures estimating that 82,000 specialist homes will be threatened with closure, just under half of all supported housing in England. That will leave an estimated 50,000 vulnerable tenants who are unable to work without support.
The uncertainty is having an immediate impact. Services coming up for re-tender are at risk of closure, irrespective of the outcome of the review, simply because the providers cannot make a potentially unfunded commitment in respect of what might happen beyond 2018. The National Housing Federation has said that 2,400 planned new homes have already been scrapped as a result of the cap, and almost a quarter of supported housing providers, 24%, told the NHF that all their supported and sheltered units are at risk of becoming unviable and closing if the cap is implemented.
The cut will cause serious problems for providers in Newcastle and the north-east. Changing Lives Housing Trust is a national registered charity based in Newcastle that provides specialist support services throughout England to thousands of vulnerable people and their families. It provides support to homeless people, recovering addicts and ex-offenders, as well as providing specialist women’s and family services. The charity has estimated that the cap will lead to an annual shortfall of £2 million in funding for its services.
Isos Housing, which manages more than 17,000 homes across the north-east, calculates that 700 of its 900 supported housing tenants will be affected by the cut, losing an average of £80 a week. Home Group, another major provider in the north-east, estimates that 223 services covering some 3,945 beds will become unviable if the proposals are implemented.
The Government seem to be aware of the problem, hence the review, but I hope that this debate will prove a useful chance and platform for the Minister to tell us where the policy is going. The Government policy, as announced, will have a number of unintended consequences. The most obvious question is where will those vulnerable people go when supported housing is no longer affordable? What alternatives do they face? The likelihood of suffering and exploitation is obvious. The immediate concern is a rise in homelessness and its consequences. Some people may end up with the police or in national health service emergency provision, such as accident and emergency; others may find themselves exploited without housing support or accommodated in unsuitable housing.
Home Group’s average accommodation costs for someone with learning disabilities are £13,500 per bed space per year, or £260 a week. In its challenging behaviour and learning disabilities costing statement the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that NHS inpatient care for people with learning disabilities costs between £96,000 and £197,000 per person per year. The average hospital day bed costs about £300. By comparison, a night in a prison cell costs £418, and an ambulance call-out averages about £250. The difference in cost between supported housing and NHS care is huge. Ultimately, the taxpayer is better off with supported housing.
Home Group estimates from the Department of Work and Pensions’ own figures that the cost implications of losing supported housing could be as much as £2.5 billion. I ask the House to consider that—a cost of £2.5 billion in unintended consequences, spread across different Departments but falling pretty heavily on the Department of Health, for an attempted saving of £225 million. We ought to pause and rethink. Supported housing is money well spent and proportionate to the range of problems that it addresses. It is a relatively small expense that, if cut, could cause great misery to the most vulnerable and great cost to the taxpayer. The answer is to exempt supported housing from the proposed cuts.
I have two extra points to raise with the Minister. The Government should say what their proposals are for the future of supported housing under universal credit. I hope that the answer is something better than, “We are giving local authorities a small grant to try to do what they can for themselves, but they’ll have the power to do it themselves”—not the money, of course; just the responsibility. I hope that he can say something more comforting than that. Perhaps he will be able to tell us what funding structures will exist to fund supported housing when housing benefit is abolished under the universal credit structures proposed for 2018. Can he update us on that?
If the Minister cannot give us the full policy, can he at least update us on the findings from the review, which we are all expecting and which he promised in March? The promise has now mulched into “in the spring”, but in any event the review is imminent. Perhaps now would be a good time for him to tell us how he intends to avoid the hardship that I have outlined, and how he feels he can best give assurance to an important sector desperately in need of it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
This debate is to finish at 5.30, and it is clearly well supported. The recommended time limits for Front-Bench speeches are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for the Labour party and 10 minutes for the Minister, and then Mr Nicholas Brown will have a couple of minutes at the end to sum up. Eight people are standing, and there are 18 minutes until I call the SNP Front-Bench spokesman, so I am afraid you must limit yourselves to two and a half minutes each so that everyone can get in. If people intervene on speeches, I will not be able to accommodate everybody. I will impose a time limit of two and a half minutes. I know it is not very long, but I hope everyone can get in.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will do my best, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this debate, which comes at an opportune time, given that the Government’s review is taking place. I urge the Government, in carrying out the review, to start with a clean piece of paper. As we heard from the right hon. Gentleman, a lot of vulnerable people will be affected by the changes. I will not go through them in detail, but the feedback that I am receiving in Suffolk is that the recent changes to and restrictions on rental income for social housing providers and the changes in capital funding for adult social care are having a direct negative effect on capital investment available for supported housing schemes, leading to fewer and less innovative projects.
In moving forward with the review, my plea to the Government would be to break out of departmental silos. This is not just an issue for the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions; it is not just about housing and benefits. It is an issue for the Department of Health, as it concerns physical and mental healthcare, and it is a job for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it concerns preparing vulnerable people for the workplace.
It is also necessary to involve councils, which deliver these policies at the coalface, whether as housing authorities or social care providers. It is important to listen to housing associations and charities that are carrying out innovative projects that change people’s lives and that in the long term are sustainable financially. These include Give Us A Chance and the Papworth Trust, and—more locally in Suffolk—Saffron Housing Trust, Orwell Housing Association, Stonham Housing Association, and Access Community Trust, which has done great work in Lowestoft for many years.
As supported housing involves more than just housing and has wider benefits outside the walls of DWP and DCLG, we need to consider a wider range of funding sources from other Departments. Perhaps devolution provides a means of securing these funds. Also, councils should be encouraged to pursue an open-book approach to negotiations rather than fixed-price tendering. That way, tailored, bespoke and long-term solutions can be provided to meet specific local challenges and needs. In summary, let us start with a clean piece of paper, work collaboratively and think long-term.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Welcome as the delay in introducing the housing benefit cuts for those in supported accommodation is, it is simply not enough merely to delay them. In my opinion, the UK Government must exempt supported housing tenants altogether from these devastating changes or find an alternative funding model. That is because change to housing benefit can undermine the ability of such tenants to pay their rent, thereby putting their home at risk and threatening both their physical and mental wellbeing, as well as posing a genuine threat to the financial sustainability of housing associations.
Such changes could have a devastating impact on the future provision of refuge accommodation in Scotland, where all refuge accommodation is in the ownership of either housing associations or local authorities. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has identified that associations in Scotland could lose between £5 million and £14 million per year, which would be completely unsustainable.
From within the industry, we have already had a range of apocalyptic warnings from informed and knowledgeable service providers. A survey conducted by Scottish Women's Aid found that,
“in a rural area, introducing a cap linked to the LHA rate”—
that is, the local housing allowance rate—
“would result in an annual loss of £5,800 for a 2 bedroom refuge flat. In an urban area, the annual loss for a 1 bedroom refuge flat would be £7,100, and in another semi-urban area the loss on a 3 bedroom refuge would be £11,600 per year.”
David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said in December:
“The impact of the LHA cap on the amount of Housing Benefit payable for supported housing will be stark and make it extremely difficult for any housing associations to develop new supported housing. Without existing levels of benefit being available, providers across the country will be forced to close schemes.”
That is echoed by Andrew Redfern, chief executive of Framework, a specialist housing association, who has said:
“It would mean the end of supported housing. All our schemes would close, and I think all others would as well.”
Also, an Inside Housing article from 21 January laid bare the impact of capping housing benefit, identifying that only 5% of schemes could survive, which is a shocking figure.
In conclusion, the LHA bears no resemblance to the actual costs incurred by supported accommodation providers and if, as a result, such housing options became financially unviable, vulnerable tenants might be forced into potentially costlier alternatives, such as institutional care, funding increased hospital stays, the higher cost of private landlord housing and—in the worst case—the higher costs of imprisonment. This move must surely be the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I am indebted to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall.
I was first alerted to this issue not when I had the honour to serve on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee but via one of my local housing associations. Alan Lewin, the chief executive of Axiom Housing Association, talked about the viability of supported housing schemes in low-cost areas and how the reduction in rent was very likely to reduce their viability permanently, not only in places such as Fenland and around Peterborough but throughout the country.
I will briefly make a plea to the Minister by reiterating the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) that this is a cross-departmental issue and it goes to the heart of the Treasury. If the Treasury really wants to restrict and reduce housing benefit payments and the cost of acute district hospital care, it has to think long-term and holistically, and put in place legal and financial inducements to providers across the piece to provide extra care and supported housing. So it is not only the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions that are involved, but the Treasury. As I say, we have to think holistically.
I will also make the plea that this is a regional issue. Sometimes with our housing policy, we have been inclined to be very London-centric. There is a regional issue here, in terms of the affordability not only of general needs housing but of specific supported housing.
The mark of a civilised society is how it treats people who are voiceless, who do not have representatives and who are vulnerable, and it is important that we bear that in mind. All Governments make mistakes and all Governments are subject to the law of unintended consequences; that is very important to consider.
In this moratorium review, we must also take it into account that the costs of support for the particular individuals who we are discussing today are significantly higher than the costs of general needs housing. That is also a very important point.
Let us take in all the evidence from across the country, and let us have a proper regional and holistic approach, which must include a cost-benefit analysis of the costs that fall on things such as the criminal justice system and the NHS. Let us have a proper review and let us try to work together across party divides, so that at the end of the review we can have a consensus on looking after the needs of the people who really need our help—the most vulnerable.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this debate. I am only sorry that we do not have more time for it. Lots of Opposition Members, particularly Labour Members, feel very strongly about this situation and there are some very important issues involved.
I will also raise a local issue. I thank the North Star Housing Group and its chief executive, Angela Lockwood. That organisation provides specialist housing, including specialist supported housing, within my constituency and across the north-east region. I wanted to highlight a number of examples, but I also want to point out the nature of the problem.
A recent survey by Inside Housing revealed that 95% of supported housing providers have stated they would have to close at least some of their schemes, and a quarter of those providers said they would have to close all their supported housing. That is particularly worrying for County Durham. There are 6,450 supported and specialist units across the county that support a range of people. As my right hon. Friend has already outlined, these people are very vulnerable, including people with mental, physical and learning disabilities; the elderly; people recovering from substance abuse; people trying to rebuild their lives; and women fleeing domestic violence, for whom supported accommodation could save their lives.
The very short-term financial savings that the Government hope to achieve will quickly evaporate, because supported and specialist housing helps to reduce crime and eases pressure on already overstretched health and social care services. If the Minister thinks that this measure will save money, he needs to reflect on the findings of the Homes and Communities Agency, which found that investing in supported housing saves the taxpayer £640 million annually. As other Members have pointed out, if there was a little forethought and cross-departmental co-operation between various Departments, the value of supported housing could be better appreciated.
We will not address the housing crisis by penalising the vulnerable or by cutting funding for supported and specialist housing. The best way out of the crisis is to build more properties of all types and tenures, not just starter homes at costs that are out of reach for many people, and to exempt specialist supported housing from the terms of this cap.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this debate.
I will briefly talk about a specific issue regarding York. We have got a double jeopardy, because the broad market rental area is not specific enough and covers a much broader area than York. Consequently, we are already at a disadvantage with regard to the value of the local housing allowance. These changes that we are discussing today will make things even harder for the housing associations in York. So I ask the Minister to look specifically at the issues regarding York and the impact that they will have.
I have met with York Housing Association to talk about the impact the changes will have, not just, as we have heard, on the social benefit that investment in supported housing brings but on the hard figures—the economics. York Housing Association has 364 tenants and a rental income of £2.7 million, but with the local housing allowance cap its income is estimated to drop to between £670,000 and £880,000. The association supports really successful projects, which are held in high regard across the nation. The Arc Light Centre and its homelessness project has a more than 70% success rate of people going on to live independent lives and not returning to the streets. With such excellence within the housing schemes we do not want the cut, which will put masses of pressure and costs on to things such as the emergency services and accident and emergency, and put people back on our streets, which is the last thing we want.
I have also visited Seventh Avenue, where we have a supported housing scheme for people with severe physical and learning difficulties. If the changes go ahead, the scheme will not be able to run. It will see an annual shortfall of £18,830, which will mean losing a support worker who is absolutely vital to providing its services for people who are incredibly vulnerable and need the support of the state for their survival, let alone for providing quality of life. I have to assure the Minister that the scheme provides excellent quality for the people who live there.
In my remaining seconds, I urge the Minister to look at the evidence and listen again to the housing associations. They are the experts in the field and we need evidence-based policy in taking the situation forward.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The reduction of social housing rents by 1% and the cap on housing benefit on social housing tenancies will have a profound impact on providers, reducing their revenue stream. The housing associations have stressed to the Government that the consequences of the changes could be dramatic. They are likely not only to be forced to shelve developments currently under way but to close existing schemes, at a time when the need for supported housing for the elderly is growing sharply. We are seeing a reduction in both the revenue of the housing associations that provide social housing and the funds being made available to the vulnerable people who need to live in supported housing. One has to ask whether the Government want the state to continue to provide support for social housing or not. Based on the proposals thus far, I suspect not.
Magenta Living, which operates in my constituency, has said that tenants on benefits will have to find an extra £25 per week out of their other benefits. In future, vulnerable prospective tenants and homeless singles are likely to be unable to afford social housing. Where does the Minister think those people should live? Magenta also points out that the problem is particularly difficult in the case of acute care, where there is a need for significant communal space for assisted bathing, treatment rooms and so forth. Magenta has told me that the Government are undermining their own drive to increase the volume and scope of older persons’ housing at a time when social care is at crisis point.
Specialist housing schemes are really important for the most vulnerable people in our society, and it is on that provision that we should judge the civilised nature of our society. I ask the Government to think again, to find their point of compassion and to show support for supported housing.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) on securing this important debate.
There is an enormous breadth of supported housing. In my constituency we have a brilliant foyer, which supports young people, sheltered accommodation for blind and partially sighted residents, care homes for people with physical disabilities and sensory impairment, homes for people with learning disabilities, refuges for victims of domestic abuse, accommodation that supports young and vulnerable new mothers and their babies, many sheltered schemes and care homes for older residents, and supported housing for people with mental health needs. I have visited many of those facilities and have never failed to be moved by the difference to individual lives that is made by providing appropriate care and compassionate support, enabling people who have a wide range of needs to live the best, most independent and most fulfilled lives possible and, in the case of refuges for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, enabling women and their children to move on and rebuild their lives in a safe place, away from the horrors they have escaped. Supported housing is a positive investment that saves the public sector money in the long term.
Yet the National Housing Federation estimates that across the country there is already a shortfall of more than 15,600 supported housing places. It is absolutely no exaggeration to say that the Government have entirely avoidably thrown the sector into turmoil by proposing to cap the local housing allowance and introducing an annual rent reduction of 1%.
Over the past two months, I have met with five housing associations that are active in my constituency and provide supported housing, and have been struck by how strong an impact the Government’s policies are having. All the associations said that they were planning to reduce their current provision, all of them had put new schemes on hold for the time being, and one of them was exiting supported housing provision altogether. Those are not isolated examples. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East said, Inside Housing magazine recently reported that 95% of providers would be forced to wind up some schemes if the LHA cap were introduced. There is a particular risk to smaller providers, which often deliver the most specialist and innovative supported housing but are not able to cross-subsidise that with mainstream housing.
There is an urgent need for the Government to bring the uncertainty and turmoil to an end, confirm the removal of both the LHA cap and the reduction in rents for the supported housing sector, and work with the sector on a viable, sustainable plan to deliver the supported housing we need to meet the current shortfall and the future growth in demand. Supported housing is vital for equality, for quality of life and for the development of compassionate communities where everyone can live life to the full.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Much has been said about the importance of supported housing to our communities. St Mungo’s provides a number of supported housing schemes in Brent, especially for people with mental health and substance abuse difficulties. It also supplies supported housing for people who come out of prison and are in the in-between stage—the one-stop stage. Although I welcome the Government’s rethink, it is a shame that we have come to this point because many of those who were supplying supported housing services had already flagged up the issue. Undue stress has been put on the organisations, and worrying about whether they would be able to stay in their supported accommodation has done nothing to help people’s mental wellbeing. Gandhi once said that we would be judged by how we treat the weak and vulnerable in society.
If the LHA cap is applied to St Mungo’s tenants, it is estimated that the organisation will quickly face an annual shortfall across its supported housing services of about £8.8 million. It would not be able to sustain such a dramatic shortfall and, like many of the other organisations we have heard about today, it would cease to provide housing. The cap would be such short-termism—penny-wise, pound-foolish, as the saying goes. Therefore, although we welcome the Government’s decision to rethink, it is a shame that we have come to this point and I hope that the Minister will listen to what Members on both sides of the House have to say.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for introducing the debate, the importance of which is demonstrated, I think, by the attendance. It is unfortunate that Members’ speeches have been limited to two and a half minutes. There have been some excellent contributions—too many for me to list.
I start my comments by setting the wider context, using an holistic approach—a phrase that has been used. The Government’s entire housing strategy must be considered a mess, unless we assume that they want to dismantle the concept of social housing. The much trumpeted right-to-buy scheme and its extension to the properties of social landlords will reduce overall stock, and will be compounded by the forced council house sell-off to fund replacement housing. It is clear that the replacement houses will not be like for like, and they may be located in areas where there is less demand. All those factors combined will have an effect on housing associations’ finances. The ironic reality will be an increase in the overall housing benefit bill, as private rents increase and more properties end up on the buy-to-let market.
Another issue for the social rented sector is the 1% rent reduction, which, according to the Government’s figures, will take £10 billion out of the social housing market by 2021. That £10 billion loss will obviously reduce the chances of some supported accommodation being affordable within a wider model. It is incredible that the Government have proposed a cap on social sector housing benefit rates without thinking about the impact on supported accommodation. The measure is expected to save only half a billion pounds over this parliamentary term. When compared with the £8.5 billion cut in corporation tax and the £5.5 billion of capital gains and inheritance tax giveaways in the Budget, that half a billion pounds is a drop in the ocean. The Government have admitted that they do not have statistics on those who access supported housing and have belatedly agreed to an impact assessment, which shows real flaws in their sign-off process.
The one-year delay in implementation can only be cautiously welcomed, because such accommodation may still be at risk. To use the fall-back answer that discretionary housing payments can be used misses the point completely. It is the argument used in relation to the bedroom tax, and it is the argument that the Government lost in court. I repeat that the term “discretionary” means that the funding is uncertain. It is impossible to believe that DHP will plug all the gaps. My local authority has confirmed that the overall DHP budget will need to be increased, so there will not be any real savings if that is the way the Government go.
We have heard that lifeline services are at stake. Let us be clear about that. Supported housing can end years of hell for those suffering from domestic abuse. It can save lives, prevent rough sleeping, support people with mental health issues and allow older people to live independently in a safe environment. That in itself can lead to offset savings in the NHS or reduce the need for people to be in a more intense and expensive residential home. It can help prevent bed blocking in the NHS. The polar opposite of supported housing provision does not bear thinking about. We have heard that there could be increased health costs, increased crime and increased costs associated with imprisonment.
As a councillor, I was pleased to see the construction of a new development in Kilmarnock called Lily Hill Gardens. It provides supported accommodation for people with special needs, allowing independent living within the complex, subject to a 24-hour telecare package. That project was truly transformational for the tenants. I shudder to think what will happen if future projects cannot go ahead.
One of the caseworkers in my office previously worked for Women’s Aid. The circumstances in which some people live are frightening, and I pay tribute to the dedication of the support staff and acknowledge the risks that they face. How undervalued must they feel at this moment? Kilmarnock Women’s Aid was able to confirm that it provides information, support and temporary refuge accommodation to women, children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. The impact of benefit sanctions and reforms are already having a disproportionate effect on women and lone parents. Universal credit, which will be paid monthly to one householder, further increases the possibility of financial abuse.
If refuge services are not exempted from housing benefit, a vital lifeline for women and children who need to find safety from domestic abuse could be lost. We have heard about the financial impact estimated by Scottish Women’s Aid and the fact that the Inside Housing article estimates that 95% of services could be lost. The Government do not need an impact assessment. Those points prove that an extended exemption for supported accommodation is required.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for securing this debate. There does seem to be cross-party support for and interest in this issue, because it affects every constituency. My right hon. Friend mentioned how it affects the north-east, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said about how different the situation is outside London. Local housing allowance in London is at a completely different level from what it is in some rural areas. That important point must not be forgotten.
Supported housing means that no one is left behind. It is what makes a civilised society. We have heard passionate speeches today about how in all areas, people will be affected in different ways. The majority of supported housing tenants depend on housing benefit to cover the cost of their housing. The proposed application of the local housing allowance rate in social housing would have a significant impact on the most vulnerable residents in all our communities. The decision is already having a devastating effect before it even comes into force: the building of thousands of vital supported homes has been delayed or scrapped altogether because of uncertainty over future funding.
The National Housing Federation estimates that 82,000 specialist homes will be forced to close. That is 41% of all specialist housing. Last Friday I visited Emmaus Greenwich along with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). It does a fantastic job. It does not just house people; it rebuilds lives. The introduction of the local housing allowance cap would mean a reduction of 40% of its housing benefit income, leading to a local shortfall of an estimated £86,000 a year. Nationally, Emmaus would lose around £3 million a year.
We have heard many passionate speeches today, and I would like to set out some questions for the Minister. We have the Housing Minister in front of us, but I understand that the decision is pretty much led by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions, so he may not be able to answer the questions today. If he cannot, I ask him to commit to writing with the answers. Will he commit to working with the sector to try to understand the impact of the decision? Has he had conversations about that? There is some uncertainty. It has been mooted that only new tenancies will be affected. Does that mean new claimants, or does that mean new tenancies? If an existing claimant has to move from one property to another, does that mean that they then lose out? That clarification would be welcome.
Why is the evidence review into the decision not completed yet? It started in December 2014, I think, and should have been completed last year. It is still not complete. Is there a reason for that delay? When will the review be finished? Will the Minister announce a full exemption from the LHA cap for all tenants in supported housing? Has a cost-benefit analysis of the decision and the delay taken place? The impact of the decision has one cost and the impact of the delay has another.
Has anyone looked not only at demand now, but future demand? For instance, has there been any review of how many women applied for housing because of domestic violence, whether nationally or locally? Does the Minister know what the figure is for his constituency? We need to look at future demand. We are making decisions now when demand is growing.
Yesterday, a written response came back to a parliamentary question. The question was:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the number of disabled people living in social housing who will be affected by the cap to local housing allowance.”
The response was:
“The information requested is not available. As such it is not possible to accurately estimate the number of disabled people living in social housing that will be affected by this policy”.
How can we have a policy that is costed when we do not know how many people it affects?
The hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Peterborough said that this is a cross-party and cross-agency issue. It will affect the NHS, the courts and the probation service, so it needs an in-depth look. David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, is a man I do not agree with on everything, but he has said:
“This decision must be made and it must be made quickly.”
I agree, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, in an important debate, which I have listened to with great interest. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) outlined the level of interest in this issue, which I have been impressed by not just here today, but in previous debates in the main Chamber, where Members from all parts of the House have spoken. This debate has shown that Members care passionately about this issue. They have shown that here today and have spoken about it in conversations and debates previously. That is a good sign. I welcome the comments in support of some of the excellent work across the sector. We all share an enthusiasm and a commitment to sort out this important part of the housing market and to protect vulnerable people in the wider sense.
I want to outline for hon. Members some of the things that we are looking to do, so that we have the context. In our welfare reforms we are determined to ensure that we deliver a system that rewards hard work, that is fair to taxpayers as well as to claimants, and that always protects the most vulnerable. Yes, the welfare reforms we are introducing are wide-ranging. They need to look at all aspects of welfare spending, including housing benefit costs on supported housing, which are currently estimated to be running at more than £4 billion annually, and we need to be aware of that. Nevertheless, protecting the most vulnerable in society and supporting their housing needs is just as much a priority as driving down the deficit, and there need not be a contradiction between those two aims. In fact, as my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) rightly pointed out, we should be looking to make a clean start and to get an holistic response.
Grahame M. Morris
On that point, with all respect to the Minister, may I point out that in Peterlee in my constituency the shelter for victims of domestic violence will close? That centre is full and over-subscribed. The figures suggest that every week two women are murdered by their partner or former partner. That must be a cause for concern when not only the Peterlee shelter but eight others across the north-east are apparently about to close.
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman reads what was said when we had a longer debate on this subject in the main Chamber just a couple of months ago, he will see that we were very clear that we will make sure that the most vulnerable are protected. He is presupposing something that nobody has suggested is going to happen.
Look at our track record on supporting the most vulnerable. We have set aside more than £500 million to create a safety net against homelessness. We have increased funding for central programmes to reduce homelessness even further over the next four years. That funding will include a new national programme of millions of pounds to support and scale-up work on rough sleeping. On the specific subject that was just raised, we have pledged £40 million for domestic abuse services, ensuring that no victim is turned away from the support they need. At the autumn statement we announced £400 million to deliver thousands more specialist affordable homes for the vulnerable, the elderly and those with disabilities. The Department of Health has committed to fund up to 7,500 further specialised homes for disabled and older people.
We have spent around £50 billion every year on benefits to support people with disabilities or health conditions, and that spending will be higher than it was in 2010 in every year until 2020. Funding for supported housing is also part of the Government’s wider financial settlement to councils, which includes £5.3 billion in the better care fund, and will result in councils being better able to work together, across agencies, and to invest in early action to help people to live safely in their homes for longer, which, ultimately, is what most people want to be able to do.
We understand how vital it is that those living in supported accommodation and those who provide it receive appropriate protections. I pay tribute to the excellent providers, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon and many of which I have met in my travels around the country. Indeed, I was a trustee of a foyer some years ago. We all know of examples from our constituencies and around the country of excellent providers doing excellent things to make a real difference to the lives of vulnerable people. That is to be applauded. These organisations do vital work that shows the very best ways of supporting and helping vulnerable people.
While looking after the most vulnerable in society, we must also ensure that funding for supported housing is efficient, workable, transparent and sustainable, in order to provide a secure, quality service that delivers for those who need it and makes the best use of the money available. As the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) outlined, my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions—this issue crosses Departments—have jointly commissioned an evidence review of the supported housing sector. That review will help us to shape the future based on the latest evidence of the current scope and scale of the supported housing sector. It has included extensive consultation with local authorities, supported housing commissioners and all types of supported housing providers, be they charities, housing associations or providers from the commercial sector.
The review will report shortly, and we will continue to work with and listen to the sector as part of developing a long-term, sustainable funding regime. In the past few weeks I have met David Orr and others and spoken to providers, and I will continue to do so because it is important that we develop a long-term, sustainable funding regime. It is really important that we get it right.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
May I throw something else into the mix of the consultation? Because of the different statutory framework we have in Scotland for homeless accommodation, there is a greater need for private sector companies to fill supported accommodation roles in Scotland. The cuts directly impinge on such providers being able to fulfil Scotland’s statutory obligations. Will the Minister take that back as part of his consultation and consider making private accommodation specified accommodation, so that those who need to can claim discretionary housing benefit?
Brandon Lewis
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that but, as I outlined, the report will be published shortly and we will then respond to it.
I want to put on the record how grateful I am, as are colleagues from across Government, for all the constructive engagement we have had from providers, local authorities, charities and service user groups. We want to continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders as we develop the sustainable future for supported housing that we all want to see. Based on the findings of the evidence review, my Department will be working closely with others across Government, as well as with representatives of service users, supported housing providers and partners, to develop options. The ambition remains to develop a system that is flexible, meets the needs of tenants and stimulates investment in the sector by creating certainty and clarity on future funding.
The sector has welcomed our decision to have the year-long deferral to ensure that the report can complete and we can feed back on it to give that certainty and confidence as we go forward with the final outline. As we made clear when we announced the deferral, the policy review will ensure appropriate protections for vulnerable people. We have done that, as is evidenced in our actions. The latest Homes and Communities Agency figures openly report that there have been 16,813 older people’s and supported housing completions under our affordable housing, and more than 2,000 starts and almost 1,000 completions have already been recorded under phase 1 of the Department of Health-funded care and support specialised housing programme.
We will always protect the most vulnerable in society and provide them with the support they need and a safe home to live in. We must also ensure that that is sustainable and that they have certainty for the future, which is why it is right that we let the report complete and be published. We will then respond to it as efficiently and quickly as we can to ensure certainty and confidence going forward.
Mr Nicholas Brown
Mr Hollobone, you have presided over a very disciplined debate with a clear purpose: to question the effectiveness of the policies the Government are pursuing and alert the Minister to what I hope are the unintended consequences of the policy as we understand it.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for expressing the Labour party’s point of view. I also thank the two Scottish National party Members who have taken part in this short debate, the hon. Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the latter of whom spoke from the Front Bench. We all had essentially the same point to make: what is proposed is cruel, stupid and expensive.
Even the two Conservative Members who spoke, the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), made the point—correctly—that this is a cross-departmental issue and it is wrong to try to tackle it by focusing only on the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government. If things go wrong, the consequences will be far more broadly felt than at just those two Departments, with effects on the budgets of all sorts of other Departments—certainly including the Home Office and the Department of Health on top of the two I just mentioned.
The Minister gave us a partial answer on when the all-important report is expected: “March” and “spring” have now become “shortly”. I welcome that. I think we will be returning to this matter again when the report is in the public domain. There is still a question mark over what is to happen when universal credit is introduced. The Minister was not able to deal with that today, and I accept that he is a Minister at DCLG rather than DWP, but nevertheless it is a vital question, not only for those who rely on the provision but for those who are bidding for the contracts to make the provision. It is very difficult for the latter to bid for a contract without knowing what the funding arrangements will be post 2018.
Finally, I do not recognise the £4 billion figure that the Minister used at the start of his address. Perhaps I misheard him, but it sounded to me as though he said that supported housing costs £4 billion. I think a number of us will want to pursue that further. I thank everyone who participated in the debate, including the Minister. I can confidently say that we will be returning to this matter again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future funding of supported housing.
UN Security Council: Kazakhstan
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of Kazakhstan’s bid to secure a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for 2017-18.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Group for Kazakhstan.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are committed to promoting a broad and deep bilateral relationship with Kazakhstan, working together to further boost our co-operation and take forward our dialogue on a wide range of issues. We will consider Kazakhstan’s candidacy for the United Nations Security Council on its merits.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The pillars of Kazakhstan’s campaign to join the United Nations Security Council are nuclear security, water security, food security and energy security. It has played a pivotal role in the promotion of nuclear disarmament and in advancing the peace in several countries as well as responding to humanitarian emergencies. Does my noble friend recognise the importance of these issues and does he believe Kazakhstan’s commitment to them displays its suitability for a non-permanent seat on the council?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I have no doubt of Kazakhstan’s commitment to water, food and energy security and its role in nuclear disarmament. I recognise that these are important issues. However, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, we have a long-standing policy of never revealing our voting intentions for Security Council elections.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, has there been any change in Kazakhstan’s human rights record since the United States Department of State reported on it in 2013, when it described the most significant human rights problems as severe limits on citizens’ rights to change their Government; restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion and association; and the lack of an independent judiciary? It also talked about other reported abuses, including arbitrary and unlawful killings, military hazing that led to deaths, and detainee and prisoner torture. Is this the sort of country we wish to encourage to join the Security Council?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord makes some very important points from the 2013 report. There are still problems with freedom of expression. Kazakhstan’s legislation on NGOs is of concern and progress on human rights has not been quite as fast or comprehensive as we and others would wish in the 25 years since independence. Significant reforms are under way, however, and important progress has been made on social and women’s rights and prevention of torture.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in addition to worrying about human rights violations, which include torture, does the noble Earl agree that the record on the promotion of democracy is also pretty awful? There have been five successive elections: in the most recent the President was elected yet again, but with 97% of the vote. All the outside agencies that have monitored these elections say that they have all been flawed.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights noted that, while the elections were “efficiently organised”, there was still room for much improvement and there needs to be a “genuine political choice” and more media pluralism.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we all recognise the importance of Kazakhstan and the other central Asian countries in the stability of Asia—in particular, given their Sunni Muslim populations, in the enormous overlapping problems between central Asia and the rest of the Middle East. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is a good deal of corruption in Kazakhstan. Has the noble Earl noted the number of Kazakhs who came into Britain in recent years under the tier 1 investor visa scheme? Have we checked whether the money they invested in Britain was lawfully acquired in Kazakhstan?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, makes some very interesting points. I will ensure that we look—
The Earl of Courtown
Noble Lords may jest, but it is quite right that these points should be examined. I assure the noble Lord that we will look at this and see whether there is any more information I can give him.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, sometimes, unfortunately, horse trading can take place at the United Nations and the issues that concern us most are put aside for other reasons. This week, we have seen the much more open and transparent process for the appointment of the UN Secretary-General. Half the declared nominees are women. What are the chances of a woman being elected Secretary-General in September?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I would not try to second-guess the General Assembly, but the noble Lord was in his place during a debate last year when my noble friend Lady Anelay responded on behalf of the Government. She emphasised the importance of structure and transparency in the election of future UN Secretaries-General. While we want to encourage as many women candidates as possible, we want to see the best person for the job, no matter what gender.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that in Kazakhstan’s condition the thing we want to encourage more than anything else is an independent judiciary and rule of law?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soley, makes a point that is worth repeating. Last May, President Nazarbayev launched far-reaching reforms for the legal system, the civil service, the economy and public accountability, known as the 100 concrete steps. I emphasise that the Prime Minister visited Kazakhstan in 2013 and President Nazarbayev visited the United Kingdom towards the end of last year. Human rights and trade were important points of discussion.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, while I in no way advocate Kazakhstan being a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, does my noble friend agree that if widespread corruption, and the other abuses that have been mentioned, disqualified a candidate for membership of the council, it would be significantly smaller than it is today?
The Earl of Courtown
I could not possibly comment on my noble friend Lord Lawson’s question, but he makes an interesting point.
United Nations World Humanitarian Summit
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government who will represent the United Kingdom at the United Nations World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul in May.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is committed to making the World Humanitarian Summit a success and we will send high-level representation to Istanbul. We are progressing a strong agenda for humanitarian reform, including a new approach to protracted crises. Last week we hosted a forum at Wilton Park on protracted displacement and at the end of this week we will co-host, with the World Bank, the third grand bargain Sherpa event in Washington DC.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stressed that this summit, the first of its kind in the 70-year history of the United Nations, has to deal with the urgency of these complex challenges and the scale of the suffering that we see around the globe. He has called on global leaders to,
“act decisively, with compassion and resolve”.
Given that the UK is one of the biggest donors of development aid to humanitarian crises around the world, and given that the British public have consistently shown a generosity that is unmatched in most of the world, will the Prime Minister take a lead and attend the summit? It might give him a slight distraction from some of his current troubles.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, as I have already mentioned, there will be high-level representation at the summit.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, UN member states have agreed that the summit in Istanbul must reinforce the outcomes of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris agreement on climate change. Therefore, will the Government be ready at the summit to commit to action, subject to mutual parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, in what will be the first major opportunity to give meaning to the principle of “Leave no one behind”?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. This is a very important summit. It will tackle a lot of issues, including the agreements that were reached at Sendai and Paris, to ensure that those strong linkages between the disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation agendas continue. On the wider point, it is about making sure that the reforms that are required to ensure preparedness for future crises are also part of the bigger reform agenda. As I said, we also need to encourage other partners and donors and the private sector to step up to the mark.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the British representative at the humanitarian summit will be able, by virtue of having met our commitment to the 0.7% GDP target, to give a lead to others, and that it is very important that we give that lead in May? Does she also agree that one of the projects that we should take on with our commitment of future resources is to increase the supply of expert humanitarian aid co-ordinators so that there is a corps in place not only for dealing with crises when they happen but of sufficient numbers that they can stay in place and help with the recovery from crises in some of the most desperate areas?
Baroness Verma
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the points he has raised, particularly on the 0.7% commitment that we have managed to embed and deliver. He is also right that we need to prepare ourselves for future crises but also help build resilience in infrastructure in countries that really need it, particularly in their health systems. My noble friend is absolutely right that we need to make sure that we not only support people with the skills but prepare people locally to have those skills.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, in his pre-summit report, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, the United Nations Secretary-General urges world leaders not to underestimate or, worse, override the work of local organisations in dealing with humanitarian crises, because they are the best placed to shape programmes in culturally sensitive ways, as we saw in the Ebola crisis. Yet currently only 0.02% of humanitarian aid is passed through local organisations. Can the Minister reassure us that at the summit—whoever represents us—the Government will support the call made by leading NGOs to raise this to 20%? Will that be part of the new approach of which she speaks?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right that we need to ensure that we do not miss out on the local support groups on the ground. We have a mixture of packages. There is some work that the multilaterals are better placed to do. Of course, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is also important that local-led community groups are properly supported. DfID support will be there to ensure that not only are we urging others to step up to the mark to support these local groups but we are doing that ourselves.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, when the Minister last referred to the Istanbul summit in this House, she mentioned that one of the themes on the agenda would be the protection of civilian populations. Would Her Majesty’s Government be willing to table an item on the agenda in Istanbul about the need to protect the civilian interpreters in conflict zones?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a point that is well above my own pay grade but I will take that back to the department.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the summit is an opportunity to focus on making humanitarian action more effective and inclusive and, as Ban Ki-moon has said—I, too, quote him—“to transform the lives” of those who are most at risk and in danger of being “left behind”? Does she agree that it is a potential turning point in our ability to prevent and end crises, and to tackle vulnerability?
Baroness Verma
Yes, my Lords, the noble Baroness sums it up rather well. It is an opportunity, but one that we must all take. The UK has often been at the forefront of it all. We really need to push harder for other donors to step up to the mark, but also to involve the private sector and strengthen the civil society organisations on the ground.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, clearly the focus at the summit will be on the Middle East and Syria but there are of course unfolding crises throughout the world, particularly in the east of Africa. The Minister mentioned the Sendai framework. Can she tell us a bit more about how committed the UK Government are to ensuring that this framework is properly operated, and will she continue to support the European Union’s efforts to ensure that it is implemented?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that we must not take our eye off any crises. As demonstrated by the department in which I have the privilege of being a Minister, we have shown that leadership. We have provided an extra £150 million to prepare for and mitigate the impact of some of the crises caused by the El Niño-related climate shocks in Africa. But, again, we cannot do things on our own; we really need to get others to support strongly the work that we in the UK Government are doing. I agree with the noble Lord, but we need others to be reminded constantly that they have a duty, too.
Prisoners: Foreign Nationals
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public over the last three years have been foreign national prisoners eligible, pursuant to Section 119 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, for removal from the United Kingdom at the end of their tariff terms without a direction from the Parole Board for their release, and what proportion of such prisoners have in the fact been removed without such a direction.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, from May 2012, when the tariff- expired removal scheme was commenced, up to 31 March of this year, 261 prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection have been removed under that scheme—that is, without a direction from the Parole Board. A further five such prisoners have been eligible for removal but officials decided that they did not meet the criteria, while 16 have been approved for removal but are awaiting the settling of their removal directions.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for those figures but I am sure that he will readily understand the sense of injustice and frustration, not to say anger, felt by UK domestic IPP prisoners at this preferential treatment which is accorded to foreign national prisoners. It is preferential because, of course, the foreign national prisoners do not have to satisfy the Parole Board that they can safely be released. Would the Minister agree to see the Lord Chancellor and try to persuade him that this is yet another reason for the Lord Chancellor to exercise his powers, also given under Section 128 of LASPO, to modify the test which the Parole Board applies in the case of the domestic IPP prisoners so that, hopefully, some of them, too, may gain the earlier release that at the moment is given only to these foreign prisoners?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is a champion of those who have been imprisoned under the IPP scheme brought in by the previous Labour Government. The position is that this Government are committed, as I think all Governments before them were, to removing foreign criminals to their own countries where possible. They must be punished but not at the expense of British taxpayers. Therefore they are removed when the relevant section permits their removal. Of course the Secretary of State actively considers the position that he has a power to change the release test but, at the moment, he is not satisfied that it is appropriate to do so.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in view of the totally unsatisfactory ongoing position with regard to IPP prisoners, will the Minister convey to the Secretary of State that if the Secretary of State is not willing to take and use the powers at his disposal, he should consider appointing a senior judge to review the working of this system in order to get justice for people who are quite clearly not getting it at present?
Lord Faulks
We have reduced by 584 the number of IPP prisoners in the last year. There is an indeterminate sentence prisoners co-ordination group, run by NOMS, where close examination is taking place of all serving IPP prisoners. Efforts are made to accelerate their access to the appropriate courses, and we have removed backlogs from the Parole Board. We think that everything is being done to make sure that those who are safe to be released are being released when the Parole Board decides.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, today we have further evidence of prison overcrowding from another shocking inspection report of Wormwood Scrubs, which holds 35 indeterminate sentence prisoners. It makes the obvious recommendation that single cells should not be used for more than one prisoner. Will the Government now recognise that the injustice of keeping IPP prisoners beyond their tariffs serves only to add to the scandal of holding prisoners in overcrowded, squalid and understaffed prisons?
Lord Faulks
The noble Lord refers to the report on Wormwood Scrubs, which I entirely accept shows a distressing picture. As he and the House will know, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are determined to improve our prison system, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given £1.3 billion to enable that to happen. It will not happen overnight, but I am sure the House will accept the Government’s sincerity and determination to deal with some of the most unattractive aspects of our prison system.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I fully accept that the Government have been trying to find a solution to the problem of these unfortunate prisoners, but the fact remains that it is now coming up to the fourth year since the power to impose IPP sentences was removed. That is far too long a period when, as was indicated at the time, these sentences put on a prisoner the impossible task of proving that he is not a danger. That is the real heart of the problem. Unless something is done to tackle that, does the Minister recognise that there will be a substantial further period before the last of these prisoners are released?
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the House of course greatly respects the noble and learned Lord for his experience in this area, but it is a matter for the equally experienced Parole Board to decide whether or not it is safe to release these prisoners. It must not be forgotten that, in each of the cases, the relevant judge sentenced the defendant in accordance with the then existing powers for the protection of the public. It therefore becomes incumbent upon the Parole Board to decide whether it is safe to release them, notwithstanding the fact that they may have a short-tariff sentence. It would be easy of course for the Government to wash their hands of this, but they have taken a responsible view to unravelling this unfortunate provision, which was brought in by the previous Labour Government.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is probably not the moment for me to confess that I was the Home Secretary who introduced the idea. The original intention, which I hope is understood, was that only those who posed a really serious risk to the population would be subject to such orders. That did not come about, and I regret that very strongly. But is it not a fact that what is lacking are the courses and therapy to allow the Parole Board to make the necessary decisions as quickly as possible. so that the overly prolonged incarceration of many of these prisoners can come to an end?
Lord Faulks
I entirely accept that the intention was to protect the public and that this provision caught in the net rather more prisoners than it was expected to catch. It must be remembered, of course, that these courses are important because they can provide evidence that a prisoner has grappled with a particular problem, whether it is sex offending, violence, drugs or whatever it might be. It is not a prerequisite for their release that they have to have attended these courses, although it may provide some evidence. Equally, the fact that you attend a course does not guarantee your release. We have increased the availability of courses to these prisoners. I am aware that a letter was written to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, by my noble friend Lady Evans when this matter was last raised. I will ensure that that letter is placed in the Library. It gives a list of all the various courses which are now available to those prisoners.
Economy: Productivity
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the productivity of the United Kingdom economy in the light of the figures published by the Office for National Statistics on 7 April.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, productivity growth represents a serious challenge for all advanced economies, and the UK is no exception. The Government last year published our productivity plan, Fixing the Foundations. In last month’s Budget, we went further—for example, announcing additional reductions in corporation tax to incentivise investment, and giving the green light to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail 2 and High Speed 3.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
Indeed, my Lords. Given that productivity levels in the UK are lower than when the previous Labour Government were in office, and given that in the G7 only Japan stands worse than us, would it not be a good idea if, with some enthusiasm and gusto, the Government actually pursued their plan of fixing the foundations and building homes, rebalancing the economy and taking timely decisions about our transport infrastructure? Indeed, can they apply the enthusiasm with which they quarrel among themselves about Europe to addressing the real problems of the United Kingdom?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I am bursting with enthusiasm and full of energy to get things done. I cannot claim that this Government will not encounter some of the problems that previous Governments down the ages have encountered when implementing their plans, but I refer the noble Lord to chart 2.B in the National Infrastructure Delivery Plan, published a fortnight ago, which shows that, of the 602 projects that the plan sets out and are in the pipeline, 61% are in construction, 50% will have been completed by 2020-21 and a further 49% will by that point be either under construction or part of an active programme. So we are full of enthusiasm, full of energy and we are getting going.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Will my noble friend explain to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that the Office for National Statistics figures which so worry him may not tell the full story by any means, because they take too little account of the huge output of data and information in the digital age, which now generates more economic value than the whole of global goods trade?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. Sir Charles Bean recently completed a review of the UK’s economic statistics, and one of his findings was, as my noble friend said, that if the digital economy had been properly taken into account, economic growth would have been one-third to two-thirds of a percentage point higher over the past decade, with similar implications for productivity. However, I stress that that would not explain the UK’s recent poor performance in comparison with other countries, nor why productivity has worsened since the financial crisis, so we are not complacent.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the UK’s poor performance on productivity will surely never improve until we get in place the infrastructure—housing, broadband, power and transport—that we need. Will the Government give up or curb their obsession with the budget surplus, borrow at the current zero-coupon rate available to them, stop faffing around with expensive and reluctant private sector and sovereign fund investors, and actually get spades in the ground on the major projects—Hinkley Point being one example—that are at present all suffering delays?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we are getting going and cracking on with things. I dispute what the noble Baroness says about having a choice between ditching the projected surplus that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has set out and achieving what we are setting out. They are not mutually exclusive. For example, noble Lords might be interested to know that we have committed to the biggest investment in transport infrastructure in generations, increasing spending by 50% to £61 billion in this Parliament.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister cannot get away with those glib replies. Where has he been for the last six years? The fact is that our productivity levels are back to those of the recession year of 2008. Most of the projects that he mentions have been started in the past year or so. What about those projects which were meant to commence from 2010 onwards, which have in fact achieved very little? Does he accept that we will get nowhere until we successfully address the issue of training? Even the construction industry, which is clearly important to the development of economic growth and jobs, complains that it cannot get work people of sufficient skills to do the tasks it wants them to do.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I apologise if I sound glib, but I am certainly not complacent. I quite agree that there is a lot of work to be done. That is why, for example, on the point about construction skills, we are launching the apprenticeship levy to fund more high-quality apprenticeships. On top of that, we are protecting the core schools budget; we have removed the HE student numbers cap; and we have cut corporation tax to 18%. I could go on and on—there are lots of things. This is not glib; this is work in progress, but we are not complacent.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the latest figures for High Speed 2 put the overall cost at £80 billion. It will be 16 years before it begins to run at all, and then it will run at a loss. Meanwhile, in this country 90% of our economic activity is conducted by road. Would not it be more sensible—taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—to divert these enormous sums into something that would give more immediate productivity gains, have a less ambitious target and put that money into millions of small, economically beneficial and productivity beneficial developments that could be done through rail and road improvements?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I hear what the noble Lord says about HS2, but I would not say that these were mutually exclusive. As I have said, the UK will invest more than £100 billion in infrastructure over this Parliament. My noble friend wishes to see more investment in roads. The £15 billion of investment in the roads investment strategy will include resurfacing more than 80% of the strategic road network and delivering more than 1,300 miles of additional lanes. As I say, these are not mutually exclusive.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
When the Minister replied to my noble friend Lord Harrison, he produced a long list of good intentions, but none of them has actually come into effect. In a subsequent answer, he went on to tell us about a number of measures that the Government have taken. Having taken all those measures, we now have the appalling productivity statement from our own department dealing with national statistics. I am not going to accuse the Minister of being complacent, but he really has to get a better story to tell.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I hear what the noble Lord says, but I think that we do have a good story to tell. I draw his attention to the national infrastructure plan that was published, which sets out very clearly what the Government are doing and how we are delivering it.
Immigration Bill
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:10 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 215 - Amendment 6 agreed.
17:19 - Division on Amendment 9 - Ayes: 110 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 9 disagreed.
Baroness Hamwee
“Information
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) After section 21(3) insert—“(3A) P may apply to the Secretary of State for written confirmation that the Secretary of State—(a) Has granted, or(b) Will grant,Permission to P in accordance with subsection (3).”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 1. It is unusual, of course, to have a substantive amendment at Third Reading, and I suspect that it is more unusual for that amendment to amend an Act that is already on the statute book. However, noble Lords will be aware that the amendment would not be before us if it had not got past the eagle eyes of the Public Bill Office. The amendment would iron out what seems to be a contradiction about the position as between a letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which came from the Home Office.
Your Lordships will recall that this Bill extends provisions regarding any tenant’s right to rent, but those who are caught up in this situation are, not entirely, but very often, immigrants. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised what she called the “Lord Avebury point”. I am very happy to take any opportunity to refer to my late friend Lord Avebury, whose record on these issues I strive to match but will never attain. The point, as she summarised it, is that asylum speakers whose presence is not illegal but who do not have documentary proof are unable to show landlords that they have a right to rent. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, said that he would write to the noble Baroness, and he did so, copying me. He wrote:
“It remains the case that migrants who do not understand whether they may qualify for permission to rent may contact the Home Office to establish whether this is the case”.
That was welcome, but earlier in the same month the Home Office, replying to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, said three times:
“there is no application route for permission to rent”.
It also said:
“It is not a question of a migrant making an application for permission to rent, but rather a status the Secretary of State may consider affording on a case by case basis”.
To explain the problem a little further, Home Office guidance envisages that permission to rent will be granted in cases such as: asylum seekers; refused asylum seekers; families co-operating with the Home Office’s family return processes; individuals on criminal or immigration bail; those within the Home Office voluntary departure process; victims of trafficking or slavery; and individuals with an outstanding out-of-time immigration application, in-country appeal or judicial review. It is also necessary to grant permission to rent where to fail to do so would violate an individual’s human rights.
However, the only way to seek confirmation that a discretionary right to rent has been granted is for the landlord, not the tenant, to request confirmation from the Home Office. During the passage of this Bill, we have debated the processes in place for that and the operation of the checking service. We have also debated the problems about the right-to-rent scheme, which include potential discrimination and landlords who, quite understandably, want to get on with renting their property and will let to those whose status is the most easily ascertained. A landlord may not tell a would-be tenant why he is refusing a tenancy, and the individual might not be aware that he has been denied permission to rent. There is no mechanism to allow an individual to clarify the position, correct any mistakes or give additional evidence. There is no obligation for landlords or agents to request a check from the Home Office. I am sure that almost all noble Lords know, if not personally, then through acquaintance with people who are seeking to rent property in a very difficult market, that the situation for every would-be tenant is emotional and a matter of considerable stress and anxiety and that many people have to go on looking without a good outcome.
The 2014 Act, which is the subject of the amendment, provides at Section 21(3) that a person,
“is to be treated as having a right to rent … if the Secretary of State has granted”,
him,
“permission for the purposes of this Chapter to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement”.
My amendment would allow an application for confirmation that the Secretary of State has granted or will grant permission in accordance with the subsection that I have just read out. This is not an academic matter, as I have said; I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, will share with your Lordships the case of a family with two young children, living in this country legally, who, through circumstances that I suspect are not at all unusual, found that they could not prove their right to rent and therefore found themselves homeless, with their possessions in store and the family in limbo.
My amendment does not seem to be inconsistent with the response to the FOI request because, although I would like to, I am not seeking an application for permission to rent, nor would it be an application that would imply the whole process of going through seeking permission. It would simply be an application to find out whether the individual himself had, or was due to have, permission. I hope that we can clear this up because a lot of people will be affected by it. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendment on behalf of us both. I was alerted to this issue by briefings at an earlier stage of the Bill from the JCWI and ILPA. As the noble Baroness said, the late and much missed Lord Avebury tried to resolve this issue during the passage of what became the 2014 Act, but to no avail. It falls to us to try to resolve it now.
I will not repeat the case in support of the amendment that has already been made so clearly by the noble Baroness. Instead, I draw your Lordships’ attention to a singular aspect of the permission-to-rent scheme that the amendment is designed to remedy. The UK has a strong tradition of upholding the rule of law. All of us can be sure in our interactions with the state that officials who make decisions that affect us are accountable to the law. Whether it is the person next door applying for planning permission, the imposition of a fine for speeding, the grant of a licence to serve alcoholic beverages or a local decision to cut council services, in every case the people affected are either directly notified of the decision or are able to access information about it that is available in the public domain. By informing people of the decisions that affect them, we ensure that government operates reasonably transparently. We ensure that power is exercised in a reasonably accountable way, and that any arbitrary or unlawful use of power is communicated directly to those that it affects. The system helps to ensure that Ministers and other public servants wield their considerable power within the law.
Here, though, we have a scheme under which the Home Secretary can decide whether or not a person—and, potentially, their entire family—is made homeless. I emphasise to noble Lords that this is no exaggeration. To take the example that the noble Baroness referred to, we have been made aware of the case of a man with a wife and two young children who have every right to be in this country and possess the right to rent but, because he does not have the paperwork to evidence that, he is unable to find housing for his family. They have come to the end of a tenancy and have now been forced, as a family of four, to live with relatives while the Home Office processes his paperwork.
The right-to-rent scheme has a huge impact on individuals who are caught up in it. But, despite the importance that the Home Secretary’s decision makes to an individual’s life in future, there is no right to be informed of that decision and of the grounds on which the decision was made.
The Government will tell my landlord whether or not I have permission to rent and therefore whether or not I might have a home to go to come tomorrow, but they will not tell me. This cannot be tenable in a country that operates under the transparent rule of law. People have a right to know whether they will be entitled to rent accommodation. Moreover, as the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe stated in his recent memorandum on the human rights of asylum seekers and immigrants in the UK, the right to adequate housing applies to everyone. Ensuring that right is essential to the inherent dignity of every person, irrespective of their legal or immigration status.
A simple administrative reform can resolve this issue, which, as I have said, has important human rights implications. I urge the Minister either to accept the recommendation or to make a clear commitment to sort this out once and for all.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I, too, have received a briefing on the issue that has been raised, and I certainly do not wish to reiterate the points that have been so ably put. There seems to be a strong argument for at least clarifying the situation—I think that that is what is being asked for—and ensuring that we do not end up with people being made homeless as a result. I very much hope that in his response the Minister will be able to provide that clarification—and an acceptable clarification as well.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would, as she explained, provide that a person disqualified by virtue of their immigration status may apply to the Secretary of State for written confirmation that permission to rent has been or will be granted to them. The amendment would amend the Immigration Act 2014, which introduced the right-to-rent scheme. It would work in conjunction with the existing provision, which states that a person who is otherwise disqualified from renting premises as a result of their immigration status is to be treated as having a right to rent where the Secretary of State has granted them permission to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially even a step backwards. The Secretary of State is already able to grant permission to rent to people who are otherwise disqualified from renting. This may include migrants without leave who have sought asylum, families with minor children who are in the family returns process or those who face a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK. A migrant may obtain confirmation that they will be afforded such permission by contacting the Home Office, and all a landlord need do then is to contact the Home Office landlords’ checking service with the migrant’s Home Office reference number to confirm that they may rent to that migrant. Following that process will give the landlord a statutory excuse from any civil penalty under the right-to-rent scheme.
Very importantly, this system allows for a swift process, without the need to require a migrant to make a formal application or for them to await written confirmation through the post that they may rent. Our experience since the right-to-rent scheme was introduced on 1 December 2014 is that this process works well. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Incidentally, there is no inconsistency between the FoI response and the letter from my noble friend Lord Bates. As I explained, a migrant may already contact the Home Office in order to establish whether they will be granted permission to rent. Existing arrangements are straightforward and work well. I should also mention that the Home Office is in the process of revising its published guidance in response to concerns raised during previous debates. I have no doubt that it will factor in the points made in this debate as well. Once that is done, the guidance will set out even more clearly how a migrant may contact the Home Office. But I suggest that requiring that they make a formal application and then have to await written confirmation may lead to unnecessary delays and in fact would serve no useful purpose.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I wish that I were persuaded. The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said that migrants,
“may contact the Home Office to establish whether this is the case”.
The clear implication there is that the migrant himself may establish the position, not ask the Home Office to make sure that, if and when a landlord inquires, the landlord is given that information.
Of course, I am aware of the landlord’s statutory excuse. I do not want to be too harsh, but I wonder whether the person in the Home Office who has been drafting this has had any recent experience of trying to rent a property. Not that long ago, on the question of the rollout of the 2014 Act, two or three Members of this House explained very clearly that as landlords they, and indeed most landlords, would want to get on with letting and not have gaps in that letting. The information that I and other noble Lords have received is not that the situation is working well—that is not the position. I am glad to hear that there has been some revision of procedures, but it seems to me that by denying that there is a problem, there is denial around looking at how to solve that problem.
It seems to me that this is not considered a big deal. Perhaps I can simply urge the Minister to urge the Home Office to take this as a very serious concern. If there is a different way of assisting tenants—and my goodness, this House is spending a lot of time talking about the housing crisis at the moment—and making the whole process that much easier, avoiding the concerns about discrimination that we have debated in this context at some length, then I urge him to do that. I am clearly not going to make any progress on this now, but I will not let it go: I will keep asking questions about it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am happy to give the necessary undertaking to the noble Baroness. Indeed, I am sure she will have gathered from what I said that the whole purpose of the scheme we now have is to have a straightforward and rapid process for people to follow, rather than a more labyrinthine paper-based process. Clearly, the information she has received contradicts, at least in part, the information that I have had about how well the scheme works. I will of course ensure that Home Office officials look at any evidence she has which may cast into doubt the efficient working of the scheme.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think the first piece of evidence will be the case to which the noble Baroness and I have referred. I am grateful for that undertaking and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 2 and will speak to Amendments 3 to 5 inclusive. These amendments are technical in nature and are necessary to reflect a planned reorganisation of departmental functions in Northern Ireland. Clause 45 as drafted makes reference to the Department of the Environment, as this is the department responsible for issuing driving licences in Northern Ireland. However, this department is to be dissolved and its functions related to driving licences will be transferred to a new department: the Department for Infrastructure. These government amendments simply take account of this planned change.
“( ) In the period (if any) between the coming into force of subsection (2) and the coming into force of the Departments Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, references to the Department for Infrastructure for Northern Ireland in paragraph 25CC(3)(b), (8) and (9)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (as inserted by subsection (2)) are to be read as references to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.”
“( ) No person whom the Secretary of State knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, is pregnant shall be detained.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, Amendment 6 would put into law the recommendation of the Shaw review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, commissioned by the Home Office, that the current presumptive exclusion from detention for pregnant women should be replaced with an absolute exclusion. On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, twice stated that the Government would reflect on the matter by Third Reading. However, he also made it clear that the Government did not consider it appropriate for there to be an absolute rule and gave the example of an irregular migrant—I deliberately do not repeat the term “illegal”, in line with the recent recommendation of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights—who arrives at an airport and can be returned almost immediately. Six days later, the noble and learned Lord sent a detailed letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in which, among other things, he addressed the specific questions that I had raised about the new guidance on the detention of pregnant women. I am grateful to him for that, in particular for his agreement to share a draft of the new operational guidance with detention-related organisations such as Women for Refugee Women, to which I pay tribute for its tireless work on behalf of women in detention.
However, on the underlying question of whether pregnant women should be detained at all, the noble and learned Lord in effect repeated what he said on Report, and I did not see any evidence of the promised further reflection. I had assumed that there would be a further statement giving the Government’s formal response to Shaw’s recommendation, but when none had appeared by yesterday, I realised that it was not to be and therefore thought it important that your Lordships should have the opportunity to consider this question, which inevitably got rather lost in the debates about the wider question of time limits. I apologise that, as a result, the amendment was tabled at the very last minute.
Stephen Shaw was clearly aware of the issue of pregnant women who might not otherwise be returned quickly to their country when appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, he concluded:
“I believe that the Home Office should acknowledge the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the detention of pregnant women does not result in their removal. In practice, pregnant women are very rarely removed from the country, except voluntarily”.
He therefore recommended unequivocally that the presumptive exclusion from detention should be replaced with an absolute exclusion. In doing so, he cited evidence from the Royal College of Midwives, among others, which he said demonstrated the,
“incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children”.
In a witness statement to the High Court, the director for midwifery at the RCM spelled out the medical reasons why detention is completely inappropriate, particularly for a group of pregnant women with significant or complex health and psychosocial problems in need of higher levels of care than the general population. I here call on the Minister to arrange for a discussion of the issues raised by the detention of pregnant women with the RCM, Medical Justice—which has produced a damning research report on the issue, endorsed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—Women for Refugee Women and organisations working with those who have suffered torture.
Stephen Shaw stands by his recommendation; I heard him speak recently and eloquently in support of it. He spoke of detention’s “undoubted damage to mothers and unborn babies” at a meeting in Parliament hosted by Caroline Spelman MP, who together with me, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—who I do not believe is in his place—were members of the parliamentary inquiry into detention which recommended that pregnant women should never be detained for immigration purposes. That inquiry’s recommendations were endorsed by a Motion in the Commons last September. In his address, Mr Shaw drew attention to the Prime Minister’s prisons speech earlier this year, in which he expressed particular concern about the position of mothers and babies in prison.
The argument that the absolute exclusion recommended by Shaw would tie the Government’s hands inappropriately might appear reasonable. The problem is that, in effect, it means no real change from the status quo so roundly criticised by Shaw and others, including HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which told Shaw that there is little to suggest that pregnant women are being detained only in exceptional circumstances, as is supposed to be.
Current Home Office policy already states that the only exception to the general rule that pregnant women should not be detained is when removal is imminent and medical advice does not suggest that the woman concerned will go into labour before her removal date. In spite of this clear policy presumption against detention, in 2014, 99 pregnant women were detained and, in 2015, 69. Of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood during 2014, 30—that is nearly one-third—were held for between one and three months; four for three to six months; and only nine were deported from the UK. I understand that there is a pregnant woman who has been there for just over two months at present.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to explain what additional safeguards the new approach brings. How can he reassure noble Lords that the new policy will mean that pregnant women are detained in only the most exceptional circumstances when the current policy is already supposed to ensure that? I know that the Home Office believes that the new gatekeeping team to be introduced as part of the adults-at-risk approach will introduce a degree of objectivity into detention decision-making and so protect against inappropriate use of detention. However, given that this team will still sit within the Home Office—albeit in a different management chain from those making the decisions—the oversight it provides will clearly fall short of the independent element for detention decision-making that the Shaw review recommended the Home Office should consider.
Returning to the example of the pregnant woman who arrived at the airport with no right of entry, it is the only example we have been given of where an absolute exclusion would cause a problem. So it should be, because it is the only exception that exists at present. I have not seen any evidence as to how often this occurs at present. The fact that nine out of 10 pregnant women held in detention in 2014 were subsequently released back into the community rather than deported suggests that it is rare. ILPA makes the point that if a pregnant woman claims asylum she cannot be returned until her claim is determined in any case.
As Women for Refugee Women argue, refusing to accept Shaw’s clear recommendation of an absolute exclusion from detention on the basis of what would appear to be a small number of cases each year where swift removal might be possible, and when there is clear evidence that allowing decision-makers discretion results in significant numbers of pregnant women being detained in circumstances that are far from exceptional—just one pregnant women being detained when she should not be is one too many—is not sensible, effective or humane policy-making. I hope that even at this late stage the noble and learned Lord will accept Stephen Shaw’s recommendation, which has support across the political spectrum and from a wide range of civil society groups, none of which have been convinced by the Government’s argument against doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I raised this issue in Committee, and then my noble friend Lord Hylton and I took the trouble to go to Yarl’s Wood where we asked questions about the number of pregnant women who had been detained there in the past or might currently be detained. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who did such wonderful work on this Bill in its earlier stages. He commented on a Channel 4 investigation into Yarl’s Wood, which was shown in March 2015, where staff members called the women being held there “animals” and “beasties”. Having watched the programme, the noble Lord said to the House:
“I watched that documentary on Channel 4, and quite frankly I was sickened”.—[Official Report, 28/1/15; col. 103.]
Having been to Yarl’s Wood, I was able to say to the House that many of the staff we met had learned the lessons of that experience, and certainly my noble friend and I were impressed by many of the standards that we saw, but nevertheless we could not be convinced that it could ever be right, as the noble Baroness has just said, to have even one pregnant woman detained in those circumstances.
The Royal College of Midwives has said that:
“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.
In the review referred to by the noble Baroness, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England, Stephen Shaw, says this:
“that detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children … I take … to be a statement of the obvious”.
Alongside that, of course, there are long-standing concerns about the conditions in Yarl’s Wood. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has called it a “place of national concern”. Although I have tried, I hope fairly, to say that conditions have undoubtedly improved, nevertheless it is not a place where pregnant women should be.
The briefing material referred to by the noble Baroness from the organisation Women for Refugee Women poses the question that the Government frequently ask in these circumstances:
“If the government said they were going to stop detaining pregnant women, wouldn’t women lie and say they were pregnant—or get pregnant deliberately—just to avoid detention? And wouldn’t women abscond if they weren’t detained?”.
I agree with the response:
“Establishing if a woman is pregnant or not is very straightforward: she simply needs to take a pregnancy test! The idea that women would get pregnant as a way of avoiding detention is unfounded and based on sexist stereotypes about women and the way they behave”.
To illustrate the strength of that argument, which I agree with, it is perhaps worth mentioning to noble Lords the story of one woman, Priya:
“Priya was trafficked to the UK and forced into prostitution. She has been detained in Yarl’s Wood twice; the second time she was locked up, she was 20 weeks pregnant, and was held in Yarl’s Wood for seven weeks before being released back into the community”.
Picking up her story, she says this:
“I was released after three months in detention, and fell pregnant by my partner, but then I was detained again. Although I had a written report from an expert, the Home Office did not believe that I was trafficked, so my claim was refused and I found myself back in detention. This time around I was in Yarl’s Wood for about seven weeks, and I was 20 weeks pregnant when I arrived.
I only had one hospital appointment while I was there, for my 20 week scan, and even then I was escorted by officers who took me 40 minutes late for my appointment. I felt frustrated that I wasn’t able to speak to the midwife after my scan because there was no time. The officers just took me straight back to Yarl’s Wood instead”.
I will not read the entire testimony to the House, but let me pull out two more sentences:
“The first time I was detained in Yarl’s Wood, I was on medication for sleeping and depression, and I took an overdose because I felt so hopeless … I couldn’t eat the food in the canteen; that made me sick too. A lot of the time I could only really manage milk. It was too far for my partner to visit and, as an asylum seeker as well, he couldn’t afford the travel, but we spoke on the phone every day. I’ve been released now but I still feel depressed”.
Levels of depression in Yarl’s Wood and incidents of self-harm have been very high indeed. The prisons inspectorate report in 2015 found that more than half of women who were detained there felt depressed or suicidal when they first arrived, and that there had been 72 incidents of self-harm in the previous six months —a huge rise from the previous inspection. Surely these are circumstances in which we should never put someone who is pregnant.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. Before doing so, I highlight the fact that, following last year’s Maternal Mental Health Alliance report which highlighted the serious concerns about perinatal mental health, the Government made a very strong response. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who did such good work in terms of ensuring that more mother and baby units across the country have access to the right mental health professionals to support mothers through that difficult time.
In the past, we had whole families for several months at Yarl’s Wood. Thanks to the important work of the coalition Government—the Conservative and Lib Dem Government—we removed those families. If they were detained, it was for very short periods of time. The Government recognise the principle that this is something that we need to be careful of, and it was good to hear on Report the careful and conscientious reply of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. However, it is disappointing that there is this loophole and an area that still needs to be covered. It seems to me to be so important. Looking at the Maternal Mental Health Alliance report, speaking to mothers who have experienced postnatal depression and depression during their pregnancy and having visited Yarl’s Wood three times myself over the years and spoken to mothers there, I know that, whatever the rights and wrongs of their situation, they are often very distressed and worried about being returned, whether they have rights to remain here or not. To have mothers who are pregnant in that situation is very undesirable.
As the noble Baroness said, there is no evidence that one returns mothers in these circumstances by detaining them. What we have found over time is that it is much more effective to build a relationship and provide services so that they can be returned in a good way. I hope that the Minister will respond to the concerns raised by this amendment.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I, too, strongly support this amendment. I will speak briefly because much of what I wanted to say has already been said, and said very eloquently.
This is enormously important. As many noble Lords know, we run a drop-in for asylum-seeker families at my synagogue. In talking to some of the women, many of them pregnant, who visit with their small children, one thing that comes out time and time again is how they worry that the situation in which they are living—they are not detained—is so insecure that some of that insecurity may be transmitted to their unborn children. Of course, we know a great deal now about the transmission of anxiety and trauma to unborn children. If we extrapolate from that and from those women talking about it to women detained for what seem to be not very good reasons, it is really important that we have an absolute exclusion on pregnant women being detained. I hope that people will look at the evidence given by the Royal College of Midwives. That made it absolutely clear that unborn children may well be traumatised by the experience. I do not believe that we in this House would wish to take responsibility for that.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, from these Benches I support this amendment very warmly. In the previous stage of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, we had an amendment dealing with vulnerable people but it was debated alongside and really overshadowed by the amendment on a time limit to detention. The amendment provided that detention should take place only in exceptional circumstances determined by the First-tier Tribunal.
After the amendment was tabled, I was quite embarrassed by the opposition to or considerable doubts about it expressed by a number of organisations for which I have the greatest respect. They told me that we had got it wrong and that we should not provide for any exceptional circumstances in the case of pregnant women. I explained to them that the amendment was expressed as it was because we were trying to approach the Government with an offer of compromise. We hoped that the Government would meet us halfway by agreeing to not a complete exception but the one we expressed in that amendment. The list of vulnerable people was taken from Stephen Shaw’s report, in which—no ifs, no buts—pregnancy means vulnerability. As the noble Baroness said, and I will see if I can get it out without tripping over the word, he spoke of the,
“incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children”.
His Recommendation 10 was that they should be excluded.
The Government have added what is now Clause 62 to the Bill and there will be guidance; I acknowledge that that will come to Parliament. However, it will be through the negative procedure, and this is another of those examples where we can talk to our hearts’ content but will not be able to alter what is proposed. I was worried when I saw that new clause in the last stage and I worry now about the expression “particularly vulnerable”. I say again: there should be no ifs, no buts.
The Government proposed the adults-at-risk approach that has been referred to. I thank the Minister for his letter, in which he describes the Government’s concern about allowing all pregnant women access to the UK regardless of their immigration status, and therefore access to maternity services. The noble Earl will recall the debates that led up to the health charge being imposed—I suppose it is two years ago now—and that was one of the concerns which was expressed. We now have the health charge.
The letter from the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, explained:
“The higher the level of risk (and pregnant women will be regarded as being at the highest level of risk), the less likely it is that an individual will be detained”.
He added that the Government’s view,
“is that the best approach is a considered, case by case one which is represented by the adults at risk policy”.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two parts of that—that this is the “highest level of risk” but that there will be a “considered, case by case” approach. I do not think that the Minister can be surprised at the anxiety expressed by the very considerable number of well-respected organisations which are anxious about the policy given their experience of the current policy.
The noble Baroness referred to the all-party group inquiry, of which she and I were members. I turned it up this morning to find the comments that we made then about pregnant women. They included the evidence of Hindpal Singh Bhui, a team inspector at HM Prisons Inspectorate, who said that,
“pregnant women are only meant to be detained in the most exceptional circumstances. And again, we look for evidence of this”.
Of course, I am talking about the historical position. The inspector continued:
“And on the last couple of occasions that we’ve looked, we haven’t found those exceptional circumstances in the paperwork to justify their detention in the first place”.
Our report went on to say:
“We were also told of pregnant women being forced to travel long distances, sometimes over several days, when initially being detained, and failures in receiving test results and obstetric records. In one case, we were told that an immigration interview was prioritised over a 20-week … scan”.
The report continued:
“We are disappointed that the Home Office does not appear to be complying with its own policy of only detaining pregnant women in exceptional circumstances. We recommend that pregnant women are never detained for immigration purposes”.
I see no reason to depart from that but every reason to support it and the amendment.
Lord Rosser
I apologise in advance for the fact that my contribution will contain a fair element of repetition of what has already been said but it will be relatively brief.
In his review for the Home Office into the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention, Stephen Shaw recommended that it amend its guidance so that the presumptive exclusion from detention for pregnant women was replaced with an absolute exclusion. Stephen Shaw said in his report that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons had told him that in its view there was little to suggest that pregnant women were being detained only in exceptional circumstances. He also said that the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees had pointed out that an inspection of Yarl’s Wood had found pregnant women being detained without evidence of the exceptional circumstances required to justify this, with one of the women being hospitalised twice because of pregnancy-related complications. In the light of the evidence presented to him, which he set out in his report, Mr Shaw said that he had not sought further evidence that detention had an adverse effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children, since he took this to be a statement of the obvious.
Stephen Shaw also said in his report that he believed that the Home Office should acknowledge the fact that in the vast majority of cases the detention of pregnant women does not result in their removal, and that in practice pregnant women are very rarely removed from this country except voluntarily. Concluding, he said that he was strongly of the view that presumptive exclusion from detention should be replaced with an absolute exclusion.
I hope that the Government will reflect on their apparent decision not to accept Stephen Shaw’s strong recommendation in respect of the detention of pregnant women. It is my party’s policy that pregnant women should not be detained in these circumstances, a view also expressed by Mr Shaw in his independent report to the Home Office. If my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett decides, at the end of the debate—and, most importantly, after the Government’s response—to test the opinion of the House, we shall support the amendment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I understand fully that the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is to reflect the recommendation from Stephen Shaw that pregnant women be absolutely excluded from detention. On this point, I reiterate what I made clear on Report and set out in my letter to the noble Baroness and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. While the Government agree that it is not right to detain pregnant women unless there are exceptional circumstances, it does not consider that an absolute exclusion would be workable.
As has been explained in this House and in another place, it is important that the Government are able to detain, for a short period, those with no right to be in the United Kingdom who refuse to leave voluntarily. For example, if an immediate removal is planned, a short period of detention may be appropriate to facilitate a safe departure where there are absconding risks or other public protection risks to be considered. Furthermore, exempting from detention an individual who has arrived at the border with no right to enter the United Kingdom and who can be put on a return flight quickly would allow pregnant women access to the United Kingdom regardless of their immigration status.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned that 99 pregnant women were detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 and that this number had reduced to 69 in 2015. I am advised that there is, at present, one pregnant woman in Yarl’s Wood. She is a foreign national offender who recently completed an 18-month prison sentence and was detained there on 9 February. A deportation order was signed and removal directions were in place for 3 April. These were later brought forward to 26 March but then deferred because of an asylum claim being made. I am advised that there has now been an application for judicial review as well. Taking that case as an example, if removal ceases to be imminent there is every prospect of release subject to conditions. This is what frequently happens in these circumstances and goes some way to explain why only a small proportion of those actually in detention are subsequently removed from detention and deported. Many are released under condition and their asylum or immigration status is determined subsequently and the matter disposed of in that way.
I stress that we are dealing with cases in which there are exceptional circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, observed that uncertainty over immigration status could itself be a source of stress and anxiety for a pregnant woman. That may very well be the case: who could dispute it? But she went on to say that they can be detained for not very good reason. We cannot accept that. Our policy and guidelines are very clear: pregnant women are to be detained only in exceptional circumstances. There is a requirement for that detention in particular and exceptional circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, will be aware that, on Report, I stated that the Government intended to reflect on the detention of pregnant women and would have a considered position by Third Reading. I apologise to the House for the delay in completing that consideration. This is a complex issue and the Government continue to give it serious thought in the context of the work that is under way in developing policy on adults at risk in detention and the further implementation of Stephen Shaw’s report and its recommendations. That is taking time to finalise because the Government do not want to rush what is and is recognised to be a highly important issue. But I assure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government will be making a formal announcement on this matter very shortly. Indeed, the Government expect to make such an announcement in a matter of days.
The announcement will not involve an absolute prohibition on the detention of pregnant women. It will, however, set out a very clear and limited time for detention, only in exceptional circumstances, as it may be applied to pregnant women.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I wonder if the Minister can explain to us why, if it is possible for the Government to make a statement in a few days, it is not possible to make that statement today.
Lord Keen of Elie
If I was in a position to make the statement today, I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that I would do so. He may be familiar with the wheels of government and with the requirement for these matters to be approved at various levels before a final statement is made. If I was in a position to make that statement, I reassure the noble Lord that I would not hesitate to make it.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
But this is Third Reading. Is there not a sense of urgency in these matters?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is certainly a sense of urgency in this matter and that is why I expressed my apology to the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I had indicated that by Third Reading I would be in a position to confirm the Government’s position on this. However, it is a matter that requires detailed consideration. It is a matter that has ramifications. It is a matter that has to be considered in conjunction with Home Office guidelines. It is a matter that must be consulted on and finally approved before issue, and it is for that reason that, regrettably, there has been a period of delay in respect of this point.
I underline that it will not involve an absolute prohibition. It will, however, involve a very limited power of detention to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and for a very limited period. That is what is anticipated at present. As I sought to point out on Report, it is simply not practicable to have an absolute bar in respect of pregnant women. There are circumstances in which, for example, a pregnant woman arriving at an airport or a port, clearly with no right at all to enter the United Kingdom, may present either a security risk or a risk of absconding, and without any power of detention it would be quite impossible to arrange her return at that time of arrival. Therefore, in these circumstances, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Many have spoken so eloquently, drawing attention in particular to the implications of this for unborn children, and have made the case very strongly.
I realise that the Minister is in a difficult position in that he is not able to make the statement to which he referred. I asked him for reassurance that the new policy will mean that pregnant women are detained genuinely in the most exceptional circumstances because the current policy is that they should be detained only in the most exceptional circumstances. While the hint of a time limit is encouraging, I have heard nothing to reassure us that the new policy will be different from the old policy.
I quite understand that it is not the Minister’s fault—if that is the correct word—that he is not able to make the statement today. But Stephen Shaw delivered his report to the Home Office on 24 September. The Government have had over six months to consider this crucial issue, which they know many people—organisations, individuals who gave evidence to Shaw and individuals who gave evidence to the inquiry—feel very strongly about. They must have known that people would want a clear answer on this by now and I am afraid that clear answer has come there none. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord understands why it is not good enough to say, when this is the last chance we have to discuss it in this House, that we should wait for a few days because the Government have not managed to get their act together to enable him to make the statement today.
Given that every noble Lord who has spoken did so very strongly in support of this amendment, I feel that I have no choice other than to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, Amendments 7, 10 and 11 are all relatively minor and somewhat technical in nature. Clause 63 ensures that a person may be on immigration bail when they are liable to detention, even if they can no longer be detained, and subsections (3) and (4) apply this to people who have been released on bail under the current provisions of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. Amendment 7 to Clause 63(5) removes the reference to an amendment being made by subsection (3). This is because, in an earlier draft of the clause, subsection (3) contained an amendment to Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, but subsections (3) and (4) no longer use that construction.
Amendments 10 and 11 to Schedule 10 ensure that any cross-references in other legislation to immigration bail granted, or a condition imposed, under Schedule 10 will include the rare circumstance when bail is granted by the court, just as if it were granted by the tribunal. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation but, on Amendment 7, it seems to me that we have never really had an explanation of why it is necessary for these provisions to be made retrospective. The Constitution Committee raised the matter in its report to the House on the Bill, and referred to the Government’s acknowledgement of retrospectivity in the Explanatory Notes, which said:
“This clause is retrospective in its effect because it is intended to clarify the law following a recent Court of Appeal judgment”.
Having read on in the Constitution Committee’s report, I wonder whether “clarify” is the right term. I do not think one can talk about correcting a Court of Appeal judgment, but that is the flavour of what the Constitution Committee had to say. The Government’s response to the committee was that the clause has been remodelled, which does not seem quite to take the point. Could the noble and learned Lord assist the House by explaining why this does not broaden the scope of the Bill and why it is appropriate?
My first reaction on reading Amendments 10 and 11 was to wonder whether the draftsman could not have made a real effort to make them really opaque and difficult to follow. After that rather flippant comment, the serious point is that, as I understand the issue, the Secretary of State is now to have powers over courts as well as the tribunals. The noble and learned Lord is shaking his head, so I look forward to his refuting that. We are bothered, as we have been concerned before, about not respecting the independence of the judiciary. What if a tribunal judge thinks that it is contrary to a person’s human rights to impose the electronic monitoring condition, and the Secretary of State says that it is not contrary to do so? The judge is very conflicted there. What if he or she wants to impose a condition, and considers that it would be practicable to do so, but the Secretary of State says that it is not practicable, so the judge cannot impose the condition? If that meant that the judge did not grant bail to that person, this would be a considerable—and, I think, unwarrantable—interference with the person’s right to liberty. Would the noble and learned Lord expand a little on his explanations?
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I support the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the first amendment and retrospection, which was addressed by the Constitution Committee, and to the other two amendments and the extent to which they do or do not mean that the Secretary of State could dictate to a criminal court, including a court of criminal appeal. I am afraid I did not see the Minister shake his head when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that comment, but I hope that, if that is the position as far as the Government are concerned, it does not mean that the Secretary of State will in any way be able to dictate to a criminal court and that the Minister will set out very clearly in his response why it is incorrect to draw that inference or assumption from these amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie
I shall begin with the observations made with regard to alleged retrospective effect in the provisions in Clause 63. Reference was made to a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of B v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Before that decision, which is subject to an appeal that I will come back to in a moment, it was widely—indeed, universally—understood that individuals could be released on immigration bail in circumstances where their detention was no longer lawful under the Hardial Singh principles; that is, there was no reasonable prospect of their deportation and they therefore had to be released. That understanding was shared by the relevant tribunals: the First-tier Tribunal and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Indeed, it was the decision of the president of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which was overturned in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, that determined that if detention was no longer lawful under the Hardial Singh principles, it would follow that bail could not be granted and, in particular, that bail could not be granted subject to conditions. As one might imagine, that had wide-ranging implications for the purposes of security, particularly in the case of B, who appeared to be an established Algerian terrorist who was at risk of carrying out terrorist activities to assist others in Algeria and elsewhere. The decision of the Court of Appeal has been suspended pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is set down to take place in December. However the Government’s position is that the position prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal was correct and it should be reinforced by statutory provision. It is for that reason that Clause 63 is in its present form. I understand that the appeal to the Supreme Court will proceed in any event, but it is essential, particularly in a matter that impacts on our security, that there should be no doubt or difficulty and no gap in our legislation so far as that is concerned.
Turning to Amendments 10 and 11, the test of practicability is for the Secretary of State, not the court, but there is no question of the Secretary of State usurping the functions of the court. It may be recollected that for that reason an amendment was made to Schedule 10 at an earlier stage to make clear that the Secretary of State could not usurp or overturn any decision-making power of the court or tribunal in these circumstances. That remains our position with respect to Schedule 10, as amended.
Baroness Hamwee
“(10) For the purposes of subsection (9) a person is unaccompanied who is separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who in law or by custom is responsible for doing so.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Clause 71 provides for the transfer of responsibility for relevant children. A relevant child is defined in subsection (9) as an unaccompanied child, while subsection (10) says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the meaning of ‘unaccompanied’”.
At the previous stage of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the concern that an accompanying adult might not be—I use this phrase non-technically—an appropriate adult. There were concerns about trafficking. The amendment would put into the Bill the definition that is in current Home Office guidance on processing asylum applications by children.
While the amendment is to Clause 71, the same issue might of course arise in respect of Clause 70, the clause that your Lordships agreed on Division regarding the figure of 3,000 unaccompanied children. We will have to see what happens to that provision. In any event, taking a rather narrow technical point about Third Reading, that clause was not the subject of the reassurance from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, that he would put in writing how the term “unaccompanied” would be defined and would operate, and that he would do so by Third Reading. Given the change of Minister last week, I contacted the noble Earl’s office to ask if there would be a letter, and at the point when I tabled the amendment there was not. It arrived around 6 pm yesterday and I read it some time later, and I thank him for it. The letter says that there is,
“no intention to alter the definition”,
for the purposes of this clause. In situations where an asylum-seeking child,
“is accompanied by an adult who is not a parent or relative”,
Home Office officials will,
“verify the identity of the adult and establish the relationship with the child”.
I am not sure whether the relative referred to there is one who by custom has responsibility for the child, otherwise there would be a change from current guidance, although I gather that Home Office guidance is currently being rewritten. What I am really not clear about is why the Bill needs to allow for any flexibility or change in the definition, so it is important to get the position on record.
I was concerned about the reason for leaving the matter open in the way that the Bill does. When I was looking into this at the weekend, I found that the definition used by the Committee on the Rights of the Child is slightly broader because it refers to “other relatives” as well as parents. It occurred to me that it is known that “other relatives” are sometimes traffickers, which is why the wording is not used in the Home Office definition. There may be issues around siblings or other family members. However, it is important that we get the position on the record. It would be preferable to get it into legislation, but at any rate we should understand what the parameters are of the regulations that the Secretary of State might make. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Once again, my Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment. With her usual lawyer’s quickness, she picked up the point that I raised on Report. As I said then, it is a point that was raised with me by an organisation local to me in the East Midlands, Baca. It was worried because it could not understand why that wording was there. It is perhaps not surprising if groups are worried and perhaps slightly cynical when they come across measures that they do not understand, given that there is so much in legislation that they do not like. So I am delighted that, at the last minute, the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie—not the noble Earl—made it very clear that the definition, as in the amendment, is,
“separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who in law or by custom has responsibility to do so”.
It is helpful to have that in Hansard because of course your average punter cannot read the letters sent between Ministers and Members of your Lordships’ House. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will repeat that for the record. Also, like the noble Baroness, I would appreciate an explanation of why this clause is necessary, given that this is, as the letter says, the,
“established definition in the Immigration Rules”,
and it is accepted by the UN. I am glad that through this organisation raising this matter with me, we have some clarity on what is meant by it.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister. As they have observed, there is already an established definition of “unaccompanied” in the present context. It is not in guidance alone; it is in the Immigration Rules, and that is important. The definition states that an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child is someone who—perhaps I may, as suggested, read this into the record—is under 18 years of age when the claim is submitted, is claiming asylum in their own right, is separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who in law or by custom has responsibility to do so.
Following the commitment given by my noble friend Lord Bates on Report to explain how the definition would operate, I wrote to the noble Baronesses—albeit, as they observed, at the last minute—to confirm that there is no intention of altering the definition of “unaccompanied” as set out in the Immigration Rules for the purposes of the transfer provisions in the Immigration Bill. Furthermore, defining particular categories in primary legislation is not always desirable or even necessary. As your Lordships will appreciate, there are times, particularly in the context of the current migration crisis, when the Government need to respond quickly to changing circumstances.
I should make it clear that at present we have no intention of amending the definition of “unaccompanied”. We would do so only in response to a significant change in circumstances, but it is important that in such circumstances we are able to react swiftly and efficiently. Clearly, regulations subject to parliamentary scrutiny are a more appropriate way to achieve that result than placing something on the face of this Bill.
I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister, that safeguarding and promoting the welfare of vulnerable children is at the forefront of the Home Office’s work with the Local Government Association and the Department for Education to develop a transfer scheme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I understand the concerns about the definition of “unaccompanied”—it may have unintended consequences and inadvertently place children in the hands of traffickers—but immigration officials working with these vulnerable children are trained to be alert to any signs that a child is at risk of harm or abuse or may have been trafficked. Where an asylum-seeking child is accompanied by an adult who is not a parent or a relative, Home Office officials work with local authority children’s services to verify the identity of the adult and establish the true relationship with the child. If that relationship cannot be verified or there are ongoing welfare or safeguarding concerns, the child will be treated as unaccompanied.
In the light of those points and our recent correspondence confirming that we have no intention of amending the already established definition of “unaccompanied” for the purposes of the transfer provisions, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is reassuring. It is difficult to imagine how urgent the circumstances might be that would require a swift change of the definition. However, I am very glad to have the assurances about the position on the record in Hansard, which, as the noble Baroness said, is most easily accessible by those outside this place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(4) Section 87 shall not come into effect—(a) before 31 March 2018; and(b) until transitional provision has been made for institutions in the public sector.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, last week, the Centre for Policy Studies, a respected Conservative think tank, published a paper entitled Dangerous Trends in Modern Legislation. It warns that,
“the length of new Bills and the number of clauses they include is becoming so great that Parliament is unable to properly scrutinise them … There are often lengthy and significant parts of a Bill that receive no detailed scrutiny at all at any point in its Parliamentary passage”.
Clause 87 of the Immigration Bill provides a prime example of this problem. In the Commons it had five minutes in Committee and none at Report. We reached it late in Committee in the Lords, where the Minister was unable to answer the questions raised, telling us that,
“there will be an opportunity for an informed debate on the details”,
when the regulations—that had not yet been drafted—would be laid before the House. He specifically stated that,
“no decision has yet been made”,—[Official Report, 9/2/16; col. GC 174.]
as to the impact on healthcare of the imposition of the charge.
Those of us who took part in that debate received no further communication from the Government between Committee and Report, unlike the usual custom, and no invitation to discuss the issues raised. We reached this clause on Report at 12.30 am on 21 March, at the end of a very long day. The Minister did make a significant concession in his reply on exempting university-level appointments from the new levy, but he declined to tell us when the Government’s response to the report from the Migration Advisory Committee, on which these proposals rested, would be published or to answer other questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, did at least say that, “Given the hour”, he was,
“happy to put further thoughts in writing … if that would be helpful”.—[Official Report, 21/3/16; col. 2210.]
He then disappeared for a rather long walk. The noble Earl has indeed sent us a letter but it does not answer any of the points on the public sector or public sector training which we had raised. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, then moved, I assume on behalf of the Government, to oppose withdrawal of the amendment to shut off further discussion at Third Reading. The chairman of the MAC was allowed to brief parliamentarians on this charge on 22 March, the day after Report ended. The Government then slipped out their response to the MAC report two days later on the Thursday before the Easter weekend—a quiet news day.
This is not the way to make legislation, as the Centre for Policy Studies paper noted. The Government have not explained the implications of this significant new charge, and in particular its likely impact on the public sector; nor have they provided any coherent rationale for imposing it on the public sector. The Minister did, however, in responding to the debate, say that,
“I will give further consideration to when they”—
the charges—
“are introduced”.—[Official Report, 21/3/16; col. 2212.]
He specifically mentioned that they were looking at the issue of phasing in the charges on the public sector. This amendment returns to exactly that issue, asking what further consideration the Government have given this and whether they will now accept that the current provision to rush this charge into operation only two months after the Bill is passed—as Clause 96 states—is mistaken, incompatible with allowing an informed debate on the regulations that will have to be pushed through, and damaging to the finances of schools and hospitals throughout the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, reiterated that the aim of this charge is,
“to bring about some behavioural change in the way that people think about recruitment”,—[Official Report, 21/3/16; col. 2210.]
encouraging employers to look for recruits from within the UK rather than from outside, and to invest in training those recruits in the skills needed. That is fine for the private sector. However, the Government are the employer in the public sector: they set the quotas for teacher and nurse training, and they encourage—or discourage—doctors to stay and work in the NHS rather than going abroad. So here we have the Government encouraging themselves to expand training to fill skills shortages in schools and hospitals by fining those schools and hospitals—out of government funds—for recruiting from outside the UK and the EEA. That is absurd.
There have been a succession of announcements of government policy that the likely impact of this charge will undermine. There are plans to expand and extend maths and technology teaching in schools, but no mention of the existing shortage of maths teachers in this country and of the active efforts that schools are making to recruit from Australia, Singapore and elsewhere. Hospitals have announced that they need to recruit some 15,000 nurses a year from abroad to fully staff their wards, from the Philippines, South Africa and so on. We have just read that the NHS is planning to recruit 4,000 doctors directly from India. These are large numbers of predicted immigrants, recruited to fill avoidable skills shortages within the UK—significant numbers pulled into the UK by our failures in skills training: 30,000 or so a year. The Government should therefore act to provide the training to reduce the necessity to pull such numbers in.
We have asked repeatedly what plans the Government have to increase incentives for maths teachers and to launch crash courses to train them, but there appear to be no such plans. We have also asked about rapid expansion in nurse training and efforts to improve retention of nurses in post. Again, there are no plans to do so yet. So within the next 12 months the Government will start to fine schools and hospitals £1,000 a year per skilled person recruited from outside Europe—fining them from the funds that the Government have just given them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, suggested on Report that,
“schools … can seek maths teachers from the whole European Economic Area market”,
to avoid the charge for recruiting them from outside that market—to do that, it was implied, rather than to have to train more of our own or to pay British teachers well enough to stay in post. The Daily Mail will love that as a proposal from a Government who are supposed to be trying to reduce the pull factor in immigration from within as well as outside Europe, but I leave that to the Government to answer.
We were assured on Report that:
“The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has confirmed that it will continue to consult with stakeholders”,—[Official Report, 21/3/15; col. 2211-12.]
which in this case presumably means to negotiate with the Department of Health and the Department for Education on how to limit the damage to school and hospital budgets. But BIS, the Times told us last Saturday, is planning a major cost-cutting exercise, shrinking the staff of the Commission for Employment and Skills and the Skills Funding Agency by 40% to 50%. So it is likely to lack the capacity to manage the expansion of training schemes which the Government have promised us, either for the public or the private sector.
In short, the Government have failed to make any case for their proposed rapid implementation of this ill-thought-out scheme. Their failure to answer legitimate questions raised in Committee and on Report, in spite of promises so to do, has fallen well below the normal standards of this House. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gallantly stepping into the breach, will concede that this has not been well done and will accept the rationale for delay which justifies our amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
I attended a meeting of maths teachers earlier this year in Parliament and was sad to learn of the serious shortage of maths teachers in this country, of so many of our children being taught by people with very low qualifications in maths, and of physical education teachers trained up to teach maths desperately trying to fill the gap. The recent concerns expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our children should have a good understanding of maths brought home to me the real concerns raised by those maths teachers about the inadequacy of supply of maths teachers. So it concerns me to hear the noble Lord say that schools will be penalised for the shortage of maths teachers. I am afraid it does not seem to be the schools’ fault but somebody else’s. This is not a Department for Education debate, but my experience in this matter coincides with what the noble Lord has expressed. Certainly, one should not penalise schools for a shortage they are not responsible for.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, the principle of the immigration skills charge is not in dispute. It is absolutely vital that the skills of our own workforce should be improved if we are to achieve the major reduction in immigration which the public so anxiously wish to see. The main issue is one of timing as to when it should come into effect.
The Migration Advisory Committee, to whose work I pay a warm tribute, gave three reasons for its strong support for this scheme. First, to raise the cost of immigrant labour so as to reduce the numbers; secondly, to contribute to the extra cost involved for public services; and, thirdly, to compensate for what it described as the,
“rather modest efforts to upskill UK workers”,
by those firms employing Indian IT workers. All those matters need tackling as soon as possible.
I certainly accept that there may be some loose ends in respect of some of the public services, but we need to get on with this. The Government have announced that they will bring the measure into force in April 2017. That seems a reasonable way to get this moving in a vital area.
Lord Rosser
The Government have said that the £1,000 per year immigration skills charge will be paid by employers who sponsor tier 2 migrants, with a reduced rate of £364 per annum applying to small businesses and charities as set out in the Immigration Rules. There will be an exemption in respect of migrants undertaking occupations skilled to PhD level, primarily science and research roles. An exemption will also be applied for graduates who switch from tier 4 to tier 2 for the purpose of taking up a position in the UK. As far as other areas, organisations and categories are concerned, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is apparently continuing to consult, including with devolved Administrations and other government departments.
In their letter of 7 April, on Ministry of Defence headed paper, the Government said that they intend to introduce the charge from April 2017 rather than from a somewhat earlier date provided for in the Bill. As they have also said that they are looking at phasing in the charge, can the Minister say what the intention to introduce the charge from April 2017 means as far as timescales are concerned?
The Government have confirmed that secondary legislation will be needed before the charge can be introduced. They expect to lay regulations in the autumn and to publish a draft before they are laid, with interested parties being given an opportunity to comment. There are difficulties with potentially significant issues being dealt with by secondary legislation because such proposed legislation cannot be amended, only accepted or rejected in its entirety.
There appears to have been little analysis provided on the impact of the immigration skills charge. Can the Minister say how much money will be raised by the charge; what percentage of existing training budgets that will represent; and for how many will this additional money provide the training envisaged? What analysis have the Government undertaken to show that the introduction of the charge will achieve the stated objective, as set out in the letter of 7 April, of encouraging employers to think differently about their recruitment so that, where possible, they recruit and train up resident workers and reduce the need to recruit skilled labour from outside the European Economic Area? Has an impact assessment been undertaken and, if so, what did it indicate? By how many is it expected that the charge will reduce the need to recruit skilled labour from outside the European Economic Area?
The Government also ought at least to give a commitment that they will listen to and take into account the views of interested parties when the draft regulations are published prior to being laid; and that interested parties will be given sufficient time to respond, bearing in mind that the draft could be published in the middle of the holiday season.
In looking at where, to whom and from when the charge will apply, what are the criteria against which the Government are determining and making their proposals? Against what criteria, for example, will proposals on the extent to which the charge should or should not apply in the National Health Service be formulated? While the decision not to apply the immigration skills charge to those switching from a tier 4 student visa to a tier 2 visa is a positive move for the health service, it will not as I understand it exempt overseas doctors recruited by the NHS on tier 2 visas to fill medical vacancies in hard-to-recruit medical specialties and areas.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the position put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other noble Lords. The Government were pleased to be able to provide further details about the immigration skills charge in the statement made at the Report stage by my noble friend Lord Bates. In addition, a Written Ministerial Statement covering reforms to the tier 2 visa route was laid in the other place on 24 March, but unfortunately it could not be laid in your Lordships’ House because we were not sitting on that day.
As promised at the Report stage, the Government have considered when Clause 87 will come into effect. The first point to make, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that while the clause commences two months after Royal Assent, it is clear in the Bill that secondary legislation will be needed before the charge can be introduced, and that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Bates said on Report, we will publish a draft of the regulations before they are laid, enabling noble Lords and other interested parties to comment; I would just emphasise that opportunity.
As regards the date of introduction, the Government have announced details about the rate and the scope of the charge, including the exemptions that will apply, a year before it is to be introduced. The Written Ministerial Statement confirmed that the charge will be introduced from April 2017 and not before. We consider that that gives employers, including those in the public sector, sufficient time to plan how best to manage the introduction of the charge without delaying until after April 2018, as suggested in this amendment—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Green, for his comments on that point. I would argue strongly that there is no need for transitional provision to be made for institutions in the public sector, which is the other purpose of the amendment. I would just say that, on Report, my noble friend Lord Bates did not commit to consider a phased approach to implementation for the public sector. We made a commitment to consider when the clause comes into effect and, as I have indicated, we stated that we will not introduce the charge before April 2017.
As the independent Migration Advisory Committee stated, public sector organisations are employers, like any other, and should be incentivised to consider the UK labour market first before recruiting from outside Europe. On that particular point, it is worth noting that the MAC took evidence from a full range of stakeholders, including the public sector, before making its recommendations. From my time as a health Minister I recognise the important role that tier 2 plays in recruiting doctors to fill vacancies in hard-to-recruit medical specialties and areas, as the British Medical Association has flagged. I also understand its concern that the charge might take funds away from training in the health service.
Let me be clear about this. Staffing in the NHS is a government priority. That is why there are already more than 29,600 extra clinical staff, including more than 10,600 additional doctors and more than 11,500 additional nurses on our wards since May 2010. That is why Health Education England has increased nurse training places by 14% over the last two years and is forecasting that more than 40,000 additional nurses will be available by 2020. There are already 50,000 nurses currently in training.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me what plans there were to incentivise individuals into nursing and to encourage retention. It would perhaps be helpful if I mentioned that the Come Back to Nursing campaign, launched by Health Education England in September 2014, reports that 2,188 nurses have registered on a return-to-practice programme, 927 have completed the programme and, of those, 700 have successfully completed their retraining and are now back on the front line providing care and support for patients. We have invested £40 million in leadership training to create a new generation of senior nurses and we are running a campaign to get experienced nurses who have left the profession back to work.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the pressure on schools, and I understand the points that he made. I hope that he will take some reassurance from the fact that many schools will benefit from the reduced rate of £364 by virtue of being either small businesses or charities. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about ring-fencing the fund and whether the charge will just go, as it were, into general revenue. Let me be clear about that. The Prime Minister was emphatic that this measure will help train up the resident workforce to address skills shortages. I cannot, of course, tell him how much the skills charge will raise. The amount of funding generated will very much depend on employer demand. The Migration Advisory Committee estimated that the charge could raise as much as £250 million a year. The MAC’s estimates did not take account of the reductions and exemptions the Government have announced or the expected impact on behaviour. The Government are still finalising the policy detail, as will be obvious. We have not, therefore, produced a firm estimate. However, we estimate that once the exemptions and reductions are taken into account, the sums raised will be significantly lower than the MAC’s estimate.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
With respect to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and those of the Minister, the Science and Technology Committee had a special session here at the House of Lords in March, and we heard that the funding available for training teachers who are not advanced in mathematics or science to become better trained is actually decreasing. I wonder whether the Minister’s remarks are implying that there will be more money for this training, which is absolutely essential if we are to raise the skills and educational levels in science and technology.
Earl Howe
My Lords, a great deal is being done to encourage students into science and technology, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. What I cannot tell him is whether and to what extent the money raised by the skills charge will be directed into particular vocational areas. That is still being worked through. As regards teaching, it has been recognised that public sector pay restraint and specific recruitment challenges in certain occupations present problems for the National Health Service and the education sector in particular. On the new salary threshold, we announced that we will exempt nurses, paramedics and medical radiographers; and in the education sector we will exempt secondary-school teachers in mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science—
Earl Howe
My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord said. Perhaps he will allow me to continue. We will exempt secondary-school teachers in mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science and Mandarin from that new salary threshold. The point has been recognised by the MAC and we took its advice on that.
The exemption we have announced for students switching from tier 4 to tier 2 to take up a graduate-level position in the UK will benefit doctors following completion of their foundation training. I am pleased that the BMA has welcomed this exemption. However, if we are to meet our objective of reducing reliance on overseas workers, we simply must reverse the trend of increasing numbers of workers coming through tier 2, including in the public sector. In 2015, sponsored visa applications for skilled workers in the human health and social work activities sector alone, which includes a number of public sector occupations, increased by 13% to more than 3,500 places. For those reasons, we consider that delaying or phasing in the introduction of the charge, or indeed an exemption, for the NHS or wider public sector would overlook the key aim of the charge: to influence employer behaviour. The Migration Advisory Committee was clear that it did not believe the health sector should be exempt from the charge.
I note that the BMA said it is highly unlikely that the NHS would benefit from the proceeds of the charge because apprenticeships are not relevant to or will not benefit the NHS. With great respect to the BMA, there is currently no basis for saying that. Decisions on where the charge income will be spent are not yet finalised, as I said. The priority will be to spend the charge on training the resident workforce to address skills gaps in the UK. Apprenticeships are only one government-supported programme designed to address the long-running trend of underinvestment in skills by UK employers that might be supported. I can assure noble Lords that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is already engaging with stakeholders, including the Department of Health and the Department for Education, to ensure that their skills and workforce planning needs are fully considered. It cannot possibly do otherwise given the key importance of those sectors. I can also assure the House that the Home Office will continue to consult with stakeholders on how best to address skills gaps in advance of the introduction of the charge to inform decisions on how the income is spent.
I hope that noble Lords—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—will be reassured from what I have said today and from the totality of the announcements we have made about the skills charge, that the Government are committed to implement it in a balanced way, ensuring that the UK remains open for business and can continue to attract the best and brightest to our workforce. I hope, too, that noble Lords are reassured by our confirmation that we will not seek to impose the charge before April 2017, and only after we lay regulations.
In the light of those points, I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw Amendment 9.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am a little reassured but I have to say that I am still left in much confusion as to how the Government intend to get from here to where we all wish to be. The ability of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to raise a very large number of fair questions about what is intended by all this simply demonstrates how unclear many of us in this House and outside are about how the Government will ensure that the extra skills are provided from within this country. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, that there is a long-term problem of companies in Britain finding it cheaper and easier to recruit direct from abroad rather than spending money on training their own employees. That applies not just to the Indian IT sector but also to long-distance truck drivers and all sorts of occupations in the private sector.
However, in the public sector the Government are responsible for training. As regards when we introduce this charge, I simply point out that it takes two or three years to train a nurse and longer to train a doctor, let alone a good maths teacher. Therefore, a year is not enough. We will find in the interim period that schools and hospitals will pay sums out of their flat budgets, out of which they are already paying for additional pension increases—so budgets are being squeezed—before any new training schemes have provided the additional skilled recruits from within the United Kingdom. That is part of the argument we are making about phasing in for the public sector.
I very much hope that we will have Labour support on this occasion. As I understand it, the Labour Party supports the public sector. I have heard reports that the Labour Party in the Commons has instructed the Labour Party in the Lords not to support this measure because it is a Liberal Democrat amendment and it is a bit queer about supporting Liberal Democrat amendments. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be able to bring his party along. However, I appreciate that sometimes in the Lords the Labour Party Front Benchers have to defend positions they are not entirely happy about, as, indeed, do the Conservative Party Front Benchers.
Lord Rosser
I reassure the noble Lord, who is clearly very concerned about my present state and what I have had to say on this amendment, that I fully support an agreement—obviously, to his surprise—regarding what I said from this Dispatch Box. Interestingly enough, the noble Lord has not responded to the objections that I raised on his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not yet got out his walking maps, but we shall see. I conclude by pointing out that the phasing argument is about the time it takes to train the people from within the United Kingdom who we need to supply skills in our schools and hospitals. We have not yet been informed about the new schemes which the Department of Health and the Department for Education will undertake to provide. However, we know that from April 2017 schools and hospitals will pay an additional £1,000 per person per year for everyone recruited from outside the European Economic Area, although I think I may have heard the noble Earl say that independent schools will have to pay only £330 because they are charities, which raises some interesting questions to which we may also wish to return.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We are reassured by that, but I may wish to take it up further with the Minister. Meanwhile, we are not satisfied. This imposes additional charges on the public sector which is already hard pressed. We have not yet heard sufficient about the additional training which the Government, as employers, need to provide from departments other than the Home Office. We are depressed by the news that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is cutting the staff it has to promote skills and employment within the United Kingdom. We therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) A reference in any provision of, or made under, an enactment other than this paragraph to immigration bail granted, or a condition imposed, under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 includes bail granted by the court under sub-paragraph (1) or (1A) or (as the case may be) a condition imposed by the court on the grant of such bail.””
“( ) A reference in any provision of, or made under, an enactment other than this section to immigration bail granted, or a condition imposed, under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 includes bail granted by the court under subsection (3) or (as the case may be) a condition imposed by the court on the grant of such bail.””
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, we are led to believe that Third Reading is for the removal of doubt and uncertainties. I believe that there is still a lot of uncertainty over the Dublin III regulation and over discretionary entry outside the Immigration Rules. These uncertainties affect both those who could use the provisions to reunite their families and those who have to administer the provisions or to present compassionate cases to the Secretary of State. The result is that few people get admitted. Under Dublin III, even the Government do not know how many people reach this country—or if they know, they will not say. Under discretionary entry, on the other hand, an average of 35 persons were admitted in each of the last five years. Only last week, the Children’s Commissioner for England wrote to the French Government about unaccompanied children now at Calais who may be—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, for whom I have a great deal of regard. It is not proper to open a new substantive argument at this stage of the Bill and I think that he is out of order by seeking to do so.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I have taken the advice of the Public Bill Office and I was told quite clearly that I could make a short intervention at this stage. That is what I am doing.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry, my Lords, but the noble Lord has at least three sheets of paper from which he is reading the comments that he intends to make. I do not consider that a short intervention and I call him to order.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I have two very brief questions to put to the Minister. First, will the Government immediately consult the British Red Cross, Save the Children Fund and faith groups, which are in daily contact with split families and unaccompanied children? Secondly, will the Government ensure that all the relevant officials are fully briefed about family reunion and how it can be achieved?
Earl Howe
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will briefly answer the noble Lord’s questions. First, as he is aware, we regularly consult external partners and experts including the Red Cross and Save the Children. We will continue to do that. Secondly, we are revising our guidance on family reunion, which provides specific guidance for those already in the UK on how to apply for family reunion and instructions for caseworkers on how to consider such applications. We intend to publish this in April and we will communicate it to all relevant officials. Details of how to apply are already available on GOV.UK and refugees granted international protection are advised about their entitlement to family reunion when they receive their asylum decision.
Lord Rosser
I take this opportunity—I believe I am doing it at the right place—to express our thanks to all those who have participated in the debates on the Bill, which I believe is now a better Bill than the one that was sent to us from the House of Commons. We are grateful for the amount of information provided by Ministers and the Bill team, for the numerous meetings that have taken place and for the willingness of Ministers to listen to concerns about the Bill and, in some instances, the willingness of the Government themselves to bring forward amendments or place statements on the record to address those concerns. I particularly express appreciation of the work undertaken during the passage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose approach, as with that of his Front-Bench colleagues, has I think been appreciated on all sides of the House.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, from these Benches I add our thanks, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who has started on a rather long walk, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said. It is one of a series of admirable walks but the noble Lord’s colleagues have been walking well alongside him, and after him, during the course of the Bill. It feels a little odd to agree that the Bill do now pass, because we are by no means clear what it will provide by the time that it has endured—a word that the noble Lord the Chief Whip might use—ping-pong. We are by no means finished with these issues or with the Bill itself.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, from the Cross Benches, perhaps I can briefly add a remark to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, particularly in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose leave of absence was agreed by the House only yesterday. I was privileged to get to know the noble Lord, Lord Bates, when we served in another place and we remained friends after he left the House of Commons. I was delighted when he was appointed as a Member of your Lordships’ House; I was even more delighted when the Government had the good sense to appoint him as a Minister of the Crown. He has discharged his responsibilities in the House over the passage of time, particularly on the Modern Slavery Act and now on the Immigration Bill, with great distinction. We have huge admiration for the work that he is undertaking, which is to raise the peace pledge and the work of the Red Cross and Save the Children. It touches on many of the issues which we have debated in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Bill so, before the Bill passes, I am sure that we all add our voices to those which have already been raised in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for all that he did.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bates, were he present today, would be touched and gratified by the comments that have been made about him. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken but, more particularly, I am grateful to the Members on both Opposition Benches and the Cross Benches for their constructive role throughout the passage of this Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, has not quite left our Chamber yet. We will be returning to it. Nevertheless, the whole tone of the debate has been extremely positive even when it has been questioning and, from the point of view of the Government’s Benches, I express my gratitude for that.
Energy Bill [HL]
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:19 - Division on Amendment 7X - Ayes: 88 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 7X, as an amendment to Commons Amendment 7, disagreed.
19:30 - Division on Amendment 7AA - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 7AA disagreed.
19:42 - Division on Amendment 7AB - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 7AB agreed.
20:21 - Division on Baroness Worthington’s Amendment - Ayes: 141 / Noes: 169 - Baroness Worthington’s Amendment disagreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Energy Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion on Commons Amendment 1
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
“( ) Schedule 1 to the Oil Taxation Act 1975,”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group add the relevant provisions of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 and the Corporation Tax Act 2010 to the legislation listed at Clause 2(6), which contains the Secretary of State’s relevant oil and gas functions. This ensures that the functions provided for by these Acts fall within the definition of “relevant functions” and can be transferred from the Secretary of State to the Oil and Gas Authority by regulations made under Clause 2(2).
Schedule 1 to the Oil Taxation Act 1975 and Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 contain the important oil and gas functions of determining oil fields, cluster areas and whether an oil field project is materially complete. These functions form the basis of oil taxation and are currently undertaken by the Oil and Gas Authority in its capacity as an executive agency. Amendment 2A to Commons Amendment 2 simply seeks to ensure that the function of determining whether an oil field project is materially complete is also transferable to the OGA.
These amendments are technical in nature and simply seek to put it beyond doubt that these key functions can be transferred to the OGA once it becomes a government company, as we have always intended. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
“( ) Chapter 9 of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010,”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, following a Division on Report in this House, a new clause was added to the Bill. This new clause rewrote the OGA’s principal objective in three significant ways. First, it removed the Wood review’s central premise to maximise the economic recovery of UK petroleum within Part 1A of the Petroleum Act, and replaced it with an objective to maximise the economic return of UK petroleum. Secondly, it imposed on the OGA an obligation to retain oversight of the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure. Finally, it imposed an obligation on the OGA to secure oil and gas infrastructure for reuse for the transportation and storage of greenhouse gases. Noble Lords will know that these changes were reversed in Committee in the other place.
The OGA has important functions in respect of both decommissioning and the storage of carbon dioxide. However, the change to the principal objective made on Report detracts from the OGA’s focus on maximising economic recovery and is damaging to the North Sea. This is unacceptable—particularly at a time of unprecedented challenge for the oil and gas industry. The OGA should remain focused on maximising economic recovery, and anything other than this risks seriously weakening its ability to provide crucial and urgent support to our oil and gas industry.
The amendment made at Lords Report stage had significant potential knock-on effects. By diluting the OGA’s principal objective, it would not only risk the premature decommissioning of key North Sea infrastructure but seriously jeopardise vital skills and experience, including those that could help to promote the longevity of the industry through carbon storage projects. From this perspective, the amendment is self- defeating.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is our view on these Benches that carbon capture and storage and transportation should have been woven into the principal objective of the OGA. I hear what the Minister says, but it leaves me some concerns. Although the Government have made many arguments and given many assurances about the importance of carbon capture and storage, we on these Benches are not completely convinced.
I wish to raise with the Government some points which still give us great concern about the level of commitment to carbon capture and storage and indeed about their ability to deliver on our legally binding targets. If CCS is not going to be integral to the principal objective and functions of the OGA, we might have had more confidence and assurance if Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to an earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, to which my noble friend Lord Teverson added his name, which would have required the Government to undertake and develop a national strategy for carbon capture and storage. CCS is such a vital part of decarbonisation for the period when carbon is still being produced that we have grave concerns in this regard.
On Report in this House, the Minister made great efforts to assure the House of the Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage and about the money invested—£130 million since 2011 to support research, development and innovations to foster the next generation of CCS technologies. In Committee, the Minister assured us:
“It is not as though no work is happening on carbon capture and storage. We are committed to a competition with up to £1 billion capital—that is current, and we will make an announcement on it early in 2016”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. 1230.]
That was on 7 September 2015. On 25 November 2015, Her Majesty’s Government cancelled that £1 billion Conservative manifesto pledge, as was stated in this House.
I simply say to the Minister that actions speak louder than words, so perhaps he will understand that we on these Benches would like to trust the Government’s words, but they have made it somewhat difficult. Time will, of course, tell, but I remind the Minister that carbon capture and storage is a vital component of our ability to meet our carbon emissions targets. The establishment of the OGA was an opportunity to embed proper regard and action on transportation and storage. That is now an opportunity lost.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the House unduly, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as the new president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. I have some very big boots to fill in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
I do not want to replay what has happened to development proposals for carbon capture and storage, I say to the Minister only that there are great opportunities with it, but investors and the industry now need reassurance from the Government. There are interesting developments, not least within our regions. The Dutch are increasing their interest in carbon capture and storage. As we come to the closing stages of the Bill, I ask the Minister to regroup on the issue, to give us back some reassurance and to look to the positive opportunities that lie ahead. Britain can lead in this technology, but it will take some commitment from the Government and the industry. The key thing needed at the moment is reassurance to the industry.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, express some concerns about the removal of the amendment in the Commons. Although I have listened to the argument that it would detract from the intention behind the OGA, I seriously hope that the Government will look back at the primary objectives that they have given it and conduct a timely review—I know that that will happen.
Since we last considered the amendment, we have had two important events. The first was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone: the cancellation of the carbon capture and storage project. I do not intend to debate the whys and wherefores of that, but it is clear that there has been a significant dent in investor confidence. People have invested in good faith in this technology knowing that, to meet our long-term climate targets, we need a form of capture and storage for certain sectors of our industry.
The second big event is the signing of the Paris agreement, when the Government and the Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, played an enormous role in making it the success that it was. That states a very clear target for the world: that we must get our anthropogenic sources, our sources of carbon emissions, matched and cancelled by anthropogenic sinks. That largely means capturing and storing carbon and putting it underground. We need to take that Paris equation seriously.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I suggest to the noble Baroness that a third event has happened—we have the early results from the Canadian carbon capture and storage project, which is by far the most advanced in the world. They are very disappointing in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide reduction and the cost that it has taken to achieve it.
Baroness Worthington
I note that, but I would just say that we are not Canada and we are very fortunate to have the North Sea as a reserve to use, which I believe would make it more cost efficient if we could do it in a timely fashion—obviously, not wanting to gold-plate anything, but making the best of the resource that we have in this nation. As I said, we need some reassurances from the Government. I am part of the group that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has now set up, which is looking at the whole issue afresh. We do not want to push carbon capture and storage for its own sake, but only in so far as it gives us options to decarbonise at least cost. I hope that the Minister will be able to say some words of reassurance about that process and the seriousness with which the Government will take the recommendations of that group.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I agree that carbon capture is one of the keys to the future of energy and climate policy, because, if it can be done commercially and successfully, it will allow us to continue burning fossil fuels but in ways where the carbon is extracted. This is the case for continuing with fossil fuels, and perhaps slightly undermines the case of those who want to abolish fossil fuels altogether, because the whole point is that you can carry on if you have the technology.
Through your Lordships, I ask the noble Baroness who just spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches whether they have thought about alternative and cheaper carbon removal technologies. There is carbon capture utilisation, which is developing in all sorts of new areas. It is beginning to look as though it can undermine the vast costs of piping carbon away into the North Sea. As we heard from the Minister, that would set back the problems in the North Sea, which are enormous and one hesitates to add any burdens to them, however important one may think the technology. So if there are cheaper ways of going forward, surely we should be going those ways.
That makes sense of what I understand from my noble friend to be the Government’s strategy, which is that the experimental efforts with carbon capture and storage in its full glory, with piping, transmission, finding places in the North Sea and overcoming all the vast technical and cost problems, can be replaced by something rather more imaginative. We may be moving in the right direction. My question is whether the Liberal Democrats have thought about those alternatives before pressing something which will obviously hurt the oil and gas industry in the North Sea at a time when it is already hurt very considerably.
Baroness Featherstone
I am happy to answer the noble Lord’s question. The Liberal Democrats keep an open mind on all technologies which can advance our climate change agenda. However, in Peterhead, for example, projects were well advanced and should have been continued.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but at this stage of the Bill noble Lords are not allowed to speak more than once.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, speaking briefly from these Benches but entirely personally, because bishops take different views on this, I welcome the realism that lies behind the Commons amendment. Following on from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, it may well be that nature’s way of carbon capture and storage is some sort of vegetation. That may be the solution, but it is hardly a function for the Oil and Gas Authority to supervise. The great cost of extracting carbon dioxide—which can be done perfectly easily, technically—and then transporting it under the North Sea would increase energy prices in this country to an extent that would make the recent threat to our steel industry look like simply the foothills. It would have a major impact in raising energy costs. So the Commons amendment limiting the function of the Oil and Gas Authority is realistic and entirely supportable.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in the debate on this amendment. I will try to cover the points raised and do justice to some very important ones. First, there is nothing inconsistent in having a laser-like focus on the development of the North Sea as a principal objective set out by the Government and developing CCS. I reassure noble Lords who raised the issue—the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone, Lady Liddell and Lady Worthington—that the Government are very much wedded to the importance of CCS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we set up an advisory committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who I do not think is in his place. He brings to this task great expertise. It has cross-party representation, with all principal parties here represented and also the Scottish nationalists from another place. We will be responding to the advice that we receive from the committee, which I think will come in a timely way at the end of the summer or the beginning of the autumn. I know that the committee has met at least three times already and is driving this agenda very hard.
I will mention what we are doing on CCS to reassure noble Lords. There is collaboration with key partners who are also developing CCS; we are sharing data and research with them. Officials in the department are working on CCS; this is not an area where there is no activity. Our science and innovation budget has been increased, and we are looking at how we can usefully use it. There are developments on Teesside with industrial CCS, which is important. My noble friend Lord Howell made a valid point about carbon capture usage, which is also a key part of what we are looking at—but these things are best done together.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ridley for mentioning the issue of Canada; we study progress there very closely. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for injecting some realism about the importance of having that laser-like focus on the North Sea, but, at the same time, as has rightly been accentuated and stressed by other noble Lords in the debate, developing a CCS strategy. With that, I commend the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4 and 5.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Commons Amendments 4 and 5 overturn amendments made at Lords Report stage. They reinstate the original wording of Clause 17, to require the Secretary of State to carry out reviews of the OGA’s performance and functions on a no more than three-yearly, ongoing basis. There is broad consensus that measures are needed to ensure that the OGA remains well equipped to address the diverse challenges faced by the oil and gas industry. Its role and scope, including in relation to the storage of carbon dioxide, needs to be appropriate, sufficient and regularly evaluated. As such, the Government introduced provisions requiring review of the OGA’s effectiveness in exercising its functions, as well as review of the fitness for purpose and scope of such functions.
However, requiring an initial review to take place no later than one year after the Bill comes into force, and then annually for subsequent reviews thereafter, would be an incredibly onerous process for government, the OGA and industry. Moreover, it would likely have myriad unintended consequences. It would require the almost continuous evaluation of the effectiveness of the OGA, with very little time to implement the recommendations from each review. Reviews would be extensive, needing to cover both statutory and non-statutory functions, and an assessment of effectiveness against external factors, such as changes in the regulatory landscape, operational practices across the UK continental shelf and environmental and economic factors.
All this would be required as part of the review to enable the Secretary of State to produce a report setting out the findings of the review which is to be laid before Parliament. This would create significant resource burdens both for the OGA and government, and risk obstructing the work of the OGA. This process would be inefficient and likely to result in an ineffective review. It would weaken the OGA’s ability to act as an independent regulator free from government intervention. It would also create a review process significantly out of step with other regulators.
There will be other mechanisms in place to ensure that the OGA’s performance and functions are appropriate. The OGA will publish, on an annual basis, a refreshed five-year business plan and an annual report and accounts. The need for an arm’s-length body charged with effective stewardship and regulation of the UK continental shelf was a central recommendation of the Wood review. I believe that the original three-year review periods introduced by government must be reinstated to avoid conflict with that recommendation. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6.
“Onshore wind power: closure of renewables obligation on 31 March 2016
(1) In Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply), after section 32LB insert—
“32LC Onshore wind generating stations: closure of renewables obligation
(1) No renewables obligation certificates are to be issued under a renewables obligation order in respect of electricity generated after 31 March 2016 by an onshore wind generating station.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to electricity generated in the circumstances set out in any one or more of sections 32LD to 32LL.
(3) In this section and sections 32LD to 32LL “onshore wind generating station” means a generating station that—
(a) generates electricity from wind, and
(b) is situated in England, Wales or Scotland, but not in waters in or adjacent to England, Wales or Scotland up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.
(4) The reference in subsection (1) to a renewables obligation order is to any renewables obligation order made under section 32 (whenever made, and whether or not made by the Secretary of State).
(5) Power to make provision in a renewables obligation order or a renewables obligation closure order (and any provision contained in such an order) is subject to subsection (1) and sections 32LD to 32LL.
(6) This section is not otherwise to be taken as affecting power to make provision in a renewables obligation order or renewables obligation closure order.”
(2) The Renewables Obligation Closure Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/2388) is amended as follows.
(3) In article 2(1) (interpretation), after the definition of “network operator” insert—
““onshore wind generating station” means a generating station that—
(a) generates electricity from wind, and
(b) is situated in England, Wales or Scotland, but not in waters in or adjacent to England, Wales or Scotland up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;”.
(4) In article 3 (closure of renewables obligation on 31st March 2017)—
(a) in the heading, after “solar pv stations” insert “or onshore wind generating stations”;
(b) in paragraph (1), after “solar pv station” insert “or an onshore wind generating station”.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the Government remain committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to end new subsidies for onshore wind. To deliver on this commitment the Government are intent on bringing forward the closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind in Great Britain. It is the Government’s view that all the government amendments in this group are consequential on each other.
Commons Amendment 6 reinserts the early closure clause removed at Lords Report stage. It gives effect to the manifesto commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind. As I set out during our earlier debates, the Government have engaged widely on their intention and have considered in detail each of the proposals that have been raised, not only by noble Lords and Members in the other place but by many valued industry stakeholders during the passage of the Bill. The Government are committed to protecting consumers from the rising costs of energy bills while also protecting investor confidence. It is the Government’s opinion that the new clauses presented here do exactly this.
To protect investor confidence, the Government have proposed a grace period for those projects, meeting certain conditions as at 18 June last year, as outlined in the Statement on that date by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd. The grace period conditions set out in Commons Amendment 7 are intended to protect those projects which already had the following as at 18 June last year: first, relevant planning consents; secondly, a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer, or confirmation that no grid connection is required; and, thirdly, access to land rights.
In addition, and to address feedback from industry, certain projects which have been granted planning permission following a successful appeal will also be eligible for the grace period. This will include those projects which have, as a result of a judicial review or an appeal, had a negative planning decision which was made on or before 18 June last year subsequently overturned.
The Government have also taken on board concerns raised by industry about an investment freeze. Following industry engagement after the 18 June announcement last year, we have seen evidence that certain projects have been experiencing difficulty securing funding due to legislative uncertainty caused by the Bill’s passage through Parliament. We have, therefore, sought to address this through the investment freezing condition. This will ensure that projects which meet the approved development condition, and which would otherwise have been able to commission and accredit under the RO by the original closure date, 31 March 2017, are not frozen out of the process. This investment-freezing condition has been designed specifically to protect the projects that were intended to be able to access the grace period as proposed on 18 June last year but which have been unable to secure debt funding pending Royal Assent due to legislative uncertainty. Indeed, feedback from industry suggests that it supports and welcomes such a measure.
The Government want to take a consistent approach to all onshore wind projects eligible to accredit under the RO. The Commons amendments therefore also seek to ensure that an existing grace period for delays caused by grid or radar works will continue to apply. Let me reiterate so no ambiguity remains: this is a manifesto commitment based on plans which we signalled well before the election. The honourable Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, Mr Philip Boswell, said at Committee stage in the other place:
“We agree that swift passage of the Bill with clear and consistent RO grace period provisions is needed in order to provide certainty to investors in the onshore wind sector as quickly as possible. The renewables industry fears that the longer legislative uncertainty over RO closure persists, the greater the risk of otherwise eligible projects running out of time to deliver under the proposed grace periods”.—[Official Report, Commons, Energy Bill Committee, 2/2/16; col. 127.]
On Commons Amendment 8, the Government would like to see an equivalent approach to closure of the RO to onshore wind taken across the UK. Commons Amendment 8 gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations, which, if made, would prevent suppliers in Great Britain using Northern Ireland renewables obligation certificates. These would relate to electricity generated by new onshore wind stations and any additional capacity added to existing wind stations after the onshore wind closure date. This power allows for circumstances to be specified in regulations when such Northern Ireland renewable obligation certificates may still be used, and for the setting of a later date than the onshore wind closure date. The power has been included with an intention to protect consumers in Great Britain from the costs of any additional support which Northern Ireland chooses to provide.
This is a backstop power; it would be used only if Northern Ireland does not close its renewable obligation to new onshore wind on equivalent terms to the rest of the United Kingdom. As my honourable friend the Minister of State Andrea Leadsom confirmed in the other place, this power would be used only in relation to new onshore wind stations and additional capacity in Northern Ireland that do not meet closure conditions equivalent to those in Great Britain.
I am pleased to say that renewable obligation in Northern Ireland has now closed to large-scale new onshore wind stations with a capacity above 5 megawatts with effect from 1 April 2016, and that Northern Ireland is currently consulting on closing stations at 5 megawatts and below on equivalent terms to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government continue to engage with Northern Ireland with a view to effecting closure on equivalent terms to Great Britain through Northern Irish legislation, but this backstop power is included with a view to delivering on our manifesto commitment across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure simply that the provisions set out in Commons Amendments 6, 7 and 8—that is, the early closure of the RO to new onshore wind in Great Britain, together with the related grace-period provisions, and the backstop power relating to the RO in Northern Ireland—will come into force on Royal Assent. As my honourable friend the Minister of State Andrea Leadsom set out in the other place, the Government intend the provisions implementing the early closure of the RO to come into force on the date of Royal Assent and do not intend to backdate these provisions.
Government amendments to Commons Amendments 6, 7 and 8 further clarify that the onshore wind closure date will be the date on which the Bill achieves Royal Assent. These changes are set out in government Amendments 6A, 6B, 7A to 7S, 7AJ to 7AL and 8A to 8C. The amendments also include a number of consequential changes to the investment-freezing condition, extending it by one month to account for the additional period of legislative uncertainty. The amendments further ensure that projects seeking to access the grid or radar delay condition would continue to have an additional 12 months to accredit where they satisfy the relevant eligibility requirements. The Government are making these changes to provide clarity and certainty for the industry, and our policy makes it clear that we are taking steps to protect consumer bills while also balancing the interests of industry. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I shall speak to Amendments 7U, 7V, 7W, 7Y, 7AC, 7AD and 7AE which are in my name. The Minister is a good friend of mine, and I have great respect for him. Before he became a Minister, he and I used to work together on the great issue of devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales. We worked very well together, so I want to reassure him that I have every interest in him continuing in his post. I do not want him to do anything that would threaten his future. That is why I want to reassure him that everything that I am suggesting is in line with the Conservative election manifesto pledge.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It is indeed. Absolutely. As my noble friend Lord O’Neill said, it is unusual—exceptional—for me to do that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It is unprecedented, as my noble friend Lord Hain says. I also want to reassure the Minister that no constituencies of English Conservative MPs will be affected by this because I know some of them are genuinely worried about the effect on their constituencies. What I am suggesting in my amendments and what others are suggesting in theirs deals with proposals principally in Scotland and with very important community projects in Scotland. Two categories are dealt with in my amendments. The first category is those covered by Section 75 which are unable to go ahead not because they do not have planning permission —they have managed to get that—but because of some technicality. We are suggesting that that technicality is creating huge problems for them. The other category is in relation to grid connections. There is a particular problem in Scotland with the transmission and distribution grids not necessarily being as easily available as south of the border and having different arrangements. Some projects have fallen foul of these regulations.
If we put the schemes together, they amount to only just under 90 megawatts of generation. It is not a huge amount we are asking for. It is a relatively small amount. They all have the democratic consent of the local council, which is one of the matters raised in the Conservative election manifesto. I shall give the House a couple of examples. There is a scheme in Sorbie, a working dairy farm in Ardrossan in north Ayrshire, that has full planning consent and for which bank finance has been secured, a turbine contract has been agreed and design work has been started. Nearly £1 million has been spent on the scheme by the people concerned. The family-run working dairy farm is already suffering because of the low price of milk. If this project were to be cancelled because of the Government not accepting the amendments being put forward today, it would be in real difficulty. That is the kind of problem that is being faced.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, on Report I drew attention to the unfair effect upon a development on Skye. The original provisions about the date upon which the guillotine would fall on new onshore wind farms discriminated against a development at Glen Ullinish in Skye which had planning permission, control of the land, the support of the local community and an agreement to link to the grid; the developers were paying money to the grid in fulfilment of that agreement. The only reason why the development could not go ahead was that the grid had to be upgraded, and that could not be achieved within the appropriate time.
I voted with the amendment that removed the clause from the Bill, but afterwards I wrote to the Minister to explain that that was the only option I had. I called on him and the Secretary of State to consider accommodating this unusual situation. I am grateful to the Minister, the Secretary of State and officials in the department for giving this matter consideration. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I read the new Clause 32LL as a solution to the difficulty that there is a grid or radar delay condition. I seek confirmation from the Minister that I am reading it correctly, but I genuinely think it has enabled the development at Glen Ullinish to proceed. As I indicated in my letter, if that problem were resolved and a clause were brought back that accommodated this issue, I would support it, subject to the Minister’s confirmation that my understanding of Clause 32LL is correct.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 7T and took the liberty of giving the Minister a copy of my draft speech in advance, in the hope of his co-operation and acceptance of the amendment. The Bill as it stands puts at risk a multimillion pound investment in Wales in and around my home area of Neath Port Talbot, which is already facing massive economic haemorrhage resulting from the threat to Tata Steel. The issue at stake relates to an already consented project, Gamesa’s Llynfi Afan renewable energy project, which has had its planning condition varied through a Section 73 consent to allow for a different road access route. The project is ready to start construction, and some of the major work is going to local businesses, with obvious positive implications for jobs, which in that area is welcome.
On 27 August 2013, the Llynfi Afan renewable energy project was granted consent by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. Previous consent had already been granted by two other local authorities, Bridgend County Borough Council on 18 July 2013 and Rhondda Cynon Taff on 13 October 2011. However, due to a change in the proposed site access route, the developer, Gamesa, successfully applied for variation of two conditions of the Neath Port Talbot permission by way of Section 73 consent. I stress that the variations dealt solely with the access route for turbine component deliveries to the site of the consented generating station itself, and its capacity will remain unaltered. As such, the impact on the DECC budget is neutral.
The variations were approved on 24 February 2016 by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. As I understand it, where an application under Section 73 is granted, the effect of the Planning Act 1990 is the issue of a new planning permission, with a new decision date, sitting alongside the original permission, which remains intact and unamended. The consent and conditions of the original consent are preserved, as is the implementation date by which the construction of the generating station should have been started. On Report in the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said:
“Where consent is granted for development on or before 18 June and is subsequently varied”,—[Official Report, 21/10/15; col. 668.]
in this way, it will continue to fall within the approved development condition.
While that is very welcome and positive for this project, regrettably, his statement by itself has proved insufficient to achieve adequate investor confidence. That is because the renewable obligation certificate is awarded after the wind farm has been built and has proven to be exporting electricity to the grid. Investors therefore need certainty before construction, otherwise there is a risk that the project could be built but not receive the required support. As a result, investors wish for certainty reflected in the legislation, and without the amendment the project will be put at risk. The amendment therefore aims to resolve the issue and ensure that the project can go ahead, matching government intent and delivering investment in the local community. My understanding is that without the amendment, such variation permissions as Section 73 would not qualify under the Government’s grace period condition.
The investors’ legal advisers have said that, as the Energy Bill currently stands, it fails to reflect the position that variation consents are fresh planning permissions as a matter of law, as used to be the case. They assert that without an amendment, such variation permissions would not qualify under the Government’s grace period condition. Amending the Bill would make it absolutely clear and avoid any additional funding being added other than what the Government have already allowed for.
In the particular case of Llynfi Afan Renewable Energy Park, tens of millions of pounds will be invested in the construction and operational phases. The communities have widely supported Gamesa’s Section 73 application, as they support the project and wish to see it happen. The local community stands to gain substantially in community benefits, and in terms of business rates and direct and indirect local employment opportunities. Gamesa is in the final stages of appointing a contractor who will be responsible for building the wind farm and, as such, will require employment and services from the locality. It has been Gamesa’s aim to work wherever possible with local companies, involving local jobs, and will continue to do so during the construction and operational phases.
I appeal to the Minister to agree to the amendment. If he finds some technical fault with it—although it is not obvious to me what that might be—will he agree to write a letter to the developers explaining why the Bill as it stands, without the amendment, meets their objectives and that they will be able to proceed, notwithstanding the fact that this amendment may not be accepted by the House?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has moved Amendment 6 and spoken to Amendment 7, and I want to speak principally to my amendments to Amendment 7. My noble friend Lady Featherstone may say something about the wider issue of the early closure of the renewables obligation in respect of onshore wind generating stations. The Minister has repeated the Conservative Party manifesto commitment that there will be no new subsidies for onshore wind, but I well recall the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that it is difficult to think that a new subsidy is actually the early closure of a long-existing subsidy. The Minister repeats that again and again, but no one is seeking to overturn the early closure. However, the grounds he has stated— that it is a manifesto commitment—are somewhat doubtful.
I have yet to find many people in the industry who think this is a very wise move at all. It is not simply about what is being done with onshore wind; as we have already heard in this debate, a large amount of the investment made in developments over a long period will be cut off at a fairly arbitrary date. The Government’s capriciously cutting off developments in the way proposed affects the confidence of those who want to invest not only in onshore wind renewables but in the entire renewables industry and, indeed, in other infrastructure developments.
Turning to the amendments, I begin by thanking the Minister for his willingness to engage through exchanges of letters and in meetings. One reason why we on these Benches were very happy to support the move to take out the principal clause in the original Bill was not that we did not expect the Government to try to bring back the clause, but that we felt that it would give them an opportunity to reflect on and try to improve the grace periods. Although they were welcome as far as they went, they certainly fell far short of what many people in the industry—I would say almost universally—thought was required.
What has been disappointing, and perhaps not in keeping with the way this House operates when we ask the Government to think again, is that we have absolutely no sense that they are willing to compromise in any way whatever. They have said that there is no compromise, and that is why the amendments that I have tabled—particularly Amendment 7X—embody quite a number of the changes which the industry wants to see and on which we have had representations. I invite your Lordships to support that amendment. I hope that if that measure is brought back in—after all, the Bill has to go back to the Commons because the Government have brought forward amendments to their own amendments—there will be a further opportunity for the kind of engagement that is part and parcel of the way this House operates. Certainly, when I had the privilege of sitting on the Front Bench and dealing with amendments, I tried to find some means of compromise when there were Lords defeats.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I would like just very briefly to seek clarification on something that has arisen from our debates. I do not know whether I am alone in not being sure of the implications of what we are discussing here. However, I would like to know from the Minister, or indeed from those who tabled the amendments, how many schemes are affected, where they are, and whether any of the schemes that might be affected by the amendments are ones where the local communities have very much opposed the developments that are taking place.
I feel in something of quandary in approaching these amendments, because I do not want schemes which have a lot of public support, referred to by my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hain, to be prevented from going ahead, but at the same time I hope that what is proposed would not allow schemes to go ahead in my own county of Northumberland, where a large number of schemes have been introduced against the wishes of local people and local communities. I would not like them to go ahead because of changes that we are considering introducing here via amendments.
The Minister knows that I have a lot of sympathy with the Government’s approach, in that a lot of schemes have been inflicted on local communities in sensitive landscapes and in areas where we are trying to develop tourism. It has been a real issue in Northumberland, which has twice as much onshore wind capacity as any other English county. I would simply like to hear from the Minister and others whether there are implications for Northumberland in what is proposed today.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I was not intending to speak on this amendment, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was kind enough to refer to me, I want to ask a simple question. I want also to pay tribute to the commitment shown by the noble and learned Lord in the detailed way in which he has approached this question and sought to canvass a wide section of views on this clearly still controversial topic.
My question is more about the future. The Government are doing what they wish to do and it is clear that we need to see a pathway towards all renewables standing on their own two feet, supported, one hopes, by a carbon price which makes investment in cleaner technologies a sensible way forward. My question is in relation to another event that has taken place since we last considered this matter, which is the announcement about the auctions of CFDs. I understand that onshore wind will not be eligible for CFDs. I wonder whether there has been representation from Scotland in that decision-making process, since many questions about eligibility for the RO could be alleviated if there was access for Scottish wind farms to a CFD or equivalent that Scotland could determine. That is my question. It is less about the detail looking backwards over this government statement than about the Government saying something reassuring about repatriating an element of energy control to Scotland to enable it to persevere with this industry, which is clearly very important to it.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. In particular, I want to speak to Amendments 7AA and 7AM in the name of the noble and learned Lord.
As the noble and learned Lord said, there are two important realities that these amendments seek to address. The first is that planning regulations in Scotland, unlike in England, require a set period of pre-engagement. This means that the submission of a major planning application can take place only once a statutory three or more months of consultation have taken place. In Scotland, therefore, between three and six months is added to the equivalent statutory period that applies in England. In effect, the lodging of this proposal of application notice in Scotland is at exactly the same point in the process as the lodging of a planning application in England. In other words, it is the start of the formal planning process either side of the border.
The second reality that the noble and learned Lord’s amendment seeks to address is that projects involving community equity are inherently disadvantaged alongside established developers in terms of the speed with which they can develop their projects, the level of finance that they have available, the time it takes them to get the requisite level of finance and the relative risks they take in getting a project to a particular stage by a particular date. Securing the initial funding for a community stake takes valuable time before the actual planning process can even be initiated.
As a result of these two realities, the Scottish planning regulations and the challenges facing community projects, this Bill would lead to the following scenario. A community-based project could be stopped dead in its tracks despite a significant investment involving a community shareholding having been committed well before 18 June, despite that project having been firmly and formally within the Scottish planning process since well before 18 June and despite all other grace period criteria having been met. Such a scenario would be a regrettable and, I believe, unintended consequence, especially given the importance that the Government attach to the involvement of local communities in, and their support for, onshore renewable projects. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, that aspiration was expressed in the Conservative manifesto.
On the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, at the same time as such a community project would be stopped dead in its tracks, other cases that were refused planning permission before 18 June by the local planning authority—in other words, they did not have local support—but were subsequently granted on appeal would be able to accredit under the grace periods, while a genuinely community project which is fully committed by 18 June, with full local support and equity ownership, would not. The noble Baroness has therefore raised a very serious concern.
Such a scenario would be addressed by Amendments 7AA and 7AM in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. They would ensure that community projects that had committed significant financial resources, that had been in the formal planning process well before 18 June and that now had permission and accorded with all the other grace period requirements were given a reasonable grace period to deliver.
Like other Members of this House, I have been grateful to the Minister for his willingness to correspond and engage on the issues relating to this Bill, and I am grateful for the correspondence that I have had with him about the issues behind the amendments. I want to reassure him on two concerns that he raised with me. The first was a concern that, in accepting these amendments, there would be significant additional deployment. This is not the case. Research through RenewableUK data demonstrates that the amendment would lead to an additional deployment of only 45 megawatts, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said. That is less than 0.1%—that is, 1/10th of 1%—of the current annual ROC spend.
My noble friend the Minister also expressed the view that the amendments run counter to policy intent. I can reassure him that they do not. They are about improving in a very precise and limited way the flexibility in how the Bill would apply, especially in Scotland. The amendments are modest in their intent and negligible in their cost and therefore in their impact on the ROC budget, yet, as we have heard from other noble Lords and especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, they would deliver significant local benefits.
I hope that the House and especially my noble friend the Minister will support the amendments or at least consider them constructively. They deal with the very lengthy pre-application consultation requirements in the Scottish planning system and with the challenges that community projects face. I will listen carefully to my noble friend’s response, and hope it is a positive one.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 7AB, tabled in my name. The Energy Bill started in your Lordships’ House shortly after the generally unexpected Conservative majority in the general election last year. It focuses primarily on the setting-up of the Oil and Gas Authority. Into the Bill, the new Conservative Government thrust two new clauses on onshore wind, closing down early, to a date of 18 June, the renewables obligation. Hurriedly, the Government agreed to consider exceptions, as grace periods, to allow schemes to complete as they had travelled a long way through the development stage, in good faith and at considerable cost.
While understanding that the Government have to draw a new line somewhere to give effect to this measure, your Lordships’ House was not content that sufficient logic had been applied and passed the Bill to the Commons with these two clauses omitted from it. These clauses now return to your Lordships’ House but without material amendment having being made in the Commons to these grace period proposals.
Amendment 7AB proposes a logical, consistent, clear, honest and fair extension to the exceptions agreed by the Government. The wider onshore wind industry has come to a consensus and supports this single, narrow extension to the existing renewables grace period criteria. The proposed change is for projects that have achieved democratic local consent for their development at a planning committee on or before 18 June 2015 but received Section 75 in Scotland and Section 106 in England and Wales agreement after that date. At present they are excluded.
This cannot be said to be against Conservative Party policy. It is widely considered that a decision made by a democratically elected local planning committee embodies the principle of giving local people the final say. To deny this extension is to deny and prevent local people having the final say on wind farm applications.
The publication of a resolution to grant permission is considered by both developers and local authorities to be a procedural step and that planning permission is to follow—in effect, agreement is all but made. The industry is not aware of any commercial project that received local community consent at planning committee and was not awarded a written decision because of a failure to complete a Section 75/106 agreement. Continuing to proceed on the basis that planning consent is secured, developers have greater sunk costs at this stage. Formal notice is expected because a resolution by a planning committee is a real and substantial commitment.
The lack of logic in the Government’s position arises from the concession they have granted to projects refused permission at 18 June but subsequently agreed on appeal. Projects refused on 18 June, although overturned, can qualify, whereas agreements resolved on 18 June and subsequently fulfilled cannot. This is a bizarre interpretation. The legal advice that the industry has received categorically states that there is as much “legal right” to a planning permission resolved at local level as there is to a permission subsequently granted on appeal following a refusal by a planning committee. As I have said, the Government are content to allow these successful appeals to proceed.
Grace period concessions for anomalies and complexities around the criteria should allow for projects which have local consent but missed the cut-off date due to the time needed for a planning authority to complete a Section 75/106 agreement and issue a decision notice. It would comply with Conservative policy that locally approved wind farms be enabled to go ahead.
To allow this concession will not open—I will not say floodgates—a gale of projects coming forward. I understand the industry has put forward a list of projects that received resolution for approval but where formal permission was issued after 18 June. The list totals seven projects—six in Scotland and one in England. This totals just under 90 megawatts. To put this into context, 90 megawatts would power 50,000 households—a mere fifth of 1% of more than 26 million households and about 1% of the present onshore wind capacity of over 8,500 megawatts. Surely the Minister cannot contend this to be a major concession.
As to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, he has worked tirelessly on trying to get a fair outcome for projects started in good faith by people who have committed substantial time and assets to bring forward onshore wind developments—which, after all, will be the least-cost technology providing low-carbon power. He has worked extensively, engaging with industry and the Government, to get a resolution that does the decent thing by these developers.
This measure closing down the renewable obligation has been one of the many taken by this Government that has done severe damage to investor confidence and led to a Commons departmental committee issuing a report on investor confidence in the UK energy sector.
I do not doubt that the amendments the noble and learned Lord has tabled are thought through with good intentions. However, I have targeted this side of the House’s focus specifically on the very minimum that could be considered reasonable, given that onshore wind developments are likely to be coming to an end in any case. His Amendment 7X, in part, supports my case. Yes, we want to be fair where we can, considering that the provision can be said to be in the Conservative Party manifesto, and the Commons has expressed its decision. We ask the Government to think again on the small measure I propose, at the very least, and show some consistency
I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for bringing this situation and his amendment to the attention of the House today. It allows me to underline just how destructive the Government’s arbitrary cut-off date of projects has been. A great amount of uncertainty now exists throughout the renewables sector and I urge the Minister and his department to open a dialogue with their Welsh counterparts to resolve this anomaly as quickly as possible.
I turn now to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and supported by my noble friend Lady Liddell and others. My noble friend’s Amendment 7Y, in part, also supports the case that I have made. Unfortunately, he includes other provisions that go beyond the small, narrow extension to the Government’s concessions. The fact that six of the seven projects arising from this extension are in Scotland shows the importance of wind power for jobs and enterprise there. He has identified the effect on schemes locally in Scotland in his remarks. It is unfortunate that the Government have brought back the renewables obligation scheme to be solely under the reserve of the Westminster Parliament by withdrawing it from being a devolved matter.
From the amendments that have come forward, I consider it reasonable to press ahead with the amendments that I propose.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate on the opposition amendments which I shall try to cover in my response. I shall take the speeches in the order in which they were made.
I acknowledge the great efforts that have been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes, Lord Grantchester and Lord Hain, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and I thank them for their comprehensive suggestions and the detailed drafting of the amendments. I also thank them for their hard work and forensic skill—particularly that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—in putting them forward.
I understand the points that are being made. There is, by and large, a doctrinal difference in attitudes to onshore wind between the Opposition and the Government. Hence it was in our manifesto and not in those of other parties. That should be our starting point.
I should make one thing clear that I hope I do not need to make clear. There were many references to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and projects being in his constituency and I hope no one was suggesting that there should be special treatment in that regard. Let me make it clear that there will not be—nor would the right honourable member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale expect such.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his unusual, unprecedented and almost unique accolades. We go back a long way on devolution and, as he knows, I have the greatest respect for him. I am about to damage him with his Benches in the same way as he damaged me with mine but I thank him for his contribution. I contest the point he is making about these being mere technicalities—they are much more than that.
As noble Lords will appreciate, I cannot respond to all of the detailed projects because I do not have knowledge of every single one. Of those I do, I will endeavour to say what I can on them, but I cannot specifically carry the knowledge of where we are on them all. I certainly would encourage noble Lords and the developers to be in touch with the department because officials are keen to engage, to be helpful, and to give clarity in relation to these different projects.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who I know makes great efforts on behalf of his part of Scotland and the area he used to represent, and he has put forward a powerful case. I shall pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and say that of course there would be an impact on deployment. Obviously if we alter the law it will not be just in relation to Scotland, it will apply to the whole of the country. It will not be laser-like on a particular area, so it will increase deployment, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated in his remarks. His figure was higher than that suggested by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. Further, as has been indicated, we have undertaken extensive consultation.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and I thank him very much indeed for making me aware of what he was going to say in relation to Llynfi Afan in the Afan Valley and the Gamesa project there. As he knows, DECC officials have already been engaged with the developer and they are happy to continue to do that. I am also certainly happy to write to Gamesa, as he indicated. From what I gather, this is not a difficulty with the Welsh Government, as has just been suggested. I do not think that that is the case at all. This project has planning permission so we will certainly take a close look at it and clarify the position. If I can help in that regard, of course I will.
I turn to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, on the issue of the grid and radar delay as set out in the letter that we sent to him. If I can, I will get officials to contact him again in case there is a lack of clarity on that or if there is an ambiguity; I do not think there is. I know that it is an issue that matters to other noble Lords as well.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who raised many points with forensic skill, as he does. As he has been around the legal block a bit he will know that cut-off dates are always a problem. It can be suggested that they are capricious or arbitrary, but virtually all legislation has cut-off points in it, and there will always be someone on the other side of them who you wish you could help. But in reality a cut-off point has to be set, and that is what we have done. I can understand that it does not appeal to some people, but of course it is arbitrary only in the sense that any date is arbitrary, so even if we moved in the way he has suggested, there would be other projects that would fall just the other side of the line.
I think that the noble and learned Lord’s ultimate conclusion was that there is no hybridity in this Bill. If that was his conclusion, I agree with him; this is not an issue about hybridity. Scottish developers are subject to Scottish planning law and those in England and Wales are subject to English and Welsh planning law. It is not unusual for differences in law to arise on either side of the border these days, and indeed it is now happening more and more in relation to Wales as well, producing different practical results. I do not think that that causes hybridity unless a specific private interest is affected, but I do not see that being the case here. So, with regret, I do not think that I can move on any of the points he has raised. We have made our position very clear.
Perhaps I may just say in response to some of the matters that have been brought up in relation to Scotland—I understand the particular interest in Scotland because of the massive deployment there; it has benefited massively, there is no doubt about that—that it was not a significant issue in the House of Commons. I did not think it was and so I double-checked it. That is not to say that it is not a matter that needs to be addressed, but it is interesting to note that it did not seem to be a massive issue in another place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, set out a position in relation to CFDs and the Scottish Government. We have set the rules for CFDs and we have said that they will not be considered for the round of CFDs in this year, but I am very willing to ensure that we engage with the Scottish Government, as we do on energy issues, to see if there is anything that we can do in relation to future CFD rounds. I will take that away and look at it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, raised an issue about what he saw as the improved clarity set out in the letter that I sent to him. That is the correct position, and we will ensure that the letter is circulated to noble Lords who have participated in the debate and we will make use of it too if it is helpful to developers, as indeed we do. The correct position is set out in it, so I will be happy to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, spoke kindly about our unexpected election victory as he saw it, and he also said quite rightly, for which I thank him, that one has to draw the line somewhere. That is a very realistic position. We can take different views as to where the line should be drawn. He talked about democratic control, but I would make the point that this does not stop wind farms deploying onshore, it ends the subsidy. People need to grasp that. The position is that we do not want to carry on subsidising where there is no continued need for subsidy. That is the basis on which we are moving and one of the prime reasons for this provision.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the Bill, having only joined the House since then. On the basis of what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, like the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I represented an area which had an awful lot of applications, but we found that the big developers got in very quickly and were able to process their applications, whereas the small community proposals took a lot longer and found it more difficult, so they were later in the field. They have been caught by this. Does the Minister not recognise that the Government could find themselves in a situation where they are seen to have gone against communities in favour of big business? That just compounds the difficulty and the ideological divide that the Government are pursuing.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord is wrong on the issue because, with the grace period and with the investment-freeze conditions, we have allowed for movement on these issues. I take the point that he is making but I do not agree with it.
I am just double-checking, but I hope that I have now done full justice to the comments that have been made.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has addressed two points, one of which is the investment-freeze conditions and green organisations such as Triodos, which do not appear to qualify. Even at this late stage, would he be prepared to look at this again? I also refer to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and myself with regard to community investments. I do not think that the Minister has specifically addressed that issue as regards the Dalquhandy and West Douglas development.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Taking the latter point first, I think that I did so in response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. We do not see any reason for distinguishing between community projects and others. That would only give rise to difficulties.
On the investment-freeze conditions, I think that the noble and learned Lord is pursuing the lenders point. There is no intention to alter the list. It is something that I think could be done in the future without primary legislation, but there is no proposal to change that. I apologise for not covering it earlier.
I think that I have covered all the main points, and with that, I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Amendments 6A and 6B (as amendments to Commons Amendment 6)
“the onshore wind closure date” means the date on which the Energy Act 2016 is passed;”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 7.
“Onshore wind power: circumstances in which certificates may be issued after 31 March 2016
(1) Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply) is amended as follows. (2) After section 32LC (inserted by section [Onshore wind power: closure of renewables obligation on 31 March 2016] of this Act) insert—
“32LD Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, on or before 31 March 2016
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—
(a) generated by an onshore wind generating station which was accredited on or before 31 March 2016, and
(b) generated using—
(i) the original capacity of the station, or
(ii) additional capacity which in the Authority’s view first formed part of the station on or before 31 March 2016.
32LE Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017: grid or radar delay condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—
(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—
(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 April 2016 and ending with 31 March 2017, and
(ii) in respect of which the grid or radar delay condition is met, or
(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—
(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,
(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 April 2016 and ending with 31 March 2017, and
(iii) the grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.
32LF Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, on or before 31 March 2017: approved development condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—
(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—
(i) which was accredited on or before 31 March 2017, and
(ii) in respect of which the approved development condition is met, or
(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—
(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,
(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station on or before 31 March 2017, and
(iii) the approved development condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.
32LG Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018: grid or radar delay condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—
(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—
(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 March 2018,
(ii) in respect of which the approved development condition is met, and
(iii) in respect of which the grid or radar delay condition is met, or
(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—
(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,
(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 March 2018,
(iii) the approved development condition is met in respect of the additional capacity, and
(iv) the grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.
32LH Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2017: investment freezing condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—
(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—
(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 December 2017, and
(ii) in respect of which both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met, or
(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—
(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,
(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 December 2017, and
(iii) both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met in respect of the additional capacity.
32LI Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018: grid or radar delay condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—
(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—
(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 January 2018 and ending with 31 December 2018,
(ii) in respect of which both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met, and
(iii) in respect of which the grid or radar delay condition is met, or
(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—
(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,
(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 January 2018 and ending with 31 December 2018,
(iii) both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met in respect of the additional capacity, and
(iv) the grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.
32LJ The approved development condition
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 32LF to 32LI.
(2) The approved development condition is met in respect of an onshore wind generating station if the documents specified in subsections (4), (5) and (6) were provided to the Authority with the application for accreditation of the station.
(3) The approved development condition is met in respect of additional capacity if the documents specified in subsections (4), (5) and (6) were provided to the Authority on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision that the additional capacity could form part of an onshore wind generating station.
(4) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) evidence that—
(i) planning permission for the station or additional capacity was granted on or before 18 June 2015, and
(ii) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached,
(b) evidence that—
(i) planning permission for the station or additional capacity was refused on or before 18 June 2015, but granted after that date following an appeal or judicial review, and
(ii) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached,
(c) evidence that—
(i) an application for 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was made on or before 18 June 2015 for the station or additional capacity,
(ii) the period allowed under section 78(2) of the 1990 Act or (as the case may be) section 47(2) of the 1997
Act ended on or before 18 June 2015 without any of the things mentioned in section 78(2)(a) to (b) of the 1990 Act or section 47(2)(a) to (c) of the 1997 Act being done in respect of the application,
(iii) the application was not referred to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers in accordance with directions given under section 77 of the 1990 Act or section 46 of the 1997 Act,
(iv) 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was granted after 18 June 2015 following an appeal, and
(v) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached, or
(d) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, planning permission is not required for the station or additional capacity.
(5) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) a copy of an offer from a licensed network operator made on or before 18 June 2015 to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity, and evidence that the offer was accepted on or before that date (whether or not the acceptance was subject to any conditions or other terms), or
(b) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, no grid works were required to be carried out by a licensed network operator in order to enable the station to be commissioned or the additional capacity to form part of the station.
(6) The documents specified in this subsection are a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, as at 18 June 2015 a relevant developer of the station or additional capacity (or a person connected, within the meaning of section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, with a relevant developer of the station or additional capacity)—
(a) was an owner or lessee of the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated,
(b) had entered into an agreement to purchase or lease the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated,
(c) had an option to purchase or to lease the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated, or
(d) was a party to an exclusivity agreement in relation to the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated.
(7) In this section—
“the 1990 Act” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
“1990 Act permission” means planning permission under the 1990 Act (except outline planning permission, within the meaning of section 92 of that Act);
“the 1997 Act” means the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;
“1997 Act permission” means planning permission under the 1997 Act (except planning permission in principle, within the meaning of section 59 of that Act);
“exclusivity agreement”, in relation to land, means an agreement by the owner or a lessee of the land not to permit any person (other than the persons identified in the agreement) to construct an onshore wind generating station on the land;
“planning permission” means—
(a) consent under section 36 of this Act,
(b) 1990 Act permission,
(c) 1997 Act permission, or
(d) development consent under the Planning Act 2008.
32LK The investment freezing condition
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 32LH and 32LI.
(2) The investment freezing condition is met in respect of an onshore wind generating station if the documents specified in subsection (4) were provided to the Authority with the application for accreditation of the station.
(3) The investment freezing condition is met in respect of additional capacity if the documents specified in subsection (4) were provided to the Authority on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision that the additional capacity could form part of an onshore wind generating station.
(4) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, as at the Royal Assent date—
(i) the relevant developer required funding from a recognised lender before the station could be commissioned or additional capacity could form part of the station,
(ii) a recognised lender was not prepared to provide that funding until enactment of the Energy Act 2016, because of uncertainty over whether the Act would be enacted or its wording if enacted, and
(iii) the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before 31 March 2017 if the funding had been provided before the Royal Assent date, and
(b) a letter or other document, dated on or before the date which is 28 days after the Royal Assent date, from a recognised lender confirming (whether or not the confirmation is subject to any conditions or other terms) that the lender was not prepared to provide funding in respect of the station or additional capacity until enactment of the Energy Act 2016, because of uncertainty over whether the Act would be enacted or its wording if enacted.
(5) In this section—
“recognised lender” means a provider of debt finance which has been issued with an investment grade credit rating by a registered credit rating agency;
“the Royal Assent date” means the date on which the Energy Act 2016 is passed.
(6) For the purposes of the definition of “recognised lender” in subsection (5)—
“investment grade credit rating” means a credit rating commonly understood by registered credit rating agencies to be investment grade;
“registered credit rating agency” means a credit rating agency registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies.
32LL The grid or radar delay condition
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 32LE, 32LG and 32LI.
(2) The grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of an onshore wind generating station if, on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision to accredit the station, the documents specified in subsection (4), (5) or (6) were—
(a) submitted by the operator of the station, and
(b) received by the Authority.
(3) The grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of additional capacity if, on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision that the additional capacity could form part of an onshore wind generating station, the documents specified in subsection (4), (5) or (6) were—
(a) submitted by the operator of the station, and
(b) received by the Authority.
(4) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) evidence of an agreement with a network operator (“the relevant network operator”) to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity (“the relevant grid works”);
(b) a copy of a document written by, or on behalf of, the relevant network operator which estimated or set a date for completion of the relevant grid works (“the planned grid works completion date”) which was no later than the primary date;
(c) a letter from the relevant network operator confirming (whether or not such confirmation is subject to any conditions or other terms) that—
(i) the relevant grid works were completed after the planned grid works completion date, and
(ii) in the relevant network operator’s opinion, the failure to complete the relevant grid works on or before the planned grid works completion date was not due to any breach by a generating station developer of any agreement with the relevant network operator; and
(d) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before the primary date if the relevant grid works had been completed on or before the planned grid works completion date.
(5) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) evidence of an agreement between a generating station developer and a person who is not a generating station developer (“the radar works agreement”) for the carrying out of radar works (“the relevant radar works”);
(b) a copy of a document written by, or on behalf of, a party to the radar works agreement (other than a generating station developer) which estimated or set a date for completion of the relevant radar works (“the planned radar works completion date”) which was no later than the primary date;
(c) a letter from a party to the radar works agreement (other than a generating station developer) confirming, whether or not such confirmation is subject to any conditions or other terms, that—
(i) the relevant radar works were completed after the planned radar works completion date, and
(ii) in that party’s opinion, the failure to complete the relevant radar works on or before the planned radar works completion date was not due to any breach of the radar works agreement by a generating station developer; and
(d) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before the primary date if the relevant radar works had been completed on or before the planned radar works completion date.
(6) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) the documents specified in subsection (4)(a), (b) and (c);
(b) the documents specified in subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c); and (c) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before the primary date if—
(i) the relevant grid works had been completed on or before the planned grid works completion date, and
(ii) the relevant radar works had been completed on or before the planned radar works completion date.
(7) In this section “the primary date” means—
(a) in a case within section 32LE(a)(i) or (b)(i) and (ii), 31 March 2016;
(b) in a case within section 32LG(a)(i) and (ii) or (b)(i) to (iii), 31 March 2017;
(c) in a case within section 32LI(a)(i) and (ii) or (b)(i) to (iii), 31 December 2017.”
(3) In section 32M (interpretation of sections 32 to 32M)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “32LB” substitute “32LL”;
(b) at the appropriate places insert the following definitions—
““accredited”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means accredited by the Authority as a generating station which is capable of generating electricity from renewable sources; and “accredit” and “accreditation” are to be construed accordingly;”;
““additional capacity”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means any generating capacity which does not form part of the original capacity of the station;”;
““commissioned”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means having completed such procedures and tests in relation to the station as constitute, at the time they are undertaken, the usual industry standards and practices for commissioning that type of generating station in order to demonstrate that it is capable of commercial operation;”;
““generating station developer”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station or additional capacity, means—
(a) the operator of the station, or
(b) a person who arranged for the construction of the station or additional capacity;”;
““grid works”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means—
(a) the construction of a connection between the station and a transmission or distribution system for the purpose of enabling electricity to be conveyed from the station to the system, or
(b) the carrying out of modifications to a connection between the station and a transmission or distribution system for the purpose of enabling an increase in the amount of electricity that can be conveyed over that connection from the station to the system;”;
““licensed network operator” means a distribution licence holder or a transmission licence holder;”; ““network operator” means a distribution exemption holder, a distribution licence holder or a transmission licence holder;”;
““onshore wind generating station” has the meaning given by section 32LC(3);”;
““original capacity”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means the generating capacity of the station as accredited;”;
““radar works” means—
(a) the construction of a radar station, (b) the installation of radar equipment,
(c) the carrying out of modifications to a radar station or radar equipment, or
(d) the testing of a radar station or radar equipment;”;
““relevant developer”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station or additional capacity, means a person who—
(a) applied for planning permission for the station or additional capacity,
(b) arranged for grid works to be carried out in relation to the station or additional capacity,
(c) arranged for the construction of any part of the station or additional capacity,
(d) constructed any part of the station or additional capacity, or
(e) operates, or proposes to operate, the station;”.”
2018 and 31 January 2019”
“February 2018 and ending with 31 January 2019”
“(d) evidence that—
(i) an application for 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was made before 18 June 2015 for the station or for additional capacity,
(ii) the relevant planning authority resolved to grant 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission on or before 18 June 2015, and
(iii) planning permission was granted after 18 June 2015, and
(iv) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached, or
(e) evidence that—
(i) an application for 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was made on or before 18 June 2015 for the station or additional capacity,
(ii) the period allowed under section 78(2) of the 1990 Act (or as the case may be) section 47(2) of the 1997 Act ended on or before 18 June 2015 without any of the things mentioned in section 78(2)(a) to (b) of the 1990 Act or section 47(2)(a) to (c) of the 1997 Act being done in respect of the application, except than an extended period has been agreed in writing between the applicant and planning authority for the purposes of section 78(2) of the 1990 Act or section 47(2) of the 1997 Act,
(iii) the application was not referred to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers in accordance with directions given under section 77 of the 1990 Act or section 46 of the 1997 Act,
(iv) planning permission was granted after 18 June 2015, and
(v) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached, or
(f) evidence that—
(i) an application for consent for the station or additional capacity was made under section 36 and the consultation period prescribed by regulations made under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 8 had expired prior to 18 June 2015,
(ii) during the consultation period, the relevant planning authority had notified the Secretary of State that they had objected to the application and their objection had not been withdrawn,
(iii) the Secretary of State caused a public inquiry to be held,
(iv) following consideration of the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry, the Secretary of State granted consent and deemed planning permission after 18 June 2015, and
(v) any conditions as to the time period within which the development relates must be begun have not been breached, or
(g) evidence that—
(i) an application for 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was made on or before 18 June 2014 for the station or additional capacity,
(ii) planning permission was granted after 18 June 2015, and
(iii) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached, or
(h) evidence that on or before 18 June 2015 the relevant planning authority made a decision to grant planning permission for the station or additional capacity, or made a decision to grant or to intend to grant planning permission for the station or additional capacity, subject to an agreement under section 106 of the 1990 Act (planning obligations) or section 75 of the 1997 Act (agreements regulating development or use of land); and such an agreement is concluded before the onshore wind closure date, or
(i) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, planning permission is not required for the station or additional capacity.
(5) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) a copy of an offer from a licensed network operator made on or before 18 June 2015 to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity, and evidence that the offer was accepted on or before that date (whether or not the acceptance was subject to any conditions or other terms);
(b) a copy of—
(i) an application for an offer to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity submitted to a licensed network operator on or before 18 June 2015; and
(ii) an offer from a licenced network operator made after 18 June 2015 to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity and evidence that the offer was accepted after 18 June 2015 (whether or not the acceptance was subject to any conditions or other terms); or
(c) evidence that planning permission for the station or additional capacity was refused on or before 18 June 2015 and an appeal was determined as at 18 June 2015;
(d) a copy of an application for an offer to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity submitted to a licensed network operator on or after 18 June 2015; and
(e) an offer from a licensed network operator made after 18 June 2015 to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity and evidence that the offer was accepted before 31 December 2015 (whether or not the acceptance was subject to any conditions or other terms),”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has given no concession whatever, I beg to move and then test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker
I should inform the House that if Amendment 7X is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 7Y, 7AA and 7AB by reason of pre-emption.
“(e) evidence that—
(i) the requirements of section 61W of the 1990 Act or section 35B(2) to (6) of the 1997 Act were met on or before 18 June 2015 for the station or the additional capacity and planning permission for the station or the additional capacity was subsequently granted before this section came into force,
(ii) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached, and
(iii) the station or additional capacity was being developed by a community organisation or an equity shareholding in the station or the additional capacity had been committed to a community organisation(s) on or before 18 June 2015.”
Lord Grantchester
(e) evidence that—
(i) an application for 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was made on or before 18 June 2015 for the station or for additional capacity,
(ii) a grant of planning permission was resolved by the relevant planning authority on or before 18 June 2015,
(iii) planning permission was granted after 18 June 2015, and
(iv) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached.”
“““the onshore wind closure date” has the meaning given by section 32LC(3);”;”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 8.
“Onshore wind power: use of Northern Ireland certificates
(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended as follows. (2) Before section 32M insert—
“32LM Use of Northern Ireland certificates: onshore wind power
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that an electricity supplier may not discharge its renewables obligation (or its obligation in relation to a particular period) by the production to the Authority of a relevant Northern Ireland certificate, except in the circumstances, and to the extent, specified in the regulations.
(2) A “relevant Northern Ireland certificate” is a Northern Ireland certificate issued in respect of electricity generated after 31 March 2016 (or any later date specified in the regulations)—
(a) using the original capacity of a Northern Ireland onshore wind generating station accredited after 31 March 2016 (or any later date so specified), or
(b) using additional capacity of a Northern Ireland onshore wind generating station, where in the Authority’s view the additional capacity first formed part of the station after 31 March 2016 (or any later date so specified).
(3) In this section—
“NIRO Order” means any order made under Articles 52 to 55F of the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003;
“Northern Ireland certificate” means a renewables obligation certificate issued by the Northern Ireland authority under the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and pursuant to a NIRO Order;
“Northern Ireland onshore wind generating station” means a generating station that—
(a) generates electricity from wind, and
(b) is situated in Northern Ireland, but not in waters in or adjacent to Northern Ireland up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.
(4) Power to make provision in a renewables obligation order by virtue of section 32F (and any provision contained in such an order) is subject to provision contained in regulations under this section.
(5) This section is not otherwise to be taken as affecting power to make provision in a renewables obligation order.
(6) Regulations under this section may amend a renewables obligation order.
(7) Section 32K applies in relation to regulations under this section as it applies in relation to a renewables obligation order.”
(3) In section 32M (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “32LB” substitute “32LM”;
(b) in subsection (7), for “32L” substitute “32LM”.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Commons Amendment 9 removes a clause that was inserted on Report in this House. This aspect of carbon accounting has been debated throughout the passage of the Bill, with amendments tabled in this House and the other place. I am sure many noble Lords will recall the debates; I will briefly go through the carbon accounting technicalities.
The Climate Change Act sets a target for the United Kingdom to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. It also requires the Government to set intermediate targets to reduce emissions along the way—these are the carbon budgets. Carbon budgets are a cap on the emissions allowed over successive five-year periods. For example, the first carbon budget covered the period 2008 to 2012, and we met this budget with 36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to spare. We set these carbon budgets 12 years in advance, so by 30 June this year we will be setting the fifth carbon budget, covering the period 2028 to 2032.
As well as setting each carbon budget, we also make regulations which set carbon accounting rules for each budget period. These rules, in addition to what is set out in the Climate Change Act, tell us how to calculate those budgets and, therefore, whether we have met them. Under the current rules, we count the United Kingdom’s actual emissions for some sectors, and for other sectors we reflect how the EU emissions trading system works. For transport, buildings, agriculture, light manufacturing and some other areas we count the UK’s actual emissions. For the power sector and heavy industry, we effectively reflect how the EU ETS works, instead of counting the UK’s actual emissions.
The EU ETS is a scheme in which emissions from power and heavy industry are capped and reduced at an EU level. Emissions are reduced by issuing a declining number of emissions allowances to member states which are then traded by power stations and industrial sites across the EU. Our current carbon accounting rules tell us to count the UK share of the EU ETS emissions cap for the purpose of carbon budgets. In this way, carbon budgets reflect how the EU ETS works. Noble Lords will recall that the previous amendments tabled in both Houses would have stopped us from reflecting how the EU ETS works in our accounting from carbon budget 5 onwards. We have been clear on the reasons why we cannot accept this approach at this time.
In short, this is a very complex issue. There are arguments for and against different accounting methods, and weighing these up needs careful consideration of a number of factors, such as potential impacts on consumers, businesses and industry, and cutting emissions at least cost. At the moment, we are focused on setting the fifth carbon budget, and doing that by 30 June this year, as required by the Climate Change Act. We are doing this on the basis that it will be permissible to adopt the current accounting framework. Including these provisions in the Bill would have risked delaying setting the fifth carbon budget. It would have therefore risked missing the statutory deadline and not complying with the Climate Change Act.
Commons Amendment 12 is a technical amendment that reflects the fact that the clause on the United Kingdom carbon account was removed in Committee in the other place. It amends the Long Title of the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester’s Amendment to the Motion on Commons Amendment 9
Lord Grantchester
As an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9, at end insert “, and do propose Amendments 9A to 9D in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill”.
Review of calculation of net UK carbon account
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review of whether it is appropriate for the calculation of the net UK carbon account for the 2028—2032 budgetary period, and subsequent budgetary periods, to take into account the crediting and debiting of carbon units as a result of the operation of—
(a) the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, or
(b) any amendment of, or replacement for, that scheme that the Secretary of State considers may have effect for the budgetary periods to which the review relates.
(2) When carrying out the review the Secretary of State must take into account—
(a) any representations made by the other national authorities,
(b) scientific knowledge about climate change,
(c) technology relevant to climate change,
(d) economic circumstances,
(e) fiscal circumstances,
(f) social circumstances,
(g) energy policy, and
(h) circumstances at European and international level.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) is to be read as restricting the matters that the Secretary of State may take into account.
(4) The review must be published, in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, no later than 31 December 2016.
(5) In this section “European Union Emissions Trading Scheme” means the scheme established under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, as implemented by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/3038).
(6) Expressions used in this section and in Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 have the same meanings as in that Part.”
“(2A) Part 6 extends to England and Wales only.”
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 9A to 9D in my name, regarding the UK carbon account. A clause on carbon accounting was added to the Bill under consideration in your Lordships’ House before passing to the other place. This was reversed and the clause deleted by votes on Report in the other place. I had thought to retable the amendment on the Bill’s return to your Lordship’s House. However, in view of the fact that this would have been opposed by the Government, consideration has been given to how best to present this long-term issue so that a serious assessment would be made of it.
There is no doubt that climate change is the single most important long-term threat to be faced across the world. Its importance, and the need to get positive responses from the world’s governments, was highlighted at the Paris conference. Yet there is a weakness in the way carbon budgets are assessed and, therefore, how measures to combat climate change will be implemented. If the UK is to continue to be at the forefront of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the UK needs carbon budgets that are clear and certain and which drive emissions reductions in all sectors of the economy. At present, they do not meet this standard, as they can be misleading about what emissions are covered. They impose targets in the traded sector of the EU emissions trading scheme, which mean very little, and in the non-traded sector, which are subject to arbitrary change.
In June this year, the Government must set the UK’s fifth carbon budget for emissions for the years 2028 to 2032. These proposed new clauses ask the Government to commit to a review to reassess the accounting rules and to critically examine the issue, especially as the Committee on Climate Change has commented that it will provide new advice on the appropriate level of the fifth carbon budget should the rules be changed to take account of the improvements which Labour has proposed.
Currently, the carbon accounting regulations allow the Government to ignore emissions from the electricity sector and heavy industry, which are covered by the EU ETS, while determining whether the carbon budgets have been met. This makes the Government responsible for only half the carbon budgets: those residual parts not under the scope of the EU ETS, such as transport and heat. The Committee on Climate Change has expressed its dissatisfaction with the current accounting rules. The UK’s carbon budgets fail to provide a framework that offers investors confidence in the UK power sector that the necessary measures to decarbonise will be put in place.
The amendment proposes that the Government now seriously undertake their own assessment and report back by the end of this year. It is drafted to bring forward views that need to be taken into account from as wide an audience as possible.
Finally, Amendment 12A is consequential and merely amends the Long Title to include this in the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, Amendment 9E is in my name. Our previous debate on this took place in October, before the historic climate agreement in Paris, which, for the first time, saw virtually all countries agreeing to take action together to avert the growing risk of global climate change. The significant breakthrough that made Paris a success was that countries are now individually responsible for coming forward with nationally determined targets and measures, while being guided by an overarching collective goal.
That process places the responsibility on countries to do what they can, with a view to ratcheting up ambition over time. The UK already has its own nationally determined commitments and we have been at the forefront of international leadership on climate change domestically and internationally for well over a decade. Again, I pay tribute to Secretary of State Amber Rudd, who deserves great credit for the role she and her team played in making Paris the success that it was.
Now, as we enter the final stages of this Energy Bill, which we have been considering since last July, the question we face is: how will we as the United Kingdom want to continue in that climate leadership role by demonstrating our commitment to domestic action, leading by example and forging a path that others can follow? We can and must do this, I believe, by reviewing and reforming an important aspect of our ground-breaking Climate Change Act; that is, how we measure progress.
As things stand, how we do this is complicated and unclear, made ever more complex by a decision introduced in secondary legislation and taken after the Bill was agreed that we should use European emissions allowances as the basis for accounting for our emissions in the power and industrial sectors. This is how things work currently but it cannot continue in this way for much longer. We must start counting our actual domestic emissions, guided by a common international goal set at the European and global level.
Our original amendment, agreed to in this House, sought to make this change in primary legislation, but since I have no desire to upset the timetable for setting the fifth carbon budget, which, as the Minister pointed out, we expect to be set before 30 June, and the process is now well under way, I have not retabled the amendment that was agreed in October. Instead, we have proposed what we believe is a constructive way forward and have listened carefully to the comments made by the Minister in the other place, which were constructive and talked about the timing being the main issue of opposition from the Government.
But there still is a fundamental question at stake here: do we wish to meet our carbon budgets in a way that we determine—for example, through policies and measures that we deem appropriate for our circumstances—or are we happy to have half our budgets set for us on the basis of ever-more complex rules agreed in Brussels? At the moment, as our decision to implement a carbon price support policy shows, we are taking our own path. We add an extra £18 to every tonne emitted in the UK and we are pursuing our own policies to decarbonise. Ahead of Paris, the Secretary of State made a historic commitment to phase out coal for power generation in the UK by 2025. She was rightly praised for this commitment because it sends an important signal to investors at home and to other countries struggling to reduce emissions from coal, including Germany and Holland.
Given that this is our chosen option—that we are pursuing leadership and taking our own path—it seems illogical that our carbon budgets should not reflect our own circumstances. Working on the basis of our own accounting would enable us to make sensible decisions about which sectors to move forward on more quickly and which to give more time to; for example, we could provide more of a budget to sectors that are hard to decarbonise, such as heavy goods vehicle transportation or farming, while moving faster on the power sector, where we are currently overdelivering, as the Minister said. There are 36 million tonnes of overdelivery coming from the power sector. We should be able to use that and redistribute it to other sectors, but as things stand that is not possible.
There are very good reasons why our original amendment made sense, but as I listened to the considered words of the Minister in the other place, I concluded she was right not to accept that amendment at this time, as we are only weeks away from publishing the fifth carbon budget. We hope and assume that this number will follow the advice of the CCC and we expect that to help restore some confidence in the industry. But once that is in place, we should then determine how we will meet that ambition and part of that determination should be: what counts towards compliance with that budget? The amendment in my name, in lieu of our original amendment, sets out a process by which the Government can decide how we measure our progress and how we plan to meet our targets, including a deadline of the end of 2017 by which the matter should be resolved in secondary legislation. With the budget and the rules in place, we will then be in a position to develop a long-term plan to comply with those targets and lead by example.
Unfortunately, short-term thinking is endemic in our political system. More attention is paid to fleeting headlines and passing trends on Twitter than to the important details of often complex policy areas, such as energy, which are so necessary to drive investor confidence in growing our economy. Climate change is a long-term crisis that is slowly unfolding on our watch. Record losses in sea ice, massive coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef, unexplained spikes in methane emissions—these are the warnings that are going off around us. We owe it to ourselves and to all future generations to do all within our ability to act and to cause others to act to mitigate this crisis.
What we in this Chamber can do, what opposition parties can do and what the Government can do is try to pass good laws that provide sensible, long-term frameworks to drive down emissions in least-cost ways. The Climate Change Act was agreed on that basis and it works, but it is now in need of review. I urge the Minister to consider this amendment carefully and if he feels it is within his power to accept it, I hope he will do so, so that we can embark on a process of proper reflection and review over a reasonable timescale, and then we can make the changes that are needed to repatriate the way we meet our most necessary climate obligations.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I have only one question about this amendment, and it is aimed at both sides of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend rightly said, this is an extremely complex matter. I sometimes feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is the only living person who fully understands the complexities of it all. It seems to me that if one looks behind the thoughts and motivations, the bottom line is whether additional pressures are put on consumers, on the nation, on industry and on activities of every kind to complete the carbon budgets, what weight we give to absolute, precise completion of the established carbon budgets—or indeed the next one we decide—and what contribution that will make worldwide to combating global warming.
My question is simply to ask why the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has tabled this amendment, when in the Climate Change Act, with which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, had so much to do, there is a specific provision—Section 10(2)(h)—which warns and advises the Government and Ministers to have account of,
“circumstances at European and international level”.
The intention behind that was quite clear: to establish that if we got very badly out of line with neighbouring countries on our carbon budgets and on the provisions required to keep to them, the matter would be looked at again and, if necessary, changes would be made. My only question is: why are we not doing that now? Electricity costs between German and British steel have got out of alignment. Everyone knows that. We all know that theirs are 40% less and that we are paying £80 per megawatt-hour for steel-making in Britain, of which some £34 may be in additional green charges and levies. I accept that some of those are absolutely necessary, but some obviously take us out of line with our European neighbours, with the devastating results which we have all seen in the last few weeks. These things can be brushed aside, but everyone knows that this is one of the very powerful reasons why we are in some difficulties over the steel industry. I do not think that that can be denied.
Baroness Worthington
On that point about the steel industry, one point I was trying to convey is that if we take control of our own carbon budgets then we would decide how to allocate emissions to the steel sector, for example, rather than it being dictated by the EU ETS credits. We could then make our budgets and be more flexible to allow for those sectors that need to retain emissions for longer and push down further on the power sector, which is overdelivering by a substantial margin. We could use that to move that allocation around and protect those industries that we choose to protect for slightly longer.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The question is: why are we not using the flexibility in the Climate Change Act to amend it, to ease some of the obvious and immediate pressures that are making the problems of the steel industry—but not only the steel industry—so very difficult because we are too far out of line? Anxious as we are to create a good example, which I fully accept, we are too far out of line with our direct competitors. People are being hurt and jobs are being lost. Why are we not amending our own Climate Change Act now, as we are allowed to do, to meet the new conditions? Is this to be part of the strategy, which we clearly need and which we talked about earlier today, to recover our own commercial and viable steel industries? My simple question to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—it is a bit to my noble friend Lord Bourne and the Government, too—is: why are we not following the precepts and guidance of the Climate Change Act itself and meeting the obvious needs of industry at this moment in some towns and areas, where many people are being thrown out of work?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as she has, that this amendment does not specifically help the steel industry or, necessarily, the size of the budget from the Climate Change Act. I guess that an amendment back on Report would have been needed to do that. This amendment would make sure that we repatriate entirely the powers to create our own carbon budget. So in fact it is a step towards what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would want. Ironically, when we debated the Climate Change Bill I raised this matter specifically a number of times, but unfortunately the Labour Government of the time did not want to hear about it. I do not think that they necessarily understood it themselves. However, we now need to make a change. This should not be a party- political issue at all. It is about making a budget something that we could set ourselves and measure against our national performance. That is what we are trying to do.
In a way, I regret that we are not debating the original amendment, perhaps understandably amended to exclude the fifth carbon budget, for the reasons that have been explained. When we are tackling climate change and trying to get everybody to help, it is really important to make measuring our carbon emissions transparent, straightforward and easy, so that they mean what most people would understand them to mean: that the carbon emissions we create within the boundaries of the United Kingdom from products, services and industry are what our carbon budget measures. At the moment, that is not the case: it is only so for about half of it. The rest of it just reflects the European Emissions Trading Scheme settlement.
I fully support this amendment and hope that the Government will accept it as a way forward. There is no party angle to it whatever. All it would do is ensure that our UK emissions count against our UK carbon budget under the Climate Change Act. It would make government policy on climate change simple, straight- forward and manageable.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the carbon accounting process and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who I know feels strongly about this issue. She will know that we have spoken about it at some length and probably have a measure of agreement on many of the principles. I will perhaps not go into the details of why we are not able to move forward in some respects, although we feel that her amendment as drafted, requiring regulations on carbon accounting by the end of 2017, is impractical because of the understandable obligations to consult with the devolved Administrations and so on. There are issues with the detail. I will not go into other aspects of it, except to say that we certainly recognise the need to address some of these concerns. There are other issues with carbon accounting that distort, as things stand, such as international aviation and international marine.
Let me address some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Howell. I do not want to get sidetracked on to steel because that issue was addressed yesterday in a Statement. Electricity costs are certainly an issue and a factor, but of course it goes far beyond that, as I am sure that my noble friend would acknowledge. Tata in Port Talbot has a blast furnace, so the electricity costs are less significant there than they would be if it were an arc furnace, which is one of the issues to be looked at. The Government are looking at that in the round to see what we can do there, but again it is not simple. It is not just about altering the carbon accounting rules, as there are issues obviously about state aid, the World Trade Organization and so on. It is a complex issue. I hope that I have been able to cover why we are unable to accept the amendments to the Motion at this time.
Baroness Worthington
Before the Minister sits down, could he be a bit clearer about this? We have obviously taken on board the very sensible comments of the Minister of State in the other place, having looked at the debate in detail. We do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of a review but we do think that, taken in the round, this Energy Bill does not seem to be in keeping with its time and place in history. It is many months after Paris, where we committed to trying to get this big issue of the global climate back on track. Can the Minister not just look again at this and precisely give us the reason why?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I think the noble Baroness is aware of the reasons why. I do not want to be provoked into going into some of the discussions we have had, but it is not as if she is unaware of some of the reasons why we cannot progress. I do not want to go into those in any detail except to say—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Let me just finish this point. We are not unsympathetic to the principle of looking at this—I think I have made that clear—but we do not feel it is timely to do it at the moment in the way suggested. I do not really want to go any further than that.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I interrupt because it is not reasonable—
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he may need to be reminded that, at this stage of the Bill, only one speech is permitted.
Lord Teverson
I am sorry, but I do not think it is right procedurally for the Minister to say that he has had a private conversation with another Member of the House or that that is a sufficient answer when the rest of the House is not privy to that conversation. That is not reasonable.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It is perfectly in order for me to have discussions with other Members. I have indicated that there is some sympathy for looking at the accounting principles—but not, as I indicated in my speech, at this time. I have indicated that the timetable is unrealistic. I hope that in the future we can look at these issues, but the Government do not feel it is timely to do it in the way suggested. That is something that has been shared with other Members: there is no great secrecy about that.
Lord Grantchester
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and thank the Minister for the considered way he has responded to issues. On reflection, following the wider debate, I conclude it would be best to press the Government more strongly to be more certain about the outcome of the review. I will therefore not press the amendment in my name, but instead support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Worthington. She is a recognised expert on climate change and a very forceful advocate that the UK must take strong, decisive action to reduce emissions to mitigate its effects.
Baroness Worthington
As an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9, at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 9E in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill”.
“Review of calculation of net UK carbon account (No. 2)
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament revised regulations relating to carbon accounting under section 27(3) of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(2) Before laying such regulations the Secretary of State must carry out a review of whether it is appropriate for the calculation of the net UK carbon account for the 2028-2032 budgetary period, and subsequent budgetary periods, to take into account the crediting and debiting of carbon units as a result of the operation of—
(a) the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, or
(b) any amendment of, or replacement for, that scheme that the Secretary of State considers may have effect for the budgetary periods to which the review relates.
(3) When carrying out the review the Secretary of State must take into account—
(a) advice from the Committee on Climate Change,
(b) any representations made by the other national authorities, (c) scientific knowledge about climate change,
(d) technology relevant to climate change,
(e) economic circumstances,
(f) fiscal circumstances,
(g) social circumstances,
(h) energy policy, and
(i) circumstances at European and international level.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) is to be read as restricting the matters that the Secretary of State may take into account.
(5) The review must be published, in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, no later than one year after the passing of this Act.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay the regulations under subsection (1) no later than 31 December 2017.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I beg to move my amendment to the Motion. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 10.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 11.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Commons Amendment 11 is a technical amendment that was inserted to avoid infringing the financial privileges of the other place. Now that the money and ways and means Motions have been passed, the short title of the Bill can accordingly be amended. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 12.
Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That the Bill be read a second time.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, the Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill delivers key aspects of the December 2014 Stormont House agreement and the November 2015 fresh start agreement. I see our job here this evening as helping to ensure that these agreements are implemented and that another step is taken towards a more peaceful, prosperous and stable Northern Ireland where the devolved institutions continue to work for everyone and paramilitary activity is eradicated once and for all.
By way of context, the Stormont House agreement followed some 10 weeks of talks between the Government, the five largest parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government on matters for which they have responsibility under the long-established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland affairs. It dealt with many of the most difficult challenges facing Northern Ireland, including welfare reform, measures to deal with the legacy of the Troubles, improvements to the workings of devolution and new arrangements to examine long-standing issues such as flags and parading.
However, by last summer implementation of the Stormont House agreement—in particular, welfare reform—had stalled. This lack of agreement severely undermined the Executive’s finances, putting increasing pressure on funding for public services. This political and financial impasse was then compounded by two paramilitary murders in Belfast, precipitating a serious breakdown in Executive relations. Confronted by the very real risk of the devolved institutions collapsing and a return to direct rule, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland convened a further round of cross-party talks.
Following 10 weeks of discussion, on 17 November a way forward was announced on the two key issues the talks were convened to address: first, implementation of the Stormont House agreement, itself a government manifesto commitment, and, secondly, dealing with the continued and malign impact of paramilitary activity on Northern Ireland society.
The fresh start agreement is a very significant step forward on both counts. The agreement takes the Northern Ireland political parties further than ever before in their determination to see a complete end to paramilitary activity, placing obligations on Assembly Members to work together to rid society of paramilitary activity and to tackle organised crime. It helps to ensure the fiscal sustainability of the Executive, underpinned by up to half a billion pounds of extra spending power on top of the £2 billion in the Stormont House agreement. Crucially, it was instrumental in bringing to an end a crisis that had threatened the survival of the devolved institutions which have remained stable since 2007, the longest period of unbroken devolved government since the old Stormont Parliament was dissolved back in 1972.
Good progress has already been made in implementing the fresh start agreement. In November, this House considered and passed the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill and the accompanying Order in Council was passed in early December. A joint agency task force has been set up to tackle cross-jurisdictional organised crime, and a panel of respected figures, including the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has been appointed to consider the issue of continued paramilitary activity and to make recommendations on a strategy for disbanding paramilitary groups by the end of May. Work is also under way to appoint a new commission on flags and parades. The Assembly has passed legislation to make significant reforms to its institutions, reducing the number of Executive departments and Members of the Legislative Assembly. The implementation of the fresh start agreement is therefore proceeding apace and the Government, Executive and Irish Government have shown a real commitment to make the agreement work and deliver on their commitments.
This Bill is the UK Government’s next step towards full implementation of the fresh start agreement, and has the support of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which gave cross-party consent on 15 March in respect of the transferred matters contained in the Bill. A number of commitments need to be delivered through legislation, and the Bill achieves that. It makes provision for a new Independent Reporting Commission, an international body to be established through a treaty with the Irish Government, the objective of which will be to promote progress towards ending paramilitary activity. It makes provision to promote fiscal transparency and support the Executive to deliver a stable and sustainable budget; for additional commitments in the pledge of office taken by Executive Ministers relating to tackling organised crime and paramilitarism, and the introduction of a parallel undertaking for Members of the Assembly; and to extend the time available for agreeing a programme for government and appointing Executive Ministers after an election.
Those last two measures are of course linked to the timing of the forthcoming Assembly election. The Government are therefore seeking Parliament’s agreement for the Bill to proceed through its parliamentary scrutiny faster than usual to ensure that the enhanced pledge of office and new undertaking, as well as the extension of the time available for ministerial appointments, are in place in time for the Assembly’s return. I am grateful to the parties opposite for their support on this.
With noble Lords’ permission, before I turn in more detail to the measures in the Bill, I shall address an issue that formed an important part of the fresh start talks but which does not feature in this legislation: the establishment of new bodies to deal with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. I reassure noble Lords that this issue is of paramount importance to the Government, and it is clear that it is important to noble Lords from across the Chamber as well. In discussions that I have had in the run-up to today’s debate, many noble Lords have raised this issue. I have therefore written offering an open briefing session, to take place tomorrow afternoon. I hope to see many noble Lords there, and indeed the response has already been very positive.
The Government continue to believe that the provisions outlined in the Stormont House agreement, which themselves build upon the significant work that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, took forward in his role as co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past, represent the best chance for dealing with the past in a way that will deliver significantly better outcomes for victims and survivors. Let us never forget that it was the victims and survivors who suffered more than anyone else as a result of the Troubles. The new institutions will therefore be balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable. They will allow Northern Ireland to move forward, and have the needs of victims and survivors at their heart. Intensive work therefore continues with victims’ representatives and others on finding a way to build the broad consensus needed to legislate. I hope very much that legislation to establish the legacy institutions in a separate Bill will be brought forward once the necessary consensus has been achieved.
I turn to the measures in the Bill before the House today. Clauses 1 to 5 relate to the Independent Reporting Commission. The objective of this new commission will be to promote progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland. It will therefore fulfil an important role in furtherance of this Government’s commitment to challenging all paramilitary activity and associated criminality. The commission will be an international body, established through an agreement with the Irish Government. Work on the agreement is at an advanced stage and, once agreed with the new Irish Government, it will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny under the arrangements in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It will be independent of the sponsoring Governments and will have a significant degree of discretion in fulfilling its functions, which are to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity, including on implementation of measures taken by the Government, the Executive and the Irish Government to tackle paramilitarism, and to consult a wide range of stakeholders in fulfilling this role. The Bill also outlines both the legal privileges which the commission will enjoy and the duties under which it will operate. Further detail on the establishment and operation of the commission will be set out in secondary legislation in due course.
At this juncture I should also mention that last week I responded to the very helpful comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill. I have placed a copy of my response in the House Library and have published it on the Northern Ireland Office website.
The Bill also amends the pledge of office for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. The enhanced pledge reflects the commitments in the fresh start agreement to give unequivocal support for the rule of law and to work collectively to achieve a society free of paramilitarism. The Bill will also introduce for the first time a similar undertaking for all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In the other place, there was much discussion of the question of possible sanctions for breaching the new undertaking. This is an important point and I have absolutely no doubt that we will return to it during discussions in this House. The Government are firmly of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for us at Westminster to pre-empt the Assembly’s own consideration of this issue and prescribe specific sanctions or the means by which they should be taken forward. Rightly, this is a question for the Northern Ireland Assembly and should be decided by that legislative body with the appropriate cross-party and cross-community consensus. There are established mechanisms by which the Assembly holds MLAs to account, including for their adherence to the Assembly code of conduct, and the Assembly has the necessary powers to impose sanctions, should it decide that these are required.
The Bill also extends the time available for the allocation of ministerial positions in the Executive from seven to 14 days after the Assembly first meets following an election. This change was first proposed in the 2014 Stormont House agreement and was confirmed in the recent fresh start agreement. At present, Northern Ireland Executive ministerial positions must be allocated within seven calendar days after the first meeting of the Assembly, as required by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This extension will therefore allow the parties more time to agree a shared programme for government on a cross-party basis prior to the allocation of ministerial positions following the upcoming elections and all future elections.
Finally, the fresh start agreement contains a clear commitment for the UK Government to legislate to increase fiscal transparency, helping the Executive deliver affordable and sustainable budgets. The Bill therefore requires that, when delivering a draft Budget, the Executive Finance Minister must demonstrate that the amount of government funding required by the draft Budget does not exceed what is available.
As I have outlined, the measures included in this Bill are the product of extensive cross-party talks conducted over the 10 weeks leading up to the fresh start agreement. They have the support of the Executive and the Assembly, which were involved in the drafting of the provisions, and a legislative consent Motion in respect of the transferred matters in the Bill received cross-party support in the Assembly, as I said, on 15 March.
The Bill is a crucial stage in the full implementation of the Stormont House and fresh start agreements, which, taken together, have the potential to resolve some of the most difficult challenges facing Northern Ireland and help us secure a more peaceful, stable and prosperous future for all the people who live in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill, which is very important, but before I comment on some of its clauses, as I look around your Lordships’ Chamber I see almost an action replay of 1998. So many Members of your Lordships’ House were with me and others when we discussed the Good Friday agreement back in the spring of 1998. We are all 20 or so years older, and I suppose we never thought that we would be discussing the same issues in this Chamber—but we are. Those noble Lords who were there will recall that at the very end of the afternoon of Good Friday 1998, the chairman of the talks, Senator George Mitchell, said that although the talks were over this was actually the beginning, not the end, of progress in Northern Ireland.
When I look back over the past 18 years at the different agreements that have been dealt with—the St Andrews agreement and all the others, and of course today the Stormont House agreement and the fresh start agreement—I see nothing wrong with that. I rather fancy that there will be more agreements for this House and the other place to consider in the months and years to come.
But today, of course, we are dealing with a specific Bill in front of us. A theme in all those agreements was the issue of continuing paramilitary activity. The deaths that Northern Ireland has witnessed over the past months are of course tragic, but they in no way compare in numbers to what occurred many years ago. But the fact is that paramilitary activity still exists in some form or another in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the two Governments agreeing to the Independent Reporting Commission is, I think, certainly the way forward. I hope that when the First Minister and Deputy First Minister look at the appointment of members to that commission they will bear in mind the fact—I am sure they will—that there has to be general consensus as to who should sit on it, otherwise it simply will not have the confidence of people in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the fact that there are new pledges of office for Ministers and Members of the Assembly. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that the Assembly itself will have to consider the issue of any sanctions that might be applied were those pledges to be broken.
A lot of the difficulties that Northern Ireland has faced over the past months have been because of disagreements over welfare. When I was the Minister for finance in Northern Ireland, I have to tell the House that I was perplexed that Northern Ireland still had the function that, effectively, the welfare legislation and details here in Great Britain could technically be different from those in Northern Ireland. In reality, they never were. I hope that, in the months ahead, the Assembly might consider looking at what is happening in Scotland with regard to welfare and see whether Northern Ireland could learn from the new welfare powers that the Scottish Parliament has so that they could look at it in a rather special way for Northern Ireland.
I am pleased, too, that the Assembly is looking at the number of its Members. I rather fancy that it will be a bit more scientific than the way that we decided it during the night of Maundy Thursday and the morning of Good Friday in 1998, when the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others came to see me at about 3 am to decide how many Members of the Assembly there should be. We decided that six per parliamentary constituency was the answer. Looking back with hindsight, that was probably too many, but the Assembly will now decide that itself, as well as the number of departments of the Northern Ireland Executive. It is also very sensible that 14 days will now be given for Assembly Ministers to be allocated their portfolio.
The Good Friday agreement was not written in stone, in the sense that as the years went by, adaptions could take place and reviews could happen, so long as there was agreement generally among the political parties in Northern Ireland for such changes to be made.
It is a disappointment—the Minister has indicated why it is the case—that in the Bill there is no reference to the legacy issues in Northern Ireland and to dealing with the past. I do not think that Northern Ireland can finally be settled until we deal with those issues. Although some very good ideas came from the various discussions over the last two years—it is good that the Minister is going to discuss them with Members of this House over the next 24 hours—that issue has to be addressed. There is no question in my mind that the issue of victims and survivors, and of our communities in Northern Ireland, is dependent on how we can deal with the past.
I am glad to see in the Chamber the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who, together with Mr Bradley, came up with some very interesting ideas in their report, together with the ideas that came from Ambassador Haass later on. There is a lot of work to be done, but I hope that that issue will be addressed as soon as possible.
We have, of course, an election in Northern Ireland in May, as we do in Scotland and in Wales. Everybody involved in politics in Northern Ireland knows that, in a way, political development is frozen until those elections are over because of the importance of fighting them. Every political party understands that; it is what democracy is about. But when those elections are over, there will be a number of years that are election-free in Northern Ireland. The opportunities that can then be given to the political leaders, political parties and others in Northern Ireland to look very carefully at the institutions and where we go will be invaluable.
There are, of course, obstacles in the way. The first comes only a month or so after those elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and it is the referendum on our membership of the European Union. It is my firm belief that, were we to withdraw from membership, it would be of huge disadvantage to the people of the island of Ireland north and south. I have no doubt that our joint membership with the Republic of Ireland of the European Union meant that the peace process went more smoothly and developed in a way that it could not have done had we not both been members of the same club. I believe that the distribution of peace money among the different communities in Northern Ireland was pivotal in ensuring that relations between those communities improved. As far as I am concerned—although I understand that there will be different views in Northern Ireland—that is a huge issue which now faces specifically people in Northern Ireland.
That applies also to what happens in Scotland. I am deeply opposed to Scottish independence, but I have no doubt that the issue will be resurrected soon. If Scotland goes it alone and becomes independent, that could have serious consequences for Northern Ireland—as it will do for my own country of Wales. So these are difficulties which we face there.
One thing that struck me very dramatically when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland and then Secretary of State was that I had no right as a Member of Parliament for a Welsh constituency to rule in that place. Direct rule was infinitely and badly wrong. It should never have occurred, and I felt uneasy all the time at the fact that I had to take decisions on behalf of people who should be taking them themselves. So I welcome this Bill, because it means that we will continue to have the institutions up and running in Northern Ireland in a fresh way through a fresh start. We never want to return to those days where there was direct rule.
But there is a lot of thinking to be done in Northern Ireland in the years that are election free. We should harness academic thinking in Northern Ireland because there are many very good people there who can think about where we go. Let us look at civil society in general and at how people who are not necessarily directly involved in politics can help out in the way ahead. The Civic Forum never really took off in the way that the agreement thought it might do, but there is an opportunity there, too. Perhaps the most significant thing is to ensure that a new generation understands that they have a huge responsibility in ensuring the continuing prosperity and stability of Northern Ireland.
Eighteen years is a long time. It means that you would have to be in your mid or late 30s now to have understood when you were young what was happening in 1998. A whole generation has gone by, and the danger is that complacency can set in—that things can become too cosy and that people can become too cynical about politicians in Northern Ireland. All those things are bad, because, although we perhaps live in an age of anti-politics, Northern Ireland would not be where it is today had it not been for the risks that were taken by Northern Ireland politicians over the last 20 years in ensuring that we have a stable institution there.
So I hope that younger men and women will be attracted to the business of politics in Northern Ireland and will be able to take part in what I am sure will be a good future for all the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of their religion, traditions or background.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, while the 17 November cross-party talks resulted in the fresh start agreement, it is nevertheless deeply disappointing that no comprehensive agreement following from the Haass talks was achieved. The deal arrived at did not offer anything significant to help the still-divided society in Northern Ireland, especially around the vexed issues of the past—the parades and the flags—all of which remain unresolved. They are a politically important area of work in which everyone should be involved.
Certainly there are elements of the Bill which we welcome, particularly around the Government’s continuing commitment to those matters dealing with the past, about which I shall say a little more in a minute. It is vital that a settlement is arrived at in which the victims of the years of violence and their families can have these issues resolved.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on the security issues within the Bill. I remind your Lordships of my interests in the register, particularly those relating to the police.
Clauses 1 to 5 deal with the setting up of the Independent Reporting Commission, which will look into paramilitary activities. It is to report on the implementation of the relevant measures of the three Administrations—the UK Government, the Government of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive. It will report annually on the progress towards the ending of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland having consulted a wide range of national and statutory agencies and civic society, as we have heard. We wish it well in this herculean task. I ask the Minister whether it is intended to widen the membership of the IRC to perhaps include a respected and knowledgeable person who could act as mediator in what I imagine would be pretty fraught discussions. Does he not think that an internationally acclaimed mediator might be a helpful addition in its deliberations?
The Police Service of Northern Ireland has had to deal with some of the worst aspects of paramilitary activity. In the last 12 months alone it has dealt with 46 shooting incidents; there were 14 more bombing incidents than in the previous 12 months; 60 casualties resulted from paramilitary-style assaults, an increase of 11 over the previous year; and 24 casualties resulted from paramilitary-style shootings—this in an area not much bigger than my county of North Yorkshire. The murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay on 4 March in Belfast, using an under-vehicle improvised explosive device, underlines the importance of doing everything we can to help and support all our security officers going about their duties. The assistant chief constable of the PSNI expressed his deep concern about the current dissident threats and reminded people that the paramilitary groups want to:
“Kill police officers, prison officers and soldiers”.
The threat from terrorism is still very real in Northern Ireland.
It is also a threat in the Republic, and the assistant Garda commissioner warned that the dissident republicans were becoming more sophisticated, particularly in their bomb-making capability. He itemised the cache of weapons—ammunition, mortars, rocket launchers and Semtex—that the Gardai had recovered. Twenty-two people have been arrested and charged in the Republic on suspicion of dissident republican paramilitary activity, indicating the ever-closer professional working relationship between the two police forces and the security forces. The Bill recognises this close relationship and no doubt the IRC will do so too.
The PSNI is working extremely hard under difficult circumstances to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe in the present. It also continues to investigate crimes from the past on a scale that no other police force in the UK can imagine, first through the Historical Enquiries Team, and now through the Legacy Investigation Branch. While there is currently no political agreement to establish the historical investigations unit, as provided for in the Stormont House agreement, the justice system in Northern Ireland continues to carry out its duties to the victims and families of crimes committed in the past. It deserves our fullest support.
The issues around legacy will be watched closely. As I said earlier, the Government’s commitment to look again at the difficult issues surrounding the past needs to be recognised, but we have been here so many times before. There is an excellent document sitting on a shelf somewhere that was written some years ago by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley. Its conclusions, had they been acted on earlier, might have provided a rather different landscape from the one in which we still find ourselves. Legacy issues will have to be addressed for Northern Ireland to move forward.
There are countless unsolved crimes, including those against police officers and their families, and the search for justice must continue. With the new legacy bodies being established, can the noble Lord tell me whether the money for them will be ring-fenced? If so, can he assure me that it will be apportioned equitably so that it will include the large numbers of police officers murdered or injured by terrorists?
Finally, having spoken for many years on policing issues in Northern Ireland, I fervently hope that the fresh start agreement will give the brave men and women who serve the public and who daily face the threat of terrorism some reassurance that we are on their side and that their concerns are addressed in this legislation.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, before speaking on the detail of the Bill, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his engagement with Members of your Lordships’ House over the past few months while we have been working our way up to this point. It is welcome to have that engagement because it is helpful, and as the Minister has indicated, it will continue tomorrow and no doubt in the days ahead as we move towards the further stages of the Bill. I would also say that the nostalgic contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, reminds us that the passage of time has, I would suppose, disappointed some of us in that we envisaged that while of course we came from a terrible state back in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, nevertheless we had hoped that by this stage we would be moving on to a different political environment from the one in which we find ourselves. But I suppose one has to play the cards one is dealt and we will have to deal with the matter before us.
Without wishing to be negative about it, I have to say that if the Stormont House agreement of 2014 was a steak and kidney pudding, the Bill before us is a reheated version with the steak and kidney having been removed from it in the form of the real substance of the discussions in 2014. Agreement had broadly, though not entirely, been reached, but in early 2015, for base political reasons, one party to that agreement—Sinn Fein—ratted on the agreement and left Northern Ireland facing a huge constitutional and financial crisis, which was totally uncalled for. It was all to do with the politics in the Irish Republic and had absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. There is no point in dilly-dallying about the issue. That is why this particular negotiated proposal is before us. The one that we understood was agreed was ratted on by those who had agreed to it. That is why we were left in 2015 with another wasted year, when progress should have been made in other matters.
As to the Bill, the Independent Reporting Commission is something that I broadly welcome. The previous mechanism that existed—the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was a member of it as well—probably ended prematurely. However, after the events of last spring and summer—when two murders had taken place, where the police had clearly indicated in a statement that the IRA was involved and when we did not have any mechanism to shine a light on that—it was perfectly clear that a gap had opened up. We will have things to say at a later stage in the Bill about the establishment of this body, its membership and so on, and the Minister himself will be returning to it, as he said in this opening statement. Nevertheless, it will instil a degree of confidence that there is somebody there who can shine a light.
No matter what anybody says, when we come to the issue of pledges and so on, the history in Stormont has been that parties will close ranks and misuse the processes for cross-community support when it suits them. There is a long-established history of that. Nevertheless, the fact that the body is being established is a step forward to redress and fill a gap in the market which clearly exists.
It was quite shocking to people to have it put to their faces by the chief constable that the IRA was still involved and that, effectively, Sinn Fein was under its influence. Most people, if they were asked in the street, would probably say that that was true. But to have it said by the chief police officer to your face after a murder, and after the passage of time, was quite a shock. Something had to be done about it, and we are gradually moving in that direction. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State in the other place, who had been in charge of the negotiations of the Stormont House agreement in 2014, would have much preferred to have put the total thing forward, but she was unable to. We faced a crisis throughout last year. Yes, the security issue was critical but other issues caused the problem as well.
As we go forward into the Bill itself on the issue of the state of the pledges, I can only say that I am not a great fan of pledges. I do not believe that they matter to some people. Pledges in local government were introduced way back in the 1980s or 1990s. People who were known terrorists and members of councils willingly signed them without any hesitation. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was a member of Belfast City Council at the same time. We had some leading lights in there, such as the councillor who blew up the Europa Hotel 23 times. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, was a member; the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was a member; and I was a member. We know who this man was and we know what he did, and he was quite prepared to sign a pledge. If we move forward to where we would be with Stormont, Mr Gerry Adams says he has never been in the IRA. Could we fill a telephone box in this country with people who would believe that? Yet he is the leader of a party in the current Irish Government. The history is that these folks will sign anything. It does not matter to them; it is water off a duck’s back. I have little faith in this sort of activity. I have no objections to it. If you want to put it in, put it in if it makes people feel better. Yet if we felt that somebody was going to be effectively damaged by it and put in a petition of concern, there is no sanction. Even if the Assembly agreed one, it is perfectly capable under that process of being stymied anyway. That is why we always felt more comfortable with an external process where something could be delivered. I have no difficulty with this although some make the argument that the use of the word “transitional” could give people a lot of wriggle room. At the end of the day, given what people are prepared to stand up and say—they lie to your face with impunity—I have little doubt that they would sign whatever they were required to without any hesitation.
On Clause 6, on the extended period for the appointment of Ministers, my party has been pushing at this for a number of years. The clause adds only an extra week but when we previously did this we filled the silos the minute we got back home and then started to negotiate a programme for government. With this, we are trying to do it the other way round: first, see if it is possible to agree a programme for government; then, if it is, Ministers would be identified on the basis of the programme broadly agreed. I think a programme for government should be a short, sharp document. The ones I was involved in during previous Executives turned out at something like 90 pages. The vast majority was never implemented anyway. If this works, it might help to focus people on a number of key issues that were agreed before taking office. That might be helpful, but on the other hand people might say, “Well, if whoever were the two largest parties agreed among themselves, never mind, we’ll go through this process and sort it out afterwards”. They can still do that but at least this opportunity is provided and the public will be able to make their judgments.
When we deal with the financial issues we should remember that, last year, Stormont for the first time since 1921 could not balance its books. That had never happened before. Yes, there was the welfare crisis—largely created by Sinn Fein, although all parties had issues or major objections, including my own party. I support some of the compromises that have emerged since. However, the principal reason that there was a financial crisis was really down to sheer incompetence. I got Parliamentary Answers from the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, in November 2014 in which he set out when the Government had advised the Executive what their budget was. They were advised in autumn 2010 what their budget was up to the end of 2015, and they were advised in June 2013 what their budget was up to 2016. Knowing those figures and for that length of time, it was obvious to anybody that there would have to be reductions in public services, even though the financial settlements for Northern Ireland were more generous, taken in the round, than for other devolved regions. Despite that, nothing of substance was done and the arithmetic just did not add up. Although welfare was a significant portion of it, it was not the majority.
What is the solution to that? Instead of having four years in which to plan, to go through a process of people voluntarily leaving their posts and making other arrangements in departments, we ended up changing the budget in-year—the worst possible set of circumstances. Not only that, we have now given the Administration—the Government went ahead and pushed this through in September last year—permission to borrow £700 million to pay off 20,000 public sector workers. That was entirely avoidable. I am also concerned that the Assembly is now racking up huge amounts of borrowing. By the end of this financial year, it will be close to £3 billion of borrowing. That is becoming a very substantial slice of our cake.
We also find ourselves in the position where between 20% and 25% of the population are on hospital waiting lists. We have moved on nearly two decades, so the performance of the Assembly now has to be looked at not simply in the light that it has survived, which I welcome, but also in terms of its delivery. That is where there is huge failure.
Although there are many measures in the Bill to be welcomed, many issues are not in it. I am very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, in her place and in such good voice this evening. Given that she was a leading light at the time, she will recall the changes that were made to the structures in 2006—the fundamental reason in my opinion why we are not further on—when, following the St Andrews agreement, changes were made to the identification of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Instead of the Assembly appointing them on a cross-community vote, it was done by whichever were the largest two parties. That meant that each subsequent election became a sectarian headcount. That is still the position now. I think that the public have caught on, are getting that message and realise what was done. Nevertheless, that is one of the reasons why we are where we are. Instead of having a shared Government, we have a shared-out Government. There is a lot more to be done. That change was made without reference to the people who had actually negotiated the agreement. It was done behind closed doors and was done basically to buy off those people who had been difficult. I understand why Tony Blair’s Government did it and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who is not in his place, was deeply involved in it. However, I believe that it was a fundamental mistake and we are still paying the price for it.
There will be opportunities at a later stage to discuss all these issues and more and I look forward to that. I hope that as we move forward we will address delivery mechanisms and real improvements to people’s lives because, sadly, many people have been sucked into violence. Even in my former patch, the paramilitaries are rampant. The idea that they have gone away is not true; they are still active and have morphed into different areas of activity. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, will not wish to prejudice anything he might subsequently discover but this is no secret. He will find that there are huge areas of activity in which they are still engaged. They are in many cases major role models for young people in inner-city areas right across the Province. We have not drilled down into the social and economic deprivation in those areas, which is as bad as ever. Yet those are the very people who should have been convinced by the actions of the Assembly that politics works, and works for them. All those young people with no aims or goals in life are at the mercy of people with warped political ideas. We should bear in mind that many of the young people who have been arrested for dissident republican activity had hardly been born at the time the agreement was made, let alone had any major experience of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out. However, they have been used by people to deliver what the latter can no longer deliver, and that is an outrage. Only by making politics work and deliver for those communities will we eventually break the link between the two and the poison that these people spread. I look forward to further discussions and debates next week when we will have an opportunity to drill down into some of these measures in greater depth.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chairman of the Consultative Group on the Past. I am grateful to noble Lords who have kindly referred to that group’s report already in this debate. I also pay a warm personal tribute to the Minister for the care with which he has undertaken the portfolio for Northern Ireland, particularly with respect to this legislation. I would like to put on record that it has been careful; he has listened, consulted and gone far beyond what could have been expected of him.
The phrase which is uppermost in my mind tonight, as I listen to this debate, will be familiar to noble Lords. They are the words spoken by Her Majesty on a recent occasion. She said that progress could be defined as,
“being able to bow to the past but not be bound by it”.
The report that I was privileged to have a hand in linked legislation, the disclosure of the past and investigation of particular incidents with one other theme: reconciliation. But you cannot legislate for reconciliation. You cannot pass laws to have reconciliation in a divided society. You can put in the framework which will allow political progress to take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly reminded us of the work that has still to be done, but I beg your Lordships to realise that, no matter how perfect this legislation may be, it is by no means the end of the story. I can assure you that that story is, as the noble Lord said, on the streets of Belfast. We are a divided society; we are a society looking for leadership. We are a society where victims and victimhood stalk the memories of too many people. I have buried them; I have buried the victims of the violence and consoled families. I have tried to suggest ways in which civil society could address the vacuum left by that violence. In my declining years, I am more and more convinced that you cannot gain reconciliation through legislation alone.
The paramilitary situation that is addressed by this legislation—and I welcome the establishment of the monitoring group—is still stalking our streets. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Empey, again, it is still affecting the lives of young people. But it is even more sinister than that. One generation of paramilitary leaders—the people whom I had to try to deal with in my professional life—has gone. We now have young people growing up in these ghetto areas surrounded by peace walls and the remnants of a history and a time that they are taught in school but never knew. They are being influenced by sinister elements and, until we tackle that position, it will continue. I welcome the efforts which I know the Minister intends to take to help us address the legacy issues, I hope that he will bear in mind that we have to tackle a new generation who have new ideas but who are being taught the old grievances in what they are told is their history.
My memory goes back over the years. It is a question not just of the Consultative Group on the Past report but of the days and nights that I was involved in trying to do something to bring about reconciliation, not in a political sense but because of the sickness in our society. If this legislation is to take us on in a fresh start, so to speak, it has to have a realism about it—which so far I am afraid parliamentary democracy has failed to deliver. That failure is caused by many different reasons, not least the fact that there are still those who wish to manipulate the gift of parliamentary democracy for reasons that lie far beyond the debating chamber. There has been reference already to this and Northern Ireland is not immune to that sickness today. I hope that the various provisions of this legislation dealing with the parliamentary procedure in the Assembly and otherwise will help us move further towards realising the difficulties that that procedure involves.
I said just now that we have to recognise our past but not be bound by it. Of course, I am disappointed that this legislation does not represent an agreement that has been reached by the local parties on how to deal with the past. The report that we produced, which, as your Lordships have been reminded, is gathering dust on someone’s shelf somewhere, linked legislation with reconciliation. We listened endlessly for two years to what people said and it was an evidence-based report. From what I am told, the architecture of that report remains—not the detail but the architecture of it. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, just now and going back in my memory to the days when he had responsibility and some of us had dealings with him on behalf of the community, I venture to suggest he will agree that when the architecture of that report is re-examined, as I understand it is being re-examined, it will be judged still to contain certain principles that are worth following.
Much has been said tonight about the current situation. I want us to look forward. I want us not to treat the situation as it is as the end, because reconciliation is work in progress. I want to pay tribute to those former paramilitary members who are doing heroic work. They are not all continuing in a criminal way. Recently I had occasion to meet some of them and I am convinced that they are making a real effort, particularly among the loyalist paramilitaries, to try to see a new future. I hope that when we get to the next stage of this Bill there will be some recognition that these people need support—and they need it urgently.
Finally, reconciliation is nothing to do with legislation, as I say. It is born in the hearts and minds of people when they feel it is in their interests to be reconciled. It is as simple as that. Until we can create a panorama in Northern Ireland that says, “Do you remember the peace walls? Do you remember the paramilitaries? Do you remember this incident? Do you remember that horrific incident?”, and until we can get to the situation where we can say that we are truly an example to the rest of the world in what we can do—then and only then, if some of us live long enough to see it, will we have succeeded.
I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill before us; I thank those in this Chamber who have played a vital role in that process in the past; and I issue the earnest prayer that we are taking one more simple step towards the new Jerusalem that the people of Northern Ireland so richly deserve.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement, which set out very clearly the main provisions and aims of the Bill. My party strongly supports the Bill and the proposals to expedite its parliamentary progress, which are important to ensure that the measures relating to the pledge of office, the MLA undertaking and the time available for allocation of ministerial appointments are in place before the return of the new Assembly.
It is generally accepted that unresolved issues relating to paramilitarism and the budget threatened the very existence of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland at the end of last year. It is important to recognise the vital role played by the Secretary of State, her Ministers and the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson, in achieving consensus on these critical matters and thus avoiding a potential constitutional crisis. Clauses 1 to 5, providing for the establishment of a new Independent Reporting Commission, represent significant progress towards the ultimate goal of eliminating paramilitarism. The direct involvement of the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government, as well as the Northern Ireland Executive, should facilitate the compilation of information on the paramilitary activities of both republican and loyalist groups. It would be helpful if the Minister provided further details on the terms of the treaty between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments which will provide for the establishment of the commission.
The Northern Ireland Assembly should be commended for the practical steps it has taken to reach consensus on budgetary matters. The Executive have now agreed a budget for next year, which has been passed by the Assembly in advance of the relevant time limit. Clause 9 provides for greater transparency in the budgetary process. The Minister will be required to lay a Statement before the Assembly, specifying the amount of UK funding for the financial year, 14 days before the budget date, and a further Statement along with the draft budget showing that the amount of UK funding required will not exceed the amount available. I hope that these provisions will prevent irresponsible and short-sighted political manoeuvring that is intended to obstruct and impede the budget-setting process.
Clause 6 and Schedule 1, which extend the time available for the allocation of ministerial positions, should also facilitate the achievement of consensus in the legislative process by allowing the parties more time to agree a programme for government. I believe this is a time to praise the success of the fresh start initiative, rather than indulging in pedantic fault-finding. Many problems still remain unresolved. As we have heard from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who made such a moving statement, one of these problems is in confronting the past. I should stress that my party would welcome publication of details on the progress made, so that victims, their families and all those affected can be reassured that every effort is being made to achieve a successful conclusion. I very much welcome the Minister’s statement tonight regarding talks on the legacy of the past. I am pleased to support the Bill.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I, too, support the Bill and I congratulate the Government on their success in bringing it forward. We should not forget that in late autumn of last year, we were stuck on a number of points: welfare, the legacy of the past and then the noxious effects on political life of two paramilitary murders in the city of Belfast. It did not look at all like it was going to be possible to make progress in this way. However, we have begun an election campaign for a new Assembly in Northern Ireland, which is at least up and running and not going through any deep institutional crisis, which seemed to be just around the corner.
It is therefore fair to pay tribute to the Government and the Secretary of State. During a period which has already been recalled tonight when the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was Secretary of State and Minister of State in Northern Ireland, I remember some very late-night conversations when things seemed to be falling part and the progress that had been made seemed to be about to disintegrate. He worked enormously hard to make sure that, in the end, that did not happen, and progress continued to be made. It is worth saying that the same level of public spirit has been demonstrated by the current Government. Northern Ireland is very fortunate in general in the way the two main British parties have struggled to preserve normality and to bring about a historic compromise in the Province.
One other positive point, which I am very keen to see, is the arrival in the Bill of the Independent Reporting Commission. I advocated for this very strongly a number of times last year when the crisis broke out following the two murders. I would go so far as to say that, in a way, the commission has already played a positive role, because it is one of the reasons why the parties—particularly the unionist parties in this case—were able to move on after the two murders. The analysis that an institution such as this was required—the view that I think the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has taken—and that the removal of the previous institution which dealt with these matters was perhaps premature, has largely been shown to be right. It has almost done its work already. I do not want to be flippant about this, but the idea has already delivered even before the commission is set up—although, as a number of speakers tonight have stressed, that does not mean that it is not important that whoever fills these positions in the end has public credibility.
I am uneasy about one, albeit very small, element. If I understand the notes to the Bill correctly, the British and Irish Governments are paying for this body but the Assembly, through the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, has the patronage of two of the four appointments. It is a small thing and you can defend it—there is not much point in having a First Minister and Deputy First Minister unless they have that role—but it is so typical of Northern Ireland that Her Majesty’s Government foot the bill, in this case along with the Irish Government, and the Assembly somehow does not quite foot the bill but exercises choice, patronage and political influence with other people’s money. I just think it is a bad habit. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has described in some detail the financial facts of how Stormont has been operating for some years now, and that it is not really a good omen for the future.
What I want to refer to most of all is an element of the debate on the Bill in the other place. Lady Sylvia Hermon in particular, but also other speakers, identified that there is a problem with the way the Assembly operates. There is a great deal of public cynicism. One idea put forward was for IPSA to be given a role, or for a Northern Irish IPSA to be set up. I totally understand the argument, although it was said in the other place that this Bill may or may not be the right place to approach this issue at this point. However, the point is not just that there is no IPSA-type institution in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and that this may encourage public cynicism about politics, expenses and so on, whether that is fair or not—but that the Committee on Standards in Public Life was removed from operating in the Northern Ireland Assembly shortly before my appointment as chairman. It is pure coincidence that I happen to be from Northern Ireland—the decision was made before an appointment was decided on—but the combined absence of IPSA and the Committee on Standards in Public Life means that Northern Ireland is somewhat light on standards compared with what we have come to expect in the way of transparency in the operation of political institutions. If you throw into that the libel law reform that both this House and the other place implemented in 2013—it opened up a space for investigative reporting in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it has not been implemented in Northern Ireland—perhaps you should not be terribly surprised if financial scandals like NAMA suddenly appear on your doorstep and are such a significant part of Northern Irish life.
I do not expect the Minister to answer this tonight—indeed, I am not at all sure that the Bill is the right place to address these questions; there was division in the House of Commons on the matter—but it is worth asking him whether he agrees that it is worthwhile for the Government to have a view on these matters. The view of Her Majesty’s Government on these questions, the resolution of which ultimately requires action in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has to be important because, to go back to my earlier point, it is Her Majesty’s Government’s money that is being spent here.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I should begin by reminding the House that my interest in Northern Ireland goes back to the 1960s, that it was strengthened by a period teaching history in the Queen’s University of Belfast and that it was enhanced further in the late 1970s, when I was political adviser to Airey Neave up until the day of his murder.
No one could say that the Bill’s provisions have been rushed, or formulated in a precipitate manner. Ten weeks of discussion by the five main political parties in Northern Ireland preceded the Stormont House agreement in 2014, to which the adjective “historic” is now sometimes attached. Another 10 weeks of discussions took place last year to pave the way for a plan to implement a great deal—but, as we have heard, not all—of the 2014 agreement. Twenty weeks—five months—have been devoted to preparing the ground for this legislation.
One clause in the Bill, above all, deserves particular praise. As we have heard, under Clause 9, the Northern Ireland Executive will be required to disclose the amount of funding available to them from Her Majesty’s Treasury before publishing their annual Budget. Financial prudence has not always been a marked feature of Northern Ireland’s devolved government in the last few years, to put it mildly. My noble friend Lord Empey spoke vividly on that point tonight. Clause 9, properly implemented, could mark the first, essential step towards improvement, helping at long last to lay the basis for proper budgetary discipline.
Nearly half the clauses of the Bill are devoted to one subject: the Independent Reporting Commission. It, too, is immensely welcome. Indeed, it is essential, following events last year which exhibited so vividly the continued existence of paramilitary structures and their capacity to inflict deep harm on communities and individuals.
It is difficult not to regret the closing down of its predecessor, the Independent Monitoring Commission, in 2011. The new body’s powers, it is true, will differ in certain respects from those of its predecessor, but it is infinitely easier to adapt the role and responsibilities of an existing institution than to call a new one into existence, particularly since a formal treaty is required between our Government and that of the Republic of Ireland. The retention of the earlier commissioner could have secured progress in reducing paramilitary activity further and made last year’s crisis easier to calm.
The treaty under which the new commission is to be established has apparently not yet been finalised or published. Legislation will be needed in the Irish Parliament as well as this one. Can the Government indicate the earliest date that the commission might come into existence?
I have an issue of terminology to raise in connection with the clauses relating to the commission. Clause 2(3)(a) contains reference to Ireland. Clause 4(1) and Clause 5(2)(b) contain references to the Government of Ireland. In each case, the words “Republic of” need to be inserted before the word “Ireland”. Since 1949, the 26 counties which removed themselves from the United Kingdom in 1922 have been known as the Republic of Ireland in international law.
There arose in connection with this Bill a need for a legislative consent Motion at Stormont, as a result of the convention that astonishingly continues to bear the name of a former Member of this House who brought grave discredit on himself last year. To what exactly has the Northern Ireland Assembly consented? Does the Motion acknowledge that Parliament has unfettered discretion to amend the clauses in this Bill that cover devolved matters, or has it consented to the Bill only in the form in which it was published? If the latter, the Government will presumably set their face against any amendments that may be proposed in Committee.
I touch briefly on the great absentee from the Bill—the so-called legacy issues. Our Government carry formidable responsibilities and duties; they have to protect vital interests of national security, do all that they can to assuage the distress of victims and survivors, and determine how many of a vast stock of documents can be safely disclosed. They have also to counter a version of the Troubles that seeks to displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism and to place the state at the heart of nearly every atrocity and murder that took place—as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on 11 February this year. It is absolutely right that the Government should feel totally satisfied that they have fulfilled their immense responsibilities in conjunction with Northern Ireland politicians before announcing the final arrangements that are to be made.
This Parliament must encourage and support a process of evolution to assist Ulster to move forward to a more cohesive and united devolved Government, wholly committed to the creation of a shared future—a phrase that the Prime Minister is fond of using. I hope that this Bill will assist progress towards it. There are encouraging signs. One is the spirit of understanding in which the innately divisive events of 1916, the Easter Rising and the Somme, are being commemorated in this centenary year. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland put it in a recent newspaper article, the commemorations show that,
“it is possible to mark events that are still sensitive and contested a century after they took place in ways that are both dignified and inclusive”.
Ulster must remain among the principal preoccupations and concerns of this Parliament. After 1921, devolution led to its neglect at Westminster, as my noble friend Lord Empey often reminds us. That must never happen again. My party, the Conservative and Unionist Party, must hold in its memory words from its 2010 election manifesto—that we will,
“work to bring Northern Ireland back into the mainstream of UK politics”.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the Minister not just for presenting the Bill with his usual clarity this evening but also for all the work and engagement in the weeks preceding the Bill. I welcome, as others have done, the fact that that work will continue with the briefing on legacy issues tomorrow, which I hope to attend, like many other noble Lords here this evening.
This piece of legislation is of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has said, hardly one that has come to us too quickly, despite the fact that it is in technical terms fast-tracked. But of course it needed to be fast-tracked if it was to be through Parliament here in time for those important elements that refer to the Assembly to be implemented in advance of the Assembly election and the new Executive—and there is the fact that some more time will be given for the construction of the programme for government and the appointment of Ministers, and the pledges of office of Ministers and MLAs.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I have some scepticism about the value and strength of these pledges of office. As he said, we have had some experience of these kinds of things over a long period. However, in respect of the pledge of office and of other elements of this Bill which refer to the disbandment of paramilitary organisation, the fact that these things are included in the context of an agreement by the Northern Ireland parties at the most senior level is very positive. I was interested to learn that the term “disbandment” was brought forward not by the British and Irish Governments but by the Northern Ireland parties as part of their commitment. That degree of determination in terms of the expression of the language was an encouragement to me.
Indeed, in terms of the achievement of an agreement itself—to some extent brokered and encouraged by the Secretary of State, to whom we rightly pay tribute—there is perhaps a sense in which this agreement was more truly the product of the engagement of the political parties, particularly the two largest parties in Northern Ireland, than most other agreements. That is a very positive thing. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, also referred to the fact that budgets—not just welfare, but beyond that—had not really been properly attended to. He suggested that it was to do with inefficiency. Perhaps so, but I am not entirely sure that that was the driver. I think that in truth the Northern Ireland parties, perhaps particularly Sinn Fein and maybe the SDLP, had come to the position over many years where they expected that in the end the British Government would pay and that if the political pressure was sufficient, a small amount of money—in Treasury terms—was likely to be forthcoming. Given that that has been the history, I do not think that we should be surprised that things were taken right to the limit and a little bit beyond because we have been on that track so often before. If you are going to change that, you need to accept that it will come to the limit and people will stare into the abyss. That is the key point. At that point, the political parties in Northern Ireland and their leaders stared into the abyss and decided that they would draw back and sign up for provisions that, were they held to, would obviate that kind of circumstance in the future. It does not matter what we put in the legislation, if people come to the point where they are prepared to have the whole thing fall to pieces, they will just ride roughshod over it, but if they are prepared to put it into legislation, it is at least some indication of willingness to work together to a good outcome, and I welcome that and the other various provisions.
Then we come to the disbanding of paramilitary organisations, which is not quite so incredibly urgent in terms of the election but is at the heart of the Bill. I declare an interest, which noble Lords know, as one of the three people commissioned by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to produce a strategy for the disbanding of paramilitary groups. That is the title of the mandate. We have to be careful when we sign up for things. Some things have been said about victims. There are complaints that their interests were not satisfactorily dealt with. We have to accept that the references to victims in the Belfast agreement were very modest. I am not long back from doing some work in Colombia on the peace process there. The first thing they did in Colombia, before even reaching an agreement—in fact they have not yet reached an agreement with FARC—was to put in place legislation specifically to address the needs of victims. They started with the victims. They did not wait until after everything else to address victims. Should we ever have to do things again, we would have to advise that that is a better way of addressing things. We have to bear some responsibility for the fact that that was not the route that we took. One can always learn from the experience of others in other places.
I was also there partly to look at the so-called DDR provisions, the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration arrangements that they are looking at for FARC and in fact, in the last week or so, for the ELN. Again, we see something that may not have been a mistake on our part but was not the best way that one could have done things. If you are looking for disbandment or demobilisation, what does it mean? It means you are encouraging all the individuals who were involved in terrorist and paramilitary organisations to disperse—not to continue to be engaged with each other, other than in normal networks of friendships. That is not what was done. Instead, the paramilitary organisations themselves were engaged with, as organisations. In that sense, the leaders of those organisations were enabled to have continuing patronage when it came to dealing with, for example, ex-prisoners’ groups. There are not just loyalist ex-prisoners’ groups and republican ex-prisoners’ groups; there are UVF and UDA ex-prisoners’ groups. Even the loyalists do not come together. Why? It is not just because of their history and background; it is because those leaders—of the past or whatever—have a degree of power and patronage within their organisation. We need to think quite a lot about the meaning of that, and about the responsibility we all have to take for the fact that we went down that road. It may be understandable that we did, but maybe in retrospect there were other ways to do it.
What does disbandment mean? There are some paramilitary organisations or—who knows?—former paramilitary organisations that say, “We’ve already gone away”. Whether people believe them or not is another matter. There are other paramilitary organisations that manifestly have not gone away but say that they would like to. In fact, every year they say they would like to, and even sometimes give a date when they will, although it does not actually happen. There are yet others that clearly have not the slightest intention of going away and in fact want to continue, grow and cause us all trouble and difficulty.
We have had reference, quite properly and soberly, to the recent death of the prison officer Adrian Ismay—a horrible reminder of the risks that prison officers and other members of the security services run in the course of their work. However, we also need to get it into perspective. We have probably fewer than 50 prisoners in Northern Ireland prisons in the separated regimes, out of 800 or so prisoners. That is a very small minority—vocal and troublesome, yes, but in comparison with the numbers we were dealing with in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, it is a totally different situation. We need to think about it, deal with it and treat it in a different way, perhaps without some of the anxieties about what could be done, internally in the prisons and externally in society, by addressing these kinds of issues.
As noble Lords will understand, those are some of the issues that are very much to the fore in my own mind when it comes to dealing with these matters. Noble Lords have referred to the fact that south of the border, too, there have recently been some horrifying events, but we have to ask ourselves seriously: at what point do we stop thinking about these things as paramilitary and start to identify them as organised crime—or, in some cases, disorganised crime? That is what it is: criminal activity. It has no serious political motivation at all. Other noble Lords have rightly referred to the fact that, just as this Assembly election will to some extent see a generational change in many leaders, there is also a generational change in some of these organisations too, with young people coming in who do not even remember the situation. There was an extremely interesting comment a couple of days ago by the Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness in response to claims by some people in the dissident republican movement that it was about remembering and implementing the wishes of the men of 1916. Martin McGuinness said—I paraphrase, but I think this gives an accurate impression—“I didn’t get involved in the things I got involved in during the 1960s because of the men of 1916. I got involved because of what I saw happening in the 1960s to my community, and that is not what is happening now. The excuse of 1916, or even of the 1960s, does not stand in the here and now”. I thought that was an extremely interesting, powerful and in some ways rather courageous thing to say on the centenary of 1916. It says to us that those who are involved and engaged do not have a mandate from some of the most senior people in the republican movement for any political dimension to the use of criminal activity and threat of violence. It was an extremely powerful statement that we should build upon.
I welcome a number of the provisions in respect of the Independent Reporting Commission: for example, that it has a degree of diplomatic immunity and that it cannot be taken to court. Representatives of Her Majesty’s Government will recall that they were taken to court—in London, interestingly—by Sinn Fein in respect of the Independent Monitoring Commission, on which I served. It is clear that the IRC will not be susceptible to that—in truth, it was largely clear back then—and there is now a degree of protection. Indeed, subsequent to the whole Boston College issue, the records will be sacrosanct, and that is extremely important if people are to be open and honest.
However, we need to be a little bit careful: this is not a rerun of the IMC. The reporting commission will be looking at the report that my colleagues and I hope to have finished by the end of May and to publish and present the following month, and it will oversee the implementation of that strategy. That is very different from looking at all the activities of organisations. The reporting will take place once a year, not twice, as was the case with the IMC and was supposed to continue to be the case for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That is a different dynamic and a different situation, and there need to be different expectations of what is possible.
The commission also needs to look at how we can change things for those who have been involved so that neither they nor their families feel bound to these organisations. Maybe there are things that we do in officialdom that make it difficult for people to give that up, leave it behind and get on with an ordinary civilian life. I have seen situations where not only the people involved but their children and grandchildren continue to suffer for things that happened some years ago. That is not helpful when we hope that these organisations will go away. We accept that organised crime will not go away, but it is hoped that paramilitary activity can begin to become a thing of the past.
There is much more that one could say, but which at this time of the evening it would not be sensible to say, and in any case there will be other opportunities to say it. However, it is important to point out, and to recognise, that the Bill represents something positive coming out of Northern Ireland and out of the engagement of political leaders. The Government are to be commended on bringing forward this legislation and on not waiting for an omnibus piece of legislation to deal with all the other issues of legacy and so on, thereby delaying getting into place those things we can now put in place relatively easily and non-contentiously, and get on with.
We have to do all we can to ensure that the reporting commission is part of a wider effort to lift the blight of paramilitarism from the people of Northern Ireland. It is not realistic to believe that all criminal activity, or even the criminal activity of all those who have in the past been involved in paramilitary organisations, will be lifted from our community. But the notion of political motivation for organised crime must go, and this Bill is a helpful step in that direction.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have spoken tonight in paying tribute and compliments to the Minister for his contribution over this whole period. To my mind, it has been a model of involvement through legislation which can be quite contentious; nevertheless, it is taken against a background of consensus in the political system here. We have no hesitation in continuing our policy of bipartisanship and consent in all matters relating to Northern Ireland, and the Minister has played a magnificent part in bringing about this situation so far.
I also thank and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. He is a long-standing friend and colleague, and it is an honour to have him here as my minder for the rest of the evening. My noble friend works in a quiet but extremely effective way.
I would also like to pay tribute to every contribution made here tonight. I feel that this debate deserves a wider audience because of the experience and ability here; the wise words and experiences discussed have been terrific. I think that a video should be made of the debate and displayed as often as possible.
I look forward to discussing with the Minister, and, indeed, all Members of this House, this legislation, which represents an important and positive step forward for Northern Ireland. The Bill delivers some of the key elements of last November’s fresh start agreement and the 2014 Stormont House agreement. These agreements brought to an end the financial and political impasse in Northern Ireland which had threatened the devolved institutions and exposed us to the very real possibility of a return to direct rule—the “abyss” that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned. This would, of course, have been disastrous, especially when we consider the enormous progress that has been made in the recent past. Therefore, we warmly welcome the Bill.
Before we turn to the detail of the clauses, it is worth reflecting on the events of the past 12 months and what has transpired in order to get us to where we are today. The murders of Gerard Davison and Kevin McGuigan in the summer and the budgetary stalemate over welfare led to a political crisis that required skill, commitment and determination from everyone to get an agreement, break the deadlock and thereby allow progress to be made. We have no hesitation in saying that all those involved—the Secretary of State and her Ministers, including the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, all the parties in Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Ireland—deserve huge credit for achieving the fresh start agreement, which helped prevent the collapse of devolution. It is a real testament to the incredible progress that has been made that we are here debating this Bill today.
I recognise that there was huge disappointment that there is, as yet, no agreement on how to deal with the past. If anybody needs a lesson on how to use a deep involvement in reconciliation while still concentrating on looking forward, the speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, is an example of that which is worth quoting. His experience and counsel are certainly worth listening to on all sides of this House and in the Province itself. I also took heart from the debates in the other place. In spite of the regret that legacy issues were not included in the Bill, there was a real sense of optimism about the future and an unwavering commitment from everyone who took part in those discussions to rid Northern Ireland of all forms of paramilitary activity.
Nobody in this House needs convincing that we need a legacy strategy to cope with the hurt, the anger and the deep memories of people who have suffered throughout the years in Northern Ireland. This Bill gives Northern Ireland the tools to work towards this commitment. We recognise that huge progress has been made when it comes to legacy issues, so we should not be too pessimistic. But in the weeks and months ahead, it is important that this progress is built on, while of course recognising the challenges and difficulties that remain. Among those difficulties are the incidents mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who outlined the events that have taken place which could put a block on things.
The publication of the draft treaty on the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval was welcome. It showed not only the direction of travel but also the achievements being made in the talks. At the centre of these talks must be victim and survivor involvement and engagement—we all know that that is key. As the talks progress, it is vital that victims continue to be put at the forefront of these discussions so as to ensure that they are at the heart of any future agreement.
I have tried on occasions to imagine myself in the position of having lost a member of my family and how I would feel if I were in Northern Ireland and something like that had happened. I recognise clearly that there has to be a special process to bring closure—I know that it can be a horrible phrase at times—to the continual, everyday bearing of grudges and hatred. Such feelings are perfectly understandable—I do not criticise anybody—but that is a measure of what we have to do to give the survivors and victims some peace.
Recent allegations with respect to various atrocities of the past demonstrate more than ever the need for a process to be agreed. Victims must not feel that they are locked out of any progress, which is why we continue to urge the Government to be as transparent as possible, even where difficultly remains, and to continue to seek agreement.
Given that legacy issues are not included in the Bill, there is a particular need to consider the resources of the PSNI and the Coroners Service for Northern Ireland to support investigations and to speed up the inquests that they continue to be required to do. Insufficient resources will lead to further delays for victims, which I am sure everyone recognises is unacceptable.
In the other place, my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State Vernon Coaker suggested that the Government release some of the £150 million fund which the Treasury will make available for legacy projects for the specific purpose of supporting the PSNI and Coroners Service in this interim period. In response, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Ben Wallace, stated:
“We cannot just release the money; we need all the actors on the stage to produce the solution. We need the victims, the PSNI, the courts, the Lord Chief Justice and the Executive to support the solution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/16; col. 113.]
Can the Minister say whether anything specific has happened on that subject since that statement in the other place?
There is no question that we completely support the need for agreement from across all sections, civil and political, in Northern Ireland on legacy issues, but what does this mean for the PSNI and the Coroners Service here and now? How do the Government intend to support their work while discussions as to how best to implement the legacy programme remain ongoing? The Secretary of State indicated that she was listening to these concerns, particularly relating to inquests, when she said:
“If a credible reform package for inquests is put together, we will of course take very seriously any request for funds to support it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/16; col. 26.]
Can the Minister indicate whether the Secretary of State has had, or intends to have, any discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly about such a package to support the PSNI and Coroners Service?
The Bill will establish an Independent Reporting Commission to monitor progress towards ending paramilitary activity. Indeed, we all know that ending such activity is the key thread which extends throughout this legislation. The commission will be established on the basis of a joint treaty between the UK Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps during later debates—there might not be enough time now for him to respond to everything—the Minister could update the House on the proposed timeline for the publication of this document.
One matter relating to the IRC which was not discussed in great detail in the other place and which your Lordships’ House might consider in Committee was the progress to be made by the commission and why this initiative will work when others have not. How will progress be judged and what will happen as a plan B if it stalls?
Related to this issue of disclosure, which I am sure Members of your Lordships’ House will want to explore further, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to provide guidance on how national security and individuals are to be protected. This guidance will be crucial if we are to ensure that the Independent Reporting Commission can carry out the work that it was designed to do. Again, any further information which the Minister can provide would be welcome.
I think it is fair to say that the issue which attracted the greatest level of debate in the other place relates to Clause 7, on the pledge of office made by Ministers, and Clause 8, on the undertaking made by Members of the Assembly. The revised pledge includes fresh obligations, and the Bill also introduces a new undertaking for MLAs, based on the same commitments, to support the rule of law and commit themselves to a peaceful pursuit of change and progress. This is, of course, welcome. There are concerns but, if we continue to work on them, they can be alleviated.
The Bill also extends the period of time available to appoint Ministers following Assembly elections. It also relates to fiscal transparency surrounding the budget process, an issue about which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, expressed concern. The intention of this is that it will help in the delivery of a stable and sustainable budget. I hope there will be time next week to go further into these details.
However, the fact that we will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill over a period reflects its importance and what it represents. This is an agreement, not a crisis, and it is important that we recognise that. That is why we will co-operate in all stages of the Bill. Members of your Lordships’ House will know that there is a tendency for Northern Ireland Bills to be dealt with in a single day when a matter requires urgent attention. While we supported an emergency procedure in respect of welfare reform, in this instance we have agreed to an expedited rather than an emergency process. I believe that will strike a tone which will be welcomed by your Lordships.
Agreeing to this timetable means that it will still be possible to secure Royal Assent before the approaching Northern Ireland elections. If a legislative consent Motion is granted—which, we understand, there is agreement for among Northern Ireland parties—the measures relating to the pledge of office, the MLA undertakings and other matters can be dealt with while ensuring that there is enough time for a broader debate about this Bill and related matters.
As I have said, we are able to discuss these issues at greater length because this is an agreement and not a crisis. That shows that we have come an incredibly long way. However, challenges still remain. The Bill is another important milestone in the journey of eradicating the paramilitary activity which is so much at the heart of tackling the issue of violence in Northern Ireland. The impact of paramilitary activity still looms over too many people in Northern Ireland. The success of the Bill, the new pledges and the Independent Reporting Commission will be judged by how far they contribute to bringing about this goal.
The Labour Party is proud of its role in supporting the Government in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship, which exists throughout the House. I hope that some of this debate can resonate in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, this has been a constructive debate with powerful and moving speeches and I thank noble Lords from all parts of the House for the many and varied contributions they have made. It is fair to say that the speakers list has been short but that the quality of the speakers and the wealth of knowledge and experience that has been brought to bear has more than made up for this. Indeed, as a relative newcomer in this House, I am humbled to be participating in such company. I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about the contribution and presence here of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.
I shall endeavour in my closing remarks to address as many of the points raised as I can. However, perhaps I may first say a few words about the Bill as a whole. As I said earlier, the Bill implements some key elements of both the fresh start and Stormont House agreements. In so doing it takes an important step towards a more peaceful, prosperous and stable Northern Ireland. It is peaceful in that the Bill makes provision for the establishment of an independent body that will both promote and report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland. It is prosperous in that the Bill will increase fiscal transparency, ensuring that executive budgets are affordable and sustainable. It is stable in that it will allow parties more time to agree a programme for government on a cross-party basis, encouraging a more bipartisan approach, while the additions to the ministerial pledge of office and new undertakings for Assembly Members signal more clearly than ever before the determination of the Northern Ireland political parties to see an end to paramilitary activity once and for all.
Perhaps I may now respond to some of the detailed points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to the powers of appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and expressed the hope that in discharging those powers they would consult more widely. I was encouraged that Minister Pengelly, in the legislative consent Motion debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly, undertook that at the very least there would be consultation with the Minister for Justice. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the role of a new generation, a point echoed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. It is important that the shared future initiatives are very much designed in many respects to engage young people.
I turn now to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. She talked about widening the membership of the IRC. Of course, no decisions on the membership of the commission have yet been made, but it is important to make the general point that the IRC needs collectively to have credibility and to carry confidence across the community. Clearly it is incumbent on the Government, the Irish Government and the First and Deputy First Ministers to consult one another when making their respective nominations to ensure that the criterion laid down in the fresh start agreement is met. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of ring-fencing legacy funding. The Stormont House agreement committed £150 million over five years to fund new legacy institutions. Speaking more widely, I agree with her that it is important that these new institutions are equitable in how they operate. The Government are clear that the new bodies must be transparent, fair and equitable. This is written into the Stormont House agreement and will be in the Bill itself; these are absolutely fundamental values.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, broadly welcomed the IRC and expressed his hope that it would shine a light into paramilitary activity. Whatever remedial action the IRC might recommend, and it is free to do so, I think that public scrutiny will be a very powerful influence on eradicating paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the Executive’s finances, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden, who talked about financial prudence. The Executive have committed to establishing an independent fiscal council for Northern Ireland to increase the transparency of the public finances and it will publish an annual assessment of the Executive’s revenue streams and spending proposals, showing how the Executive’s budget will balance. It is also important that the council will publish a report on the sustainability of the Executive’s finances.
I turn to the contribution of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. First, I thank him for his kind remarks. He gave a typically moving and authoritative speech about how to reconcile a divided society. I agree with him that reconciliation cannot be achieved solely through legislation. I very much look forward to introducing a Bill to establish the new institutions to deal with the past. He is absolutely right that more is needed. For this reason, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is engaging intensively with stakeholders, political parties and civil society organisations to move forward in the best interests of victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, sought clarity on the terms of the treaty. That point was also raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden. Discussions with the Government of Ireland on the contents of the international agreement are at an advanced stage. However, it will not be possible to gain final agreement until after the new Government is formed in Ireland. The treaty will set out the IRC’s functions, as outlined in A Fresh Start, and it will also add further detail on the operations of the commission. I am afraid that, at this point, I cannot be specific or give a date when the IRC will be up and running, but we are aiming for it to be this year. Obviously, the Executive will be publishing their strategy and plans for dealing with paramilitarism by the end of June.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, also raised the issue about the legislative consent Motion for this Bill. An LCM was required in the Northern Ireland Assembly for two provisions in the Bill because they alter the competence of a devolved Minister: Clause 1(4), which provides a new power for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to nominate two members of the IRC; and Clause 9, which seeks to promote fiscal transparency and places a duty on the Northern Ireland Finance Minister to provide statements to the Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised the issue of the need for an IPSA-style body. Obviously, the Government want to promote the highest standards in public life in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, but as I said in my opening speech, the Government would not wish to pre-empt detailed Assembly consideration of the most appropriate measures or the most appropriate vehicle to introduce them. Assembly Standing Orders, for instance, exist primarily to regulate the proceedings of the Assembly, and it is not clear that they would be an appropriate vehicle to make provision for investigation by an independent or external person.
The office of the existing Commissioner for Standards was established by separate Assembly legislation, and any new accountability measures will need to have the greatest possible legitimacy among those who will be affected by them. It is therefore right that the Assembly has the scope to debate these matters and seek political consensus among the Northern Ireland parties on their introduction.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, raised the question of when paramilitarism becomes organised crime. The term “paramilitary” coves a multitude of actions, associations and behaviours. The paramilitary assessment carried out by the PSNI and MI5, and reviewed by an independent panel last year, represents the most recent and up-to-date characterisation of the structure, role and purpose of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. Much of this was clearly organised crime. Violent dissident republicans continue to resort to brutal assaults on members of their own communities in an attempt to exert fear and control. This Government are absolutely unequivocal. There is no justification for being a member of a paramilitary organisation in the year 2016, and there was no justification in the past. For that reason, we are introducing the IRC.
I turn finally to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy—and if I have not covered all the points, I will obviously return to them. The noble Lord raised the issue of security funding. Obviously, the Stormont House agreement included provision of £160 million, which was new money, for security funding. I can also confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will engage with all relevant stakeholders on inquest reform.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the co-operation of the security agencies with the new commission and how the Government will ensure that they do so. The Government are committed to the measures aimed at tackling paramilitarism outlined in the fresh start agreement and to the success of the Independent Reporting Commission. We urge all bodies, including the security agencies, to co-operate fully and meaningfully with the commission from an early stage and to allow the most accurate reporting possible.
Under Clause 2(5), we will issue guidance for the commission in relation to the access to, handling and use of sensitive information. That is intended to ensure that the relevant agencies and public authorities are able confidently to engage and assist the commission in fulfilling its functions. As for when the guidance will be issued, we will do so in advance of the commission starting work. The guidance will be published in line with the Bill and a copy placed in the Library of the House.
In closing, I remind the House that this is an important Bill—everybody who has spoken recognised that. It has the support of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, where—as we already discussed—a legislative consent Motion was recently passed. It will deliver on commitments made in the fresh start and Stormont House agreements, and it plays a significant part in all our efforts to support a stable and workable devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. I very much look forward to discussing the individual provisions of the Bill in more detail in Committee and, tomorrow, to starting the engagement process not on the Bill but on legacy issues. I commend the Bill to the House.