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, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to providing data on active national insurance numbers used by people from other EU countries. HMRC is currently compiling that information and is working closely with the Office for National Statistics, which is reconciling the four main sources of international migration data. The data on active national insurance numbers will be published as part of, or alongside, the ONS’s publication. It is up to that independent statistics authority to decide when it is ready to make public the information.
Henry Smith
I have been asking HMRC for the figures since January. The British people have a right to know such facts, particularly in the context of the UK’s EU referendum debate. Will we know before 23 June how many foreign nationals from other EU countries have national insurance numbers?
Mr Gauke
It does take some time for HMRC to combine and match multiple datasets and hundreds of millions of lines of its own and the Department for Work and Pensions’ data. The intention is to publish the information alongside the ONS analysis. I note that according to its website the ONS plans to publish in May a note on migration incorporating the latest available migration data, and helping to explain further why the two datasets show different trends.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
What about the 3.3 million people—one in 10 of the existing workforce—who pay their national insurance and tax and whose jobs are linked to UK exports to the EU? Does the Minister agree that leave campaigners should not just cross their fingers and dismiss reality and that Members on both sides of the House have a duty to spell out the fact that leaving the EU would put real jobs at real risk?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Treasury analysis published yesterday that shows the various models and the consequences were we to leave the EU, including a permanent reduction in our GDP compared with what it otherwise would be and significant damage to productivity growth. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Do the Government welcome the opportunity to bring forward actual data without the need to project forward 14 years using techniques that have proved to be inaccurate every six months?
Mr Gauke
As I said, HMRC has gone through the data and will provide them to the ONS. It is for the ONS to decide the timing, but I have drawn the House’s attention to what it has said.
Returning to the Treasury analysis, it compares one scenario with other scenarios, and all three possible scenarios for leaving the EU would leave this country poorer than we otherwise would be.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The impact of EU membership on jobs is obviously significant. Will the Minister pass on my congratulations to the officials who did the useful analysis that was published yesterday? A regional breakdown on page 65 of the document suggests that 100,000 jobs in the north-east are dependent on EU exports. I had thought that the figure would be 140,000, so will he ask the officials to look at it again with a view to revising it up?
Mr Gauke
I will certainly take that representation on board. Of course, the north-east of England has the very large Nissan plant, which provides a significant number of jobs. The argument in the Treasury analysis is that we benefit from an open economy. If we leave the single market, we become a less open economy, which will have a cost to the British people in their living standards.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The disgracefully dodgy document published by the Treasury yesterday is, frankly, worthy of the children’s programme “Jackanory”. The immigration figures suggest that there will be 3 million more immigrants in this country by 2030, placing my hon. Friend in clear breach of the Conservative manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands a year. What is his response to that accusation?
Mr Gauke
The numbers are based on the ONS projection that was used at the last Budget. No account is taken of the achievements of the renegotiation secured by the Prime Minister. On the Treasury analysis, a large number of independent economic commentators have argued that it is broadly in the right direction. My hon. Friends who advocate that we should leave the EU should come forward with their own analysis, setting out exactly what model they would follow and what the economic consequences would be.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
We are both building more houses and helping young families afford those homes. Some 400,000 new homes are being built over the years of this Parliament, half of them starter homes for first-time buyers. In the Budget I also launched the new lifetime ISA, so that young people no longer have to choose between saving for a home and saving for their retirement—we are going to help them do both. All this from a Conservative Government who support people’s aspirations to buy their own home and, in time, pass that on to their children.
Victoria Prentis
Following the promise of an extra £19 million from the Treasury to help make Bicester garden town a reality, will the Chancellor update the House on the other means he is using to encourage house building, particularly for first-time buyers?
Mr Osborne
I am delighted that we can support the community that my hon. Friend so ably represents in Parliament, and provide money for the upgrade of the M40 junction and a new secondary school to go with the new homes being built in Bicester. Of course that comes as part of a suite: we are investing in new starter homes and in shared equity products for people; our help to buy ISA has been used by hundreds of thousands of people; and the new lifetime ISA will also help young people. Those are all things we are doing to make sure this a home-owning democracy.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
But there is a problem, because the Office for Budget Responsibility says that lifetime ISAs will increase house prices, as they will increase demand and there is relatively restricted supply. Is the Chancellor confident that his measures to increase the supply of housing will mean that the OBR is able to revise that analysis—yes or no?
Mr Osborne
I agree that it is vital that we not only help people afford homes, particularly young first-time buyers, but build more homes. That is the plan we set out in the spending review; a big priority of the capital budget was the additional billions we will be spending on building homes—much more than was spent under the last Labour Government.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How is having net migration of an additional 3 million people going to help first-time buyers find a home?
Mr Osborne
As I say, we have the products to help first-time buyers in this country afford housing, but I make this observation on migration: you cannot have access to the single market without accepting the free movement of people. That is an absolutely clear principle, which has been made very starkly clear to this country by Germany and France, and is internationally accepted. If we want access to the single market, we have to accept the free movement of people.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chancellor confirm that the number of under-35s who own their own home has fallen by a fifth since he came to office?
Mr Osborne
Under this Government the number of first-time buyers is up by 57%, whereas under the last Labour Government in the last Parliament it fell by 50%.
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps the Chancellor will be hearing for the first time that the number of under-35s heading homes they own has fallen by more than 280,000 since 2010. Indeed, the number of affordable homes available to buy has halved since then. Private rental prices rose by 2.6% in the year to February, with incomes failing to keep pace. In September, the Government spoke of a “national crusade” to get 1 million homes built by 2020, but in November that figure was more than halved. Shelter says the Government’s starter homes scheme takes away homes that people on typical wages could afford. Is it not true that home ownership is in freefall because of the housing crisis, with young people who are aspiring to own being the hardest hit?
Mr Osborne
I have already said that the number of first-time buyers is actually up by 57% under this Government, and I would make this observation: we cannot have a strong and successful housing market, and people getting on the housing ladder, unless we have a strong and successful economy. If we followed the prescription of the Labour Front-Bench team, of nationalising half the economy and imposing punitive tax rates, there would not be anyone able to afford any home in this country.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Mr Osborne
The lifetime ISA will be a very popular and successful new saving product precisely because it does not require people to choose between saving for a home or saving for their retirement; they can do both. We are also now looking at ways for people to draw on their savings during their lifetime for particular emergencies, or for when they need bits of money, like they do in the United States with the 401(k) scheme. The lifetime ISA will be a radically new savings product, and it will do what we need to do in this country, which is build a savings culture.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
Productivity performance in the UK has been weak since the financial crisis, as it has been in all developed countries. The Government published their productivity plan “Fixing the foundations” last year. At the Budget, we announced additional reductions in corporation tax and business rates to incentivise investment, and gave the green light to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail 2 and High Speed 3.
Kirsty Blackman
The Scottish National party has continually argued that the UK economy is in dire need of investment to stimulate productivity. Despite the productivity plan, the Chancellor seems determined to persevere with policies that stifle productivity. What policies have the UK Government enacted that will encourage an increase in productivity?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is an issue in relation to productivity in this country, but there is an issue across all major developed economies. Over the past year, productivity growth in this country was about 1%, which compares with 0.9% across the G7. On specific measures, we have established the National Infrastructure Commission, protected science funding at the Budget and spending review, introduced the Housing and Planning Bill, announced the apprenticeship levy, which is coming in, and announced a £100 billion infrastructure programme over the course of this Parliament.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that, by being a member of the European Union, this country benefits hugely from a cross-fertilisation of good ideas across the European Union, the supply chain, and foreign direct investment at 50%? Our trade, too, also benefits from our being in the single market—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. No! The hon. Gentleman is very, very wide of the question. I have great respect for him. He has put his thoughts on the record, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the question on the Order Paper, to which the Chief Secretary will not therefore reply.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Minister? He cannot just hide behind what he claims to be happening in all advanced economies. We are performing worse than most, particularly France. Is the reason for that not to do with the lack of skills of our workers and the lack of good education in our country? Will the Chancellor’s silly policy on forced academisation help or hinder?
Greg Hands
We recognise that there is an issue with productivity, which is why we published the productivity plan, but in terms of growth, the UK was the fastest-growing major economy in 2014. Last year, we were in second place; this year we are also projected to be in second place, growing at a healthy rate. Therefore, with regard to growth, this country is doing very well indeed.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that £540 billion invested by foreign businesses in the UK over the past decade is vital to our future productivity, and that, if we left the EU, the uncertainty of our trading relationship with Europe and the world would put that investment in jeopardy?
Greg Hands
I agree with my hon. Friend. Leaving the EU would damage UK productivity. It has the potential to deny access, or to make access more difficult, to markets and investment. It is worth noting that the UK, with 28%, is the No.1 EU destination for foreign direct investment, and a large part of that is to do with our status as an EU member.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It was five years in office before we saw a productivity plan, and what happened last year? Productivity in the UK was 18 percentage points below the average for the rest of the G7. One sector that needs help is the UK steel industry. It needs more capital investment to be more competitive. How much money will the Government invest in steel in the next 12 months to improve productivity and save British jobs?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman mentions the figure of 18 percentage points, and I refer him to an earlier answer in which I said productivity has been a long-standing issue in the UK. In fact, the figure was 17 percentage points back in the 1990s. As he well knows, the action we have taken on steel includes securing state aid to compensate for energy costs, securing flexibility over EU emissions regulations, ensuring that the procurement rules can also allow social and economic factors to be taken into account, and continuing to tackle unfair trading practices. The Government have been very active on steel, and that has not ended today.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Government are leading the world in the fight against tax evasion and it was Britain that first demanded that multinationals publish, country by country, where they pay tax. Thanks to our leadership, that is now being taken up at a European level. Multinationals selling into Europe will be required to report the tax they pay, including in ultra-low tax locations. Britain has also got its leading allies to agree to share information on the beneficial ownership of companies. We are now seeking international leadership on a blacklist of tax havens, with punitive action against the jurisdictions on that blacklist. We want the rest of the world to follow our example; where we lead, others should follow.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Chancellor for that answer, but Conservative MEPs have voted six times on instruction from the Treasury to block EU-wide measures against tax avoidance. What action will the Chancellor take to get all Crown dependencies to establish a public register of beneficial ownership?
Mr Osborne
At a European level, we are now getting agreement to ensure that multinationals should disclose where they pay tax around the world, including in ultra-low tax jurisdictions. We have just agreed with our leading European allies, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, that we will exchange information on beneficial ownership. In terms of public registries, we are literally one of the very few countries in the world—one of only two or three countries in the entire world—to have committed to a public register, but we want all jurisdictions, not just our overseas territories but all the other advanced economies of the world, to follow our lead.
Neil Gray
Last month, I tabled a series of written questions about the tax gap resulting from individuals and businesses using overseas territories and Crown dependencies. All seven questions were grouped into one answer from the Financial Secretary, which basically said, “We have no idea.” Now that the Government have been shamed by the Panama papers into hasty action, will they finally rectify the extraordinary situation whereby the Government have no idea how much is lost to the Treasury in this way each year? Would a public register of beneficial ownership not help in this regard?
Mr Osborne
We have published more detail on the tax gap than the previous Government and we have shown that it is at one of its lowest levels in our history. This Government have collected £26 billion more than was being collected by a Labour Government in extra compliance.
Jonathan Reynolds
Tax havens are merely a symptom of a much wider problem, which is that too often the wrong values are at the heart of our financial system. There is too much greed. There is insufficient reciprocity. There is still too great a disconnection between the real economy and the needs of our society. Eight years on from the financial crisis, what is the Chancellor’s genuine assessment of how much has changed for the better?
Mr Osborne
That is a perfectly reasonable question, and it was well put. A huge amount has changed. There is much tougher regulation of the financial system, and we have better regulators. Banks are more on the case of bad action in their areas, but it is true that more needs to be done to create a proper culture in the banking system in which they treat customers fairly and seek to do the right thing. That is happening, and the banks that do it will get rewards from customers in the marketplace. Like other professions, the industry is seeking to improve its standards of conduct.
Tommy Sheppard
The Chancellor will be aware that the reporting requirements for private companies are a lot less stringent than those for publicly listed companies. Although the register of beneficial ownership is an improvement, we need to know not just who owns a particular company but how much tax they are avoiding. If a company gets away with not publishing income, turnover or profit, that will not do. May I ask him what steps he will take with our overseas territories to ensure that this is rectified?
Mr Osborne
Of course, all companies have to pay their correct taxes, and we have taken action to ensure that. Country-by-country reporting is designed precisely so that people can see in particular where multinational businesses pay tax.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The recent information-sharing agreement that the Chancellor has just referred to could turn out to be a very significant step in the fight against tax evasion, and I support it. The public are right to be upset when businesses or individuals do not pay their fair share of tax. Evasion needs to be rigorously pursued, but does the Chancellor agree that when that is caused by tax avoidance, it is the job of Government to simplify the tax code and close the loopholes exploited by the avoiders?
Mr Osborne
I broadly agree with my right hon. Friend. I welcome the welcome that he gives to the agreement that we have with four other European countries on the exchange of information on beneficial ownership. We hope that will set an example that not just the rest of Europe, but the rest of the world will follow.
On tax avoidance, of course it is the responsibility of the House of Commons and the Government to try to make sure that the tax code and tax law are simple and do what is intended, but we are in a constant race, as has always been the case, against highly paid accountancy firms and the like, who design very contrived systems to avoid tax and avoid the intention of Parliament. There has been a significant development in our jurisprudence whereby the Supreme Court now takes into account the intention of Parliament, as well as the letter of the law. I think that is right, because as I say, there is sometimes a bit of an arms race in relation to the tax code, and the wishes of Parliament should be taken into account by our courts.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the agreement that he has just reached. Is it not the case that HMRC employs 26,000 investigators who work to stop tax evasion and avoidance, and that they have brought in more than £2 billion over the past six years from offshore tax avoidance? Does he agree that we should congratulate HMRC on doing the good job that its investigators are doing, and thank them for their work, and that anyone who criticises HMRC in that respect is just plain wrong?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the good work that HMRC does. It has never been popular to be a tax collector in any country at any point in history. HMRC is doing a good job in that respect. We are putting more resources in so that it can target particularly wealthy individuals who are evading tax. We now have 26,000 people employed by the Government to ensure that people comply with our tax laws.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on the work that he has done to close loopholes—more than any previous Chancellor—but does he recognise that a low-tax economy will attract wealthy people from all over the world to invest in our economy, create jobs and pay more tax, so the Exchequer draws more tax in the end?
Mr Osborne
I entirely agree. We as Conservatives believe that there should be low taxes, but taxes that are paid. That is the right approach. That is why we have reduced corporation tax, and why we are reducing income tax by raising the tax-free personal allowance. When we cut the top rate of tax, we collected more income for the Exchequer.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
With the tax gap now at its lowest level on record, does the Chancellor agree that this Government have done much more to ensure that the taxes that are owed are paid than the Labour Government ever achieved?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend, who is an excellent Member of Parliament in the west of England, is right. We get lots of suggestions from the Labour party about what we should do about tax. Labour was in office for 13 years and had Treasury Ministers answering questions for 13 years. Not a single one of these things happened when they were in charge, and no one believes that if Labour were ever back in charge, it would be tough and take action.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Shall we bring the discussion back to today? In the Panama revelations about the behaviour of offshore companies, the Chancellor could not fail to notice the key role played in many of those deals by UK-headquartered banks and UK-based intermediaries. For example, HSBC and its affiliates created more offshore companies through Mossack Fonseca than any other bank. In view of the significant role played by UK banks, will the Chancellor support the new clause tabled by Labour to today’s Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, requiring British financial institutions to record the true owners of any companies or trusts that they work for? Will he also, like me, welcome the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) for a register of the beneficial owners of property in the UK to tackle money laundering, often linked to tax evasion?
Mr Osborne
First, we are introducing a register of the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts that need to pay tax, and of course banks must therefore comply with it. Secondly, we are introducing—this will be in the Queen’s Speech—a new criminal offence of facilitating tax evasion, which will apply to the corporate sector in Britain as well. That is in addition to the criminal offence we have introduced that says ignorance is no defence when someone comes before the courts if it is found that they have been evading taxes.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Tax havens lead to a loss of revenue here as individuals can hide through opaque structures and businesses simply do not pay UK tax in respect of where economic activity takes place. Given the revelations from Mossack Fonseca, has the Treasury carried out a new assessment to calculate the scale and size of the revenue lost to the UK?
Mr Osborne
There are already a large number of ongoing investigations in respect of Panama, which we hope will lead to prosecutions, and the Government already had data on Mossack Fonseca. If there is additional information available in the Panama papers—despite our requests, the media organisations have not yet handed all that information over to us—we will act on it.
Stewart Hosie
Can I ask the Chancellor to be more assertive and to go much further? Mossack Fonseca is the fourth biggest such firm in Panama, and I presume that there are dozens, scores or hundreds of smaller ones, and there will be many, many more in other countries. The scale and scope of this are likely to be astronomical. He and the Government need to go much further. We need to have a much clearer understanding of the scale of this. I ask him to make all the representations he can to the Panamanian authorities and other jurisdictions where similar activities are taking place.
Mr Osborne
To be frank, representations are not going to be enough with some of these jurisdictions. That is why we want international agreement to a blacklist that jurisdictions will go on if they do not comply with the norms that we are establishing on transparency, exchange of information and the like. Once they are on the blacklist, they are subject to penalties and punitive action—sanctions, if you like—so that it is clear that they cannot carry on doing business in the way they have been. If the whole world comes around on that—there was welcome support for this British-promoted concept at the G20 last week in Washington—so that we get that blacklist and that punitive action, I think that we will help to solve this problem.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Corporation tax cuts have been a central part of the Government’s economic strategy, and that strategy is working; there are 2.3 million more people in employment since 2010. The further cuts in the main rate announced at the Budget, which will bring it down to 17% by 2020, will benefit over 1 million companies, large and small. Lower corporation tax rates will support UK companies to invest and grow, creating jobs as they do so.
Mr Hanson
One of the justifications for the corporation tax cut was that businesses would pass it on to workers through the increase in the living wage. Evidence is now emerging that some companies intend to pocket the tax cut and squeeze conditions for their employees, so what steps do the Government intend to take to monitor that?
Mr Gauke
The cuts in corporation tax will result in greater investment in this country, and greater investment drives productivity growth, and productivity growth is what will drive higher living standards. Let us remember that it is this Government who have brought in the national living wage, and we have seen very large numbers of people see increases in their wages and salaries.
Justin Madders
Owing to changes in personal independence payments, people with disabilities are set to lose £1 billion at the same time as corporation tax is being cut, so can the Minister honestly say that he is comfortable with prioritising big business over disabled people?
Mr Gauke
We are providing more support to help the disabled get into employment, but let me just make this point to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House: the way this country is going to be prosperous and able to afford good public services and support for the most vulnerable is by having a strong, growing economy, and competitive business taxes help us to have that strong, growing economy.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Federation of Small Businesses has said that the decision to further lower corporation tax to 17% is an important statement of intent and will provide a boost for the affected firms? Does he agree that that will help to further underpin the enterprising economy that we need?
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to trot out phrases such as “tax cuts for companies”, but it is vital that we have low corporation tax to attract investment into this country and to ensure that we have jobs here? The Chancellor has repeatedly encouraged companies to pass on tax cuts to workers, which is where they should go.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A general anti-avoidance rule was considered by an independent study group led by Graham Aaronson QC in 2011. The group recommended an anti-abuse rule for the UK because it felt strongly that it would strengthen and complement existing tools available to HMRC. The Government accepted the recommendation and introduced a general anti-abuse rule in 2013, striking the right balance between protection against avoidance and certainty for taxpayers.
Grahame M. Morris
One way to put an end to aggressive tax avoidance is a general principle—a principle, not a rule. I am sure the Minister understands there is a difference: people can find a way around a rule, but it is not easy to do that with a principle. Will the Government therefore back their public statements about tackling aggressive tax avoidance and legislate for a general principle of tax avoidance?
Mr Gauke
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Labour Government looked at this issue and declined either a general anti-abuse rule or a general anti-abuse principle because of fears of uncertainty. We believe we have got the balance right. However, alongside the introduction of the anti-abuse rule, we have brought in measures to deal with accelerated payments and promoters, we closed 40 tax loopholes in the last Parliament and we have announced 25 closures in this Parliament already. It is worth pointing out that avoidance is coming down.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
We announced at the Budget an extensive package for the south-west covering both rail and road: a new marine hub enterprise zone in Cornwall, a £4.5 million boost for ultra-fast broadband across the region and, to top it off, a £900 million devolution deal with the west of England. The south-west will also benefit from the income tax cuts and business rate reductions announced in the Budget.
Scott Mann
One item that went largely unnoticed in the Budget was the £19 million for community land trusts in the south-west to mitigate the impact of second home ownership. How will that money be allocated? Will my right hon. Friend work with me and fellow Conservative MPs in the south-west to ensure that that money is put aside to help people to purchase plots and to help working people to get on?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is right that we will be releasing £19 million for community-led housing in the south-west. I look forward to discussing with him how we might best approach that issue. We are also introducing a new right to build and reforms to planning, which will boost the custom-build sector in Cornwall and beyond.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government underfunded infrastructure projects in the south-west, resulting in lower productivity in the region and hence less of a contribution to the national economy than we should have had, but that it is this Government who are turning that around with their huge £7.6 billion commitment to infrastructure and connectivity?
Mr Speaker
Just as long as the Chief Secretary focuses on what this Government are doing. He does not need to burble on about the past.
Greg Hands
I welcome the opportunity to say something about what this Government are doing on infrastructure in the south-west. We have 35 projects in the infrastructure pipeline in the south-west with a value of £23.2 billion. At the Budget alone, we announced improvements to Exeter St David’s station, at Weston-super-Mare and at Cheltenham Spa station. I have already mentioned community housing. There is also a fund to provide more and better roads in the south-west.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
We are continuing our support for solar, keeping the small-scale feed-in tariff scheme open beyond January 2016, setting tariffs on a path to help transition the industry to a sustainable, subsidy-free future.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Exchequer Secretary for that very short answer. Given that the EU’s VAT reform action plan will give Governments discretion in applying rates of VAT, including on solar power, will he confirm categorically to solar installers in my constituency that the UK has officially and permanently dropped the proposal to hike solar VAT to 20%?
Damian Hinds
The reduced rate of VAT remains in place on all 11 of the categories of energy saving materials. Following the decision by the European Court, we have consulted interested parties on the issue and, given the complexities involved, we are still considering the responses.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that about 90% or more of the solar-powered energy available in Britain has been put in place under this Government? Does he also agree that, in order for intermittent renewable power to provide a steady baseload, the investment with which the Government are supporting battery technology is absolutely key?
Damian Hinds
My hon. and learned Friend is, of course, right on multiple counts. Solar has been a great British success story: more than 99% of the installed solar PV capacity has happened since May 2010. He is also correct to say that the development of battery technology here and elsewhere is incredibly important for the future.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will welcome the report published today by the Environmental Audit Committee, which finds that membership of the European Union has been overwhelmingly positive for the UK’s environment. Our Committee is also conducting an inquiry into the Treasury’s approach to sustainability and the environment. Will he encourage his colleague the Chancellor to come before the Committee to discuss the Treasury’s approach to solar power, offshore wind, waste and recycling policy?
Damian Hinds
I look forward to reading the hon. Lady’s report. The Treasury takes a balanced approach to making sure that we stay on target to meet our commitments. We are on target to meet our commitment of 15% of renewable energy by 2020, but we must do so in a cost-effective way, recognising that the subsidies to early stage technologies can only be paid for by taxpayers.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Exchequer Secretary join me in congratulating the UK solar power industry on being one of the top 10 in the world? It is larger than that in Australia and slightly smaller than that in Spain, despite having a rather less advantageous climate.
Damian Hinds
Indeed. Were it only the case that the sun would always shine. Under Labour, we had the highest dependency on fossil fuels in the G8 and the lowest contribution from renewable energy of any major EU country. As I said earlier, the deployment of solar power has been a great success story since 2010.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
One of the big things this Government could do to help solar and, indeed, all renewables is to remove the double charge on storage, whereby storage is charged when it takes on the power and charged again when it gets rid of the power and puts it back in the grid. Will the Treasury consider changing its approach and helping storage? It could do so with a stroke of a pen and it would make a huge difference. I urge the Treasury to stroke that pen and make sure that that change happens.
Damian Hinds
The tariffs are designed to make sure that there is a reasonable and appropriate return to investors. They have to be adjusted periodically when costs come down. Of course, one of the great parts of the success story of solar is the fact that costs have come down by about two thirds since 2010.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
According to the Solar Trade Association:
“Government will be spending just 1% of new expenditure under the Levy Control Framework supporting solar power…yet mainstream analysts expect solar power to dominate future energy supply.”
With that in mind, will the Chancellor promise to do much more to ensure that Britain becomes a market leader in the industry, or are we going to let China take the lead yet again?
Damian Hinds
Britain does have a leadership position in the industry, but we need a balance. We need a portfolio of energy sources and to recognise the importance of baseload power. That is why the development of new nuclear is also so important.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The Government fully support expanding the UK’s trade relationship with Iran. The Treasury is actively liaising with UK banks and industry bodies, to understand concerns and help re-establish financial channels between the UK and Iran.
Maggie Throup
Despite the improving diplomatic relations between the British and Iranian Governments, UK businesses still face significant barriers to completing legitimate banking transactions for trade purposes. Will the Minister look at what more can be done to help to facilitate financial transactions between UK and Iranian banks, so that the UK economy can begin to benefit from this new market?
Harriett Baldwin
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that the situation with the payment channels between the UK and Iran is quite challenging, particularly because the US still has its primary sanctions in place. We have been speaking to banks at the highest levels. We have also been liaising with the US authorities to push for further clarity for UK banks. It is worth pointing out that some banks have a more extensive US business than others do, and that therefore it might be worth companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere considering switching to banks that have less exposure in the US.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Given the opportunities for British businesses in Iran as a result of the relaxation of sanctions, could the Treasury have a word with our friends the Americans to make sure that they do not seek to use their banking regulations to prevent some of the commercial deals that may flow to British companies as a result of that relaxation of sanctions?
Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight one of the key issues. I assure him that we are working at all levels in discussions with the US authorities to ensure that British companies selling to Iran are able to put that money into UK bank accounts.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
It is Export Week, and I can announce that UK Export Finance has provided more than £15 billion of support to exporters since 2010 and UK Trade & Investment has more than doubled the number of businesses that it helps to more than 54,000.
Marie Rimmer
UK industrial production and manufacturing output suffered sharp falls in February, and they remain well below 2008 levels. Meanwhile, the Office for National Statistics reported that house prices in London have reached an average of £524,000, which is 49% higher than their pre-recession peak and out of the reach of all but those who are on six-figure salaries or who have benefited from a trust fund inheritance. When will my constituents see the Britain held aloft by the march of the makers, and the economy rebalanced towards the north of England, as the Chancellor promised?
Harriett Baldwin
I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate to elaborate further on her question. I am sure that she and her constituents will welcome the fact that employment in the north-west is at the highest level on record; that more than 89,000 businesses in the north-west will not pay business rates; and that 360,000 people in the north-west will now benefit from the living wage.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
British exports to China have more than doubled since 2010, led by Havant-based manufacturers such as Colt and Lewmar. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those businesses, and will she encourage others to follow their lead by supporting and maintaining the Government’s pro-export policies?
Harriett Baldwin
It is wonderful to hear during Export Week about Colt and Lewmar, and their fantastic work exporting overseas. It is a key priority of the Government to continue to encourage more firms to export. In fact, we have ambitious aims to have another 100,000 businesses exporting over the life of this Parliament.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The current account deficit is at a post-war high of more than 5% of GDP, and 44% of our exports go to the European Union. It took Canada seven years to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union. Does the Minister agree that the last thing that exporters need, and the last thing that the one in 10 jobs that depend on our exports to the EU need, is the uncertainty that the referendum is bringing—and, indeed, that Brexit would bring—to them and to those jobs?
Harriett Baldwin
The last time I looked, I thought it was also Labour policy to have such a referendum, but I agree with the hon. Lady that it is very important that she and others get out the message about the value of exports and the importance for manufacturing of the UK’s membership of the single market. That is why I shall vote in the same way as her on 23 June.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the economy.
Rebecca Pow
The innovative Claims Consortium Group in Taunton Deane has just received an Investors in People gold standard award, one of only 300 companies in the UK to have done so. It began in a back bedroom in Milverton just a few years ago, and it now employs 300 people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is Taunton Deane an excellent place to do business, as this company demonstrates, but so is the whole of the wider south-west, thanks to the infrastructure and connectivity injections this Government are giving it?
Mr Osborne
Let me join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Claims Consortium Group on its award. I am glad that it has been recognised for its hard work. She is absolutely right that Taunton, and indeed the whole of the south-west, is a great place to do business. We are now investing huge sums in the roads and railways, broadband and housing. Of course, without her I do not think we would be having the A358 upgrade. There is a general lesson, which is that when the south-west votes blue, the voice of the south-west is heard in Parliament.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It is not just on tax that people are concerned about the behaviour of the super-rich and its impact on the economy. I hope that the Chancellor will join me in welcoming the action taken by shareholders at BP’s annual general meeting against the excessive pay awards recommended by the company’s remuneration committee. The chief executive’s pay in FTSE 100 companies has risen from 50 times the average employee’s in the 1990s to 150 times today. Will he support measures to tackle the remuneration racket? To many, an old boys’ network appears to operate to set each other’s pay. In particular, will he support the widening of shareholder representation and employee representation on remuneration committees?
Mr Osborne
It is absolutely right that companies and the shareholders who own those companies think about their pay policy, act responsibly and do not pay excessive amounts to chief executives who do not deserve them. It is this Government who introduced those shareholder votes—they did not exist under previous Labour Governments—and I am glad that shareholders are using the opportunity we have given them. I do not think, if this is what the hon. Gentleman is hinting at, that we should be putting trade unions on company boards, but I do agree that we should make sure that shareholders use all the tools available to them.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Mr Osborne
First, we are now in conversation with Swansea about what we can do for the city deal. We are of course acutely aware that we need to help the steelworkers in Port Talbot. We are working to achieve a sale of the site, but we are also helping those who have already been made redundant. We are also looking very closely at the tidal bay lagoon scheme and at whether we can make that fly as well.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The analysis by the House of Commons Library is fundamentally flawed. First, it assumes that every pound of Government borrowing benefits people. It also does not highlight the fact that it is higher rate taxpaying women such as me, whose child benefit has been ended, who form the largest part of that group. Is the hon. Lady saying that her party wants to reinstate child benefit for higher rate taxpayers?
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Mr Osborne
Small business is absolutely fundamental to the economy and to job creation. That is why we had such a big package in the Budget to help ease the burden of business rates and why we reduced corporation tax, which is paid by small companies that are in profit. We have also increased the annual investment allowance so that small businesses can invest in the future. To help them with the burden of the national living wage we have increased the employment allowance so that they can employ four people on the national living wage and pay no national insurance at all.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
This Government are bringing in a register so that we will know the beneficial ownership of people or structures holding property in this country. We have not had that before, and we are making progress on it.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Mr Osborne
The Office for Budget Responsibility assesses and puts on the scorecard the estimated revenue that we will raise from tax avoidance, but it will be around an extra £1 billion a year just from the measures in the Budget. In last year’s Budget after the election, we had measures to raise £5 billion from clamping down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. The fight continues.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
As we covered earlier, the tariff system in place to encourage renewable energy has to deliver a balanced portfolio of energy, and it does so. Of course, we encourage energy firms always to pass price cuts that they benefit from on to their customers.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Mr Osborne
I join my hon. Friend, who is such an excellent voice for Havant in this Parliament, in congratulating the small businesses in the Havant constituency. They are thriving, and we are helping them with major improvements to roads and infrastructure in the area.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mr Gauke
Let me be absolutely clear with the House that we are not talking about quarterly tax returns. This is not about having to do a full tax return but about reporting; indeed, the purpose of the changes is ultimately to reduce the burden on businesses. It will start to be introduced in 2018. I hope that we will set out further information about the plans in the coming weeks. The intention is to ensure that we reduce the tax gap and, ultimately, help businesses to comply with the tax system.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary for their good humour in their dealings with me over the past few days. This afternoon I will be moving new clause 9 to the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill. Are the Government now minded to accept new clause 9?
Mr Osborne
It is quite right that we take action against money laundering. That cannot only be done in this country—it needs to be done internationally. We should focus our effort, our resources and the force of the law where the risks are greatest. Like other Members of Parliament, I have been concerned that banks are at risk of going too far and being disproportionate when applying their rules to politically exposed persons in Britain, and their families in particular. I have written to the chief executives of the individual banks. My hon. Friend has worked with us on this issue and has tabled his new clause. We are happy to accept it because we are all trying to achieve the same goal.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Public Accounts Committee report issued last week highlighted the £16 billion of the tax gap that is tax fraud. The money brought into the Treasury for that has stayed pretty static, at 3% of total tax liability. Does the Chancellor think that there is more to be done, and does the fact that the number of the wealthiest individuals being investigated will increase from 35 to 100 by 2020 not demonstrate that he has missed an opportunity?
Mr Gauke
We are taking strong action on tax evasion and significantly increasing the number of criminal investigations—I understand that around 90 investigations into offshore tax evasion are currently ongoing. We announced in the Budget last summer an additional £800 million for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to support its activities, and through the common reporting standard—and ultimately through registers of beneficial interest—we are now getting access to much more information so that we can take on offshore tax evaders.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Quite a lot of people whom I would have called have toddled out of the Chamber. There seems to be a bit of a lack of stamina—very unfortunate—although not from Lucy Frazer.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome the fairer funding consultation that has just closed. When taking into account figures for growth in pupil numbers, will the Minister consider the actual numbers for the new school year, rather than the previous one, to ensure that we have a truly fairer funding formula?
Damian Hinds
The national funding formula will address historical unfairness. As now, school budgets will be set on the basis of the pupil census in the October prior to the start of the funding year, giving schools the certainty they need. The Department’s consultation also proposes to include a new factor to recognise in-year growth, targeting funding to schools with significant increases in pupil numbers.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Nobody has ever accused me of a lack of stamina, Mr Speaker. Am I right and accurate in my assessment that LIBOR funds can be used only for charitable purposes and will not go to a Department?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
The question is, I hope, about Air Ambulance Northern Ireland, and I confirm that we are working with the charity and the Northern Ireland Executive on how those funds are delivered. They will go to the air ambulance charity, which I know will be broadly welcomed across all communities in Northern Ireland.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
In his document published yesterday, the Chancellor posed the question:
“Is our national security best served by retreating from the world?”
I hope that he is not foolish enough to suggest that those of us who wish the United Kingdom to leave the European Union want to retreat from the world, because the truth is far from that. We want the United Kingdom to break free from the sclerotic shackles of the EU and its superstate, and embrace the exciting world out there that befits the world’s fifth largest economy, a nuclear power, and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Mr Osborne
Of course I respect my hon. Friend’s views. We are having a referendum, and his vote and my vote count equally. I would make the point that our membership of the European Union enhances our national security—that point was also raised by the Secretary-General of NATO last week. Not one of this country’s allies or friends abroad are recommending that we leave the EU.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The number of people sleeping rough on our streets has doubled since 2010 and increased by 30% in the past year alone, which is a shocking indictment of Government policy and society as a whole. Will the Chancellor step in and intervene in the shambles that is the Housing and Planning Bill, and ensure that support for homeless people such as hostels and specialist accommodation is protected?
Mr Osborne
In the Budget we provided more than £100 million extra to help with the problem of homelessness and the particular problem of rough sleeping. We have provided money for second-stage accommodation for people as they leave hostels, to ensure that they have secure accommodation to go to. I am always happy to listen to further representations or ideas from the hon. Gentleman or any other Member.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Treasury cannot even get its forecast for growth and the deficit correct for next year. Does the Chancellor realise that instructing his officials to produce a speculative report based on thoroughly tendentious figures about what might or might not happen in the event of Brexit simply belittles the reputation of the Treasury for economic competence and forecasting? Instead of relying on fear, why does he not give us his vision, compared with our vision of a free people in a free Parliament, controlling our own borders and leading the world towards free trade?
Mr Osborne
Our positive vision is that by being part of a reformed EU we can raise living standards, create more jobs and make sure that consumers have access to lower prices. We have set out in the Treasury analysis a range of possibilities for the alternatives that might happen if Britain leaves the European Union. All of them would make Britain permanently poorer, but if my hon. Friend and the leave campaign want to produce their own plan and their own analysis, then be my guest.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last week, the Financial Secretary confirmed to me that details obtained from Crown dependencies and overseas territories and shared with the UK would not be passed on to other tax jurisdictions. If that remains the case, there is a real chance that the UK would be complicit in tax evasion. Will the Chancellor urgently review the situation to ensure that tax is paid where it is due?
Mr Gauke
It is the case that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are, at our prompting, ensuring that they have got registers of beneficial interests. It is also the case that the UK is co-operating, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear, with other jurisdictions. I hope we move to a position whereby public registers are the norm, but even before we get to that point, clearly we will look at the opportunities for the information on the central registers to be shared among co-operative economies and jurisdictions.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I remember the good old days when the Chancellor regarded Treasury predictions as so discredited that he established the Office for Budget Responsibility instead. I cannot think what could have changed. The GDP projections in his dodgy dossier are predicated on breaking our manifesto commitment on immigration, while the cost implications of his new policy of mass migration for school places, housing, health and transport are not made explicit in the document. Why is that?
Mr Osborne
We are having a referendum, and people are going to take different views on the prospects of the United Kingdom as we go forward, but the public want facts and information. We have set out in the analysis produced by the Treasury what we think the likely impacts on the economy will be, and this analysis has now been supported by the London School of Economics. It gives out a similar message to that provided by the Bank of England on the economic shock that would come if we leave. Then there are bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and others saying a similar thing. The weight of evidence and the weight of opinion is clear: there would be an economic price if we left the EU. Some regard that as a price worth paying, which is a perfectly respectable argument, but it is not one that I agree with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must now move on to the statement.
Petition
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I would like to present a petition signed by the 4,962 people who have joined me in our campaign against building on green-belt land between Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay.
The petition reads:
The petition of residents of Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay in the South Staffordshire constituency, and others,
Declares that the current proposals to build 136 houses on Landywood Lane, Great Wyrley will lead to the erosion of the distinct identity of our individual villages and could cause substantial environmental damage and further notes that residents have already successfully fought these proposals at local council level in 2013.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage South Staffordshire District Council to reject these proposals, and if the proposals go to the Planning Inspectorate, to also encourage them to reject the proposals so that the green belt can be conserved for future generations.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001684]
Libya
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
With permission, I shall update the House on the current situation in Libya and on what the Government are doing to support the new Libyan Government of national accord.
Yesterday, I visited Tripoli; it was the first time that a British Foreign Secretary had done so since 2011. The fact that the visit was able to take place is a positive sign of the progress made in recent weeks, including in the security situation in and around the capital. During my visit, I met Prime Minister Sarraj and members of the Presidency Council in the naval base that has been the headquarters of the Government of national accord since they relocated to Tripoli on 30 March. I welcomed their commitment to representing all the Libyan people and the progress they have made in establishing the GNA as a Government of the whole of Libya.
I underlined to Prime Minister Sarraj the UK’s support for the GNA as the only legitimate Government of Libya. They have the endorsement of the Libyan political dialogue and the majority of members of the House of Representatives. I believe the Libyan people want them to succeed. We look forward to the House of Representatives completing its formal vote of endorsement in line with its obligations under the Libyan political agreement.
I was encouraged to hear from Prime Minister Sarraj and his Ministers about the steps they are taking to assume control of Government Ministries in Tripoli. After five years of conflict following the overthrow of Gaddafi, the Libyan people are weary of fighting and eager for peace. They want a Government who will start to address the many challenges Libya faces. It is important that the international community works in partnership with the GNA as they continue to consolidate their position and take forward their work to meet the needs of Libyan citizens across the country.
In my meetings, I emphasised the need to keep up momentum on the political process and to deliver practical progress on the ground. I was encouraged to hear that a clear plan was being developed to address some of the immediate challenges: delivering security, tackling Daesh, restoring basic public services, countering people-trafficking, restarting oil production, and getting the economy back on track.
We agreed that delivering security was fundamental to improving the day-to-day lives of the Libyan people and creating an environment for economic reactivation. The security agenda must, of course, be owned and led by the GNA, but the UK, along with other European nations, stands ready to respond to requests from the Libyan Government for assistance in training the Libyan armed forces in order to improve their effectiveness in providing security and in the fight against Daesh. Prime Minister Sarraj and I agreed that we should continue to work closely to establish what those training and technical support requirements were, and what role, if any, the international community could play in helping to meet them.
A number of Members have speculated in recent days that the Government might be on the cusp of committing British troops to Libya in a combat, or combat support, role. I am pleased to have the opportunity to clarify the situation. I am clear about the fact that there is no appetite in Libya for foreign combat troops on the ground. We do not anticipate any requests from the GNA for ground combat forces to take on Daesh or any other armed groups, and we have no plans to deploy troops in such a role. I will, of course, keep the House informed of any plans that we develop in the future in response to requests from the Libyan Government, but the type of mission that we currently envisage would be focused on providing training and technical support, away from any front-line operations.
The Libyan economy is suffering from the effects of years of conflict and the impact of low oil prices. It is clear that the Presidency Council is focused on the immediate need to alleviate the pressures on ordinary Libyans, including those arising from the current squeeze on liquidity in the banking system, the shortfall in power generation and the shortage of basic commodities, as well as the slightly longer-term challenge of ensuring the effective functioning of the key state financial institutions—the Central Bank of Libya, the National Oil Corporation and the Libyan Investment Authority—and the challenge of rebuilding oil production and export capacity. As I said to Prime Minister Sarraj, the UK stands ready to provide whatever technical assistance it can with those issues, in all of which British companies have relevant experience and expertise to share.
As for the migration threat, there is clearly an urgent need to tackle the challenges arising from irregular migration and the organised criminal and terrorist networks that facilitate so much of it. In my discussions, I highlighted our desire to work in close partnership with the GNA to make progress on that issue, including progress in tackling the people-smugglers and traffickers. As part of that initiative, we should look at creating a package of support that could include extending the EU’s naval Operation Sophia and building the capacity of the Libyan coastguard to support, and eventually take over, the operation, but clearly such a package would be implemented only at the invitation of the Libyan Government.
Yesterday I announced that Britain would allocate £10 million for technical support to the GNA in this financial year, to be delivered through the conflict, security and stability fund. The package will support the strengthening of political participation, economic development, and the delivery of capacity in security, justice and defence. We will work closely with the GNA to ensure that that support is channelled into the areas where it can have the greatest effect.
After years of conflict in Libya, the formation of the Government of national accord and their arrival in Tripoli have the potential to mark a real turning point in Libya’s fortunes. The challenges facing the GNA should not be underestimated, and delivering the security and economic development that will allow the Libyan people to realise their country’s huge potential will not be an easy task to fulfil, but the UK, together with many of our international partners, stands ready to assist. It is in all our interests that Prime Minister Sarraj and his Government are able to re-establish security, reactivate the economy, and defeat Daesh in Libya as quickly as possible. I commend this statement to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of his statement. The situation in Libya over the past five years has been bloody and dangerous, and it is important to recall that it was Colonel Gaddafi’s brutal and violent response to the protests that erupted early in 2011 that triggered a civil war and United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, which authorised a no-fly zone and action to protect civilians. This House voted to support that action, but since Gaddafi’s fall, Libya has become a land of rival governments awash with rival militias. There is also the growing presence of Daesh and insecurity. Questions have been raised about the focus of this Government, and indeed of the international community, on what followed.
I join the Foreign Secretary in praising the enormous efforts of Libyan politicians, of the United Nations and of Special Representative Martin Kobler to reconcile the competing institutions and encourage them to form a single Government of national unity. I also join him in supporting UN resolution 2259, which has recognised the progress that has been made and called on member states to provide support to the new Government as requested .
We on this side of the House welcome the establishment of the Libyan Government of national accord led by Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj. As the Foreign Secretary said, they face a formidable task in ensuring security, restoring public services, building up the economy and tackling the threat from Daesh, but does he agree that their ability to do so will be determined by the extent to which they can gain support and consent right across Libya as they face the task of re-establishing governance in all parts of the country? Will he set out what assessment he has made of their capacity to do that, particularly in respect of the rival militias? Can he say anything more about the conversations he is having with our allies, including other EU Foreign Ministers, about what further steps could be taken to support stability and peace in Libya? Does he expect there to be a further UN Security Council resolution?
The United Kingdom Government indicated previously that they were not contemplating a British combat mission in Libya. Given the circumstances there, I think that that is the right approach to take, and I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for confirming again today that the Government have no plans to deploy British troops in such a role. Can he therefore give us a categorical assurance that, were that view to change, any proposal to deploy forces in a combat role would come before this House for a vote?
The Foreign Secretary has, however, spoken about the possibility of providing training for the Libyan military. Did Prime Minister Sarraj ask for specific types of technical or training support during their recent discussions? Does the Foreign Secretary envisage that any such deployment, should it happen, would take place in Libya, or might it involve providing training in a neighbouring country? Will he give an undertaking that he will come to the House before any such deployment takes place and seek its approval as appropriate?
On economic development, we support all efforts by the international community to assist the new Government in improving the lives of their citizens and getting the economy moving again, including through oil production. On migration, is further support being requested by the new Prime Minister, or is that being considered through the EU naval operation in the Mediterranean, Operation Sophia, to enhance Libya’s ability to disrupt criminal human smuggling and people trafficking? The people of Libya have suffered a great deal in recent years, and this moment is enormously important for their future. It is the responsibility of the world community to do all that it can to help the new Government to succeed.
Mr Hammond
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Let me join in his praise of UN Special Representative Martin Kobler—it was remiss of me not to give that praise myself—who is an absolute dynamo. Since he was appointed, he has literally been shuttling between the parties, groups and power brokers in Libya. It is very much due to his energy and effort that we have got where we are today.
There is a Government of national unity, but we should be clear about Libya’s historical context: it is a country that has traditionally had a high degree of devolution in its governance structure, which is often held together by a strong man at the centre. We now need to find a new model, under which the Government of national accord will be a national umbrella organisation, but Prime Minister Sarraj has made it clear that that will work only if municipalities are empowered and prepared to take on a significant degree of devolution. A devolved model is the only model that will work.
I also need to make it clear that the Libyan Government are in a very early stage of operation. At the moment, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are sitting in a naval base, physically separated from the civil servants who could support them. Yesterday, they retook operational control of three Ministries, which is a good step forward, but it will only be as they are able to re-enter the Ministries and regain working contact with civil servants that they can start to do some of the detailed work. That situation underpins and shapes my answers to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, because he is absolutely right that the GNA can succeed only with the support and consent of the various factions in Libya.
Let me say one other thing by way of scene-setting. When I went to Tripoli yesterday, I was expecting to find the Government incarcerated in a heavily fortified military base, defending against all comers, but that is not the situation. The base is relatively lightly defended, and it was clear that the Prime Minister’s ability to operate there is based on the consent and acquiescence of the militias operating in that part of the capital. He is acutely conscious of the need to build a bottom-up consensus around his activities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the European Union. I returned from Tripoli to Luxembourg last night, where there was a discussion at 28, including Defence Minister colleagues, about future support to Libya, looking at the possibility of extending Operation Sophia in a counter-migration role. No decisions were taken, but the matter is clearly high on the European Union’s agenda. The key will be to develop a package that also addresses Libyan top priorities. The Libyans are focused on migration, but it is in all honesty not their top priority. We have to create an environment in which delivering on Europe’s top priorities also addresses those of the Libyan people.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a UN Security Council resolution. I have not heard anyone suggest that there is an immediate need for a further resolution. The next moves at the UN will be the granting of some exemptions to the arms embargo, and possibly the unfreezing of some assets to allow the Government to function properly.
The House would of course be consulted were the UK Government to decide at any point that they wanted to insert ground forces, or any forces, in Libya in a combat role. We do not envisage that happening in the current circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in which a training deployment is contemplated, and asked me whether we would seek the House’s approval for a training deployment. I should be clear that it is a question not of approval, but of consulting the House and allowing it to express an opinion through a vote, and the history of the past three years shows that the Government will take great notice of that. However, that would not be the case in the event of a training deployment. We have training deployments around the world. In fact, my Ministry of Defence colleagues informed me just before I came to the House that we currently have 16 permanent training deployments. It is not appropriate for the House to be consulted on such a deployment as if it were a combat deployment.
Did the Libyan Prime Minister ask for training support? Not explicitly, but he did indicate that the Libyan Government may well ask the international community for some form of support as they develop their plans. I gained the personal impression that his instinct is very much at the lighter end of the scale. He clearly does not want to be seen to be dependent on foreign support and wants to do as much as possible internally, using Libyan capabilities. Of course, if there is any question of training, we would want to look at the options for training outside Libya, as well as the permissibility of training inside Libya.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and last night’s European Council conclusions on Libya. The sanctioning of the Speaker of the House of Representatives is welcome, as he has been a particular obstacle to the formation of the GNA. Also welcome is the commitment that the EU—and, I therefore assume, the British—contribution will be coherent and co-ordinated with other international support under the overall co-ordination of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya. A coherent British contribution will be easier with the consent and understanding of this House. It might need to include, for example, airstrikes on Daesh targets in addition to the training mission to which he alludes.
I counsel the Foreign Secretary that he is dancing on pretty thin ice when it comes to differentiating between a training mission in a combat zone and other missions, and when he talks about not seeking to carry this House’s approval. I notice the language he has used in talking about being away from the frontline of operations. I wonder whether he can say anything more about that. I urge him to continue to try to carry this House with him.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right that any kind of international support will be more effective if it is properly co-ordinated. The work of the European Union, the Libya international assistance mission—LIAM—and the UNSMIL planning cell, which is already in operation, should be and will be co-ordinated.
Let me be clear that any proposal to carry out airstrikes in support of a counter-Daesh operation absolutely would trigger the convention that the Government consult the House and allow a vote, through which the House could express its view on the proposed intervention.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, which he has expressed several times both in the House and in various newspapers, that the lines between what is a combat mission and what is a training mission could be blurred in situations such as Libya’s, but we are clear that we can make that distinction. I draw his attention to Afghanistan, which is a kinetic theatre if ever there was one, yet our training mission has been successfully conducted there for the past 15 months with great effect. In Iraq, we carry out training activities in an active war zone. There is a big difference between training and advising troops and engaging in combat activities. The Government are extremely mindful of that distinction and of the obligations that they have entered into in respect of consulting the House.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I also praise the work of Martin Kobler and of the British ambassador to Libya, whom I met in Tunis and who has been making the best of a very difficult job. Libya has been an unmitigated disaster for this Government. We even had a sitting US President criticise a sitting UK Prime Minister. A UN official described the UK’s humanitarian efforts as
“paltry bone-throwing from a European country whose bombers reaped so much destruction”.
We do not have a good record on Libya.
Following the questions of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who raised a good point as usual, will the Foreign Secretary tell us how much of the mission he envisages taking place on Libyan soil? As for what he calls a training mission, will any deployment of UK troops on Libyan soil be brought to this House for consideration? Given that he can only have meetings in the naval base, how does he envisage a training mission in Libya taking place at the moment? Finally, does he commend the US President’s candour in saying that Libya was his worst mistake, and what does he think has been the Prime Minister’s worst foreign policy mistake?
Mr Hammond
It is very easy to sit on the Opposition Benches hurling stones, but I am afraid that the world is not a neat and tidy place, and we have to deal with the situations that present themselves. The hon. Gentleman talks about the humanitarian work, but I remind him that, when we intervened in Libya in 2011, it was to prevent an imminent genocide in Benghazi and that that successful intervention saved countless thousands of lives. Libya is a rich country, and we should not forget that—$70-odd billion-worth of Libyan assets outside the country are currently frozen by a UN Security Council resolution. This is about getting the Government in place and then releasing those assets so that the Government can function. Libya is not a country that needs humanitarian assistance in the conventional sense. It needs technical support with good governance, and help to get into a position where we can release its assets to it to enable it to function.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the British ambassador. I join him in paying tribute to the work of our ambassador, who is currently based in Tunis. He came with me yesterday to Tripoli and it is his fervent desire, as it is mine and Prime Minister Sarraj’s, to reopen the British embassy in Tripoli as soon as we are able to do so. Unfortunately, the location of our current buildings in Tripoli is in a rather less secure part of town, so I cannot promise that that will be imminent, but we will keep the matter under constant review and do it as soon as we can.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether any training mission to Libya would take place on Libyan soil, and I have to say to him, yet again, that there is no training mission, there is no putative training mission and there has been no request for a training mission. I speak as a former Defence Secretary when I say that, if there is a request for such a mission, the military will clearly want to ensure that it is undertaken with the minimum risk possible to UK personnel. Therefore, their first preference would be to do it here, their next preference would be to do it somewhere in the region and their third preference would be to do it in Libya, if it is safe to do so. I assure him that we will spare no effort in trying to ensure that any support we do give to the Libyans will be delivered in a way that represents the least possible risk to the British forces delivering it.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There can be no doubt that our intervention in Libya in 2011 has, as some in this House have suggested, been an unmitigated disaster resulting in many thousands of casualties, the establishment of Daesh and a vicious civil war. Looking forward, given that this country is at a tipping point of its involvement with Libya, given developments on the ground, what lessons can we learn?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend, as so often, asserts as fact that there “can be no doubt” on something that is deeply contentious, and I very much take issue with him. The situation in Libya is very difficult and the situation post-2011 was very messy, but countries in many parts of the world do not function as Britain or Switzerland do, and we have to deal with the real situation on the ground. We should look to the future. We should be positive about this potentially affluent country regaining stability and being able, once again, to function as an effective state, allowing the Libyan people to get on with their business. There is a weariness after five years and a growing sense that, if a properly devolved form of government can be established that co-opts the various militias and regional groupings, this can work.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the size of Daesh in Libya and its capability, and does he have any idea what its plan is? Is it going to sit tight or move outwards to try to expand into the rest of Libya?
Mr Hammond
Speaking from memory, I think that our current assessment—the last assessment I have seen—is that there are probably up to about 3,000 Daesh fighters in Libya, of whom a significant number would be foreign fighters. There is a generally accepted view that what Daesh is doing in Libya at the moment is very much a holding operation, seeking to hold an area of ground, possibly as a bolthole if it finds that its freedom of manoeuvre and freedom to operate is coming under intolerable pressure in Syria. There are many pointers to the fact that now is the time to move against Daesh in Libya, while its presence is still relatively thin on the ground and while its operation is very much in a holding phase.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
One measure of success of the new Libyan Government will be the creation of a functioning economy and, as a step towards that, a functioning central bank. Can Britain play any role in helping them achieve that?
Mr Hammond
Yes, and yesterday I offered Prime Minister Sarraj technical support in relation to the central bank, the national oil company and the Libyan Investment Authority. It is a tribute to Libyan resilience and ingenuity that international partners recognise the figures who have continued to run those institutions throughout this period of chaos over the past few years as technically competent and well motivated—they have been doing a good job. Prime Minister Sarraj has now brought the competing appointees—the eastern and the western chairmen of each of those institutions—together to work together and to seek to forge consensus on how the institutions can go forward as truly national institutions on a collaborative basis.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I was interested in what the Foreign Secretary had to say about the current state of Daesh, and how it needs to be contained now and not allowed to spread further. Are we talking to other allies, such as Jordan, about working on training deployments and training up troops? If we do not contain Daesh now in north Africa, it will simply be an expanding problem.
Mr Hammond
Yes, we are talking to other partners, such as Jordan, about how we can provide support to the Libyan Government. Of course other actors are acting independently; Egypt has a recognised vital interest, because of its long land border with Libya, and some of the problems Egypt has been facing in the Western desert are directly attributable to penetration from Libya. The House will recall the continuing issue of General Haftar, the commander of the Libyan national army. He is an important figure who commands significant military forces in the east but is unacceptable as a command figure to many who are supporting the new Government. That is one of the big challenges Prime Minister Sarraj is facing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and, in particular, the reassurances it contains about the use of British troops exclusively in training and mentoring, if that becomes necessary. Does he recall the disaster that was the training of Libyans in the UK? Will he assure the House that those mistakes have been noted and lessons have been learnt, and that, if he does intend to train Libyans in the UK, as his statement suggested, we will not make those mistakes again?
Mr Hammond
Yes, and we are not the only ones who had a poor experience with seeking to train Libyans outside Libya—the Italians and Bulgarians had similar experiences. Prime Minister Sarraj referred to that yesterday and is acutely conscious of what was not a very glorious episode in Libyan history. The situation on the ground has changed, but clearly we would look for the most effective location for any training. It is probably the case that that would not be in the UK, for climatic reasons as much as for anything else; we need to train people in an environment as close as possible to the one in which they will be operating. As I have said, there has been no request and there is as yet no plan, so I am afraid I cannot impart to the House any more information.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the progress that has been made but say that I am disappointed that more has not been offered to deal with the migration crisis? There has been an 80% increase in the number of crossings between Libya and Italy. This time last year, half a million people were waiting in Libya to get to Italy. As we know, the European Union is offering Turkey €3 billion to deal with the migration crisis and offering Libya nothing. What we need is permission to enter Libyan coastal waters in order to stop the people traffickers. Did the Foreign Secretary ask for that permission? When can we have that permission, so that we can deal robustly with people trafficking?
Mr Hammond
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose question, I am sure, is well motivated, that he is approaching this in exactly the wrong way? We are not likely to get the buy-in we need if we, as a bunch of Europeans, go to Libya and say, “Here’s our priority agenda. What are you going to do about delivering it?” What we must do, and what I suggested to my European colleagues last night that we should do, is package the objectives that we want to achieve with the objectives that are priorities for the Libyans. That is the only way that Prime Minister Sarraj will be able to sell to the Libyan people a package that in any way questions Libya’s territorial sovereignty and that allows foreigners to operate in Libya’s waters. We must be acutely sensitive to the concerns in Libya about foreigners. I am in a rather strange position in that, on the one hand, I have one bunch of people in this House who are primarily concerned to ensure that we do not have any foreigners going into Libya, and, on the other, the right hon. Gentleman who is desperately keen to get some foreign naval forces into its territorial waters. The truth is that we must balance this very carefully and get a package that works for the Libyans as well as for the European agenda.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary speak in grandiloquent terms of Prime Minister Sarraj, a Government of national accord and even a House of Representatives. Any member of the British public watching “News at Ten” last night would have seen our Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of national accord holed up in a naval base, unable to leave because they control none of the country. Apparently, they now control three ministerial buildings in a country the size of western Europe. Can we have a reality check, please? Can the Government at last realise that their bid to undermine authoritarian leaders such as Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, who had a deal with the Italian Government to return migrants, and now Assad has just involved the region in death and destruction? Can we just learn the lessons, try and find a strongman, and do what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee wants—and what we all want—and find a way of creating some kind of safe haven for migrants to be returned to?
Mr Hammond
The Chinese have a saying that a journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. I urge my hon. Friend to view this process in that context. Self-evidently, I did manage to get out of the naval base in Tripoli yesterday and return to these shores.
My hon. Friend is being a little harsh on Prime Minister Sarraj and what he has achieved. There is a process going on whereby militias—who, only a couple of weeks ago, were threatening to shoot down any aircraft seeking to enter the airport in Tripoli bringing his Government back into the city—are now patrolling the streets outside that naval base and were present on the ground when I landed in Tripoli yesterday. They have recognised and given tentative consent to this Government process to go forward. Its success will depend on Prime Minister Sarraj making the right judgments and being patient enough to bring all the relevant parties with him as he develops a plan for his Government.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for an advance copy of his statement and congratulate him on his recent visit. Given the failure of the past two Labour Administrations to secure adequate compensation for victims of Libya-supplied Semtex in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland—at the same time America was able to get that compensation—will he now indicate that he will redeem this situation and place on the agenda of the Government of national accord and the Prime Minister that compensation will be a key issue that this Government will pursue with the new Administration?
Mr Hammond
I can confirm that it is already on the agenda. Prime Minister Sarraj is aware of our focus on this issue, but it is a question of timing. At the moment, the Government have not got access to the great majority of their ministries and civil servants. They do not have access to their assets, so it would be premature to make that the No.1 issue. However, this Government are focused on the need to raise and to resolve these issues at the right point in this progression, and Prime Minister Sarraj has already been notified that we will do so.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
We have seen a very thoughtful exchange between the Foreign Secretary and his shadow. Although there are flickers of optimism, the atmosphere remains very sombre, not least because, as other Members have pointed out, we have responsibility to a large extent for what has happened in Libya over the past five years. I say to my right hon. Friend, who has dealt with this whole issue of technical and other expertise very skilfully, that the British public would be very reluctant if there were any sense that our expertise was going into helping one side rather than another in what could still be a very bloody civil war. Although I appreciate that these are difficult things and that there are often no good guys on either side, there must be an appreciation that that would be something that would cause angst to the public if we are to have a functioning Libya in the years ahead.
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. If only it were so simple as there being two sides; there are about 120 sides as far as I can make out. He is absolutely right. Of course we must ensure that our support is targeted at the Government of national accord. We have to look for bright spots. One of the positive things that I take from the situation in Libya is that, by and large, the different factions are not motivated by ideology, particularly by extreme religious ideology, as they are in some of the other conflict zones. A lot of this is to do with traditional money and power interests. It is about people wanting to protect their local fiefdoms and making sure that they and their communities get their share of the wealth of the state. Prime Minister Sarraj is going about this in exactly the right way. He is going with the grain of Libyan society, recognising that reality and trying to build a consensus mechanism around it.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer that our key partners, particularly in Europe, have a coherent strategy on good governance and nation building as well as on the vital issues of migration and counter-terrorism? What reassurances did he get this week from the Government of national accord that they have a plan to broaden out what is essentially a UN-backed political deal, so it is not beholden, and therefore vulnerable, to the many rival regional factions?
Mr Hammond
The most effective step to broaden out the legitimacy of the Government will be the vote in the House of Representatives on the endorsement of the Government. The HOR is committed by the Libyan political agreement to do that, and we hope that it will happen very soon. On the question of our European partners, it is inevitably true that, for 26 of the other 27 EU states, excluding Ireland, migration is at the top of the agenda. It falls to me to urge them, as I urged the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, to accept that, if we want to make progress on the matter, we must try to set this in a context that makes sense not just to us, but to the Libyans.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I welcome the progress the Foreign Secretary has outlined and appreciate his point about the practical realities on the ground. With that in mind, the long-term prospects for Libya are clearly linked to its economic prospects, which are in turn largely linked to the prospects of its oil industry. What steps, at this early stage, are UK Trade & Investment and the British Government taking to ensure that UK industry can play its full part in bringing the Libyan oil industry back on to the global market?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Libya has Africa’s largest oil and gas reserves and a population of only 6 million, so, clearly, it is, in per capita terms, a potentially wealthy country. I am glad to report that British companies have traditionally played an important role in Libya’s oil and gas industry, and Prime Minister Sarraj specifically made the point yesterday that BP would be very welcome back in the country. I shall pass that on to BP’s management.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary has said that there is no appetite in Libya for foreign combat troops on the ground. Is there any appetite in the Libyan political system for foreign air forces or foreign naval forces operating in Libyan territorial waters?
Mr Hammond
On the latter point, we have already seen a clear wariness of any suggestion of foreign naval forces operating in Libyan territorial waters, even if the focus is counter-migration rather than counter-Daesh. I cannot rule out—it would be wrong to do so—any future requests for air or naval support for a counter-Daesh operation. I can envisage Prime Minister Sarraj, if his Government are successful, being able to muster enough ground forces to mount an attack on the Daesh stronghold around Sirte which, of course, is a coastal port. It is certainly the case that the Libyans will not be able to develop naval or air assets in any reasonable period of time to support such an operation, and it is quite possible that, from a military point of view, they would seek assistance from outside. Prime Minister Sarraj would have to balance that military imperative with the political issues that would arise if he were to request foreign assistance. There has been no such request and no discussion of such a request, but if it comes, we will consider it. If we think that the UK should participate in such action, we will come to the House and allow it to express an opinion through a vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A further 21 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I am naturally keen to accommodate all of them. Brevity will assist me in doing so.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I know that I might be a lone voice, but I urge him to guard against parliamentary approval for every military intervention we undertake, which is out of keeping with an enemy that moves fast and that we need to go up against. May I ask the Foreign Secretary about a distinct strategy specifically to target Daesh, separate from but complementary to the wider diplomatic peace strategy? One can reinforce the other, but if we wait for the perfect political settlement before we start, we will be waiting forever.
Mr Hammond
I will treat my hon. Friend’s warning on the use of war powers with the importance it deserves. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary published a written statement yesterday setting out the Government’s position. We must maintain the operational flexibility we need while ensuring that the House of Commons has proper involvement in any proposed combat deployment.
I am sorry; what else did my hon. Friend ask me?
Mr Hammond
Before the formation of the Government of national accord, there was discussion among the international community about how we would deal with Daesh if there was no solution on the ground in Libya. We concluded that it would be pretty much impossible for us to do so. I am very pleased that we now have a Government formed in Libya that we can support to do that job.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The UK’s past intervention in Libya has been an unmitigated disaster. The mess we have left behind has caused enormous reputational damage to the United Kingdom and that cannot happen again. Given that we are offering training and technical support to armed forces away from the front line, will the Secretary of State tell me what armed forces we will be training and supporting, given that Libya has myriad competing militias and groups?
Mr Hammond
Another assertion. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was not the view of the people I met yesterday that the intervention in 2011 was an unmitigated disaster. It has rid the country of Gaddafi and averted a genocide. He talks in the present tense about training support, and I say yet again that we are delivering no training support in Libya at present. If any request from the Libyan Government for training support were made, it would be for militia groups that had signed up to the Government of national accord’s security plan and were being incorporated into the Libyan security forces that will be formed from them.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I was struck by the Foreign Secretary’s correct comments that we need to continue to move against Daesh in Libya. What discussions have been held with Gulf state nations about helping that effort?
Mr Hammond
We do, of course, have continuing discussions with all Gulf states. It is a well-known fact that both Qatar and the UAE have in the past been active in Libya, but it is also fair to say that all Gulf states have been somewhat distracted by the war in Yemen and have not, perhaps, played as active a role recently as they did earlier in the conflict.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the turmoil in Libya in the five years and one month since the House of Commons authorised action, does the Secretary of State regret having the UK acquiesce to transferring a mission that was designed under the responsibility to protect to avoid a genocide to one focused on regime change?
Mr Hammond
This was a complicated situation on the ground and, having embarked on the mission to protect the population of Benghazi against genocide and having had to follow where that took us to protect the population from the retribution that the regime was seeking to vent on it, we did what we had to do. I think we should be proud of having rid Libya of the tyrant Gaddafi, who had effectively dismantled the structure of government in Libya. That is why Libya has had its problems of the past few years—there was no government structure in Libya.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Deploying British troops to Libya, even in a strictly non-combat role, would add significantly to the demands already placed on them. Can the Secretary of State provide any clarity about how many troops would be necessary and when we can expect to learn from the GNA whether British assistance is required?
Mr Hammond
I am afraid that I cannot, really. I can give a personal view: I would expect that we would be talking about a training mission of the sort of scale of those that we are carrying out in other countries around the world. I therefore would expect there to be between tens and hundreds of trainers, not thousands of trainers.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary says that we must tackle Daesh, but Prime Minister Sarraj only operates with the permission of the militia. Does not the Foreign Secretary think that in certain circumstances some of the militia are aligned with malevolent forces, particularly in other parts of the country, and is he not concerned that the militia are at the heart of the Government and of the future process of government? Where will that leave Libya in the future?
Mr Hammond
I think that there is a misunderstanding about what the militia are. After 2011, Libya fragmented. Every city, every town and every region had its armed forces—armed men who were protecting their communities. That does not make them bad people. They are not extreme Islamists in most cases; they are simply people who have formed home defence units, and they are the only force on the ground. It is not possible to talk about raising new Libyan armed forces that will then take on all the militias—that would be a completely unrealistic project. The only way forward is to co-opt militias into a nascent Libyan armed forces, backed by a political system that is highly devolved and that assures them of autonomy and fair shares of Libya’s wealth for the communities they seek to back.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) about Libyan-sponsored IRA murder, not only in Northern Ireland but in England, including in this city, while I understand the Foreign Secretary’s comments about timing, given that there is an emerging Government in Libya and that we will at some point be releasing between £7 billion and £8 billion of frozen assets from this country alone, will he and his ministerial team continue to do all they can to get compensation for people and their relatives who have suffered for far too long?
Mr Hammond
Yes, the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) extends, of course, to the WPC Yvonne Fletcher case.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Last week, on the Floor of the House, with a note of urgent caution, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) reminded us of how missions change and about the impact on our armed services, who might have to make decisions on the hoof. I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on that debate and the participation in it.
We are consistently told in this Parliament that NATO is our primary model of defence, yet all we heard about in the statement was the European Union and Europe’s role. I am grateful for the European Union naval deployment and other initiatives by our European partners, who are doing a great job, but if the Libyan Government of national accord makes a request, what role will NATO play in that, given the myriad other organisations and nations involved, from Jordan to Hungary?
Mr Speaker
May I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman submits his academic treatise to his PhD adviser?
Mr Hammond
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was all in favour of the EU doing more. We are very clear. NATO is our principal war-fighting alliance, but we are not talking about war fighting here. We are talking about stabilisation, training and rebuilding, and the European Union and bilateral arrangements delivered by other European countries are absolutely the right way to go about achieving that. It is not a role of NATO.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and the whole House will recognise that a peaceful, stable and prosperous Libya is in the interests of the region and of Europe. Can my right hon. Friend flesh out for the House the timetable envisioned for EU discussions to continue and conclude, working closely with the Libyan Government to ensure a positive and proactive response?
Mr Hammond
That is a good question, but the timetable will have to be determined by what is happening on the Libyan side. At the discussion last night, we were clear that we needed to work up a European Union package. There was mention of Turkey earlier, and the way in which the EU has dealt with Turkey on migration has not escaped the Libyans’ notice, so there will need to be a comprehensive proposal. As soon as it is appropriate to make the Libyan Government aware of what such a package might look like, the ball will then be in their court to decide whether they wish to request support.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
When does the Foreign Secretary expect to receive the invitation to provide the support that he mentions? Will he elaborate on the specific mutual objectives and especially the timescales involved? Clearly our troops cannot be involved in open-ended support.
Mr Hammond
There is a spectrum here. In respect of the hard training of troops at infantry level, I think that we are quite a long way from any request to do that, if such a request comes at all. With regard to structuring military command structures in a civilian-led Ministry of Defence, I think it is quite likely that we will be asked quite soon if we can give some advice about that, but we will probably give such advice from Whitehall.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
As part of my role in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I was in Algeria last week. The Algerian parliamentarians I met have much experience of bringing a country together after the dark decade, and they made it clear that they would like to help the Libyan Government through diplomacy in bringing together, as my right hon. Friend said, perhaps 120 different factions. I think the Algerians have a lot to offer and I know that my right hon. Friend has met the President. Will he ensure that offers of help through non-military intervention are taken as far as possible with the new Libyan Government?
Mr Hammond
I would be very pleased to hear that the Algerians wanted to provide assistance, based on their own experience of rebuilding a country after a bitter civil war, and I am sure the Libyans would be pleased to receive such an offer.
Mr Speaker
I trust that the Algerian parliamentarians felt suitably privileged to meet the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the £10 million for technical support that the Foreign Secretary referred to, in particular for security, justice and defence. Will he consider that those who have served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who have demonstrated substantial knowledge, experience and ability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia and Bosnia, should be part of the security training that will be offered?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. There has been an assumption across the House that any training that we give would have to be provided by UK military personnel. Some of what will be needed will be police training, and perhaps the PSNI in particular could make a contribution to that. It is also quite possible that some of the training—perhaps all training—will be delivered by contractors, and often ex-military personnel working for contractors, rather than by serving military personnel.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The main concern of my constituents in Kettering about Libya is that the country is the main and growing conduit for illegal immigration from safe and unsafe countries in Africa. If the Government of national accord in Libya are unwilling or unable to make this a national priority, and if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is unable or unwilling to press the case for how important that is for us, what is the EU plan to prevent this year from being one of a disastrous set of circumstances in which we are about to experience a mass wave of illegal immigration very dangerously across the Mediterranean towards Italy?
Mr Hammond
To reassure my hon. Friend, the Libyan Government do understand the importance of that issue. They understand the importance for Libya because having organised criminal traffic across its borders undermines Libya’s sovereignty. They also understand the importance of addressing the issue for Libya’s relations with the international community. The point that I was making is that we must put this agenda in the context of the many other immediate challenges facing the Libyan people.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s second question about what the EU is doing in the meantime, EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia—the European naval operation in the Mediterranean—is designed to intercept people seeking to migrate on an irregular basis into the European Union from Libya.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime estimated that the illegal migrant trade is worth $255 million to $323 million a year, so the £10 million is a hugely welcome contribution towards stopping that awful trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will also help to plug that gap in Libya’s economy so that its purpose will be positive?
Mr Hammond
As I have said before, Libya is potentially a rich country. It has significant oil and gas wealth and significant assets, so if the Government can get their assets unfrozen, they will not lack cash. The £10 million is a UK technical assistance fund. It will fund experts, the commissioning of studies and advice to the Libyan Government in the areas that I outlined.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the entire region of the Fezzan to the south of Wadi al Shatti is something of a black hole. We do not have a good idea of what is going on there, but we do know that instability and the ready availability of arms have created a threat to the whole of sub-Saharan and west Africa, not only from Daesh, but from Boko Haram, who have armed themselves from the Gaddafi arsenals. Can my right hon. Friend update the House about what the Government are doing to tackle that threat to sub-Saharan and west Africa from Libya?
Mr Hammond
The Libyan Government are acutely aware of the threat to their sovereignty from the porosity of Libya’s borders to the south and south-west. I am speculating, but that could be one of the areas where the international community is asked for technical support in the future. This is a very, very long border in an unpopulated area that is ideally suited to policing by technical means, rather than by border guards on the ground. My hon. and learned Friend will be reassured to know that Prime Minister Sarraj stated to me very clearly yesterday that although his Government are in Tripoli and the world is focused on Tripoli, he is acutely conscious of the fact that this must be a Government for the east and south of the country, as well as a Government for the west.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the question of where Libyan personnel might be trained in future? He will recall the unhappy saga in 2014 when some 2,000 Libyan personnel were trained at the Bassingbourn barracks in Cambridgeshire. That ended very badly, with a series of violent sexual assaults in my city of Cambridge when they were left out unsupervised. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure residents in Cambridge that there will be no further training of Libyan personnel in Cambridgeshire? Will he also update the House on attempts to get back the £15 million that is left owing from the Libyan authorities after that sad experience?
Mr Hammond
I was Defence Secretary at the time, so I well remember the plans for training at Bassingbourn. As the hon. Gentleman says, it did not end well, and the Libyans are acutely conscious of that. This would be a very different operation in very different circumstances. There are no plans yet, and there has been no request, so I am afraid that I cannot give the House any further information about what such a training programme might look like or where it would be conducted, but I can give him an assurance that the lessons of what happened at Bassingbourn have been taken on board by the Ministry of Defence and will be properly factored into any future plan.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If spending 13 times as much on bombing Libya as on reconstructing it is not one of the Prime Minister’s worst foreign policy decisions, I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could tell us what is. Of the £10 million announced today for the conflict security fund, how much will be counted as official development assistance, how much will be counted towards the NATO 2% target, and how much will be counted towards both?
Mr Hammond
I do not think that Libya qualifies for ODA because of its GDP per capita, but if I am wrong about that I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the situation in Benghazi in the past, but the situation there remains extremely volatile and serious. Reuters was reporting over the weekend of extensive fighting and suicide attacks carried out by Daesh affiliates. I wonder what discussions he has had about the situation in and around Benghazi and whether he expects any requests for support to deal with operations in that region of Libya.
Mr Hammond
We did discuss that issue, and we did so in the context of General Haftar and the Libyan national army, which is active in that area. This is one of the challenges that Prime Minister Sarraj faces: one of the most effective military units available is under the command of General Haftar, who is a bête noire for many of the people who support the Government. But at the moment the Government do not have an alternative, and the effectiveness of the petroleum guard force and of the LNA in stemming Daesh attacks is an important part of the Government’s arsenal of defences. In the medium term, however, they will have to get all those units under some form of effective central control.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We in Plaid Cymru agreed with the 2011 intervention to prevent an imminent large-scale murderous attack on civilians in Benghazi. Later on, in Benghazi itself, the Prime Minister said that we would
“stand with you as you build your democracy and build your country for the future.”
Will the Foreign Secretary guarantee that this time we will fulfil our promises?
Mr Hammond
That is exactly what we are doing. It has taken a regrettably long time to get from the end of the campaign in 2011 and the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi to the point where the Libyan people are now seriously starting to seek to rebuild their democracy and their economy, but they are now looking to do so and we will be there to support them.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The idea of Daesh being present in Libya is worrying enough in its own right, but the prospect of them moving their operational headquarters from Iraq and Syria to Libya should be deeply worrying for us all, especially the Secretary of State. What discussions has he had with his Libyan counterparts and with those countries neighbouring Libya on stemming the flow of Islamic militants into the country?
Mr Hammond
I have had discussions with the Libyans and with the Egyptians and Tunisians, who are very concerned about this. The problem is that the principal route of access into Libya for Daesh militants appears to be by sea, and the Libyans are struggling to control that route with their current resources.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
We know from experience elsewhere that in fledgling democracies and troubled states that are rife with armed groups, corruption and conflict often become drivers for each other. We also know that refuge routes are being sought through Libya. In that context, is the Foreign Secretary right to minimise the relevance of a humanitarian and civil contribution, at least in the medium term?
Mr Hammond
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Libya is not a poor country. There are tens of billions of dollars of Libyan assets owned by the Libyan people and available to the Libyan Government once the UN decides to unfreeze them, so I do not believe that Libya needs humanitarian support in the conventional sense. What it absolutely needs is technical support to build the governance structures that will allow the UN to release its own money to it.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Can the Foreign Secretary say something about the use of embedded troops in any future military operation? I appreciate that there is no immediate prospect of that—he has been very clear about that—but would the House be consulted on any British military personnel being embedded within the armed forces of other nations?
Mr Hammond
The statement that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary made yesterday clarified that point. Where troops or personnel are embedded in the military forces of other nations, they are treated as being part of those forces for operational purposes; they are not covered by the commitment we have made to come back to the House. It would be absurd if a British pilot embedded in the US navy, for example, maintaining our carrier base skills ahead of the commissioning of our own carriers in 2018, had to be the subject of a debate in the House of Commons because of some decision taken by the US Government.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
In answer to a question last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said that the Government would facilitate a visit of UK victims of terrorism that involved Semtex to Libya in the near future. Now that the Foreign Secretary has gone there, is there any timescale for when we can expect such a visit?
Mr Hammond
I do not think that the conditions would be right for such a visit right now, and I cannot see exactly what the point would be at this stage. Once the Government of national accord are established in their Ministries, with access to their records and their competent civil servants, and once our ambassador is back in Tripoli, I will certainly be prepared to see what we can do to facilitate such a visit.
Point of Order
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Treasury questions earlier today, a Minister, whether advertently or inadvertently, besmirched the work of the House of Commons Library. Given that the researchers in the Library are independent and impartial and their work is greatly valued by Members on both sides of the House, and given that, as servants of the House, they cannot come into the Chamber to defend their work, how can we put on the record that Members of Parliament of all political persuasions value and respect their work?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would not seek to comment on the merits or demerits of a particular report. Suffice it to say, however, that I think the House of Commons Library service is held in universal esteem. I have always had the highest regard for the professionalism, competence, intellect and analytical skill of those who work in the Library service. Indeed, when I was first elected I was told, before employing researchers, first to see and realise the benefits that the Library service can bring. I was told that 19 years ago. It was true then, and it is true now. I am sure that nobody would want to suggest otherwise.
Farm Produce (Labelling Requirements)
Tuesday 19th April 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Farm Produce (Labelling Requirements) Bill 2015-16 View all Farm Produce (Labelling Requirements) 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
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the labelling of farm produce sold in the UK to include country of origin and whether produced in accordance with designated animal welfare standards; and for connected purposes.
Today I am arguing for more transparency—farm-to-fork traceability—to enable the British consumer to make a more informed decision about what they are buying. Currently we have a confusing mixture of voluntary standards bolted on to EU legislation, with some products offering greater clarity of origin and production standards than others. It took the Europe-wide scandal of horsemeat finding its way into our food chain to jolt the European Commission into action. That scandal was a big wake-up call for the meat industry EU-wide.
The UK is already implementing new EU rules on country-of-origin labelling for unprocessed pork, lamb and poultry. I stress that that meat is unprocessed, because there is a whole other confusion surrounding imported meat that is processed into, for example, sausages in the UK and then labelled as a British product. However, that is a can of worms for another day.
Although there are now better rules on labelling and the traceability of meat products, the same is not true for milk and milk used in dairy products, and that must change. Our British dairy farmers are having a tough time of it, and milk prices are very low. With Britain operating under current EU rules, we cannot unilaterally bring in mandatory country-of-origin labelling. To do that, we would need to get agreement from the Commission, but so far the Government have not been able to convince the Commission to agree, which is regrettable.
Currently the Commission favours only a voluntary code on dairy products. A May 2015 EU report covering dairy indicated that it was felt that introducing such a measure would prove costly and bureaucratic. However, our own Farming Minister has said:
“I do not accept the Commission’s argument that it would be too complicated and too difficult to do this on dairy products. It might on some dairy products, but on butter, on cheese, on some of the staple dairy products you could deliver country-of-origin labelling relatively inexpensively…The commission is very resistant to going this way, so we are not going anywhere fast on this agenda”.
Dr Judith Bryans, chief executive of Dairy UK, has said:
“There is obvious consumer demand for clearer information on the country of origin of food products as illustrated by the existing rules for fresh meat within the Food Information to Consumers Regulation…A mandatory labelling system would help the UK dairy industry showcase its products and reassure consumers on their provenance.”
There we have it: clear mandatory labelling is what our Government want. It is in the interests of British farmers and the British consumer.
The Government have said there is great potential for significant long-term growth in the UK dairy sector, with the global market expected to grow at more than 2% a year for the next 10 years. Globally, in or out of the EU, our dairy farmers should therefore have a bright future.
In its farm gate prices report in March 2016, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said:
“It is unacceptable that consumers cannot buy British in confidence and could be misled as to country of origin when they are buying food from their supermarket. It is essential that labelling on produce is improved.”
I wholly agree.
For consumers who care deeply about animal welfare, we also need clearer labelling covering animal-rearing processes. Consumers do care about how animals in the food chain are cared for during their short lives. There are specific EU requirements on the keeping of calves, pigs, laying hens and broilers. The EU banned conventional cramped cages for laying hens in 2012, and it specifically phased out the use of individual stalls for pregnant sows in 2013. Those appallingly stressful stalls keep pregnant sows caged, usually on concrete, so they cannot move about. Such stalls cut farmers’ costs, but they were banned for cruelty reasons in the UK in 1999. They were specifically banned in the rest of the EU from the start of 2013.
Shockingly, more than two years on from these stalls being banned on cruelty grounds, six EU countries are still officially non-compliant with their own key welfare standards. Such wilful non-compliance cuts costs for the farmers involved, but it perpetuates misery for animals. The consumer absolutely has a right to know that a cheap cut of pork on a supermarket shelf has been produced in banned conditions.
Dr Joyce D’Silva, ambassador for the campaign group Compassion in World Farming, has said she believes the countries failing to comply were France, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Finland and Slovenia. She has said:
“It is appalling that the European Commission has failed to enforce this law…The whole point of an EU-wide ban is to ensure it is a more level playing field”—
a level playing field on the cost of pork production and on animal welfare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who co-sponsored the Bill with other hon. Members, and who is Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, accused the European Commission in October 2015 of “prevaricating” and of giving European farmers an “unfair advantage” by allowing them to flout an EU ban on sow stalls. That unfair advantage is bad for not only the pig but pig farmers, because it has led to 60% of our pork being imported, undercutting our farmers.
If the British consumer wants to be sure that the pork on their plate is cruelty-free, clearer mandatory labelling is the answer. Currently there is only one EU-wide system of compulsory labelling on animal welfare, and that is for table eggs. The EU has been slow in obliging other member states to adopt higher welfare standards. Perhaps that is why the EU strategy does not plan to extend welfare labelling beyond eggs. If it did, it would certainly shame some key EU countries over their unacceptable animal farming practices. The Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation has said,
“As demand for livestock products continues to surge, particularly in developing countries, the importance of ethically sourced food becomes more important than ever as more animals are farmed.”
This country already has a voluntary scheme that demonstrates clear labelling and animal welfare—the Red Tractor scheme. It demonstrates that food is high-quality British produce and that it has been farmed, processed and packed in the UK. It is the largest food-assurance scheme in Britain. It ensures that food is traceable and safe to eat and that it has been produced responsibly.
Our farmers are doing the right thing, and they deserve our support. It is not right or fair that other European countries can dodge important animal welfare issues, hide anonymously behind inadequate labelling and at the same time undercut our farming industry. If British consumers were made aware of the lower welfare standard operating in many European countries, I believe they would choose to buy British and buy compassionately.
By bringing in the Bill, we will know where our milk has come from and where an animal was reared. Importantly, we will also know how well it was treated in its life and, potentially, even how it was slaughtered. By championing a robust, sustainable, compassionate British farming industry, we are delivering jobs and prosperity and ensuring our own food security. I believe that that is what the British public want, and I would like our Government to bring in a Bill to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Anne Main, Martin Vickers, Andrew Percy, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, William Wragg, Mr David Nuttall, Stephen McPartland, Bill Wiggin, Neil Parish and Mr Nigel Evans present the Bill.
Mrs Anne Main accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 161).
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 19th April 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 View all Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 19 April 2016 - (19 Apr 2016)
15:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 237 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 12, after paragraph 2A(1)(b) insert—
“(1A) If, before the term of office has begun, the Treasury Committee reports to the House that the appointment should not be confirmed, the Treasury shall not continue with the appointment unless the House of Commons resolves that the appointment should be confirmed.”
Amendment (b) to new clause 12, at end insert—
“In Schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in paragraph 3(1), at the end insert “, except in the case of the chief executive of the FCA, who shall be appointed for a reappointable term of five years”.”
New clause 1—Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority—
‘(1) Schedule 1ZA of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 2(2) insert—
“(2A) The Treasury shall not appoint a chief executive without the consent of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.”
(3) After paragraph 4(1) insert—
“(1A) But a chief executive appointed under paragraph 2(2)(b) is not to be removed from office without the consent of the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons.”
(4) After paragraph 27 insert—
“References to Treasury Committee
28 (1) Any reference in this Schedule to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which those functions are exercisable.
(2) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (1) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.””
New clause 2—Composition of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England—
“In making nominations to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to the importance of ensuring a balanced representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.”
New clause 3—Change in title of the Bank of England—
“The Bank of England shall be known as the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and any reference in any enactment to the Bank of England shall be taken as a reference to the Bank of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
New clause 5—Sterling Central Bank—
“The Bank of England is renamed the Sterling Central Bank.”
This new clause would change the name of the Bank of England to reflect its position as the UK central bank and the UK’s shared currency.
New clause 6—Membership of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England—
“(1) Section 13 of the Bank of England Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection 2(c), add “of whom one each must be nominated by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.”
This new clause seeks to ensure representation of the four nations of the United Kingdom on the Monetary Policy Committee.
New clause 7—Objectives of the Monetary Policy Committee—
“After subsection 11(a) of the Bank of England Act 1998 there is inserted—
“(b) maximum employment, and.””
This new clause would expand the mandated objectives of the Monetary Policy Committee to include maximum employment.
New clause 8—Bank of England Accountability and Devolved Legislatures—
“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament on the merits of ensuring that the members of the policy committees of the Bank of England, including the Governor, appear before the respective economy committees of the devolved legislatures of the UK at least once a year.”
New clause 13—Freedom of Information—
“(1) Schedule 1, Part VI to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry relating to the Bank of England, leave out all the words after “England.””
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 7, line 19, at end insert—
‘(6A) The Comptroller may enquire into the Bank’s success in achieving its stated policy objectives but shall not enquire into the desirability of such objectives having been set.
(6B) The Comptroller shall submit reports arising from the exercise of his powers under subsection (6A) to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons (or any successor committee exercising the same or equivalent functions).
(6C) The Comptroller shall lay before Parliament, and publish, each report arising under subsection (6B) promptly unless, in the opinion of the Treasury Committee, publication of a particular report would be likely materially adversely to affect the stability or functioning of the UK’s financial or banking system.”
Amendment 7, in clause 11, page 12, line 2, at beginning insert
“Subject to section 7ZA(6A) of the Bank of England Act 1998,”
Government amendment 3.
Harriett Baldwin
I would like to start by emphasising that the Treasury Committee is an esteemed Committee of this House and provides exceptional scrutiny of the Government and their regulators. Through its programme of pre-commencement hearings, it questions appointees to several posts before they start work. After appointees have started, they can expect to appear regularly before the Committee, and the public can expect the Committee to hold appointees firmly to account.
The Government welcome that scrutiny of appointees—it is a critical democratic function. That is why we have tabled new clause 12 to ensure in statute that the Committee always has the chance to scrutinise a new Financial Conduct Authority chief executive before they start work.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Will this be setting a bit of a trend? For which other important posts—there will be a number of other important posts at not just regulators but other City institutions—does my hon. Friend think it would be appropriate for the Treasury Committee to have a similar approval process?
Harriett Baldwin
I am speaking very narrowly to new clause 12. I am sure the Treasury Committee and other Committees will look at the issue again. I expect it to be part of the ongoing discussions between Parliament and the Executive. However, I am speaking to the very narrow characteristics of new clause 12.
Since we tabled our new clause, there have been further discussions with the Chair of the Treasury Committee over its role in the appointment of FCA chief executives. I am pleased to announce that we have found a means of reinforcing its scrutiny role that goes further than the context of this Bill. Indeed, today the Chancellor has written to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, agreeing that the Government will make appointments to the role of chief executive of the FCA in such a way as to ensure that the Committee is able to hold a hearing before the appointment is formalised.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Is the letter in the Vote Office if it has already been penned?
Harriett Baldwin
The letter is in my binder and I would be happy to read it out, provided that the Chair of the Committee does not object. I will ensure that a copy is put in the House of Commons Library, if that has not already happened. I am sure that the Chair of the hon. Lady’s Committee will be more than happy to share it with her. Would she like me to read the letter out in full?
Harriett Baldwin
By popular demand, this is what the letter states:
“Dear Andrew,
During the passage of the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, we have considered the role of the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) in scrutinising the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
This scrutiny is important and welcome. I will therefore ensure that appointments to the Chief Executive of the FCA are made in such a way to ensure the TSC is able to hold a hearing, after the appointment is announced but before it is formalised. Should the TSC recommend”—
this is more exciting news—
“in its report that the appointment be put as a motion to the whole House, the government will make time for this motion and respect the decision of the House.
Additionally”—
it does not stop there—
“I will seek, in a future Bill, to make a change to the legislation governing appointments to the FCA CEO to make the appointee subject to a fixed, renewable 5-year term. This would not apply to Andrew Bailey, who I recently announced as the new head of the FCA, but would first apply to his successor.
I believe that these changes will reinforce the Treasury Committee’s important scrutiny role.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It would be helpful if the Economic Secretary could assure the House that that future Bill will be introduced sooner rather than later.
Harriett Baldwin
I am sure that the shadow Chancellor welcomes Government new clause 12 and the news that we will carefully consider the earliest possible opportunity for doing that, following today’s debate.
As the letter states, should the Treasury Committee follow the pre-commencement hearing with a report recommending that the appointment be put as a motion to the whole House, the Government will make time for that motion and, should it result in a vote, they will respect the decision of the House. We will also seek an opportunity to alter the legislation governing appointments to the FCA chief executive officer, to make the appointee subject to a fixed, renewable, five-year term. I can confirm that Andrew Bailey, the new CEO of the FCA, has been appointed to a five-year term that can be renewed, so the agreed process will first apply to his successor. The agreement is the right way to reinforce the crucial scrutiny role of the Treasury Committee.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the Economic Secretary, who is being extremely generous with her time. What she has said is extremely welcome and a significant step forward. Will she explain why the Chancellor thought it better not to insert it in the Bill, but to make the arrangement through an exchange of letters?
Harriett Baldwin
We tabled our new clause on Thursday and, as I have said, there have been further discussions with the Chair of the Treasury Committee. I am delighted to be able to announce the result of those discussions today.
I also want to take a moment to address the question of dismissals of the FCA chief executive. I can confirm that the Government do not have the power, except in very limited circumstances, to dismiss the chief executive of the FCA during his or her term of office. I refer the House to paragraph 4 of schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which applies to the chair and the external members, as well as to the CEO, and states:
“The Treasury may remove an appointed member from office…on the grounds of incapacity or serious misconduct, or…on the grounds that in all the circumstances the member’s financial or other interests are such as to have a material effect on the extent of the functions as member that it would be proper for the person to discharge.”
The lawyers are clear that the only reasons the Treasury can dismiss an FCA chief executive are incapacity, serious misconduct and conflicts of interest. I hope that offers the House considerable reassurance.
Mark Field
It is worth saying a little about what happened in relation to Martin Wheatley. Although he was not technically dismissed, his term was not renewed. The situation was straightforward. In July 2015, it was announced that his term would not be renewed in March 2016. As a result, he left his office six months early. I accept that that may have been a mutual decision between the Treasury and Mr Wheatley, but it certainly gave the impression, at least, that, even if it was not a fully fledged dismissal, it was a non-renewal, and, ultimately, the exit from office came six months before the end of a fixed term.
Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend has stated the facts about the term of office to which Martin Wheatley was appointed and the fact that the Government chose not to renew it. It is appropriate to pay what I hope is a cross-party tribute to the excellent work of the acting chief executive, Tracey McDermott, who stepped into the role at that time. She has carried out the role for almost a full year in an absolutely exemplary fashion.
Unless there any further questions on the new clause, I am going to move on to the amendments relating to devolution. I am inviting interventions, but there are none.
The next set of amendments, which stand in the names of the hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), force us to ask exactly who the Bank works for. The answer must be the entire United Kingdom. Indeed, that is emphasised in the Bank’s mission statement,
“to promote the good of the people of the United Kingdom by maintaining monetary and financial stability.”
To fulfil that mandate, the Bank of England goes to great lengths to ensure that it has a comprehensive understanding of the economic and financial situation across all corners of the United Kingdom. The Bank has a network of 12 agencies, which are located across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. Each year, those agents undertake some 5,500 company visits and participate in panel discussions with approximately a further 3,500 businesses. In that context, imposing a requirement to have regard to regional representation on the court is unnecessary. A comprehensive framework for regional information-gathering already exists.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the Economic Secretary inform me who the Welsh representative is, because I have absolutely no idea who represents Welsh interests at the Bank of England and I am Plaid Cymru’s Treasury spokesperson?
Harriett Baldwin
I will make sure that that person makes him or herself known to the hon. Gentleman with the greatest of speed. It is important to point out that the agents do not engage with us as politicians. The agent for the west midlands and Worcestershire is very engaged with my local businesses, but I as a politician have never had a meeting with them. That is how it should work.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I realise that the Economic Secretary is trying to be helpful, but does she not recognise that there is a strategic difference between the process of information-gathering through the agents and that of policy-making through the bodies of the Bank itself? That is where we are asking for representation.
Harriett Baldwin
I will get to that point later in my remarks. As always, I seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will enjoy those remarks when I get to them.
We believe that it is unnecessary to impose the requirement in new clause 2 to have regard to regional representation on the court, which is effectively the board of directors of the Bank of England, because of the comprehensive framework for regional information gathering that already exists. In addition, if we found a candidate with the perfect profile to serve on the court, but we insisted on downgrading them because they lived in an over-represented part of the country, that would not be the best way to produce an effective court.
I have been clear that in setting both monetary and financial stability policy, the Bank must take into account economic conditions in, and the impact of policy decisions on, every part of the UK. Monetary and financial stability policy must be set on a UK-wide basis. None of the 65 million people whom this House represents would be well served if, for example, different capital requirements applied to banks in different parts of the UK. Of course, monetary policy must be consistent. It is completely impossible to set different interest rates in different regions, so monetary and financial stability are, rightly, reserved policy areas.
The men and women who make up the Bank’s policy committees must have their decisions scrutinised, but since policy must be set UK-wide, this Parliament must hold them to account. This Parliament holds power over reserved matters, which these issues rightly are, and the Members of this Parliament represent people from every part of the country on an equal basis. Likewise, Ministers, who are accountable to the House and who hold their positions with the support of a majority of the House of Commons, must be responsible for making the external appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, each member of which is responsible for considering the impact of their policy decisions on all 65 million people in the UK.
We also return to the question of the Bank’s 300-year-old name. It is important to recognise the reputation associated with a name built up over such a long period. During that time, the Bank has come to be globally renowned as a strong, independent central bank. We should not underestimate the importance of that. International confidence in the Bank of England helps to support international confidence in our economy and currency.
I turn to the monetary framework. The Government amendment in this group is modest. The Bill reduces the minimum frequency of Monetary Policy Committee meetings from monthly to at least eight times in every calendar year, and our amendment adjusts the reporting requirements of the Monetary Policy Committee to match.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister moved on very quickly from the matter of the name. I just want to clarify whether the Government have a view on changing the name of the Bank of England to reflect the fact that it is the Bank for all the nations of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the fact that in normal, everyday parlance it will, I am sure, still be referred to as the Bank of England, its long and proper title surely should reflect all the nations of the United Kingdom.
Harriett Baldwin
I respect and pay tribute to the fact that the Bank of England was founded by someone from Scotland, so the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that this is an historical anomaly. I would be the first to accept that the monetary policy of the Bank of England is set for the whole United Kingdom. That does not mean to say that we will accept the new clauses that would change the name of the Bank of England, because we think that its name has been well established over 300 years.
Mark Field
I think that the Treasury is right, in this instance, not to change the name. The Bank of England has a brand. I do not need to give a history lesson to the nationalist Members, but the Bank of England was founded in 1694, which was before the 1707 and 1800 Acts of Union that might—for two of the three other parts of the United Kingdom, at least—otherwise have had an impact on its initial name. Its brand is important, and I hope that those from the other parts of the United Kingdom will not feel as though their interests are being downgraded simply because they do not appear in the headline name, not least for the reasons that have been set out. It is important that we recognise that the Bank acts for the entirety of the United Kingdom, and that it therefore pays great attention to the voices of those in all parts of the United Kingdom, not just England.
Harriett Baldwin
Yes, and on that point I hope that the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for the united nature of our kingdom means that the Scottish National party has moved on from the discussions of last year in which it wanted to break up the United Kingdom. I hope that the party will accept the settled will of the Scottish people to continue to benefit from monetary policy that applies right across the country.
Jonathan Edwards
Further to the points made by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the new clause tabled by my colleague the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) will address the issue that they spoke about. As a keen cricketer, I know that the official title of the governing body is the England and Wales Cricket Board, but it is named “England” for all promotional purposes. Even if we accept the well-intentioned new clause tabled by my colleague from the Scottish National party, the Bank of England will still be known, in promotional terms, as the Bank of England.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman tries to tempt me down the path of comparisons with sports teams, but I decline to be tempted. The Government amendment is modest: the Bill reduces the frequency of MPC meetings from monthly to at least eight times in every calendar year, and the amendment will simply adjust the reporting requirements of the MPC to match.
New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, suggests that we give the MPC a second primary objective of maximising employment. We conducted a comprehensive review of the monetary policy framework in 2013 and concluded that a flexible inflation targeting framework offered the best approach. Employment is already explicitly part of the MPC’s objectives. Its secondary objective is
“to support the economic policy of Her Majesty’s Government, including its objectives for growth and employment.”
The most recent MPC remit letter summarised the Government’s economic policy as being
“to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries”.
George Kerevan
I thank the Minister for her forbearance in giving way again. She is taking refuge in the Bank of England’s existing mandate, a mandate that all Members, on both sides of the House, know has long since become redundant. The inflation target has been dead in the water for years and years, because inflation is nowhere near 2% and is not likely to be for a long time. Implicit in the new clause is the fact that we are questing about for other policy measures to replace the 2% inflation target. Will the Minister address the question of what future targets the Bank of England should have to address the needs of a deflationary era, rather than the inflationary era of the last 20 years?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. There are many opportunities in Parliament, in the scrutiny of the Bank of England by the Committee of which he is a member, to ask those important questions. The Government choose to use the mechanism of the letter process and the remit. The hon. Gentleman and I are both old enough to know how inflation has changed over the years—[Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] I know; surely we are not. We should all welcome the significant lowering of inflation expectations, and we should all remember how important it is that we continue to ask the Bank of England to keep inflation under control, so that we never return to the kinds of impoverishing inflationary policies that so harmed people—particularly the poorest and oldest in society—during the 1970s.
Price stability must have primacy, because we judge that having a single lever aimed primarily at a single objective is the best way to make sure that the inflation target is credible. That, in turn, anchors all-important inflation expectations and helps us to keep inflation under control. Our system has shown that it produces good labour market outcomes. Despite global uncertainty, we have record numbers of people in work, an unemployment rate that is at its lowest in a decade, and a claimant count that has not been lower for more than 40 years. Moreover, targeting low inflation ensures that hard-earned wages are not eroded by inflation.
Mark Field
I must confess that I entirely agree with what the Minister is saying about inflation. I, too, am old enough to remember what inflation was like, particularly in the 1970s. However, it seems to me that the Bank of England’s sole monetary policy lever is to say that we must keep the inflation rate down. Surely we must recognise that inflation has now been well below the 2% target for a long time. I accept that we should never believe that inflation, and all the distortions it makes in our economy, has been entirely vanquished, but should there be a different inflation target, or a different set of remits for the Bank of England, to recognise that it should pay attention to other aspects of the economy in its monetary policy?
Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend, who is an extremely wise and knowledgeable person—I will not refer in any way to his age—highlights an important point. He also emphasises the behavioural characteristic of the recency effect. Inflation is well below the 2% target today, but only during the lifetime of the last Parliament it was above 5%. Even during the six years that I have been a Member, we have tested the parameters of the inflation target. I do not think there is any need for us to make any changes to that target this afternoon.
I will conclude by speaking briefly to amendments 6 and 7 and new clause 13. The first part of amendment 6 states:
“The Comptroller may enquire into the Bank’s success in achieving its stated policy objectives but shall not enquire into the desirability of such objectives having been set.”
The Bill, as drafted, will already have that exact effect.
The second part of amendment 6 directs how the Comptroller and Auditor General should submit his reports. Parliament has delegated to the Comptroller discretion over the content of National Audit Office reports and the timing of their publication, and it is important that this independent officer of Parliament is able to use his judgment on how Parliament and the public are best served. The National Audit Act 1983 provides that the Comptroller
“may report to the House of Commons the results of any examination”.
Once he has reported to the House, it is open to any Committee of this House to inquire into matters on which he has reported. There is an in-built incentive for prompt publication as it mitigates the risk of the report’s conclusions being overtaken by events.
Amendment 7 would disapply restrictions in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on the disclosure of specially protected information in relation to reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Information is specially protected under these rules if it is held by the Bank for the purposes of monetary policy, for financial operations supporting financial institutions in maintaining financial stability, or for private banking purposes. Similarly, new clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), would remove three corresponding exclusions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I hope I can persuade the House that each of the three categories of protected information is entirely sensible.
The first category applies to the Bank’s monetary policy functions. How we communicate monetary policy is extremely important. It moves markets in substantial ways and every detail of the published minutes is scrutinised for predictions of future changes. Managing disclosure while making sure information is presented in a timely way is vital. That is why the original legislation creating the Monetary Policy Committee in 1998 set out the full range of disclosure requirements, including publication of the minutes and of a quarterly inflation report. Since then, the Bank has implemented the recommendations of Governor Warsh’s review of MPC transparency. Through the Bill, we are supporting full implementation of the recommendations of that review.
The second exclusion applies to
“financial operations intended to support financial institutions for the purposes of maintaining stability”.
Hon. Members will understand that if the Bank has to extend emergency liquidity assistance, very careful communication is a critical element of preserving stability. Any covert assistance will be reported privately to the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees, while broader liquidity schemes for institutions, such as the special liquidity scheme and the discount window facility, may be announced to the markets.
Finally, the Bank’s very limited private banking services are excluded from FOI requests. We often forget that the Bank of England also provides private banking to customers. As I am sure hon. Members will agree, it would be entirely inappropriate to subject ordinary bank customer information to disclosure.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 6 and 7 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, but I first want to turn to new clause 1 and Government new clause 12 on the appointment of the FCA chief executive.
I came to the House ready to speak in support of new clause 1, which seeks to give the Treasury Committee a formal role in the appointment of the chief executive of the FCA. In my view, new clause 1 is better placed to guarantee the competence and independence of the regulator than the new clause in the name of the Chancellor, which in our original reading of it did too little to change the status quo. New clause 12 was tabled in response to the new clause tabled by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We had a similar debate in Committee on an amendment about the appointment process for the chief executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority.
Since 2008, Select Committees have routinely held pre-appointment hearings for a number of public appointments, and some candidates have not been approved. The coalition Government developed the scrutiny agenda when the Chancellor agreed in 2010 to the Treasury Committee having a power of veto over appointments to the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Public Accounts Committee has a veto over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee and the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England are made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and are then subject to a confirmation hearing by the Treasury Committee. The Treasury Committee has powers over the chair and board members of the Office for Budget Responsibility, an arrangement that the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee he would put in place
“because I want there to be absolutely no doubt that this is an independent body”.
The Minister will be aware that, when it examined the proposals for the future FCA in 2013, the Treasury Committee made a number of recommendations on the accountability of the new body to Parliament, including that the legislation should provide that the chief executive of the FCA be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Treasury Committee. I recall that the Treasury Committee was disappointed by the Government response, particularly in view of the deficiencies in the accountability mechanisms for the Financial Services Authority.
As we have heard, the view of the Treasury Committee was set out in the Treasury Committee Chair’s letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 January, following the appointment of the current PRA chief executive, Andrew Bailey, to be the next leader of the FCA. In that letter, the right hon. Gentleman set out his Committee’s view that it should have a veto over the appointment and dismissal of the chief executives of both the FCA and the PRA. Indeed, the letter said that the FCA’s chair, John Griffith-Jones, told the Committee, when he met its members on 20 January, that there was merit in that proposal.
In Committee, I flagged up this matter and said it would be helpful to know whether the Chancellor had shared his thinking on such calls to extend pre-appointment hearings and the power of veto to those two positions. Now we have had his reply. It was in the Minister’s ring binder. As she said, it was “exciting” to hear the contents of it, and we got a fantastic insight into the fireside exchanges within the Government. Labour Members believe that the Treasury Committee should have greater authority over the future of financial regulation in this country.
On Government new clause 12, it is unclear what would happen in the period between the appointment of the chief executive and him or her appearing before the Committee. Would they be left in limbo, or would they in fact be settling into their new post? Would we be disappointed—in practice, would it simply be business as usual, with the Treasury Committee not given the power that we all believe it deserves? We do not believe that simply requiring any new chief of the FCA to appear before the Committee within three months of appointment delivers anything particularly new. It is reasonable to expect that any new postholder would appear before the Committee within that timeframe in any event, whether or not that appearance was codified.
Mark Field
I have a brief question on amendment 6. Although I accept that transparency and openness are the spirit of the age and we cannot necessarily move entirely against that—[Laughter.] We do our level best some of the time. I am sure that the Treasury will be at the vanguard of this. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, at times of great difficulty, when there are issues about the stability or functioning of the UK’s financial banking system, it would be appropriate not just for the Treasury Committee but for the Treasury itself to have some say in suggesting when openness should not be fully fledged? The safeguards that he has put in place in the amendment refer only to the Treasury Committee; does he not see that there might be instances when Ministers rightly have concerns about issues of stability that should be protected from open transparency at least for a time, although there could then be a move to make the minutes and other things more open at some future point, once the particular threat had passed?
Richard Burgon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It may be that transparency is the spirit not just of the age but of the future—we shall see. I draw his attention to the wording in the amendment:
“The Comptroller shall submit reports arising from the exercise of his powers under subsection (6A)”.
It is not a completely open-book policy.
On new clause 2, which is in the name of the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), Labour sees merit in the proposal for wider geographical representation on the board. In Committee, we tabled an amendment making the case for amending the composition of the court to ensure that different stakeholders were represented, including having dedicated places for customers and practitioners.
Similarly, we support new clause 13 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. She has a long track record in campaigning for greater transparency in financial services, and her new clause sits well with our amendments, as it seeks to empower the National Audit Office further by making the case for greater powers for freedom of information requests.
I now turn to new clauses 3 and 5, put forward by the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru respectively. Both new clauses would change the name of the Bank of England. In fact the SNP was so keen to discuss its proposal that it tabled it twice. We discussed that measure in Committee and it is before us again. It seeks specifically to have the name of Scotland, as well as those of Wales and Northern Ireland, as part of the title of the Bank. The SNP has now been joined by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who has taken a different tack and removed all national names; his new clause would mean that the name of the Bank referred solely to the currency—for the avoidance of doubt, that is sterling, not Stirling. We were happy to support the SNP’s proposal in Committee, recognising as it does the unifying role of the Bank—that has been expressed again today—as one which services all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will support it again.
New clauses 6, 7 and 8 and Government amendment 3 have a number of merits. New clause 7, in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, sets out a new mandated objective for the Monetary Policy Committee to include maximum employment. New clause 6 proposes the nomination of representatives on the MPC from the devolved authorities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and new clause 8 argues that the Bank should be more accountable for its decisions to those same bodies.
The Labour party has established a review into the mandate of the Monetary Policy Committee under former MPC member David Blanchflower. We have said previously that we will look at a wide range of ideas, including what can be learned from the US Federal Reserve. That will include considering the importance of growth, employment and earnings in the MPC’s deliberations. Indeed, on new clause 7, David Blanchflower has himself written in City A.M.—the favourite publication of the Labour Front-Bench team—that he will consider the issue of maximising employment in his review. He is also looking at the structure, size and, crucially, gender balance of the MPC, optimal policy rules, asymmetrical targeting and the relationship with fiscal policy, as well as the frequency of the MPC’s meetings.
Therefore, although we welcome the proposal for the Bank to report to the devolved authorities, we will not support the new clauses on the MPC today. We see merit in them as part of an ongoing debate, but look forward to considering and sharing the results of David Blanchflower’s review in due course. With that, I draw my comments on this group of measures to a conclusion.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
First of all, that was a very good speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on covering quite a lot of ground in a good deal of detail—and with a sense of humour, which I enjoyed. I was also pleased that he got in one or two points—it saves me the trouble—about the OBR and its importance as a precedent for what we are discussing today.
I will also say—although only in a sentence, otherwise I am sure that I will get told to be quiet by you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that this is a very good Bill. In many respects, it implements a good number of the wider objectives for Bank of England scrutiny and accountability for which the Treasury Committee has for many years been pushing. I thank members of the Treasury Committee in the previous Parliament and in this one who have pressed for these measures vigorously. It shows that things can be achieved if one persists.
I am grateful to the Minister for her assistance over a number of days, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who followed up a telephone conversation last night with an exchange of letters. We have now reached an agreement on how to proceed, so I will not need to press new clause 1 to a Division.
Following the exchange of letters, most of the objectives that we sought through new clause 1 are provided for, and it is worth going through the key points, which the Minister effectively clarified by reading out the Chancellor’s letter. First, appointments will be made in a way that ensures that the Treasury Committee can hold a hearing in good time. Before the appointment is formalised, the question of whether there is a pre-commencement or pre-appointment hearing is, in my view, a distinction without a difference. Secondly, if the Committee disagrees with the appointment, it will report that to the House, and if they choose, the Government must find time for a debate on the Treasury Committee’s report. That debate will be on a motion to accept the conclusion of the Committee. The Government will then have to vote it down. The Government further agree that they will respect the decision of the House once that vote has been taken.
Thirdly—this point has already been raised—at the earliest opportunity, the Government will amend legislation to ensure that future appointments of the chief executive of the FCA are made on a fixed renewable five-year term. I expect that legislative change to take place in the next parliamentary Session. I am not sure that the provision would satisfy the long title of a Finance Bill but, if it does, I would expect the Government to include it in that Bill. I also recognise that the Chancellor could not fully commit over the phone that the change would take place in the next Session, since he will have had no opportunity to secure an agreement on the legislative time from his Cabinet colleagues. I expect, however, that he will do that as soon as possible. It will be a pretty small, self-contained Bill. The fourth point, which has not been mentioned so far, is that it is the Chancellor’s clear view—I am not in any way misrepresenting him—that the arrangements that are being put in place should be the permanent method of appointment, rather than something that will just disappear with this Chancellor or, indeed, the helpful Minister at the Dispatch Box, however supportive she may be of the proposals.
Why has the Treasury Committee devoted so much time to this issue? I have a specific and a general answer to that. On the specifics, there have been widespread concerns that the independence of the FCA has been compromised by the circumstances of Martin Wheatley’s departure, and by other apparent interference in the FCA’s work by senior Treasury officials, and perhaps Ministers. We explored those circumstances through cross-examination in Committee and found no such evidence. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) got right to the point when he said that the appearance or perception of interference none the less remains. That perception makes it harder for regulators to do their job, so it had to be addressed. Bolstering the perceived independence of this key appointment, and ensuring that the individual cannot easily be removed by the Treasury, seemed crucial to the Committee.
Mark Field
For the record, I do not think there was any undue interference from the Treasury, and I am happy that Andrew Bailey is taking over—he will be a good chief executive. None the less, there was that perception within the square mile and we must hold that fairly close to our hearts.
May I also say how much I approve of the Treasury accepting the guts of new clauses 1 and 9? It is greatly to its credit that we have not had to go through the House of Lords, because it does a discourtesy to this House when such changes are made through amendments in the House of Lords, rather than being part and parcel of discussions in advance of Report.
Mr Tyrie
One other issue is the apparent statutory protection against dismissal, which came into question as a result of Martin Wheatley’s departure. Whatever the reality, the current statutory protection appeared inadequate, which was perhaps because he was appointed only for a three-year term. Five years—a goodly and longer term—will provide more protection. To put it even more simply, the changes rectify in another way the risk of arbitrary dismissal. For example, if the Treasury Committee strongly supports keeping the incumbent after four and a half years, it can make that abundantly clear in a report and recommend to the House of Commons that any other candidate is voted down. So in practice, with the letter, we already have the protection that we wanted.
The FCA needs a strong and demonstrably independent chief executive, accountable to Parliament. It endured a difficult birth and struggled to emerge from the rubble of the failed FSA. Some of its best staff have been poached by the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Bank and the private sector, and it has been hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons, not least with the breach of its own listing rules, which wiped 20% off the share value of the life assurance sector. With what will amount to a requirement for parliamentary approval of future appointments or dismissals of the FCA chief executive, the incumbent will now be in a strong position to resist pressure from Ministers and officials, and their authority will be bolstered.
The fact that this is a non-statutory change—unlike new clause 1, which would have been in the Bill—does not perturb me a great deal. Any attempt by the current or future Chancellor to circumvent these arrangements is likely to lead to a complete collapse of trust between the Treasury Committee and the Government, and I do not foresee that happening.
Mark Field
Does my right hon. Friend have some small concern that if a measure is not included in the Bill, no precedent will be set? To return to an earlier exchange that I tried to have with the Minister, that might give the Treasury licence to take this as a sui generis case, rather than recognising that the Treasury Committee should perhaps have a more important role in approving the appointments of a number of senior figures in the financial services firmament.
Mr Tyrie
That argument can be turned on its head. One can argue that this sets a precedent that is more easily rolled out, without the need for statutory change, to other bodies. In the Treasury field, we now have a statutory double lock for the appointment and dismissal of the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was recently found to be of some use following controversy about alleged interference in the production of the forecast—again, we did not find any evidence of that, but the perception of it might have weakened the OBR. We have a requirement for a resolution of the House prior to the appointment of the chairman of the Office for National Statistics, and now we also have these arrangements. So we have a battery of different arrangements on which to draw.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving this great success for parliamentary scrutiny, and I suggest that it is better to proceed in a non-statutory way. Bringing statute into the proceedings of the House always presents longer term problems, and setting a non-statutory precedent has lots of advantages.
Mr Tyrie
I always like listening to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Treasury Committee and, of course, a constitutional expert. It is certainly true in this place that a good deal of quasi-constitutional change, which is what we have here, tends to take place gradually and often due to the development of informal arrangements. I think that that is all to the good, which is what I think my hon. Friend is saying.
Helen Goodman
Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel the slightest hint of disappointment in the intervention by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) because it was surely a historic first that he signed a new clause to amend the British constitution?
Mr Tyrie
Of course my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), as a great and learned constitutional expert, will explain this apparent contradiction to the House in, I hope, a lengthy disquisition in a few minutes’ time.
I really am trying to conclude, but I have just one more point. It is essential in a 21st-century democracy that appointees to an increasing number of quango positions—this was the general point I said I would refer to earlier—should be forced to explain their actions before Parliament and also should feel accountable to Parliament. To achieve that, the means of their appointment and their protection from dismissal are relevant, and that is why a change such as this can offer us something.
Over decades, successive Governments have offloaded their responsibilities to quangos, leaving the public with the sense that nobody is ultimately democratically accountable for anything. I believe that accountability for decisions that were formerly taken directly by Ministers, but now sit with unelected appointees in quangos, needs thorough scrutiny and cross-examination, and that is what we have been trying to do in the Treasury Committee over the past few years.
The agreement with the Chancellor is a sizeable step in the right direction. Of course, in an ideal world, I would like access to the statute book to write exactly what, on behalf of the Treasury Committee, I feel should be on it. However, we live in the real world, and I am very happy with this exchange of letters and grateful to Ministers for their agreement. I shall not press new clause 1 to a Division today.
George Kerevan
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) that there is a lot to be commended in the Bill, although some of the good things, as with new clause 12, were pushed on the Government. I also think that there are still some negative aspects to the Bill, which brings me to a conclusion—[Interruption.] As usual, it will be quite a long conclusion!
The Bill began as a tidying-up operation, which is why it was launched in the House of Lords. It was seen to be about just tidying up a few things, making a few additions and changes to the Financial Services Act 2012. As the Bill proceeded through its various stages, however, the more it became apparent that it exposed a whole series of issues in the financial regulatory system that were not fit for purpose.
We have convinced ourselves—or at least the Government have convinced themselves—that bar a little tidying up, all has been done to resolve the crisis of 2007, but that is not true. What we discovered time and again as the Bill proceeded were issues with the operation of the Bank of England and issues with the functioning of the regulatory bodies and how fit for purpose they are. Furthermore, new issues have emerged only in the last few weeks regarding tax havens. All those problems have appeared. I do not see this Bill putting the problems away and putting the issues to bed. Rather, we are seeing the start of a whole series of pieces of legislation coming into force until we get it right. Far from it being a tidying-up operation, we have started something new.
I am speaking to new clauses 2 and 3, which stand in my name and those of my SNP colleagues. I believe they get to the nub of the issues we are facing as a result of what has been uncovered. In the last 20 years, and more particularly in the last 10, the Bank of England has acquired an extraordinary range of new powers. I do not mean just forecasting or supervising powers over banks, because fundamental policy levers for running the whole economy have been transferred from this House and the Executive to the Bank of England itself. This began with the transfer of powers over interest rates to the Bank of England in 1997, along with the power to set the exchange rates, which no one seemed to notice at the time. This gave the Bank de facto control over our external sector. More recently, of course, with quantitative easing, the Bank has forced interest rates down to the zero band. If monetary policy cannot be manipulated, what else can be done? Gradually, the Bank has been given powers over large swathes of fiscal policy.
Nowadays, the Bank of England even operates our housing policy, as housing determines the whole direction of economic growth. In recent weeks, the Bank has been deciding between buy for let or buy for homeowners. Micro-decisions have been transferred, and my worry is that we have crossed a line of accountability with respect to the Bank of England. This is not a criticism of individuals working for it or indeed of the Governor of the Bank of England, for whom I have high regard. Gradually, however, we have allowed it to take over from this House far too much of the operational policy that directs the economy.
That is why I am happy to support new clause 12 as a step forward in beginning to redress the balance of accountability. New clause 12 and the Government’s acceptance of the general line of march from the Treasury Select Committee means that we are beginning to move to the point where key members of the regulatory regime can be confirmed in their appointments by this House.
We now have two precedents in that direction, with the Treasury Committee as a servant of the House confirming the appointment of the director of the Office for Budget Responsibility and now the head of the Financial Conduct Authority. That is the line of march, but I want to put on record, however, that SNP Members view this as a down payment. We are moving in a direction where the Governor of the Bank of England and all the key members of the regulatory agencies have to be confirmed by this House. I know that will take a long time and that there is always a struggle—sometimes gentle, sometimes not—between the Executive and the House over who has the real say. What we are seeing is a move towards more democratic accountability being held by the House, which I welcome.
Let me move on briefly to new clause 2, which takes this process a little further. Given the policy direction and powers that now lie with the Bank of England, we have to make sure that its committees and, above all, its ruling court of directors are democratically accountable. That is why we tabled this simple new clause, stating:
“In making nominations to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to the importance of ensuring a balanced representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.”
That new clause was carefully written. There is no suggestion that the court should be a federal body. Our suggestion is that in the balance of its make-up, there should be representation for the whole nation. Rightly or wrongly—much more rightly than wrongly in my opinion—there is a perception that the City of London and its major banks and financial institutions have historically had too big a sway over the court and the Bank.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Does he agree that it must be significant that the economic performance of the peripheral areas of these nations is also peripheral?
George Kerevan
I could not agree more. In fact, if we look at the long history of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, the north of England and Northern Ireland—we see that they have suffered a deflationary cycle since the second world war, because from 1945 onwards, by and large, interest rates were set to control inflation that was triggered by the City of London and over-lending by the City of London. As a result, the north-south divide became a deflationary line, with the nations of the north, and the regions of the north of England, suffering high interest rates. Although those rates were not germane to their economic problems, for most of the post-war period UK interest rates have, on average, been set at a higher level than those in the rest of Europe, simply in order to control and curb over-lending by the City of London, which has resulted in deflation in the industrial regions.
I consider that that might have been mitigated to some extent if there had been broader representation of the nations and their industries on the leading bodies of the Bank of England, and, although I know that the Executive will challenge my proposal, I think we need to move in that direction. I remind Members that the court of directors is not the institution of the Bank that actually makes monetary or fiscal policy. It has oversight over the whole of the Bank’s operations, in the sense of giving value for money, and, above all, ensuring that there is no group-think between the different committees that make operational policy. I therefore think that, at that level, we need to begin the process. At that level, we need wider representation on the court.
Surprisingly—and I raised this in Committee—such representation already exists to a small degree. Since world war 2, traditionally, there has always been a trade union representative on the court of the Bank of England, and there still is, to this day. Even the Government—indeed, successive Governments—have recognised that there can be wider representation on the court, including wider social representation. However, when I asked Ministers whether, if they were rejecting the notion of a court with a wider representation of the economy and the community, they were going to remove trade union representation, there was a deafening silence, and that is why I am putting the question again today. Those who accept the principle that there should be trade union representation—and there should—ought to widen that principle, and that is what I am asking for now.
We tabled the new clause carefully in order not to suggest that the court should be federal or too detailed, with someone representing this and someone else representing that, but simply to suggest that a balance was needed. As anyone who has sat on the board of a company will know, the first thing that one must do when creating a board is ensure that there is some representation of different skills and different interests, so that the board’s members can act as a collective. My point is that the court, and to some extent, I think, the new policy committees of the Bank of England, do not act as collectives. They are in danger of adopting silo thinking, and, ultimately—because of the power that we have given to the Bank of England—they are also in danger of beginning to act with the kind of hubris that central banks begin to wield when they are given too much power. They begin to think that they know everything when they do not. We need democratic accountability in the Bank of England, and we need it not in the sense in which the Bank understands it, but in the sense in which the nation, and the nations of the UK, understand it. That is why I will press the new clause to a vote later on.
We have made some progress with the Bill. I fear that that progress has consisted mostly of discovering more about what we need to do to improve the regulatory structures of the economy, but at least more is out in the open, and the debate is more open. Where do we go next? Where we go next is towards more accountability. The Bill makes a down payment on that accountability, but it does not finally deliver it. That is where we go next.
Helen Goodman
Obviously, in the new landscape of the City, the head of the Financial Conduct Authority holds an extremely important post, and the question of who fills that post is therefore vital. I am extremely pleased about the change that was agreed this afternoon and announced by the Minister at the Dispatch Box. It opens up the process, it gives the Treasury Committee a proper role, and it will, we hope, reinforce the independence of the person concerned.
Another person with considerable independence is, of course, the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am pleased, too, that we have moved away from the idea that the court should decide which part of the Bank’s homework the Comptroller and Auditor General should be allowed to mark. There is clearly a parallel with the CAG’s role in respect of the BBC. On Second Reading, we asked Treasury Ministers to publish the memorandum of understanding. They have now published it, and it is an extremely useful document, which sets out, in advance, an agreed framework for the CAG’s remit. That will prevent ad hockery, and will also prevent both the reality and the possible perception of political interference, or inappropriate avoidance of scrutiny of certain areas of the Bank’s work.
New clause 13, which stands in my name, would make the Bank of England subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It seems to me that, as the Bank is a public authority which is fulfilling public policy purposes, the case for covering it does not really need to be made; it is the case against its being covered that needs to be made. The Minister made some important points about why she was not minded to accept the new clause, and I want to respond to what she said. She singled out three areas in particular: monetary policy, financial operations, and private banking.
I am not entirely sure of all the details of the 2000 Act, but we all know that local authorities are FOI-able. Equally, we all know that when we submit freedom of information requests to local authorities, we are not able to see the personal reports on individual members of staff in those authorities. The Act does not give access to that kind of personal information, and I should have thought that the same approach would exempt the private banking work of the Bank of England.
As for monetary policy and financial operations, I do not believe that my new clause would run into those parts of the Bank’s work, because they would still be protected by section 29(1) of the Act. That section states:
“Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice…the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom, or…the financial interests of any administration in the United Kingdom, as defined”,
blah blah blah. I should have thought that as long as we were not amending section 29, we would be able to protect the areas about which the Minister was particularly concerned.
I was alerted to this matter by a letter from the Governor, which the Minister herself waved at us in the Chamber last June, about the sale of shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland. I am sure that the Minister remembers the occasion well. In his letter, the Governor said that
“it is in the public interest for the government to begin now to return RBS to private ownership”.
Writing that letter was not part of the Governor’s role on monetary policy, financial policy or prudential policy; it was an intervention in Government policy at the Chancellor’s request on the issue of a share sale.
When the Governor appeared before the Treasury Committee, I asked him whether he would share the analysis that underlay the letter that he had written. He refused point blank to do so. I am not going to read out the full exchange that I had with the Governor on that occasion, because I went into the matter in detail on Second Reading and it has now been placed on the record twice. However, I really feel that in refusing to provide that underlying analysis, the Governor is evading public scrutiny of what is a perfectly proper matter for the public to understand.
The Governor also said in his letter that
“a phased return of RBS to private ownership would promote financial stability, a more competitive banking sector, and the interests of the wider economy.”
In fact, none of that is true. It will not promote a more competitive banking sector. We are hoping that the Comptroller and Auditor General will, in his separate audit of the RBS share sale, secure that analysis. However, there should be a more straightforward way of dealing with this. The share sale is a particular issue and the Comptroller and Auditor General always looks into share sales, so we might get at the truth on this one occasion, but I am sure that there will be other similar loopholes.
The topicality of seeing this analysis was further underlined last week by the interview in the Financial Times given by Sir Nicholas Macpherson on the occasion of his retirement from the Treasury, in which he described the sale of more RBS shares as “tricky”. He went on to say that there was a judgment to be made over whether to sell further shares below the 2008 purchase price. These are not straightforward matters; they do not fall within the normal remit of the Bank of England and they are of public policy significance. They are but one example of why it is appropriate for the Bank of England to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Jonathan Edwards
I rise to speak to new clauses 5 to 8 in this group, which are in my name. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will be as brief as possible, because I am desperate to get to the third grouping so that we can have a vote on those amendments.
My new clauses aim to achieve two things: first, to secure justice for my country in the formulation of monetary policy; secondly, to help monetary policy formulation better to reflect the fiscal reality of the evolving UK. They are probing amendments, and I wish to draw the Government’s attention to them again as these are important points that the Government should go away and look at before possibly coming back with their own proposals, given the relatively light legislative programme before the House these days. I was glad to hear that Labour was holding a review into these issues, and I look forward to reading its findings, although it would have been handy if the review had been prepared in advance. We could then have discussed those issues in this debate on the legislation.
The first of my new clauses proposes a change to the name of the central bank. We in Plaid Cymru believe that the Bank of England’s name should be changed. It is the UK’s central bank, and it is time that was reflected to a greater degree, not only in its name but in its structures and practices. It is an undoubtedly contentious issue for me as a proud Welshman that the central bank that decides monetary policy in Wales is named after another country. The Bank of England was created in 1694, before the present British state was constructed. Wales was annexed in 1536, Scotland in 1707 and Ireland in 1801. The central bank was therefore created to serve a political entity that consisted only of Wales and England. I suppose the fact that Wales was omitted from its title reflects the inferior status that my country enjoyed in 1694.
Many of those present will have heard my schoolboy hero Sir Ian Botham on “The Daily Politics” yesterday, saying of the EU referendum:
“England is an island and we should be proud”.
I was going to say “If only”, but I thought I might get into trouble. That dubious geographical knowledge reflects an error continually suffered by the other nations of the UK at the hands of those who use “England” to mean a larger entity. It is an injustice that persists in cricket, Wales being denied a national team in its own right. Similarly, the other nations of the UK are denied recognition when it comes to the central bank. If the British state is a partnership of equals, all its institutions must reflect that reality, including perhaps the most important institution underpinning its financial system: the central bank.
George Kerevan
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States, the central bank is called the Federal Reserve for the very simple reason that it is appointed federally, and the interest rate setting committee is a federal committee? The principle is therefore well established in other jurisdictions.
Jonathan Edwards
I fully agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I also agree with the points he made earlier about the north-south divide and the impact that monetary policy has had on that reality. It is no surprise that the UK is the most grotesquely unequal state in the EU in terms of geographical wealth, and one of the main reasons for that is that for far too long monetary policy has been determined in the interests of a very small part of it—namely, the square mile just down the Thames.
All current MPC members are either Bank staff or in one of the four positions nominated by the Treasury. Fittingly, there are four countries in the UK, which makes the MPC ripe for modification to ensure that all nations are represented when it comes to the highly important task of deciding interest rates. I am also interested in the emerging debate on changing the MPC’s remit with regard to setting interest rates. New clause 7 seeks to expand the mandated objectives of the MPC to include maximum employment. It is already specifically charged with keeping to an inflation target of 2%. Other central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve, to which reference was made in my exchange with the hon. Member for East Lothian, have a dual mandate that goes beyond inflation. In 1977, the US Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act 1913 and mandated the Federal Reserve to target long-term moderate interest rates and, critically, maximum employment. I heard with interest the Minister’s point that the Bank does consider the Government’s employment target, but there is a difference between that and a mandate for maximum or full employment.
New clause 8 seeks to improve the Bank’s accountability to Wales and the other devolved Governments. The British state is changing rapidly as powers and responsibility flow from Westminster to the devolved Administrations, although the pace is perhaps not as quick as those like me would want. We are not privy to the meetings between Treasury Ministers and the Governor and his senior team, but we can safely assume that they are frequent. On top of that, the Governor and his team meet the Treasury Committee at least five times a year. As I mentioned a moment ago, fiscal powers already exist in the devolved nations, with more planned, so I hope that the Bank and the Treasury agree that it is in their interests to strengthen relations with the devolved Governments and Parliaments. I am not aware of any formal structures for meetings between the Governor and Ministers of the devolved Governments, or for scrutiny of the Bank by the devolved Parliaments. In the interest of mutual respect, those structures need to be formalised.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I thought that I would come along to listen this afternoon, but I was stung into action by the Minister’s peroration, in particular her comments on new clauses 2 and 3.
Tommy Sheppard
Does my hon. Friend share my sense of regret and bewilderment that the Government can so casually dismiss the proposal to amend the long name of the Bank of England? Does he agree that it is disingenuous of the Conservative Government to talk about a respect agenda that embraces the contributions of all the United Kingdom’s nations when they refuse to recognise those contributions at the first opportunity, and state that only England should be in the name of this most significant institution?
Roger Mullin
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is particularly apposite that he makes that point now, because as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) pointed out, the Bank of England is a very different kind of bank from a few short years ago. It has a much more political role than it did, and it makes decisions that have a wider impact than before. Its name surely now needs to reflect the impact of its decision making.
The second reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is entirely correct is because of the changed political climate in the UK. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made similar points about the need to recognise the role of Wales. This is important. It is not a flimsy point; it is fundamental for people who want to see an important central institution that has proper regard for all the nations that it seeks to serve. A short while ago, I was looking at a list of the court of directors of the Bank of England. Looking at the representation provided by its 11 members, one would be inclined to rename it “the Bank of the City of London”, because there is little proper representation for the UK’s nations and regions.
I enjoyed the analogy the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made with cricket. It is not a subject in which I can claim particular expertise. [Interruption.] Or interest? No, I have some interest in it. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there is the England and Wales Cricket Board. One Mike Denness, born not far from where I was born in Scotland, was the captain of the English cricket team some years ago; again, I am showing my vintage.
We must have proper regard to all the nations represented in the United Kingdom. I was stung by the Minister’s comment that the Bank of England represents the whole of the United Kingdom, the implication being that it had always done so, but I do not think that is at all true, in terms of its policy making. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian made the telling point that the Bank has had undue regard for one part of the UK. Many commentators would say that the interest rate setting policy of the Bank of England pre-2008 paid undue regard to the City of London and surrounding areas, and too little regard to the north of England, the Scottish economy, the Northern Ireland economy and the like.
That leads me nicely on to new clause 2 and why there should be representation for the nations and regions that make up the UK on the Bank of England’s court of directors. A short time ago, I had a quick look on the internet to see who these esteemed figures are, and unless I am proven to be incorrect—or the internet is incorrect—one is also a non-executive director of the Financial Conduct Authority. Such interlocking directorships do not serve economic policy and the financial sector well. Do we have such a tiny pool of appointable people that bodies with such an important relationship to one another have to be represented by the same directors? That is not a sign of strength in our appointing arrangements, but a position of extreme weakness.
Why are these things important? My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian mentioned a word that has cropped up many times in Committee discussions: he talked about the importance of avoiding group-think. Many studies show it to have been part and parcel of the flawed decision making that contributed to the crash in 2008. If we want to avoid group-think, we need people who are willing to think differently and to ask the critical questions, and we need a chairman willing to seek out those with alternative views. I do not see that happening today.
Some years ago, I was sitting within the confines of a company that was considering a large proposal. A paper was presented, and the chairman quickly went around all the directors asking for their thoughts. Every single person around the table immediately said, “I think this is a really great paper and we should go with its suggestion.” The chairman, being extraordinarily wise, said, “I am extremely uncomfortable that we have an immediate consensus, so I am going to postpone this discussion until our next meeting. I want you to go away and generate some alternative, critical views.” That is the wise course of action; it is about not being sucked into group-think. For all those reasons, new clause 2 deserves the support of all those who do not want to replicate the mistakes of the past.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Like many others in the Chamber and, as is clear, in the Treasury Committee, I welcome the progress made on the Bill but have serious concerns about it and, in particular, its role in the systematic gradual compromising of the independence of the two key regulators, the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Further to the Minister’s announcements in her opening remarks, which were touched on by many in this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), I welcome the Government’s determination that more oversight is needed on the appointment of the chief executive of the FCA by the Chancellor. However, I have concerns about the new procedures, as announced. Until this legislation is in place, this is very much open for debate and I sincerely hope we will debate it thoroughly, in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).
Another consideration is this: if the Treasury Committee recommends the appointment to be put forward as a motion to the House, the Government could simply whip votes to approve the Chancellor’s appointment. Select Committees provide substantially more apolitical deliberation of key specialised issues. For that reason, a direct Treasury Committee veto of the appointment needs to be considered.
Harriett Baldwin
In responding to the debate, I will perhaps leave aside the comments of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell), as I do not recall him participating in the debates on Second Reading, in Committee or earlier today, and his speech did not reflect the full view of other parties in this House that the Bill is a very good Bill, in the words of the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
I want to respond to some of the points raised in the debate and, in particular, to put on record how pleased I am that everyone welcomes Government new clause 12, which is supplemented by the text of the letter from the Chancellor to the Chair of the Treasury Committee that was sent earlier today and that I read out in my opening remarks. This has been an important opportunity to put on record how our amendment recognises the important scrutiny role of the Treasury Committee.
I would also put on record the important role of this House in scrutinising the Executive. This is another opportunity for us to emphasise the importance—the necessity, even—of preserving the independence of the FCA chief executive’s operational role, apart from Government. Our amendment reaffirms that commitment to continued independence of the FCA. It is vital consumers and firms know that regulatory decisions are being taken in an objective and impartial way. The FCA is an operationally independent regulator and must carry out its functions in line with the framework of objectives and duties established in statute and the independence of that chief executive is protected by statute, with clear provisions requiring the terms of appointment to be such that the appointee is not subject to direction by the Treasury or any other person.
Throughout their appointment, the FCA chief executive is scrutinised on an ongoing basis to ensure their continued independence. It was notable that in the course of the debate nobody could point out anything as regards the allegations made in the press about operational interference. I look forward to seeing the Treasury Committee’s report, because I know that it has carried out a thorough investigation into the matter.
Our new clause ensures that the Treasury Committee will always have time to scrutinise an appointee before they get their feet under the desk. I have also put it on the record that the legislation is very clear that once they are appointed the Government absolutely cannot dismiss an FCA CEO except in the limited circumstances set out in statute. I will not read out paragraph 4 of schedule 1ZA to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 again, but I referred to it in my opening remarks and reiterate that it applies not only to the CEO but to the chair and the external members.
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) about his reaction and his decision to withdraw his new clause 1. He asked whether he could expect legislation in the next Session outlining the five-year term. As he knows, he has our commitment to find an early opportunity to put that into legislation. He is aware of the strictures that exist in relation to writing round and getting Cabinet agreement, but he has that commitment now from the Dispatch Box. He asked whether the legislation is permanent—a good question. It is possible that legislation becomes permanent, but it is also possible for a future Government, a future House of Commons and a future Treasury Committee to change legislation.
Mr Tyrie
I am grateful to the Minister for what she says. The clarification that I seek relates not to legislation, which stands or falls like any legislation, but to the arrangement. Is it intended that the arrangement between the Treasury Committee and the Chancellor, put in place in the exchange of letters today, will be permanent?
Harriett Baldwin
The Chancellor has many powers, but not necessarily the power to ensure permanence, which is a very long time. I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is the Chancellor’s intention that that remain the case for the length of time that he is able to exert power and influence over the matter. I hope that answers the question in the spirit in which it is asked.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) asked me to confirm that the NAO can look at the Bank’s success in meeting its objectives, but not necessarily at the desirability of those objectives. I have already said that that is exactly what the Bill achieves. The arrangements set out in the Bill have been agreed by both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Governor, and the terms of reference have been made available to the House. The CAG is content that the scope of his powers is appropriate and the Bank is content that they do not go too far.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Bank should have practitioner representation. The Prudential Regulation Authority has a practitioner panel, which ensures that the interests of those who must put the PRA’s rules into practice are communicated to the PRA. That panel includes representatives of banks, insurers, building societies and credit unions, among whom the hon. Gentleman’s new favourite publication, City A.M., is widely read. Consumers also have an input through the FCA consumer panel, which has a statutory right to make representations to the PRA.
Speaking to her amendment, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked about the Bank of England and the extent to which it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is thanks to this Bill that the Bank is subject to the FOI Act. There are three specific limited exclusions from the Act as it applies to the Bank and, as I explained earlier, those are entirely sensible. The Bank of England is not alone in having particular elements of its work carved out from the Act. Other organisations to which specific exclusions apply include the Verderers of the New Forest, S4C in Wales, the Competition Commission and the BBC.
On the hon. Lady’s question about the Governor’s analysis supporting selling RBS shares at prices substantially above the price at which the shares are trading today, the Governor has explained that his analysis is based on commercially confidential information obtained as part of the PRA’s supervisory responsibilities. In the Freedom of Information Act there is, rightly, a standard exemption for commercial interests.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) said that there was a lot to be commended in the Bill. He asked about the range of expertise and perspectives on the court. He raised an interesting philosophical question, which is that in the past the court has been a much larger organisation, with 19 members—unwieldy, in the Treasury Committee’s view—but that it should represent the views of the entire UK. All members of the court should consider the whole UK, rather than acting as a representative of a particular part. He seems to have forgotten our exchange in Committee, when we talked about the trade union representation of the court and I assured him that we have said nothing during the passage of the Bill that would change the post-war reality.
Jonathan Edwards
The Minister will have heard today the heartfelt concerns of representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the accountability of the central bank to the devolved Parliaments and Governments. Will she at least commit to a Treasury report on that, or will she request the Bank of England to produce a report on how it aims to improve its financial accountability and its relationship with the devolved Parliaments and Governments?
Harriett Baldwin
I think that there are a range of different ways in which that can happen, particularly now that the Treasury Committee in this House has a member from Scotland, and of course we all welcome the fact that the very coins in our pockets are minted in the great country of Wales.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr identified the Federal Reserve as an example of a central bank that adopts a dual mandate. US policy makers have judged that that is right for them. We believe that the primacy of price stability is important for anchoring inflation expectations, and we are joined in that belief by other central banks, including those in Canada and New Zealand and the European Central Bank.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to respond to a range of issues raised in this part of the debate. I commend the Government’s new clause to the House and hope that it will agree to include it in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Composition of the Court of Directors of the Bank of England
“In making nominations to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have regard to the importance of ensuring a balanced representation from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.”— (George Kerevan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Debt management plan charges—
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 137FBB insert—
“137FBC FCA general rules: debt management plan charges
(1) The FCA must make general rules in relation to debt management plans.
(2) The rules must specify that—
(a) if a majority of creditors agree to a creditor fee arrangement, then all creditors shall be bound by the arrangement;
(b) a creditor fee arrangement may subsequently be varied by the agreement of a majority of creditors; and
(c) a creditor fee arrangement and any variations must take the form of a written contract executed by a majority of the creditors and must be distributed to all creditors upon completion.
(3) In this section—
“creditor fee arrangement” means an arrangement whereby the fees incurred as part of the debt management plan are paid by the creditors, calculated either as a fixed amount, a percentage of the amount owed to them or a combination of a fixed amount and a percentage; and
“a majority of creditors” means a subset of creditors where the amount owed to them is more than half of the total amount owed.”’
New clause 14—Combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements—
‘(1) Section 3B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert—
“(i) combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements.
(1A) (a) in observing principle (i), the regulators must undertake, in consultation with the Treasury, an annual review for presentation to the Treasury into abusive tax avoidance, including measures to ascertain and record beneficial ownership of trusts using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA, control of shareholders and ownership of shares, and investment arrangements in an overseas territory outside the UK involving UK financial institutions.
(b) in this section “beneficial ownership of trusts” includes ownership of any equitable interest in a trust including being an object of a discretionary trust, power of appointment or similar arrangement as well as any vested interest under a trust;
(c) “control of shareholders and ownership of shares in companies using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA” shall include control by any person with control over a voteholder in a company as defined in Part VI Official Listing s.89F of the FSMA (2000) as applied mutatis mutandis to this context, whether directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with some other person.”’
Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 20, leave out lines 5 to 10.
Amendment 8, page 20, line 10, at end add
“and insert—
‘(6) Where the authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (7) and (8) do apply.
(6A) If the FCA satisfies itself that a person (P), who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant authorised person, is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (8).
(6B) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the FCA that P had taken such steps as a person in P’s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).””
Amendment 2, page 20, leave out lines 22 to 27.p
Amendment 9, page 20, line 27, at end add
“and insert—
‘(6) Where the PRA-authorised person mentioned in subsection (5) is a relevant authorised person, as defined under section 71A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, subsection (5)(d) does not apply and subsections (6A) and (6B) do apply.
(6A) If the PRA satisfies itself that a person (P) who is a senior manager in relation to a relevant PRA-authorised person is guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c), then P shall be guilty of misconduct, subject only to subsection (6B).
(6B) But P is not guilty of misconduct by virtue of subsections (5)(a)-(c) and (7) if P satisfies the PRA that P had taken such steps as a person in P‘s position could reasonably be expected to take to avoid the contravention occurring (or continuing).”
Amendment 10, in schedule 4, page 62, line 2, leave out paragraph 18.
Mr Walker
New clause 9 is designed to prevent the restriction or withdrawal of banking services from perhaps tens of thousands of people. Those people include soldiers and others serving in the armed forces, judges, civil servants, trade unionists, and local councillors and their officials. Those people, along with their families and associates, are deemed to be “politically exposed persons” for the purposes of the fourth money laundering directive, which is due to be transposed into UK law by no later than June 2017.
The scope of new clause 9 is straightforward. It is designed to ensure that when that money laundering directive is transposed into UK law, reasonable regard is given to the parts of the directive that deal with proportionality. The new clause makes it clear that prior to the enactment of the directive, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 will be amended so that the Financial Conduct Authority will be required to publish clear guidance to the banks defining what it deems to be proportionate. New clause 9 also makes regulatory provision for PEPs who believe that they have been treated unreasonably by their banks to ask that their case be adjudicated by the FCA.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the new clause. I understand from what we heard during today’s topical questions that it is likely that the Government will accept it, so he is obviously in the right area. Is he worried that banks are acting in advance of the measure and that there is quite a lot of evidence that they are already gathering information about ordinary, law-abiding members of the public and using it as an excuse to restrict their banking activities?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Banks are de-risking very aggressively at the moment and we need to inject some proportionality into their actions. I believe that the new clause will go some way towards achieving that.
New clause 9 inserts into the Bill a process of adjudication. If a politically exposed person believes that they are being treated unfairly—being denied access to banking services—they can take their concern or complaint to the FCA, which can then adjudicate. The FCA can decide whether banks are interpreting the directive over-aggressively and, if they are, levy a fine on them for doing so. The new clause has nothing to do with reducing accountability; it is about increasing proportionality, which is the right thing to do.
Why is new clause 9 needed? It is needed because it is clear that in interpreting the fourth money laundering directive, banks are making no distinction, when determining who is a politically exposed person, between PEPs drawn from the corruption hotbeds of Nigeria, Russia and parts of the subcontinent, and those drawn from developed democracies such as ours that have high levels of scrutiny and accountability.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May I put on record the thanks of all of us in the House to my hon. Friend for his diligence, focus and tenacity in bringing this massively important issue to the attention of the Government and for what we hope will be a satisfactory conclusion today? Does he agree that the collateral damage of some of the precipitous action of the banks has been a big impact on people’s families and, as a corollary, their future credit worthiness?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said, the banks have acted very aggressively, and I shall return to that point in a few moments.
May I thank the Economic Secretary for her time and patience in dealing with this matter? I have been speaking to her about it for four months, and I admit that I have got a little over-excited on occasions. However, she has always maintained high levels of good humour and patience, for which I thank her. It is important to put that on the record.
At this late stage, without the intervention of new clause 9, the directive risks blighting the lives of decent people. They are not just people working in public life and service but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) pointed out, their partners, spouses, children, parents, siblings and in-laws. The directive is not proportionate.
Even more worryingly, the directive covers the close associates of politically exposed persons. I am aware that one such close associate is a member of the press lobby. He had some problems with an individual savings account and was subject to close questioning by his bank. When he asked the person on the other end of the phone why the bank was conducting itself in such a way, the response was, “Because we understand that you are an associate of the Prime Minister.” Even the media are caught up in this directive, or rather the banks’ de-risking in preparation for its introduction.
The Financial Action Task Force, whose guidance underpins the directive and is repeatedly referred to in it, states:
“For close associates, examples include”—
the House needs to listen carefully to this because it is quite an odd paragraph—
“the following types of relationships: (known) (sexual) partners outside the family unit (e.g. girlfriends, boyfriends, mistresses); prominent members of the same political party, civil organisation”—
that could be the National Trust—
“labour or employee union as the PEP; business partners or associates, especially those that share (beneficial) ownership of legal entities with the PEP, or who are otherwise connected”.
My fear is that, without clear Government-backed FCA guidance, as provided for in new clause 9, the banks, in their rush to de-risk, will continue to draw on the work of the Financial Action Task Force. The Financial Action Task Force states in paragraph 37 of its 2013 guidance:
“there should be awareness that middle ranking and more junior officials could act on behalf of a PEP to circumvent…controls. These less prominent public functions could be appropriately taken into account as customer risk factors in the framework of the overall assessment of risks”.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
The case that my hon. Friend makes is overwhelming. Will he tell the House whether he is aware of anyone who is opposed to what he is trying to do?
Mr Walker
I am sure that there will always be people who are opposed to what I am trying to do. That is the nature of society—we live in an open society in which people have different points of view on many issues. The fourth money laundering directive should be about capturing bad people in its scope, not capturing all people. If everyone is thought of as bad, it is very difficult to identify who is actually breaking the law. We want to go after the law breakers, not those people who, by accident, are described or identified as PEPs by banks in this country.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the rush to implement these actions ahead of the directive indicates a desire by the banks to take what seems to be decisive action against a group of people who are quite easy to target, and that the banks will be less keen to take that action against people who are harder to track down? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I know the fondness of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for live music, and it is a fondness that I share, but there are limits.
Mr Walker
I thought that rather complemented the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—it was almost like an opera singer opening his lungs.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Banks need to invest their resources, time and energy in going after high-risk people. Banks know which people are high risk. To be perfectly honest, whatever people in this country think about their Members of Parliament, trade unionists, council officers and leaders, Assembly Members and Members of the Scottish Parliament, they are, in the main, not bad people indulging in money laundering. I am not saying that there will not be a bad apple, but those people do not present the real and current risk. Banks’ energies should be focused not on chasing after the good, but on chasing after the very bad.
The Financial Action Task Force catch-all that says that even middle-ranking people can be involved in money laundering basically puts everyone above grade 7 in the civil service in the frame. Think of people in a Government-backed organisation or trade union regional organisers. If banks follow the FATF guidance, those people could be deemed to be politically exposed persons, so not only their banking facilities, but those of their families and associates, could be withdrawn or curtailed.
I will make some progress, as I was not planning to speak for so long. Once a PEP, always a PEP. Although article 22 of the directive states that after 12 months have passed from the point at which the politically exposed person has left office, a bank can decide that that person is no longer a PEP—that sounds like good news—it goes on to say that banks will
“be required to take into account the continuing risk posed by that person and to apply appropriate and risk-sensitive measures until such time as that person is deemed to pose no further risk specific to politically exposed persons.”
That is the lobster pot from which few will escape. Banks are risk averse, so they will feel that it is much better to keep someone as a PEP indefinitely than to take the risk of downgrading them to the status of a normal customer unless they are obliged to do so.
Forget people serving in public life; let us think about those who have left it. Without the protections and guidance in new clause 9, ex-Army officers, ex-judges, ex-trade union representatives, ex-community leaders, volunteers and ex-members of political parties, and former Members of Parliament could be denied the opportunity to serve on charitable and company boards because their presence would confer the status of politically exposed person on the rest of the board. That status is best avoided by individuals who are not yet stigmatised. If conferred, such a status could lead to a withdrawal of the relevant charity or company’s banking services. This is not supposition and I am not making this up. Along with the restriction of banking services, the closure of personal accounts and the blackballing of family members, it is happening now. In accepting new clause 9, the Government will enshrine in an Act of Parliament that banks have a legal duty to act proportionately and in accordance with FCA guidance, and that is the correct thing to do.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) who made an excellent speech on an important subject. He showed his characteristic bravery and forcefulness in addressing an issue that many other hon. Members wanted to address, but were unenthusiastic about putting themselves in the firing line.
The Minister said earlier that everybody is happy with this Bill, but now that we are discussing the regulation of financial services, she may discover that Labour Members are not quite so happy with this part of the Bill. I wish to speak in support of amendments 8 and 9, and I am also sympathetic to amendment 2 tabled by the Scottish National party. Getting the senior management regime right is vital for reducing the risk of further irresponsible behaviour in financial institutions, particularly the banks. We all know the devastating impact that the behaviour of the banks had on rest of the economy—anyone who is in any doubt about that should see the film “The Big Short”, which wonderfully describes that episode, albeit from an American point of view.
The clauses on the senior management regime are a retreat from the sensible legislation introduced in 2012, following the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which recognised that one way of changing behaviour and culture is to make those people at the top of the banks accept their full responsibility. The clauses in the Bill no longer do that. It is completely sensible for people to be expected to have the same responsibility for the behaviour of those who work for them that other institutions have for health and safety.
We have heard a number of arguments for the Government’s decision to reverse the reversal of the burden of the proof—rather an awkward mouthful—and one of the main arguments is that the regulatory approach that was legislated for in 2012 is too burdensome. This, however, misses the whole point, which is that we want people to spend more time looking at how to reduce risk rather than spending a great deal of time on how to make lots and lots of money irrespective of the risks posed to the economy. The risk does not apply ultimately to themselves on their own account, but it infects all other financial institutions.
I attended a seminar in the City last week, and senior practitioners from law firms, accountancy firms and from some of the big asset managers were in attendance and proved to be supportive of the original parliamentary commission approach. I expressed my feeling that it was disappointing that the Chancellor was going back on this, and suggested that he was not doing it as a whim, but because he had been lobbied to do so. I asked why they thought he had been lobbied in this way. It was, of course, a naive question, and I had no idea what the answer would be. They all roared with laughter and said, “Well, it’s obvious. It’s a way to facilitate people making millions of pounds without facing any downside risks.”
We cannot put ourselves in that situation again. The cost of the bail-out in 2008 was £133 billion. We really must take seriously the lessons that can be learned from that, which is why the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench team and by the SNP should be taken seriously and accepted by the Government.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I should like to take this opportunity to introduce my new clause 10, which is aimed at safeguarding the free debt management sector. Let me reassure the Minister that this is very much a probing amendment; I know she is looking forward to responding to it.
There has been a long debate over the “fee versus free” principle in the provision of debt management plans for indebted consumers. It is not my intention to re-open that debate now, although my concern is about free providers that are facing a looming capacity crisis.
Organisations such as PayPlan and Christians Against Poverty operate the “fair share” model of free debt management that sees creditors covering the cost of customer plans on a polluter-pays basis—in other words, through schemes that are free to the debtor. These organisations are facing increasing pressure as a consequence of fee-charging firms leaving the marketplace after failing Financial Conduct Authority authorisation. In one recent case, this left 16,000 debt management clients unsupported, and these customers are now being are being signposted to free providers. The last thing people want to happen when they are caught up in the desperation of heavy debts and are trying to slog their way out of it is, of course, that the person advising them suddenly disappears so that they have to start again with new people.
The debt management sector is nearing a desperate point, and the market is becoming increasingly inefficient, with consumers treated badly in many cases. The fair-share operators I mentioned have seen their revenue reduce as a consequence of consumers’ disposable income falling. As more and more fee chargers leave the market, we will soon face a situation in which fair-share operators are unable to provide economically viable plans. Plainly, we now face a situation in which consumers will be charged higher fees and their options for free debt management services will be severely limited—again, we are going in the wrong direction.
There were considerable and commendable efforts over the course of the last Parliament aimed at safeguarding free debt management provision, most notably on the creation of a voluntary protocol. Members of all parties have tried to make similar long-term changes, reflecting the cross-party nature of this issue. More recent efforts have come from the parliamentary debt management working group, of which I am a member. I see in her place our chairman, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who is poised to speak in, I hope, support of my new clause.
Recent efforts have been aimed at establishing an industry-wide offering of free consumer debt management services. I accept that, while desirable, such an approach may not be feasible at this time. The new clause provides for a small tweak to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, mandating all creditors, via an FCA rule change, to fund free-to-consumer debt management plans under the “fair share” model. Many large creditors—banks and credit card companies—do accept a reduction in the amount due in exchange for the establishment of a coherent plan, but some still do not, and the new clause is intended to tackle that. While it falls short of outlawing the provision of fee-charging plans, it provides a strong safeguard for the “fair share” model, ensuring that customers can continue to access free debt management plans.
I am certain that this is a robust mechanism for desperately needed reform in the debt management sector, and I hope that, subject to Members’ approval, it can be implemented without delay. I thank the Economic Secretary for her interest in the matter, and for her helpful guidance behind the scenes.
Every age has its challenges, and it may well be that historians will look back at our era and marvel at the levels of unsustainable personal debt that were carried by so many people. Such debt may arise from grave misfortune, poor choices or the actions of others, but whatever the reason, it is vital that the right help is at hand to help people to step their way out of debt, and the FCA can assist that process by making the rule changes I have proposed. I thank the Economic Secretary again for her patience and kindness, and commend the new clause to her and to the House.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I am afraid that I cannot support new clause 10. While I have great sympathy with the aim of the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) to keep the free-to-consumer plans going, I do not feel that his new clause will achieve that.
I am slightly unclear about the use of the term “fee”. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is currently a voluntary arrangement. I am a little concerned about what public benefit would result from his proposal. Would it merely ensure supplier revenues for certain service providers? If so, is that really a legislative issue? I have wider concerns. I feel that too few debt providers give advice on debt, but I also feel that the current landscape is fairly confusing. I do not think that introducing a statutory funding mechanism for one debt solution—a debt management plan—is the right way forward. Plenty of options are available to people in debt, including bankruptcy, debt relief orders, debt management plans, administration orders, debt consolidation, and individual voluntary arrangements.
Many of those plans are not funded sustainably. I think that one organisation that offers them is paid £35 for each order that it issues, and that is not a sustainable solution. I do not want providers to offer plans on the basis of how they are funded rather than on the basis of what is best for the individual, but I fear that the new clause could lead to their doing so. I am sure that many would not, but the new clause might lead to more providers’ choosing to offer the “fair share” solution because it is statutorily funded, whereas they make a loss on every debt relief order that they issue. That is not the best solution for the individual who is in debt.
I think that we need a proper review of the current debt solution landscape. I believe that it is too complex, and that it is not properly costed. I also believe that the providers have insufficient funding. As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a problem with the debt management plans. In fact, a review of the fee-charging debt management companies found that 60% of their clients were put in a worse position. That cannot be allowed to continue, and I am pleased that the FCA is cleaning up the market. However, I worry about what will happen to people who come off debt management plans. They took a big step to deal with their debts—and facing up to the fact that you cannot pay your bills is a difficult decision to make—and went to a provider. Now they have been told, “Actually, your provider was not providing a good service. Go and find somebody else.” I worry that those people will not look around, and I hope that the Minister will look at ways of promoting opportunities for them to go to other providers.
George Kerevan
I should like to speak to amendments 1 and 2, tabled in my name, and in passing to amendments 8 and 9, tabled by Labour Members. I shall not press amendments 1 and 2 to a vote, but should Labour Members move on amendment 8 and the consequential amendment 9, we will support them.
There is much in the Bill to commend it to us and to the House, and much that will add to the regulatory regime and its performance in the UK. However, the worst part of this legislation—the time bomb ticking away inside it—is the Government’s attempt to shift legislation that they put in place only four years ago on the reverse burden of proof for major financial infractions. That is the nub of the matter. Legislation was introduced four years ago that identified senior managers in major banks and other financial organisations and stated that if a serious infraction of regulations was encountered on their watch, they would automatically be held responsible unless they could prove that they had taken due steps to prevent it from happening.
That legislation had a great deal of support in the House and among the public, because it was the one sure way of ensuring that those at senior level in the financial sector would not continue to do what they had done all through the 2007-08 crisis: blame everyone else and say that it was not their fault. The legislation made senior managers responsible, just as senior managers in other organisations and utilities have become responsible for major crises.
Why would the Government want to change that law before it even came into operation this month? That sends out the wrong signal. When we put legislation in place that has consensus behind it, we should try it and see whether it works. However, the Chancellor, whose constant refrain is that he has a long-term economic plan, has decided to change the legislation before it has even come into operation. That change sends out all the wrong signals. The Minister will probably say that the measure is disproportionate now that the Government have widened the number of people being caught up in the senior management regime to tens of thousands, and that applying the law could become problematic. I know all the explanations, but I put it to her that by reneging on legislation that was put in place with great fanfare four years ago before it is even operational, the Government are simply signalling to the rest of the world that they are loosening the regulatory bonds. They might think that they are not doing that, but they are sending out the wrong signal.
The Government have been sending out another signal as well. For years, the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have been telling us that we should pay lower taxes, that taxes are bad, and that we should keep more of our own money. Suddenly, however, when we discover that hundreds of thousands of people are setting up secret offshore bank accounts, the Government get all holy and moral, saying, “We didn’t mean you to do that!” This Government sometimes speak with two voices. Individual Ministers are honest and sincere, but they do not understand that they sometimes speak with one voice on taxes and regulation and then do the opposite. It sends out the wrong signal. The Government cannot go on blaming other people. They are to blame if they change the rule without having put it into force for at least a few years to see whether it works. That is why we must leave the provisions in the Financial Services Act 2012 until it has been proven that they do not work.
Richard Burgon
I rise to speak to new clause 14, amendment 8, and amendments 9 and 10, which are consequential on amendment 8, tabled in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I will first discuss new clause 14 on combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements and then our amendment on the reverse burden of proof, or the presumption of responsibility, as I choose to call it, for senior managers in the banking sector.
Labour tabled new clause 14 in the wake of Panama papers leak, which the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) just mentioned. The new clause sets out that combating abusive tax avoidance should be established as new regulatory principle for the FCA, and requires the FCA to
“undertake, in consultation with the Treasury, an annual review for presentation to the Treasury into abusive tax avoidance”.
The new clause makes it clear that the new principle should involve
“measures to ascertain and record beneficial ownership of trusts using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA, control of shareholders and ownership of shares, and investment arrangements in an overseas territory outside the UK involving UK financial institutions.”
Members will be aware that Labour published its tax transparency enforcement programme following the Panama papers leak, and the release of the information that thousands of companies listed in the Mossack Fonseca papers have financial services provided by UK banks. Our programme makes it clear that Labour will
“work with banks to provide further information over beneficial ownership for all companies and trusts that they work for.”
The new clause seeks to establish a procedure to enact that.
Last week, the Government announced a deal on the global exchange of beneficial ownership. We of course welcome that as an initial step, but it is insufficient. The measures announced by the EU this week are also welcome, but they do not go nearly far enough, because they require only partial reporting. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said last week:
“The turnover threshold is far too high, and Labour MEPs in Europe will be”
doing the right thing in
“pushing to get that figure reduced much lower to make it more difficult for large corporations to dodge paying their fair share of tax.”—[Official Report, 13 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 369.]
Banks need to reveal the beneficial ownership of the companies and trusts with which they work. That means establishing a record of ownership of the companies and trusts supported by UK banks, whether or not the owners are resident in the UK. We must ensure that Crown dependencies and overseas territories enforce far stricter minimum standards of transparency for company and trust ownership, but when UK banks are involved, it is right that a record is maintained of the beneficial owners that they advise.
The tax expert Richard Murphy has written that Jersey, Guernsey and the Cayman Islands are
“cock-a-hoop at having rebuffed calls from David Cameron that they must have readily accessible registers of beneficial ownership even for the use of UK law enforcement agencies”.
The shadow Chancellor said in response to those calls that the
“agreement is a welcome step in the right direction but it fails to do anything to tackle the tax havens based in British Overseas Territories. Failure to take responsibility for these British Dependencies substantially undermines the effectiveness of this agreement.”
Similarly, we are aware that the Financial Conduct Authority wrote to banks urging them to declare their links to Mossack Fonseca by 15 April. The FCA’s call on UK financial institutions to review links with Mossack Fonseca is welcome, but the regulator should recognise the need for complete transparency to retain public confidence.
The FCA should seek full disclosure and act without delay. The slow, drip-drip responses of the Prime Minister’s office in recent weeks have served only to fuel public concern and have been very much a lesson in how to raise suspicion unintentionally. The FCA should publish details of which financial institutions it has written to and why; what information it has asked them to provide; and what action it will take, now that the 15 April deadline has passed. Importantly, it cannot allow banks and their subsidiaries to conduct an open-ended internal investigation, but must establish an early deadline for the disclosure of all information on their relations with Mossack Fonseca, so that the regulator can take all necessary action. Campaigners Global Witness responded by saying:
“These are welcome first steps…but the UK authorities are missing the wider point. Mossack Fonseca is no bad apple; it is just one small part of a much deeper problem.”
That is why it is necessary for us to have a clear direction of travel towards recording beneficial ownership of trust services by UK banks, as we are seeking to do with this new clause.
Given the widespread concerns about tax avoidance, the British public, who bailed out the country’s banking sector, deserve to know the facts about the role of UK banks in this unfolding story. With new clause 14, Labour has made a positive and practical proposal to take steps to increase tax transparency and publicly available information on the beneficial owners of companies and trusts registered in tax havens.
Let me now deal with the remainder of the amendments. Labour’s position was set out clearly on Second Reading and in our amendments in Committee: removing the reverse burden of proof—the presumption of responsibility—is unreasonable, unwise and, I am sorry to say, risky. We continue to support the current legislation, which was agreed by the Chancellor and in both Houses as recently as in consideration on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. That is why we have re-tabled our amendments on keeping the presumption of responsibility. It should not be forgotten that this measure was a key recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that it
“would make sure that those who should have prevented serious prudential and conduct failures would no longer be able to walk away simply because of the difficulty of proving individual culpability in the context of complex organisations.”
The presumption of responsibility, as currently set out in legislation, applies to senior managers. It means that to avoid being found guilty of misconduct when there has been a regulatory contravention in an area for which they are responsible, they will have to prove that they took reasonable steps to prevent that contravention. This Bill removes that onus on senior bankers. The onus is entirely reasonable, proportionate and, as bitter experience tells the British people, necessary. Misconduct and misdemeanours in financial services are not merely a tale from history. In 2015, for example, the FCA had to fine firms more than £900 million, and we have also seen the LIBOR scandal, foreign exchange fines and the mis-selling of payment protection insurance to the value of up to £33 billion. The presumption of responsibility is so reasonable and necessary that the policy was introduced with cross-party support; that should not be forgotten.
The 2013 Act applied the presumption of responsibility, through the senior managers and certification regime, to all “authorised persons”. This Bill extends that authorised persons regime to a wider range of businesses but has watered down the presumption of responsibility to a mere “duty of responsibility”. The vast majority of people working in the financial sector were not, and are not, affected by the existing legislation, and would remain unaffected should our amendment pass. That is why the legislation was passed by Government Members in the first place.
In December 2013, speaking of the stricter measures being introduced by the Government, including the reverse burden of proof, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said:
“The introduction of this offence means that…in future those who bring down their bank by making thoroughly unreasonable decisions can be held accountable for their actions…Senior managers could be liable if they take a decision that leads to the failure of the bank…The maximum sentence for the new offence…reflects the seriousness that the Government, and society more broadly, place on ensuring that our financial institutions are managed in a way that does not recklessly endanger the economy or the public purse.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 252.]
On that, at least, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is a shame that there has been a change in position.
Harriett Baldwin
Let me start with new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and others, which addresses the important issue of politically exposed persons. My colleague is an expert not only in oratory but in parliamentary procedure and I commend him for his use of both in this example. The Chancellor and I are very concerned about this issue, as my hon. Friend knows, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for his assiduous work in collating examples that he has heard from colleagues and from the banking sector.
It is absolutely right that the “know your customer” requirements should be tailored to the risk posed, and I reassure the House that we are very much on the side of colleagues in this regard. I therefore welcome the amendment and the strong message it sends to banks as they implement these rules. The new clause also addresses guidance, and I fully agree that guidance will help the banks to take an effective, proportionate and commensurate approach to politically exposed persons. The Government intend to implement new money laundering regulations by June next year at the latest and this amendment will come into force at that time. We will consult on the new regulations this year.
As well as accepting the new clause, I want to take the opportunity to update the House on other action that we have taken to resolve these issues on behalf of Members since my hon. Friend had his Adjournment debate on 20 January. On 1 March we had a meeting with the banks that I organised with the Minister for Security from the Home Office, and on 23 March the Chancellor wrote to the banks to explain our views. We will continue to work with the banks, with the FCA and with others to ensure that a sensible and proportionate approach prevails.
I have also written not once but twice in a “Dear colleague” letter to all Members and Peers giving colleagues the name of a senior designated person to contact at each major bank should they or a family member encounter any problems. To conclude on this new clause, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House so that I can give this reassurance about the attention that the Government are paying to this challenge.
New clause 10, on debt management plans, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), and I thank him for his collaborative approach in tabling the amendment and the ongoing commitment shown by him and his all-party group to supporting all households in problem debt. The Government share his concerns about the potential for detriment to occur to consumers participating in some debt management plans and I recognise the importance of protecting this vulnerable group of consumers. The Government’s focus has been on comprehensively reforming the regulation of the sector to ensure that financial services firms are on the side of people who work hard, do the right thing and get on in life. Responsibility for regulating debt management firms, like that for all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the OFT to the FCA on 1 April 2014. The FCA has made addressing the risk posed to consumers by non-compliant debt management firms the highest priority, alongside payday lending.
Indeed, debt management firms were in the first group of firms to require full authorisation, and the FCA is thoroughly scrutinising firms’ business models and practices. Firms that do not meet the FCA’s threshold conditions will not be able to continue to offer debt management plans. Removing non-compliant debt management firms from the market will fundamentally reduce the risk of harm to consumers and will ensure that consumers have access to sustainable repayment plans as a result of providers acting in the best interest of consumers.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) raised the question of the handover of clients with debt management plans whose firms have not been authorised by the FCA. That is an issue to which the FCA is playing close attention, to try to ensure that data protection issues are taken into account and to accommodate the disheartening position of someone with one of those plans whose firm fails to be authorised, for whom a better alternative must be found.
On the issue raised by the amendment—how debt management plans are funded—charities such as StepChange and Christians Against Poverty already successfully negotiate voluntary funding agreements with creditors through the fair share model. Introducing changes to this funding arrangement, such as mandatory contributions, may have unintended consequences, disrupting a successful funding arrangement for charities. Consequently, setting the level of this share is not supported by the not-for-profit sector. Similarly, not-for-profit providers are concerned that formalising fair share contributions may change charities’ relationship with creditors and compromise their independence. The perception of charities by their clients as impartial advocates is essential to encouraging households in problem debt to come forward for support.
With the FCA’s authorisation process ongoing, and the anticipated changes in the market that that will bring, now is not the right time to introduce changes to the way debt management plans are funded. Any consideration of changes to funding arrangements should take place when the shape of the debt management market is known. The best setting for looking at the full landscape of debt advice funding will be in the context of the public financial guidance review, which includes a commitment for the Government to monitor the impact on the FCA authorisation process. If necessary, the funding arrangements for debt advice will be reviewed, and the Government may consider broadening the funding base to include other sectors, to ensure that consumers continue to get the help they need. I trust that this assures my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon that the Government continue to consider it a priority to help those facing problem debt, and that he will not press his amendment to the vote.
I shall deal now with amendments 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10, which would apply the reverse burden of proof to senior managers in the banking sector or in all authorised financial services firms. We reject both sets of amendments, above all because the senior managers and certification regime with a statutory duty of responsibility will be an extremely effective tool for holding senior managers to account.
The duty of responsibility will extend to all senior managers. The discredited approved persons regime will be replaced. Firms must identify exactly what their senior managers are responsible for. Senior managers will not be able to wriggle off the hook because they did not know what was being done in the areas for which they are responsible. The reverse burden of proof is not needed to deliver what we want to deliver—a culture change.
Lord Turnbull, who was a Cross-Bench member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, said:
“In future, senior managers will have to take responsibility for what goes on in the teams for which they are responsible and for the actions of the people whom they have appointed and thereby given accreditation.”
He went on to say:
“I still fail to see why the reverse burden of proof is the only way to get people to understand that. . . I believe that the proposal now in the Bill—
that is, the duty of responsibility—
is superior.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2015; Vol. 767, c. 2026-28.]
In written evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Building Societies Association stated:
“The lack of individual accountability to date is mainly the result of a failure to allocate responsibilities in firms’ corporate governance frameworks. Because this deficiency will be fully addressed by the new strengthening accountability in banking rules (through responsibility maps, individual statements of responsibility, handover arrangements), the reversed burden of proof is unfair and is redundant”—
not my words, but those of the Building Societies Association.
Today’s debate is about what happens when things go wrong and a firm breaks a regulatory requirement. Under the reverse burden of proof, the senior manager responsible for the area of the firm where the breach occurred would have to prove that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent it. The Bill will impose a statutory duty of responsibility on senior managers. Senior managers would still be required to take reasonable steps to prevent breaches of regulations in the areas of the firm’s business for which they are responsible. However, when such a breach occurs, it will fall to the regulators to show that the responsible senior manager had failed to take such steps. This duty will be extended with the senior managers and certification regime to senior managers in all authorised financial services firms, ensuring that they are held to the same high standards as those in banks.
Harriett Baldwin
Okay, the hon. Gentleman wants to hear more. In the July 2015 Budget we confirmed an extra £800 million investment to fund additional work to tackle evasion and non-compliance. HMRC’s specialist offshore unit is currently investigating more than 1,100 cases of offshore evasion around the world, with more than 90 individuals subject to current criminal investigation. Even before last week, HMRC had already received a great deal of information on offshore companies, including in Panama, and including Mossack Fonseca. This information comes from a wide range of sources and is currently the subject of intense investigation.
We are going further by providing new funding of up to £10 million for an operationally independent cross-agency taskforce. It will include analysts, compliance specialists and investigators from across HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority. It will have full operational independence and will report to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Home Secretary.
Of course the FCA has a role to play. Its 2016-17 business plan states that the fight against financial crime and money laundering is one of its priorities. Its rules require firms to have effective systems and controls to prevent the risk that they might be used to further financial crimes. That is why the FCA has written to financial firms asking them to declare their links to Mossack Fonseca. If it finds any evidence that firms have been breaking the rules, it already has strong powers to take action. However, it is HMRC that is ultimately responsible for investigating and prosecuting offences associated with tax evasion.
Finally, with regard to trusts, we believe that we have secured a sensible way forward by ensuring that trusts that generate a tax consequence in the UK will be required to report their beneficial ownership information to HMRC. By focusing on such trusts, we are focusing on those where there is a higher risk of money laundering or tax evasion, which arise when trusts migrate or generate income or gains, and minimising burdens on the vast majority of perfectly ordinary and legitimate trusts.
Although I appreciate the spirit with which the new clause has been tabled, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to change the role of the FCA or the PRA, so I urge the hon. Member for Leeds East not to press the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements
“(1) Section 3B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert—
(i) combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements.
(a) in observing principle (i), the regulators must undertake, in consultation with the Treasury, an annual review for presentation to the Treasury into abusive tax avoidance, including measures to ascertain and record beneficial ownership of trusts using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA, control of shareholders and ownership of shares, and investment arrangements in an overseas territory outside the UK involving UK financial institutions.
(b) in this section “beneficial ownership of trusts” includes ownership of any equitable interest in a trust including being an object of a discretionary trust, power of appointment or similar arrangement as well as any vested interest under a trust;
(c) “control of shareholders and ownership of shares in companies using facilities provided by banks with UK holding companies or entities regulated by the Bank of England or the FCA” shall include control by any person with control over a voteholder in a company as defined in Part VI Official Listing s.89F of the FSMA (2000) as applied mutatis mutandis to this context, whether directly or indirectly, and whether alone or in concert with some other person.””—(Richard Burgon.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jonathan Edwards
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 36, page 34, line 15, at beginning insert—
“( ) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A).”
This amendment and amendment 5 would enable Lloyds Banking Group, the holder of the Bank of Wales trademark, to issue banknotes in Wales.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 5, page 34, line 44, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision authorising Lloyds Banking Group to issue banknotes in Wales”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 4.
Jonathan Edwards
I am delighted that we have reached this group as I feared that our consideration on Report would be concluded prematurely. I therefore have only a very short speech, but luckily this is rather a straightforward and uncomplicated matter. If I had known that I would have far more time than I assumed—a rare privilege in this place—I would have prepared a far lengthier speech, quoting extensively from the masterpiece “A History of Wales” by the late, great John Davies, or John Bwlchllan as he was known to his friends, and from “When was Wales?” by the great historian who was a member of the Labour party and of Plaid Cymru, Gwyn Alf Williams, who retired to Drefach Felindre in my constituency.
I am delighted that my amendments 4 and 5 are being supported by the Labour Front-Bench team. When I was eating my cornflakes in the hotel this morning, it was a nice surprise to receive an email from David Williamson, the Western Mail correspondent, citing a press notice by the shadow Secretary of State for Wales saying that she supported my proposal. Perhaps this is the start of a beautiful new relationship, although I fear that I might be doing my best to scupper those sorts of endeavours after the election. I aim to press amendment 4 to a Division, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I have spoken on this issue before in the Chamber, but I will reiterate a few points that I made on Second Reading. The amendment deals with the historical anomaly that prohibits Wales from producing its own distinctive banknotes. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are allowed to do so, and so to celebrate their respective national figures and landmarks.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about our historical position, so does he support my view that my predecessor but one in what was then the constituency of Pontypool, Leo Abse, made probably the greatest contribution in the 20th century as a Back Bencher to changing people’s lives, and therefore would be a fine candidate to go on such banknotes?
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When I realised that I would be able to make this speech, I feared that there would be a lot of interventions along those lines. I will be citing some notable names during my speech, but that is not a matter for politicians to determine.
Jonathan Edwards
I will in a minute—we have to hear from Blaenau Gwent. It would be appropriate if there was a conversation among the people of Wales about who they would like on their banknotes.
Nick Smith
As part of the list of great men and women whom the Welsh people could consider having on our banknotes in the future, may I suggest Aneurin Bevan, a son of Tredegar and founder of the national health service?
Jonathan Edwards
That is certainly one of the names that I would like to see put forward.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman will note that two men—great men—have been recommended, but I would like to see more women represented on banknotes, whether they are Welsh or Bank of England notes. Does he agree that, whether or not one is a big spender, a resident of my own constituency, Dame Shirley Bassey, would be an excellent person to be on a Welsh banknote?
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that intervention, too. I saw that name mentioned very honourably in this morning’s Labour press notice.
Like other parts of the UK, Wales was once awash with small banks covering relatively small geographical areas, and those banks were allowed to issue their own banknotes. The Bank Charter Act 1844 brought an end to Welsh banknotes and provincial banknotes in England, but that measure did not apply to Ireland or Scotland. Four banks in Northern Ireland and three in Scotland have the authority to issue their own banknotes, provided that they are backed by Bank of England notes. The amendments would allow Lloyds Banking Group, which holds the rights to the Bank of Wales brand and is in part publicly owned by Welsh taxpayers, to issue Welsh banknotes, just as is permitted for the three clearing banks in Scotland and four in Northern Ireland.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a worthwhile commercial advantage would be gained by issuing banknotes? That value would then accrue to Lloyds bank, and possibly to taxpayers in Wales and the rest of the UK, which would be a good move.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to my parliamentary leader for his intervention. He is completely right, and that is why four banks in Northern Ireland and three in Scotland have continued the practice. There is a commercial interest for Lloyds, but also a public interest due to our part ownership of the bank.
Permission to issue Welsh banknotes would be a welcome boost to brand Wales, recognising our country as an equal and economic entity. Notes in Northern Ireland celebrate individuals such as J.B. Dunlop, Harry Ferguson and James Martin, as well as architectural splendour such as that of Belfast city hall. Notes in Scotland pay tribute to that country’s fantastic bridges and recognise the contribution of people such as Sir Walter Scott and Robbie Burns. Notes currently used in Wales recognise people such as Elizabeth Fry, Adam Smith and Matthew Boulton, and previous notes have portrayed Charles Dickens, Michael Faraday, Sir Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare, George Stephenson and the first Duke of Wellington. They are all great people, but none, to my knowledge, has anything to do with my country.
Is it not fair and sensible for us in Wales to use notes that recognise our historic landmarks, such as the incredible Castell Carreg Cennen in my constituency, Pont Menai in north Wales, Yr Wyddfa—Snowdon, the largest mountain in our country—and our historic greats such as Owain Glyndwr, who was nominated the seventh most important person of the last millennium by The Times, of all papers? There is also David Lloyd George, the originator of the welfare state, Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the NHS, and Gwynfor Evans, the first Plaid Member of Parliament and the father of modern Wales.
A case could also be made for what is arguably the most famous Welsh painting of all: “Salem”, painted by Sydney Curnow Vosper in 1908. His painting of Siân Owen aged 71 at Capel Salem, a Baptist chapel at Pentre Gwynfryn in the north of Wales, is a national icon, much as Constable’s “The Hay Wain” is in England. The Royal Mint already produces Welsh-specific coins, so my proposals raise no major issue of principle—indeed, the Minister referred to the Royal Mint earlier in the debate.
A national poll by ITV Cymru/Wales found that more than 80%—indeed, it was 82.6% when I looked at the website today—of the Welsh public supported these calls. If we are unsuccessful in the Division, I hope that the UK Government will support Plaid Cymru in putting right this historical anomaly and bring forward their own proposals.
Hywel Williams
I have a Welsh pound coin with me, and it reeks of nationalist propaganda because around the edge it states “Pleidiol wyf i’m gwlad”, which means “True am I to my country”. I certainly agree with that, but it is issued by the Royal Mint.
Jonathan Edwards
My hon. Friend makes my point entirely. There is no issue of principle at stake; this is about finding the mechanism for delivery.
This issue has received considerable media coverage in Wales. Considering that we are only two weeks from the Welsh general election, I suggest to Treasury Ministers that the election prospects of their candidates in Wales may be damaged if they choose to ignore the strong views of the people of Wales on this matter.
Richard Burgon
I support amendments 4 and 5, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). In Committee, the Minister highlighted the presence of the Royal Mint in Cardiff and its role in the production of our coins. In reflecting on that, it is worth noting that the pound coin reflects each nation, with the royal arms, the three lions and the oak tree for England; the thistle and the lion rampant for Scotland; the flax plant and the Celtic cross for Northern Ireland; and, of course, both the dragon and the leek for Wales. Since 2010, we have had pound coins celebrating the capital cities in the floral emblems of each nation of the United Kingdom. It therefore seems anomalous that Scotland, with its own Parliament, has its own banknotes and that Northern Ireland, with its own Assembly, has its own unique banknotes, yet that Wales, with its own flourishing Assembly, has no national identifier for circulating currency.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
If the amendments pass tonight and Wales is allowed to produce its own banknotes, I very much hope that some north Walians will be featured on them. Does my hon. Friend agree that such notes also represent a fine opportunity to showcase the great figures of Welsh literature and music?
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic suggestion, and I shall return in a few seconds to some Welsh figures from music, if not literature. It is important that all aspects of Welsh culture are represented when, as I hope, the Welsh people are able to choose who should feature on their banknotes and coins. A celebration of iconic Welsh scenes and places would also be appropriate. For example, there could be representations of the steel industry of Port Talbot, or the mining communities of the valleys—even perhaps the Tower colliery which, as those who know about the history of mining in Wales are aware, was run as a co-operative when miners used their redundancy payments to turn it into a successful venture. Such imagery would be well supported across the nation. Shirley Bassey and Nye Bevan, the father and founder of our NHS, have been suggested. It would be great to see Nye Bevan on a Welsh banknote. It might be a bit over the top to feature his famous quotes likening Tories to certain members of the animal kingdom, but that would be a matter for the Welsh people to decide.
My own personal suggestion, for what it is worth, is that given that it is now 30 years since the formation of that great Welsh rock band, the Manic Street Preachers, I would love to see them celebrated on a new banknote, although they might have ideological objections to doing so. It is also the 20th anniversary of “Everything Must Go”— I am talking not about the Chancellor’s policy on RBS shares, but the album of that name by the Manic Street Preachers. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr made it clear, however, it would be for the people of Wales, not those from Yorkshire or anywhere else, to decide who or what should appear on Welsh banknotes. In that spirit, I hope that the Conservative Government do not commit the cardinal error of snubbing the Welsh people’s desire for their own banknotes.
Richard Burgon
I had not thought of that point.
The lack of any Welsh-themed banknotes is an error that the amendments are designed to put right. I would appreciate the Government agreeing to the proposal and investigating the possible costs and timeframes for such a change. Labour Members wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support these amendments.
Harriett Baldwin
Anyone would think that a Welsh general election was going on this afternoon, would they not? I am glad that we have had time to debate this issue this afternoon. I can remember the shock in Worcestershire when Elgar, whose birthplace is in my West Worcestershire constituency, was taken off the £20 note. It was certainly a very live political issue.
I know that we all have an emotional attachment to our banknotes, and I therefore sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) to make the case that he has made so ably this afternoon, along with other Members, for banknotes to have some Welsh characteristics. We shall not be able to agree to the amendment today, for reasons that I shall explain, but I hope that what I shall say about our new banknotes will give some cheer to our Welsh colleagues.
Hywel Williams
Does the Minister agree with my earlier point that there is a commercial advantage to be gained from issuing one’s own notes? Why can that advantage not be extended to bank operations in Wales?
Harriett Baldwin
That is the very point that I was about to make. The amendment seeks to confer the right to issue commercial banknotes in Wales—a clear commercial advantage—on just one bank, Lloyds Banking Group. That appears to be based on a link to a right to issuance that was broken more than 100 years ago. Today, the Government—the taxpayer—owns just under 10% of Lloyds Banking Group. Part of Lloyds Banking Group already has a commercial banknotes issuance operation, which may be why the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr chose to focus on a single bank in his amendment. That is due to the acquisition of the Bank of Scotland operation, which is authorised to issue banknotes in Scotland. However, extending the privilege and the commercial advantage of issuing banknotes in Wales to just one bank would raise competition and commercial issues for others.
I liked the wide range of suggestions about who should be represented on Welsh banknotes, and, as I said earlier, the coins in our pockets are minted in Wales. I appreciate that the motive behind the amendment—the symbolic issue about which the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly—is to create a symbol, rather than to deal with a pressing economic or practical need for different banknotes.
The Bank of England has already announced that future banknotes, starting with the polymer £5 note which will be issued in September 2016, will include symbols representing all four home nations. For Wales, the imagery will be taken from the Royal Coat of Arms and the Royal Badge of Wales. The Bank recently announced that the design for the £5 note would be revealed on 2 June 2016.
I am very glad that we have had a chance to discuss the merits of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot support it. However, I welcome the opportunity to convey the message that an important symbol of Wales will appear on our new banknotes.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a pleasure to take this legislation through this House. There has been a good level of interest from Members from all parts of the House, and a wealth of suggestions and recommendations have been made, which is a testament to how important the issues in this Bill are. Indeed, some of the suggestions have made their way into the Bill.
The Bill will: make the Bank of England more transparent and accountable to Parliament and the public; further strengthen standards in the financial services sector; and strengthen protections for consumers, especially when accessing the new pensions freedoms. Building on the fundamental reforms to the regulatory architecture introduced by the Financial Services Act 2012, the Bill delivers a set of important evolutionary changes to the Bank. It ends the subsidiary status of the Prudential Regulation Authority and creates a new Prudential Regulation Committee, on the same footing as the Monetary Policy Committee and Financial Policy Committee. It makes the oversight functions the responsibility of the whole court, ensuring that every member of the court, executive and non-executive, can be held to account for the use of these functions. It also enhances the accountability of the Bank to Parliament by making the whole Bank subject, for the first time, to National Audit Office oversight. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me correct something I said in error earlier, when I confused NAO with FOI—freedom of information. Of course, FOI has applied to the Bank of England for some time; this Bill brings in the NAO oversight.
The Bill also implements the remaining recommendation of the Warsh review, updating requirements for the timing of MPC publications and meetings. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) said on Second Reading, this Bill
“brings the Bank of England more up to date as an institution, and in doing so it should greatly improve the scope for making it accountable to Parliament and the public”.—[Official Report, 1 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 667.]
During the passage of this Bill we have rightly devoted considerable time to the question of the appropriate role for Parliament. The Treasury Committee plays a crucial role in providing effective scrutiny of the FCA’s chief executive, and the agreement that we have announced today reinforces that.
The second aspect of the Bill is that it strengthens conduct in the financial sector by extending the senior managers and certification regime to all firms covered by the discredited authorised persons regime that we inherited. We all agree on the vital importance of high standards of conduct in the UK financial services industry. This Government have already taken the initiative in this area; we took a key step by bringing in the regime for the banking sector in March this year. The expansion of this new regime to all authorised persons will enhance personal responsibility for senior managers across the industry and raise standards of conduct more broadly.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces support for consumers accessing the new pension freedoms. To support consumers who, from April 2017, will be able to sell their annuity income stream in the secondary market for annuities, the Bill will extend the scope of the Pension Wise guidance service to cover these consumers, and introduce a requirement that, in effect, ensures that consumers with a high-value annuity receive appropriate financial advice before making the decision to sell their annuity income stream. These measures will help make consumers better informed and less vulnerable to mis-selling and scams.
In order to ensure fairness for people seeking to access their pensions early, the Bill will also give the FCA a new duty to cap early exit charges that act as a deterrent. This will provide real protection to consumers in contract-based pension schemes who are looking to make use of the freedoms.
The Bill also supports the Government’s consumer protection objectives by giving the Treasury a new power to provide financial assistance to illegal money-lending teams tasked with tackling loan sharks. Today, we have also added the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
In closing, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debates, both by speaking and by tabling amendments. In particular, I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee for their efforts and for the time spent going through the Bill clause by clause. The hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) provided challenging discussion throughout the passage of the Bill. The hon. Members for East Lothian (George Kerevan) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) gave close scrutiny to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester made valuable contributions that have been most helpful and insightful, particularly on Treasury Committee matters.
I also thank the Treasury Whips, my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who have provided me with much support both during and outside Bill debates. The Chairs of the Public Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have handled our scrutiny well.
I thank my Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who took on the important and thankless task of sitting behind me during our sittings and ensuring that I got the right briefing, for supporting me generally throughout this process.
Lord Bridges and Lord Ashton have done a fantastic job in taking the Bill through the other place, and I trust that they will continue to do so when the Lords consider our amendments.
Finally, I give thanks to the organisations that have assisted us in developing the Bill—the Bank of England, the National Audit Office and the Financial Conduct Authority. I must also give sincere thanks to Treasury officials, lawyers and parliamentary counsel, who spent many hours in the box, drafting amendments and briefings for these debates.
We have had useful and wide-ranging debates, and our discussions with Members in all parts of the House were constructive, even when we did not agree and had to settle matters with a vote. We have shown an understanding of each other’s position and improved the legislation as a result. The Bill will now go back to the other place, where their lordships will consider the useful changes that we have made to the Bill. I hope that they will welcome the legislation in its current form.
In conclusion, this Bill makes changes to strengthen the governance and accountability of the Bank of England. It will contribute to the Government’s commitment to strengthen standards across the financial services industry and ensure that consumers are well protected. I commend its Third Reading to the House.
Richard Burgon
It is my pleasure to speak for the Opposition on Third Reading of the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill. The Chair of the Treasury Committee very kindly referred to the good humour and good nature I showed in one of my speeches. I am afraid that, if he were here now, he would be disappointed with the speech that I am about to make. People could be forgiven for thinking that I am returning to what some call my po-faced modus operandi.
The role of Government in legislating for financial stability and in ensuring that the Bank of England acts in the interests of the wider economy is to get the balance of regulation right. Righting the wrongs of the 2008 bankers’ crisis is an important task for any responsible Government—a task that Governments around the world have focused on fulfilling in the past decade. The task has been being attempted since the bankers’ crisis of 2008, and today the bankers’ Chancellor is threatening to set it back.
The Bill has seen a number of changes since it first appeared in the other place, some of them for the better, but the precipitate changes that the Government are making to financial services regulation through their new settlement with the financial sector, including through measures in this Bill, suggest that they have failed to learn the lessons of the 2008 bankers’ crisis.
The Bill is a missed opportunity. The measures we have challenged on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report include the proposed abolition of the Bank’s oversight committee, the proposed veto on the National Audit Office’s powers of investigation, the proposed downgrading of the power of the Prudential Regulation Authority to that of a committee of the Bank, and the proposed reversal of the presumption of senior managers’ responsibility for misconduct cases. However, we also welcome a number of measures, including the Lords-stage concessions on the powers of oversight for the Bank’s non-executive directors, the reversal of the veto on the NAO’s powers of investigation, and the measures announced on funding for illegal money-lending teams in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
We are disappointed that other proposals have not been accepted by the Government. The leak of the Panama papers in the past fortnight has reawakened public concern about our financial system. There has been publication of thousands of documents detailing the systematic use of tax havens for the registration of secretive trusts and shell companies that are serviced by UK banks and that hold trillions of pounds out of reach of HMRC—a state of affairs that rightly outrages people across the UK and the globe. That is why earlier today we offered the Government an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to delivering the necessary tax transparency measures through our new clause 14.
That new clause, if the Government had supported it, would have instituted a new principle for the FCA: that of combating abusive tax avoidance arrangements, including by establishing a register of beneficial owners of trusts serviced by UK banks. Of course, that in itself is not sufficient, and Labour has set out its tax transparency enforcement plan. Earlier today, our new clause raised the vital issue of the UK banks’ involvement in the Panama papers, which the FCA has now asked them to report on.
The Government have set out initial plans but, with respect, they have not in our view grasped the bull by the horns. They have been dragged there by campaigners, charities and commentators who have rightly urged action on anti-abuse rules and country-by-country reporting. However, it is on the regulation of banks’ activity here in the UK, which has been such a dominant issue in recent years, that the Government have rolled back, watering down their proposals—or, should I say, U-turning on them.
Under the current presumption of responsibility that applies to senior managers, to avoid being found guilty of misconduct in an area for which they are responsible, they will have to show that they took reasonable steps to prevent that contravention. The Bill removes that onus on top bankers, an onus that is entirely reasonable, entirely proportionate and, as very bitter experience tells the British people, entirely necessary. Misconduct and misdemeanours in financial services are sadly not merely a tale from our history. In 2015, for example, the FCA had to fine firms more than £900 million. There was also the LIBOR scandal, foreign exchange fines and the mis-selling of PPI to the value of up to £33 billion, and the presumption of responsibility was so reasonable and so necessary that the policy was introduced with cross-party support. That should not be forgotten.
It is remarkable that only days after the leak of the Panama papers and the pressure on the Prime Minister to defend his creative financial arrangements, the Government can come to this House and defend their decision to reverse regulation that they chose to bring in back in 2013, following the comprehensive work of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my colleague Lord McFall, and others on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. This measure, which the Government are yet to implement, has been rolled back by the bankers’ Chancellor under pressure from those who would have been scrutinised. This change of policy did not take place in isolation; as I say, it was part of the Chancellor’s new settlement with the financial sector.
Another idea that we supported today, alongside our Treasury Committee colleagues, was strengthening the role of the Treasury Committee in the appointment of the chief executive of the FCA. It is the Treasury’s influence over the FCA and financial regulation that has been the subject of so much debate and concern in the past year; there has been debate and concern about the removal of Martin Wheatley and the scrapping of the FCA review of banking culture. More widely, as part of the post-crash debate, there have been concerns about whether bank capitalisation and leverage would be at sufficient levels and whether a suitably strong ring-fence would be implemented.
Added to this toxic cocktail of the bankers’ Chancellor’s own stirring is his unhealthy obsession with flogging off the Government’s Royal Bank of Scotland shares at a huge cost to the public purse. I have previously asked the Minister whether the Government will establish a floor price for the sale of RBS shares, as they have with Lloyds shares—or do they accept that the Chancellor got it wrong when he said that his loss leader last year would lead to better sales?
There is also the issue of pension master trusts. In Committee, the Minister told my colleague the shadow Financial Secretary that the Government would bring forward legislation, but the Minister of State for Pensions has since told the Work and Pensions Committee:
“I have been pressing for a Pensions Bill but so far we don’t have one”,
even though the Government could not protect savers without one. Will the Minister say when the Government will take action?
This Bill is a missed opportunity to demonstrate how the Bank of England could carry out its work in the most efficient way possible, with transparency and accountability in its decision making, serving the interests of the people who have sent us here to represent them, and a missed opportunity to demonstrate that senior managers in the financial sector could continue to do their jobs while being effectively and appropriately regulated. These are more missed opportunities from the missed-target Chancellor.
The context of the Bill is vital to understanding our concerns, and the concerns and demands of the wider public. We are eight years on from the economic crisis—the bankers’ crisis, which brought the financial services sector and our country to their knees. The sector was rescued by the decisive action of the then Prime Minister.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take over and run these dodgy banks that have been in trouble all these years?
Richard Burgon
The Prime Minister of the day did step in and take appropriate action. The important thing is that the lessons of the financial crisis and the banking crisis are learned. I believe that the Opposition have learned those lessons, but those on the Government Benches have not.
Do the Chancellor and the Government still not understand the widespread anger out there? Do they not recognise the public’s deep distaste for the ever-expanding horror story of bailed-out bankers not being brought to book? The Panama papers shone a light on the squalid practice of the super-rich squirreling away money offshore that Britain needs for our schools and hospitals, and to bring down the UK debt that has rocketed on the Chancellor’s watch. As I said on Second Reading, all that is taking place while there are cuts to pay, pensions, welfare, councils and services.
The public are right to remember that because of the behaviour of some top bankers, people whom this House is meant to represent lost their homes and their jobs. We should never forget that it was the bankers’ crisis that caused the deficit that this Government have relied on as their justification for their political choice to cut our public services, cut funding to our local authorities, cut the incomes of working people and cut support for the most vulnerable people in our communities. The global financial crash caused the huge increase in the deficit and stalled the economy. It also gave the Government the opportunity to carry out their long-harboured and decades-old ideological desire to cut public services and wither away the state.
We need a healthy and effective banking sector, but one that is appropriately regulated, serves the interests of the whole economy, does not hurt ordinary people or small and medium-sized businesses and delivers the vital investment our country needs for long-term growth. The Conservative Government’s climbdown on the presumption of responsibility, which they previously supported, will hinder, not help, the fulfilment of those ambitions.
Personal responsibility is vital for the operation of our regulatory systems. The Chancellor’s policy U-turn reduces precisely the personal responsibility that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended in its 500-page report. Scrapping a key measures before it has even had a chance to be tested makes no sense—unless, of course, the Chancellor is just following bankers’ orders. The startling and precipitous scrapping of a widely welcomed measure shows that there is a very real risk of failing to learn the lessons of the bankers’ crisis, and that is why we will oppose the Bill today. I urge all hon. Members to do the same.
George Kerevan
We, too, will oppose the Bill on Third Reading. During Treasury questions today, the Chancellor said—I wrote the phrase down, because I was rather taken with it—that he was quite certain that we now have “better and tougher regulation of the financial system.” That is a good test, and it is a good test for this Bill. Do we have tougher regulation? As the law stands this evening, if a senior named manager in a major financial institution discovers that there has been major corruption, wrongdoing and regulatory failure at their bank on their watch, they are culpable unless they can prove to the FCA that they took reasonable steps to stop that happening. As we speak, they would be responsible, and that has been the case for a month and a half.
If we pass the Bill tonight, the situation will change. That manager will no longer be personally responsible. They will be able to argue, “Actually, I ticked all the boxes, signed all the forms, went to all the group therapy sessions with those on my trading floor and told them all to be good boys and girls, but do you know what? They weren’t, and they hid it from me.” And so we will go through the whole cycle again. The law as it stands, as passed by this Government and this Chancellor, makes each individual senior named manager responsible, like the captain of a ship or ferry; if something goes wrong, they are responsible and they cannot claim otherwise. If we pass the Bill, far from toughening the law, we will weaken it.
The only explanation we have heard from the Government is that it is a bit more complicated now because the Bill widens to tens of thousands the number of people who will be designated as responsible people when it comes to identifying who is in charge when something goes wrong. I understand that, but it is perfectly possible, as we tried in Committee, to ring-fence and say that the very senior people in the major banks—the systemically dangerous banks—should be held personally responsible, unless they can prove that they took proper steps. But no, the Government are using the widening of the designated persons regime to weaken and water down the current legislation. That tells me that they are not really serious about being tougher; they are more concerned with getting by.
There was an interesting debate in Committee about transfer vehicles. Those are a bit technical, but they are to do with how the insurance market reinsures itself to spread risk. There are clauses in the Bill—this is a good thing to put into it—that give the Treasury powers to regulate the use of transfer vehicles in the reinsurance market in a tougher fashion, to use the Chancellor’s key word.
I do not have time to go into detail about what is happening, but insurers can offset some of their risk in the reinsurance market, and they usually do that by selling some of it to specialist wholesale houses, which buy into the risk, but whose capital covers the risk if something goes wrong. Now, the insurance market is instead moving towards reinsuring through specialist vehicles of the kind that got us into trouble in the mortgage market in the lead-up to 2007.
When the issue was discussed in Committee, it was interesting that Ministers argued that we needed to put in place a regulatory framework that made it easier to shift the burden in the reinsurance market away from wholesalers that are capitalised and towards special vehicles using all the financial markets’ tricks of the trade, which led to the disaster in 2007. That said to me that, deep down in the Bill, the Government are up to their old tricks—they want to deregulate and to have less tough regulation, rather than more regulation. On those grounds, the Bill fails the Chancellor’s test, and we should vote against it.
There are good things in the Bill. In particular, we can pride ourselves on the fact that, through the Committee stage and leading up to Report stage today, the Government have been persuaded—I use that word in inverted commas—to take the Treasury Committee’s advice and to set a precedent, in that the FCA’s chief executive will in future be subject, de facto, to having their appointment approved by the Committee and, therefore, by this House rather than the Executive.
That does two things. First, it makes the FCA more accountable, because it is accountable to the House rather than the Executive. Secondly, it protects the FCA from interference by the Executive. That is a good precedent. If it is extended, we will be able to ensure that all the key regulatory bodies and their senior staff are approved by the House and, in particular, that the Governor of the Bank of England is subject to scrutiny and approval by the House, rather than simply appointed by the Executive. That is important because of the large powers that have been transferred to the Bank of England since the crisis of 2007.
However, there are still loose ends, and so I come to the word “better” in the Chancellor’s little homily. Have things got better? They have got a little better, given the ability of the House to protect the FCA and to have a role in appointing its head, and we can take that further into other regulatory bodies. However, there are loose ends at the FCA. Much of the Bill and much of the debate has been about the FCA. In the last instance, the FCA is the consumer’s champion: it regulates how the banks sell. Many of the problems we have had in the last 10 years have been about mis-selling by the banks. Every Member in the House will know we have a number of legacy organisations and legacy campaigns because we have still not put right the mis-selling that has taken place across a range of banks and products since the turn of the millennium.
The FCA is important, and protecting it is important, because, in the last instance, it is the consumer’s champion. A few weeks ago I went to FCA headquarters and had a meeting with Mr John Griffith-Jones, who is the chairman of the FCA. I put it to him, “You are the consumer champion,” but he demurred. He does not feel that the FCA is the consumer champion. He thinks that that would go too far and that it would be partisan and take up the consumer’s choice. At present, the FCA is still too much the creature of the Treasury. If we want a tougher and better regulatory regime, we have to make the FCA truly independent.
The FCA is getting a new chief executive, but I am not going to offer platitudes and pleasantries. When the new chief executive starts, I think that the chairman of the FCA should consider his position, because I think it also needs a new chairman. We are only starting on the road of making sure that our regulatory bodies are fit for purpose; we have not got there yet.
Finally, many people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are disappointed that the Government stood on ceremony and decided not to widen the remit of the membership of the core bodies of the Bank of England, starting with its court, to allow proper representation of all of the regions and nations, including the north of England. Most people in this country, and certainly those in the Celtic regions, are long of the view that the Bank of England, the banks and the key regulatory authorities are far too focused on the square mile of the City of London and its needs. We will never have a tougher, better regulatory system unless we widen the remit until the whole of the UK—the individual nations and the regions of England—is represented. Until we do that, the Bank of England is still suspect. That has not been delivered, so there is still a suspicion across the UK that the banking regulatory system operates ultimately in the interests of the bankers, rather than the people. Until that changes, we will not have a better or tougher regulatory system; we will simply have the same old regulatory system dressed up under a different name, and the same old banking crisis will be around the corner yet again.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
Green belt land between Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I would like to present a petition signed by the 4,962 people who have joined me in our campaign against building on green-belt land between Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay.
The petition reads:
The petition of residents of Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay in the South Staffordshire constituency, and others,
Declares that the current proposals to build 136 houses on Landywood Lane, Great Wyrley will lead to the erosion of the distinct identity of our individual villages and could cause substantial environmental damage and further notes that residents have already successfully fought these proposals at local council level in 2013.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage South Staffordshire District Council to reject these proposals, and if the proposals go to the Planning Inspectorate, to also encourage them to reject the proposals so that the green belt can be conserved for future generations.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001684]
UK Citizens Returning From Fighting Daesh
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, and to so many right hon. and hon. Members for expressing an interest in it. I am particularly honoured that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) will respond to the debate for the Government. I know that the nation sleeps more soundly and sweetly in the knowledge that he is our Minister for Security.
This question is not a new one. We have grappled with how to view and respond to our fellow citizens who go abroad to fight in foreign wars. They did so not for money, as mercenaries, but because they believed that was the right thing to do, and they joined the side of the conflict that at least ostensibly—and certainly, for those unversed in the complexities of an individual conflict—held widespread public support. That side was viewed by many, perhaps at times the majority, as the right side, or as, in one way or another, Britain’s ally. Some 50,000 English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish fought in the American civil war, and several thousand fought in the Spanish civil war, as was memorialised by George Orwell. More recently, dozens of British volunteers joined Croatian units during the Yugoslav wars between 1991 and 1995.
After the experience of the American civil war, Parliament passed the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, which prevents Britons from enlisting in a foreign army that is at war with a state currently at peace with the United Kingdom. However, that Act has never been properly enforced. It was, and it remains to this day, extremely difficult to monitor and to prosecute such an offence. Those returning from the Spanish civil war frequently expected to be given a hero’s welcome; in fact, they were invariably treated with suspicion by the police. They faced workplace discrimination, and many were even prevented from enlisting during the second world war.
Today, many—perhaps hundreds; I do not have an authoritative estimate, but perhaps the Minister will give us one in a moment—British citizens have travelled to northern Iraq, and from there into Syria. They have trained with Kurdish forces and militias and, ultimately, fought on the frontline against Daesh, in some cases in the fiercest fighting that there has been in this conflict, at Sinjar and Kobane.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate about a very interesting issue. Many people who went to the middle east to fight on the allied side—the side that the Government are supporting—checked with their own police forces and Government officials to let them know that they were going, and they were allowed to go, but when they returned, some were arrested, questioned and detained. Is there not something wrong when someone checks to see whether it is all right to go but then is arrested on their return? Why should that be?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman gets to the point of the debate and I will return to that issue in a moment. The Government and the country need a clear and consistent policy. If we let individuals go, why should we arrest them for terrorism on their return?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I applaud my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The opposite happened in my constituency. Anthony Harrison, a constituent, went to Iraq and fought with the Kurdish YPG forces. When he returned to Heathrow, he expected to be stopped, but was not. He then went back to Gillingham and self-referred to the police. The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. We should be checking those individuals who have gone out and come back, otherwise there is a real risk to our national security.
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Whichever side of the argument we take—whether we are supporters of these individuals or have reservations—their stories suggest that there is no clear policy. Those stories do not give us great confidence in our border controls, as different individuals have clearly been treated in different ways.
A growing number of individuals have been profiled in the media. Some have even been on more than one tour, as it were. I have been in contact with 20 families, some of whom I will refer to this evening, including that of one of my own constituents, Aiden Aslin. Two Britons and an Irishman were arrested this weekend crossing back from Syria into northern Iraq, so this remains a topical issue. At least one British citizen, a former marine, Konstandinos Erik Scurfield from Barnsley, has been killed in action. The Foreign Office says that owing to the difficulties and the lack of consular services in the area, it is difficult to estimate whether more British citizens have been killed in action and what may have become of their bodies.
Behind every one of those individuals is a family. I have been in regular contact with my constituent Aiden’s mother, Angela, and his grandmother, Pamela, throughout his 10 months abroad. I cannot overstate their concern and anguish. Their initial thought was that one day they would turn on the television and see their son and grandson in an orange jacket. In their case, at least, there is also acceptance that their son and grandson took this extraordinary decision freely, in sound mind and good faith, because he could not continue to watch the atrocities on the television every night and turn a blind eye. I would not dare to generalise about the motives of all who have gone out there, but I have now met several, and they are brave and good people who deserve our respect and fair treatment under the law.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to seek a bit of advice about the highly unusual case of a UK citizen injured fighting the forces of Daesh whom I met in a refugee camp in France. He is leading a pretty miserable existence there because he refuses to abandon his wife and baby boy who had to flee Kurdistan, but are not entitled to seek asylum in the UK. The family do not meet the minimum income requirements for spouse visas, partly because of his injuries. How can we help this courageous UK citizen who fought our common enemy, Daesh, and get him and his family out of their miserable existence in the refugee camp in Europe and back here where he belongs?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point; perhaps the Minister will respond to it later in the debate. I am pleased that other hon. Members have come across individuals who are in the same circumstances as people I have met.
These individuals are entering an exceptionally dangerous situation, and many are not at all prepared or suitable for these conflict zones. Some of the militias with which they wittingly or unwittingly become involved divide opinion sharply, and it is difficult for the layperson to navigate their record and legal status in the United Kingdom. Some of the groups have been accused of war crimes or association with terrorism. The diplomatic situation is complex, and things are becoming increasingly hostile towards those who are enlisting in Iraq and Turkey. It is exceptionally difficult to understand what citizens have done while in the field and who they have associated with, or to predict with complete confidence how they will behave on their return.
I start with the premise that although we acknowledge people’s bravery and seek fair and appropriate treatment, we should as far as possible discourage and inhibit British citizens from going out in the first place, particularly if we plan to arrest some of them under the Terrorism Act 2000 when they return. Several militias operate in the region, but the principal group recruiting British citizens that I have come across is the YPG, or its foreign fighters organisation, the Lions of Rojava, which has a Facebook account and is easily contactable online.
My constituent, who had no prior knowledge of the region, was able to carry out a Google search, to make contact and to organise his travel at low cost and with great ease. As far as I know—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—the Home Office and internet providers have made no effort to close down such sites as they might for those that encourage the recruitment of British citizens to fight on the other side. Many of those recruited are making rational choices, and it is not my intention to imply otherwise or discredit them, but there is clear evidence that some are far less equipped than others to make these decisions, such as a 19-year-old man who previously worked as a florist in Manchester and had never left the United Kingdom in his life, a young man with Asperger’s, and a British citizen who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had previously tried to take his own life three times. Journalists in the field to whom I have spoken have reported being contacted on numerous occasions by former servicemen who are asking for ways to return to Iraq to finish the job and to support the Iraqi and Syrian people, particularly in the name of their fallen comrades who gave their lives in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating this excellent debate, and he is right that we must try to prevent people from going out there in the first place. What more does he think that internet companies should do to bring down these sites as soon as possible? At the moment, the referral process takes too long.
Robert Jenrick
I completely concur with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. It is important that Facebook and others take down not only sites that are actively recruiting British citizens to fight for IS, but sites that might be preying on naive and vulnerable Britons who, in their eyes, have decided to do the right thing, but are none the less getting themselves into grave danger.
Some of those individuals, particularly ex-servicemen and women, would be advised not to go to the conflict zone. Few questions are asked by the recruiters and no military experience is required. Health is never checked, and many if not most people arrive at airports such as Sulaymaniyah completely in the dark about what they should expect. They could be kidnapped and held to ransom—who knows?
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend says that health is never checked when people go out, but given the trauma that people may have suffered on the battlefield, their state of mind needs to be checked when they come back if we are to consider security, because such people may inadvertently get drawn into other criminal activity.
Robert Jenrick
The short answer is that very little support is offered to returning individuals. Indeed, my research suggests that the vast majority of people are not even questioned by the police or security services on their return.
Many people going out have little knowledge of the principal militias such as the YPG. My purpose tonight is not to besmirch the YPG, but to point out that it divides opinion and that many if not most Britons who go out have no real knowledge of that group or the accusations against it. Amnesty International has accused the YPG of war crimes.
The Turkish Government believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is an offshoot of the PKK, which is of course a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK and the USA. Recent reports suggest that some foreign fighters have left the YPG in the field because of its views and joined other even more obscure militias such as the so-called “self-sacrifice” group, which operates in the Nineveh region.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on securing this debate. Having said that, I have been listening to what he has been saying and I wonder how he would regard ex-British servicemen who fight alongside the Kurds? Is it not an interesting question to ask what happens to them when they return?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, showing the complexity of the situation. As I understand it, the Kurdish army, the peshmerga, has said that, as a result of direct representations by the US Government, it is no longer recruiting foreign fighters, but militias are different and continue to recruit foreign volunteers. Some of these groups use a language of martyrdom that is not altogether dissimilar from that of the people they are fighting against, which certainly makes me extremely uncomfortable.
The position of British citizens in the field has become even more complex recently because it appears that Turkey has applied pressure on Iraq to take action against the YPG and foreign fighters because of its links to the PKK and the Kurds. The two Britons and an Irishman arrested over the weekend were detained by the Iraqi Government due to “visa irregularities”, which seems a fairly spurious reason for arrest, given that there is no working Iraqi-Syrian border. It none the less suggests that, given our limited consular services in northern Iraq, British citizens are getting themselves into a complex and dangerous situation. British citizens should be discouraged from going out. The sites should be taken down and the Government should, behind the scenes, persuade the Kurdish authorities to keep British citizens out of the conflict. The peshmerga are no longer accepting foreign volunteers, as I say, but the militias certainly are.
Why are individuals not being prevented from travelling when they openly inform officers of their intentions at the airport, as my constituent did, when these immigration and security officials should surely know that these individuals are likely to be arrested on their return? If British citizens are to be arrested under the Terrorism Act, why are we waving them through immigration and on to their planes? That is perverse and unjust to those individuals.
Let me turn briefly to how we treat these individuals on their return. Of the 20 I have spoken with or their families, two were arrested under the Terrorism Act; four were questioned, but not arrested; 14 came and went at will, unquestioned, three of whom have been on a second or third tour of duty overseas. That does not give me a great deal of confidence in our border controls.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend talks about people being stopped and questioned by the police. I have a letter here from the Minister in the other place who is responsible for tackling extremism, which states that the stopping and questioning of these individuals is an operational matter for the police, but surely we need guidance for each case from the Government rather than having issue after issue being looked at by the police.
Robert Jenrick
I could not agree more.
I do not know whether this is a representative sample, so perhaps the Minister will tell us in his remarks how many British citizens have been arrested in these circumstances, but it is clear that there is not a consistent approach. Much, as my hon. Friend has just said, is left to individual police forces. My own police force in Nottinghamshire arrested my constituent on his plane and took him for brief questioning, yet he has awaited news of whether he is to be charged for the past 12 weeks. The outcome has now been postponed once again. I am told that the Crown Prosecution Service has not been given the file or been asked for its advice.
Do police forces know how to handle this situation? Some treat these individuals and their families in exactly the same way and in the same circumstances as they would for those fighting for Daesh, which is particularly rough on the families and loved ones, whose homes are searched and computers taken while neighbours watch on through twitching curtains. Others may well chose not to get involved as some individuals have been in the press, but are never troubled by the police.
Clearly, individuals need to be questioned; we need to understand what they have done. I can appreciate, as the Minister may argue, that a single mistake or an individual wrongly assumed to be fighting on the other side who then returns home and commits a terrorist act, is a risk that we cannot bear. However, I suggest that we should exercise caution before arresting individuals, because that will remain on their records for the rest of their lives. If we do arrest them, it should be done consistently, and police forces should be equipped with guidance so that people like my constituent are not left in limbo for months and months while they decide what to do.
Kevin Foster
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate that has proved quite interesting to me. He has described the complexity of a situation in which different militia groups—different forces—are fighting Daesh. Does he agree that guidance is needed because the task of any immigration or police officer who is presented with a case of this kind is to investigate crime rather than looking into international affairs?
Robert Jenrick
That is absolutely true. This is an unenviable task for anyone who is involved in such investigations.
I do not pretend to have the answers, but let me draw the attention of the House and the Minister to an issue that I think needs careful thought. Given the existence of social media and cheap international flights, it has never been easier for individuals to make contact, to be recruited, and to travel to conflict zones. It might be thought that in this modern age when we are all mollycoddled, people would not dream of doing something of this kind, but people are doing it, and it is becoming easier and easier to do.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Government and law enforcement agencies to send the clear, consistent and credible message that those who decide to go abroad and risk their lives run a very real risk of prosecution when they return? Would that not constitute a powerful disincentive?
Robert Jenrick
I could not agree more.
Most of these individuals—certainly most of those whom I have met—are doing this for what they believe to be good reasons. Most are braver men and women than you or I. However, doing this carries great risks, beyond the risk of being killed, captured or ransomed: the risks involved in being caught fighting with a group that is viewed by some as a terrorist organisation. Even if it is not, people will still be arrested, and that will remain on their records for the rest of their lives.
The Government need a considered and consistent policy, which they do not appear to have today. They need a policy that discourages British citizens from taking such risks, which ensures that, whenever possible, they are advised of their likely legal status on their return, and which, above all, treats these brave men fairly and appropriately when they do come home.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on securing an interesting and informative debate on a topic that has been unfairly overlooked during our discussions about the conflict in Syria and Iraq. As you might expect, Mr Speaker, I have a prepared speech, and I shall refer to it sporadically, but I want to tailor my remarks to the issues that have been raised in the debate. I sense the shivers that are going down the spines of Home Office officials as I utter those words.
My hon. Friend made an emphatic case for why we should broadcast clearly and powerfully that travelling abroad in uncertain circumstances such as those that he has described is extremely dangerous. There are three reasons for that. First, the cause that people go to support is often not what it is purported to be in the propaganda that has encouraged them to do so. Secondly, as my hon. Friend suggested, those people may well not return. They may be placed in extremely jeopardous situations, even if they are going abroad to offer help. They may not know that they are going to fight—to engage in conflict—but they will nevertheless be placing themselves in extreme danger, almost regardless of their original purpose. Thirdly, on their return they may well face prosecution and will certainly face arrest. Extra-territorial jurisdiction applies in many of the places to which they might travel—particularly, as in this case, Syria. It is entirely possible that they have committed crimes abroad that are subject to that jurisdiction, and can be tried in a court here in the United Kingdom. That is another fact that is not made known to them when they are recruited. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, first and foremost, we should send out the extremely clear message that if people travel to a dangerous place, they will put themselves in all kinds of jeopardy.
Mr Jim Cunningham
There is a history of people volunteering to go abroad in this way—for example, during the Spanish civil war and other wars since then. Do the Home Office and the Cabinet Office view such people technically as mercenaries?
Mr Hayes
As I have implied, these matters have to be gauged on a case-by-case basis, because people travel abroad for humanitarian reasons and all kinds of other reasons. In the first tranche of people travelling to Syria, many went with good intentions and to do good work. They went to help. The pattern of travel to Syria has changed over time, but I would certainly not want to make any general assumptions about why an individual went or what they did when they got there. However, it is almost universally true to say that they place themselves at considerable risk. If people want to offer humanitarian help, it is much better to do that in a more organised way than in a dilettante fashion. People can contribute in all sorts of ways to the humanitarian effort in which the Government are playing a powerful part without putting themselves at risk. There are things that they can do to help.
Part of the reason behind the advice that was offered by my hon. Friend in his impressive speech, and which I have amplified, is that some of the organisations that people might join—ostensibly for the good and noble purposes that he described—might themselves be proscribed. Some of the organisations fighting Daesh are themselves proscribed and might be engaged in activities that we neither endorse nor support. The picture is often more complicated than is portrayed when people are recruited.
Many of those people are recruited through the internet. It will not have missed your consideration, Mr Speaker—little does—that people communicate in all kinds of modern technological ways these days. Much of the propaganda that is now emanating from Daesh uses the most modern methods of communication. We often think of Daesh as brutally archaic, which is understandable given its means and its methods. Indeed, it is often suggested that it is an organisation from times past. However, its technological methodology is extremely up to date. It takes advantage of every kind of social media and it uses the internet regularly in a well-organised and sophisticated way. That is precisely why its message is seductive to its adherents and apologists here in the United Kingdom.
Keith Vaz
The Minister is absolutely right to suggest that we are dealing with a very sophisticated enemy. May I take him back to the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about border checks? We still do not have 100% border checks, because our passports are not viewed by immigration officers on departure. They are looked at, together with our boarding cards, by the travel agents, but we are not checked on departure. The hon. Gentleman is calling for better checks at the border, with our passports being looked at by immigration officers and swiped before departure. That does not happen at the moment.
Mr Hayes
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee takes a keen interest in all such matters. What I will say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark is that it seems that if people have notified the local police that they may go, which is what he said, and then no more has been done for the reasons that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested, that does not seem satisfactory. It certainly seems reasonable that if people have notified the police that they are going to travel—although it is of course for the police to make a case-by-case judgment on an operational basis—we need at least to be confident that the police have the right guidance on what is appropriate. I am certainly happy to take that suggestion back to the Home Office and to see what more can be done, if anything, to ensure that the advice to different police forces around the country is consistent. As I say, these are, in the end, operational matters, and this has to be gauged on a case-by-case basis, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newark makes an important point none the less.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in taking interventions. Following his comment about briefing police forces around the country, I urge him to ensure that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is included. People can leave the UK on British passports, go out to help in Syria, become radicalised and then come back, perfectly lawfully, to Dublin or Shannon airports. The border between the Republic of Ireland and South Armagh is entirely porous, so British passport holders can re-enter the UK through Northern Ireland without any border checks.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable case. There is a robust system in place for missing persons to be identified, for example, by the Turkish police on the Syrian border. We spend a great deal of time considering the issue of people returning from Syria, because some of them will subsequently be subjects of interest to our intelligence services and to law enforcement. However, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark was making was that if someone has said to the police, “I’m going,” do different forces apply the same policy consistently? It is a reasonable point, which is why I have committed to considering it in more detail and to looking at the guidance.
Jim Shannon
This House took a majority decision to support bombing attacks in Syria and Iraq. Those who watched those debates would assume that the bombing would be in support of the 70,000 allied forces and supporters who were trying to fight Daesh on the ground. That was the whole purpose of the House’s decision. Anyone watching that debate who wanted to support the factions fighting Daesh would feel, when they spoke to the police, that this House was already fighting a war, and that they were doing nothing wrong. Does the Minister understand that that is the issue put forward by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? There are two different groups: those who are fighting Daesh, and those who support Daesh.
Mr Hayes
I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that someone might think that they are going out for what might be the perfectly noble cause of fighting our common enemy, but there is always a great deal of uncertainty about what happens when they get there. Such people are by their nature often quite ignorant of what they will encounter and may become linked to, tied to, or involved in all kinds of organisations and groups, some of which are proscribed in this country and engage in all kinds of other activities as well as the battle against Daesh. This is a complicated issue and should not be presented as anything else, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s sympathy.
Rehman Chishti
The Minister will agree that both categories of individuals—those who go to fight Daesh and those who support Daesh—are of concern. Around 800 individuals are fighting with Daesh. Do the Government or the Minister have an estimate of the number of individuals out there fighting against Daesh? Both groups should be on our intelligence services’ radar.
Mr Hayes
We know roughly the number of people who have travelled to Syria, some of whom initially went for humanitarian reasons. Many have returned, but some have been killed. As both my hon. Friend the Member for Newark and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, all those who go also face the risk of being captured and used as hostages. The strong advice is, “Don’t go, because you don’t know what you are going to encounter. And you certainly don’t know what the consequences may be.” That is precisely the point my hon. Friend the Member for Newark made in his opening remarks, and it is an important signal to send out from this place.
I would not want to suggest that the Government are inactive in this respect, so let me deal with what we are doing. The work we are doing on providing humanitarian aid is well documented. We have pledged more than £2.3 billion in vital life-saving assistance to Syria, and this is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. We remain one of the largest donors to the Syrian crisis response internationally. Of course it is important also to emphasise that those engaged in terrorism blight lives, provide bogus legitimacy to the worst extremes of human behaviour and tear communities apart. This activity cannot ever be justified, and it will never be justified by this Government, wherever it takes place or whoever commits it. I also understand the desire to confront our enemies, but the struggle for what is right is not, and cannot be, left to individuals; it can be devised and delivered only through the proper exercise of Government authority.
The second point I wish to make is that we are, of course, part of a military response to the threat posed by Daesh; the UK is making a strong military contribution. RAF Typhoon, Tornado and Reaper aircraft have flown more than 2,000 combat missions, and about 1,000 UK personnel are supporting their operation in the wider region. Our aircraft also provide effective close air support to Iraqi and Kurdish forces taking the fight to Daesh on the ground, with recent successes coming in Ramadi and Sinjar. It is through the global coalition, to which we are making such a significant contribution, that we will defeat Daesh. Although it is understandable that individuals should want to add to that, their effort is better expended in supporting what we are trying to do as a nation to get this right, both militarily and in humanitarian terms.
This is also about challenging the propaganda that I have mentioned, as has the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. Challenging that, in communities up and down our nation, is a job for all of us. If people want to fight Daesh, they can do that on the streets of our capital city, London, and in cities and towns across this kingdom. All of us have a job to do in countering that poisonous narrative, which is delivered partly, but not only, through the internet. That is why the Government have invested so much in the Prevent programme and in our Channel programme, which deals specifically with people at risk of radicalisation.
We introduced a Prevent duty for a range of public bodies, including schools, prisons, local authorities and health services. This communal task of challenging the narrative is ongoing. It is highly dynamic, for the very reason that the threat we face is dynamic, and that requires us to redouble our efforts. I say to individuals who want to take on Daesh that there is a job to do in all those ways. For example, we take 1,800 pieces of terrorist propaganda down from the internet not every year or every month, but every week. That task is vital, as is supporting those community organisations and others that are putting forward the counter-narrative. These are important pieces of work, because the effect on individuals, particularly young people, who are corrupted by that poisonous narrative could not be more devastating.
Of course young people are targeted, because they are particularly vulnerable. They are susceptible to the kind of propaganda that I have described. It is important to know that last year alone, we referred 2,000 young people to our Channel programme, because they were vulnerable to that kind of radicalisation. In some cases, no further work was needed, but in others, intervention by social services was required. More than 200 such young people received support through that Channel programme.
At the end of last year, I saw at first hand, in Portsmouth, Hackney and elsewhere, the work that was done by our Prevent co-ordinators. I have met many of those who are on the frontline of this battle, and that is the frontline on which I want people to fight. I am talking about working in this country, taking on those who wish to corrupt our young people. This is no less than a safeguarding issue. The methods used by those who want to radicalise young people are not dissimilar to those of other kinds of exploitation. There is often a grooming process, which may take place face to face or online. It is often about picking on those young people who are particularly disadvantaged in some way. It is certainly about turning them from the cause of virtue to the cause of wickedness.
There should be no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has done a service to this House by drawing our attention to the matters that we have debated briefly tonight. I end with this thought, which I hope he will broadcast to the people of Newark and elsewhere. If anyone should be in any doubt, let it be dispelled tonight: this Government and this Minister can outmatch our enemies in respect of our certainty, our determination and our commitment to winning this battle for the very heart and soul of all we are as a people.
Question put and agreed to.
European Agenda on Security
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I will briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the decision of that Committee to refer the document for debate. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes. Questions to the Minister will follow. The total time for that statement and the subsequent questions and answers is up to an hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the Order Paper and debate takes place upon that motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 5 o’clock. Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your wise guidance, Mr Turner.
The Commission published its communication, “The European Agenda on Security”, in May 2015. It sets out a shared agenda for the period 2015 to 2020, to support member states in fulfilling their
“front line responsibility for security,”
with a focus on organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime. The proposed agenda is intended to replace the EU’s first internal security strategy, which expired at the end of 2014. Although they broadly welcomed the communication, the Government made it clear that the renewed EU internal security strategy would be owned and implemented by the Council and based on a number of key strategic aims set out in conclusions agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December 2014 and June 2015.
The European Scrutiny Committee considered the Commission communication last July at its first meeting of the new Parliament and recommended that it should be debated before the Commission brought forward further measures to implement its European agenda on security. Despite that clear request for a timely debate, it has taken the Government nine months to schedule one. During the intervening period, there have been two devastating terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, which have resulted in the loss of 160 lives. At the same time, conflict and crisis in the EU’s neighbourhood have generated unprecedented migratory flows to the EU and undermined confidence in the security of the EU’s external borders. A number of member states have responded by reintroducing temporary internal border controls. How member states and EU institutions and agencies work together to manage security at their external borders, respond humanely to the refugee crisis and tackle the terrorist threat is the most important challenge facing the EU today.
How have the EU and member states responded to those threats to internal security and stability? Since July, the Council and European Parliament have concluded negotiations on a directive on passenger name record data and a new Europol regulation, a counter-terrorism centre has been established within Europol and new data protection rules have been agreed. The UK is participating in a revamped Schengen information system and has also decided to re-join the so-called Prüm measures, which provide for the exchange of DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration data to combat terrorism and other serious cross-border crimes. In addition, the Commission has put forward proposals to strengthen existing EU terrorism laws, tighten the rules on civilian firearms and expand the European criminal records system.
In short, much useful work has been done at European level and by Ministers, and it is important that we recognise and applaud the good work that has been done by both the British Government and our European partners. However, at a time of heightened terrorist alerts in many member states, does the Minister agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the renewed EU internal security strategy merits the exposure and scrutiny of a debate? If he does, what justification can there be for the nine-month delay in scheduling such a debate?
I reiterate the request made by the European Scrutiny Committee last July for an explanation of the key differences between the renewed EU internal security strategy agreed by the Council last June and the Commission communication. The Commission’s communication identifies greater
“transparency, accountability and democratic control”
as a key principle underpinning “The European Agenda on Security”. The conclusions agreed by the Council last June make no reference to the role of national parliaments. What assurance can the Minister give us that Council ownership of the renewed EU internal security strategy will promote transparency and openness? What are the Government doing to promote greater transparency, accountability and democratic control by this Parliament of EU internal security policies and laws, including through the timely scheduling of debates? Finally, will the Government tell us what progress has been made since last June to implement the renewed EU internal security strategy, what role is being played by the Standing Committee on Operational Co-operation on Internal Security—the so-called COSI committee—on which senior member state officials sit, and how our national Parliament is being informed of that committee’s work, as required by the EU treaties?
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate and I hope I am able to assist the Committee in its scrutiny of these important documents.
The subject matter of the debate could not be more relevant to the current challenges that we and our European partners face. The dreadful recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels underline that in the starkest way possible, and I am sure the Committee will join me in expressing our determination to overcome these challenges. The Government are clear that we need to work closely with our European partners to ensure that all our law enforcement agencies have the right tools and mechanisms to do their jobs and protect all our citizens.
It is against that backdrop that we must consider the Commission communication, “The European Agenda on Security” and the Council’s internal security strategy. While the Government are clear that security is primarily a matter for individual member states, we are also clear that there are areas in which the European Union can provide genuine added value by harnessing the benefits of joint working, particularly in relation to operational co-operation and information sharing. For example, the UK co-operates with law enforcement authorities in all EU member states through Europol.
As set out in our explanatory memorandum, the communication aims to detail how the Commission believes the EU can bring added value to support member states in ensuring internal security. It outlines the need to “work better together” before calling for stronger EU action in three areas: better information exchange, increased operational co-operation and supporting action including training, funding, research and innovation. The communication also identifies three main priorities for European security for the coming five years: tackling terrorism and preventing radicalisation, disrupting organised crime and fighting cybercrime.
The Government welcome the focus throughout the communication on the implementation of existing measures and on strengthening co-operation. As the Committee is aware, we are also broadly supportive of the key themes identified in the communication. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has indicated, much has happened in the sphere of European security since the publication of the communication last May, but we believe it represented a sensible contribution to the debate and are confident that the Commission is fully seized of the need to make rapid progress in this area.
Before I outline our current key objectives in enhancing security in the European context, I should make clear the relationship between the Commission’s communication and the Council’s internal security strategy, the ISS. In June 2015, the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed conclusions that renew the ISS for the next five years. The renewed ISS is owned by and will be implemented by the Council, reflecting the Council’s primacy in this field. While the Council’s conclusions welcome the Commission’s communication—the agenda on security—they do not endorse the communication wholesale. Rather, they are clear that the renewed ISS consists of the two relevant sets of Justice and Home Affairs Council conclusions, based on the broad principles identified in the communication: tackling terrorism and preventing radicalisation, disrupting organised crime and fighting cybercrime—principles that we support.
The conclusions also invite the Council’s committee on internal security—COSI—to lead on developing an operational implementation plan and to monitor its progress. The Government fully support the role of COSI in taking forward the implementation of the new ISS, which further protects the Council’s remit to set the political direction in the field of justice and home affairs.
The Government are determined to tackle the immediate and pressing security threats that we face. Working with our European partners is critical if we are to be successful. We want to see action taken by Europe to address the threat from terrorism as a result of the situation in Syria and Iraq. We need to counter the Daesh brand and remove online terrorist and extremist propaganda to prevent further recruitment.
A key issue on which urgent progress is required is enhancing information sharing with our European partners. Effective information sharing is our first line of defence in a world of increasingly mobile threats. We are making good progress, and I am pleased to note that the European Parliament agreed the passenger name records directive last week. The Home Secretary and I have always been clear about the importance of PNR and last week’s vote represents a pivotal action in the ongoing fight against terrorism and serious crime. The processing of PNR information is a proven way to identify previously unknown individuals who pose a threat to the safety of the public here and abroad. At the same time, the directive clearly takes account of operational needs, the protection of personal data and individuals’ fundamental rights. We will now begin implementing the directive, establishing our network of interoperable passenger information units—we have the national border targeting centre here in the UK—and working with our European partners to target travel related to terrorism and organised crime.
But there is much more to do. In particular, we need to ensure the systematic and consistent use of EU criminality information, such as criminal conviction data, which are currently available through the European criminal records information system. Thanks to the second-generation Schengen information system, sometimes known as SIS II, information about people wanted under European arrest warrants is now available at the border. We now need to do the same for criminal convictions data to allow routine checks to be made against those data. We also need to ensure that all countries are entering foreign fighter data systematically on to SIS II.
On firearms, we are working hard to agree an effective directive. We are pressing for a ban on the most dangerous semi-automatic weapons across the EU to protect our citizens, but legislation alone is not enough. We are also working to develop better intelligence on the threat posed by firearms, so that we are better able to intercept them before they get into the hands of organised criminals and terrorists. We need to gather that intelligence effectively, share it and act on it.
Continuing to strengthen global aviation security is a further priority for action. We are building capability through multilateral support of priority third countries and are keen to co-ordinate activity with partners to maximise our collective efforts.
Finally, I stress the importance that the Government place on delivering effective de-radicalisation and disengagement programmes, building on existing best practice. We are working with our European partners to increase our efforts and upgrade our capability to respond to and outpace extremist propaganda used to radicalise individuals online, ensuring a robust response.
The Government will continue to play a key role in driving the implementation of the internal security strategy. We are clear that working with other countries as part of the European Union is the best way to ensure the security of the British public and that together we can tackle these threats, leaving dangerous criminals and terrorists with nowhere to hide.
The Chair
We now have until 3.35 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind members of the Committee that those questions should be brief. Subject to my discretion, it is open to a member to ask related supplementary questions.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank you for your guidance on the protocol of the Committee. Will the Minister provide some information about how the British Government were involved in drafting “The European Agenda on Security”?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, the agenda is a Commission document, but as I indicated in my opening remarks, we see it as being led by the Council. These issues were debated at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council and they continue to be debated; we have a further extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council later this week. Through that mechanism, issues of security, what the right processes are and how we work together were addressed; the UK made interventions at Council meetings; and the internal security strategy—the Council-led document that I referred to—was created. Obviously, COSI, which is now implementing the strategy, reports back to the Council.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for that answer. Taking it to the next step, will he provide clarity on the steps that the Government will take to implement the agenda once it is adopted and what plans the UK has to help tackle common EU security threats?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, the internal security strategy, which was renewed by member states in June of last year, sets out a clear agenda. It contains much of what is in the Commission’s communication, although the Council very much leads on it: the strategy is being implemented by the Council and that implementation is being led by COSI. We welcome that, as it ensures that member states are clearly in the driving seat of the agenda’s implementation and will get regular feedback on it. As has been indicated, a Europol counter-terrorism centre was established in January of this year, in response to a call from the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers at Council on 20 November. That new centre, which acts as a platform for member states to increase information sharing, is a good example of how the agenda is being implemented.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Ashford drew attention to the fact that temporary internal border controls have been erected in a number of EU countries inside the Schengen area. Does the Minister agree that we are seeing the breakdown of Schengen and those temporary internal border controls are likely to remain permanently?
James Brokenshire
Clearly, the UK is not part of Schengen and therefore the actions that are being taken by individual EU member states in concordance with the arrangements underpinning Schengen are a matter for them. The UK’s focus is on seeing a strong external Schengen border and ensuring that, although we are outside Schengen, we support other EU member states through the mechanisms of Frontex and other bodies. We will continue to work with other member states to assist them in securing the external EU border, given the direct relevance of that to our own security.
Kelvin Hopkins
Going beyond that, does the Minister agree that it would actually be sensible for countries inside Schengen to impose permanent border controls? That would frustrate the movement of terrorists and serious criminals across borders and make the job of the police and whoever much easier.
James Brokenshire
That is a matter for the EU member states that are part of Schengen. Our focus is on better communication of criminal record information. Indeed, I commented on the second-generation Schengen information system. We must ensure that data are put on that system so we can benefit from them at our border and have better intelligence and information on people who may wish to come to the UK. The Government have sought to underline that practical co-operation to get better data sharing and, in so doing, enhance our own domestic security.
The Chair
Order. I can only call those who are standing. Only one Member was standing at that moment, and that was Kelvin Hopkins.
Kelvin Hopkins
I apologise to my hon. Friend. Fortunately, we are not in Schengen and we take our borders seriously—but perhaps not seriously enough. There have been reports this week that people enter Britain clandestinely via beaches using rubber dinghies across the North sea. Does the Minister not think that we ought to have stronger border controls and a bigger border force to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen?
James Brokenshire
The Government take their border security responsibilities seriously. We check 100% of scheduled passengers arriving at the border. Every year, millions of passengers pass through the border in that way. That is why I made the point about having better data at the border to assist those checks through our partnerships and co-operation with other EU member states. In respect of the general maritime sector, we have invested in intelligence and a field intelligence officers network, which has resulted in the successful interdiction of suspect vessels, disruption of people smugglers and significant seizures of class A drugs. We must work with our European partners as well. The action that the French, Dutch or Belgian Governments may take in stopping vessels leaving their shores is a powerful way of ensuring our own domestic security and underlines the need for good, practical co-operation.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Looking at the immediate future, has the Minister considered the implications of Brexit for the UK’s security and our ability to tackle heinous crime?
James Brokenshire
It is important to recognise that national security is a member state competence. In other words, the lead responsibility for determining a country’s national security policy rightly lies with that member state. We guard that very clearly, but it is also important to recognise that EU membership gives UK police forces and law enforcement authorities automatic access to a broad range of tools and databases that help combat transnational crime. Those include Europol; the Prüm Council decisions on fingerprint and DNA exchange—when fully operational, those will allow DNA exchanges in 15 minutes, which simply is not possible through other mechanisms—Eurojust, the EU’s judicial co-operation unit, in which we participate; the European Criminal Records Information Sharing System; data on passenger name records; the second-generation Schengen information system; and, of course, the European arrest warrant.
That combination of mechanisms that is available to law enforcement authorities would be difficult to replicate. Those mechanisms would all need to be reassessed and negotiated, and alternative arrangements would need to be put in place. That would be challenging. We clearly benefit from those structures at the moment in guarding our domestic security and confronting transnational crime, which does not respect borders, and we therefore need to continue to work closely with our European partners and use the most effective mechanisms to protect our citizens.
Sarah Champion
This is my final question. The right hon. Member for Ashford highlighted the fact that the Commission document was drafted before the Paris terror attack in November 2015 and the events that followed in Brussels. Have the Government given further consideration to whether any additional steps are now needed?
James Brokenshire
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I should say that it is always the Government’s intention to schedule debates in a timely fashion, although I regret and acknowledge that that was not possible in this case. We continue to take debate recommendations seriously, although I think that we all recognise that there have been opportunities to debate counter-terrorism and security through oral statements on the Floor of the House and other debates. There have been opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the approach that the UK takes and the context of the broader European security agenda.
I say in direct response to the hon. Lady’s questions that we keep these matters under close review. We hold ongoing discussions with our European partners. Following the attacks in Paris and Brussels, we stepped up operational arrangements at the border and we continue to consider with European partners how best to strengthen things further. I touched on work that we want to take forward in Europe on firearms. I have also highlighted work that we continue to press on criminal record information sharing and encouraging other member states to put additional data into ECRIS and the second-generation Schengen information system to benefit the domestic security of the UK and all the other European countries. Europol’s ongoing work on taking down propaganda from Daesh and other terrorist organisations effectively mirrors at EU level the work that we do through the counter-terrorism internet referral unit.
We continue to advance practical steps. Clearly, the approval of the passenger name records directive is another important milestone and highlights the need for collaboration, co-operation and continuing to debate, discuss and work with our European partners. We must recognise that member states lead on national security—that is a member state competence—but, equally, that we gain strength from good co-operation.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for questions. I call the Minister to move the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8293/15, a Commission Communication: The European Agenda on Security, and its relationship to the Renewed Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners in the area of EU internal security, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.—(James Brokenshire.)
Sarah Champion
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter. I thank the members of the European Scrutiny Committee for their work on examining “The European Agenda on Security”.
In the past 15 years, the nature of global terrorism has changed dramatically, with a deadly combination of home-grown terror and sophisticated global networks. Both do their utmost to cause maximum harm to citizens across the world. The current UK terror threat remains at severe, as it does across the majority of the EU. We must give our law enforcement bodies access to the information and methods that they know will work. We must do all we can to work together with our European counterparts to keep our respective populations safe. That is why Labour strongly supports common EU policing measures and a cross-EU response. That is why Labour believes that our membership of the EU makes us stronger and better able to tackle emerging cross-border security threats.
We welcome the focus of the proposed agenda and the five key principles outlined, which build on previous structures that are working well. We welcome the fact that the agenda addresses the terrorist threat that is faced by every EU country. The events of Brussels, Paris and elsewhere have shown us how real the threat is and how irrelevant borders are to those who perpetrate such heinous crimes.
The agenda recognises and identifies rapidly changing crime and security threats, including organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, in Britain and across the EU. Indeed, cybercrime was only an emerging threat when the 2010 EU internal security strategy was agreed, but it is now a reality and a serious security threat that we all face. “The European Agenda on Security” gives our police and security services the cross-EU integrated response that they need to tackle our common security threats, and that is why Labour is pleased to support its implementation. The agenda’s importance to our ongoing national security is clear.
Kelvin Hopkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Turner, as a fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Britain was very wise not to join the Schengen agreement and to retain a significant degree of border control. What has happened recently on the continent of Europe demonstrates that point. The porous border between France and Belgium was clearly an assistance to those who committed the outrages in Paris and in Brussels. One would hope that there is a move towards restoring more effective border constraints within the European Union. Regrettably, some countries have already put up barbed wire fences, which is a hostile act, but if border controls had been tighter, there would not necessarily have been such a problem.
I think there are still problems with border controls in Britain, as I have said to the Minister. If everyone was required to have biometric passports and everyone leaving Britain as well as entering it was required to be checked at borders, we would have more of a handle on movements, which would be beneficial. About six years ago, I was a member of the team from the European Scrutiny Committee who visited Frontex in Warsaw. It was clear that the Frontex official was very nervous about talking about anything that could threaten the shibboleth of free movement. That shibboleth is now looking a bit tattered. Frontex did not have any resources of their own, nor a border force of their own, and in theory they were the administrators, not the enforcers. The current situation is much more worrying.
When will there be a requirement that everyone in Britain has a biometric passport and that all those who leave and enter are properly checked at borders? Even when we travel on holiday, checks should be made to make sure that we are not carrying dangerous weapons and so on in our cars. That may mean that we spend longer at borders, but if that is the price that we must pay for security, I accept that. The Government will have to move in that direction if and when—we hope that it will not ever happen again—we have further outrages. Also, we should not forget criminality. The automatic guns that are used on the streets now are quite terrifying and we should make sure that they are under serious control.
The majority of the population are very concerned about such matters. A Government of any colour would in future be required to ensure that our borders were properly protected and to encourage fellow European Union members to strengthen their border controls between member states. Those are my thoughts; I hope the Minister will take some of them on board.
James Brokenshire
I thank you, Mr Turner, and the Committee for the broad support offered for the agenda this afternoon.
It is right that we continue to co-operate practically and collaborate with our European partners, as ultimately that is in the UK’s best interest, recognising that terrorists and organised criminals do not respect borders of whatever kind. Therefore, we are better protected and better assured of national security by thinking and planning carefully with our European colleagues, as well as by harnessing the benefits we enjoy through existing relationships—through the “Five Eyes” partnerships with our traditional colleagues—and the strength that gives us. We have the best of both worlds by having those relationships, together with the combination of the work we do at EU level.
It is right that this Government have placed considerable emphasis on strengthening our borders. We introduced 100% checks on scheduled passengers, which was not something that happened before we came into government. That has been a focus for this Government, albeit at that time under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, who did considerable work to ensure that we strengthened our border. I pay tribute to him and others for the work that took place.
I say to the hon. Member for Luton North that we have ambitious plans for taking forward, for example, increasing automation of passenger controls—implementing new technology that will make processes quicker and more secure and changes to working practices, and promoting other services that support all of that, but equally constantly assessing the changing nature of the threat that we face. We do that with our European partners, while clearly having strong assessment of our domestic border arrangements. Also, arrangements with the Government of France and our juxtaposed controls in northern France absolutely aide our own domestic security and strengthen and underpin the close co-operation that has been very important at times—for example, during the migration crisis, which we are obviously seeking to confront.
This is something we keep under review and it is something we take seriously in relation to the external Schengen border. It is right that we see the benefit of pushing out our border much more, which is why data such as advanced passenger information and passenger name records are, equally, an important part of that. Through, for example, the introduction of e-gates, which are much better at detecting things such as proper documentation and at how the photo can be matched to a passport, there are new ways in which we look at that—as well as with things such as biometric residence permits for those who are outside of the EU. So I do recognise the continuing challenges, but that is very much on the Government’s agenda, both domestically and as part of the broader agenda within the EU and the internal security strategy, which we have touched on in this sitting.
I thank you, Mr Turner, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues—that relationship between the UK and the EU, which I think benefits this country enormously, those mechanisms that support all of us and how we need to continue that dialogue, discussion and co-operation with our EU partners to ensure that our domestic security is better protected at a time of continuing threat and continuing risk.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8293/15, a Commission Communication: The European Agenda on Security, and its relationship to the Renewed Internal Security Strategy 2015-2020; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners in the area of EU internal security, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 19th April 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 April 2016 - (19 Apr 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I will be writing to you today to summarise all of the areas on which the Solicitor General and I have offered to provide more information during the course of our sittings. I will do that each week, with a view to informing the debate and ensuring that all members of the Committee have the information.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Minister.
Clause 61
Relevant public authorities and designated senior officers
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 61, page 49, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) For the purposes of this Part, a relevant public authority is—
(a) a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996,
(b) the Metropolitan police force,
(c) the City of London police force,
(d) the Police Service of Scotland,
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
(f) the British Transport Police Force,
(g) the Ministry of Defence Police,
(h) the Royal Navy Police,
(i) the Royal Military Police,
(j) the Royal Air Force Police,
(k) the Security Service
(l) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(m) the GCHQ,
(n) the National Crime Agency and
(o) the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
(2) For the purposes of authorisations sought pursuant to section 53(7)(g) a relevant public authority also includes—
(a) a National Health Service Trust established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 whose functions include the provision of emergency ambulance service,
(b) a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004,
(c) the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care trust,
(d) the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
(e) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board and
(f) the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust.
(3) For the purposes of authorisations sought pursuant to Section 53(7)(h), a relevant public authority also includes—
(a) the Criminal Cases Review Commission and
(b) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 236, in clause 61, page 49, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) For the purposes of this Part, a relevant public authority is—
(a) a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996,
(b) the Metropolitan Police Force,
(c) the City of London Police Force,
(d) the Police Service of Scotland,
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
(f) the British Transport Police Force,
(g) the Ministry of Defence Police,
(h) the Royal Navy Police,
(i) the Royal Military Police,
(j) the Royal Air Force Police,
(k) the Security Service,
(l) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(m) the GCHQ,
(n) the National Crime Agency,
(o) the Criminal Cases Review Commission, or
(p) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
(2A) For the purposes of authorisations sought pursuant to 53(7)(g), a relevant public authority also includes—
(a) a National Health Service Trust established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 whose functions include the provision of emergency ambulance service,
(b) a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004,
(c) the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care trust,
(d) the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board,
(e) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board, and
(f) the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust.
(2B) For the purposes of authorisations sought pursuant to Section 57(3)(h), a relevant public authority also includes—
(a) the Criminal Cases Review Commission and
(b) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.”
This amendment ensures that only police forces and security agencies may request a communications data warrant, except where the warrant is issued for the purpose of preventing death, in which circumstances emergency and rescue services also fall within the definition.
Keir Starmer
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.
The clause sets out the relevant public authorities and designated senior officers for the purposes of part 3 of the Bill—in essence, those who may exercise the powers of obtaining communications data throughout this part. Last week, I drew attention to schedule 4 to the Bill and, in particular, to the large number of public authorities listed as “relevant”, including Food Standards Scotland, the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Office of Communications and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board. The list of relevant public authorities in schedule 4 is very long.
I also drew attention to the designated senior officers, who are authorised to obtain communications data. They are listed in the second column in schedule 4. To remind the Committee, if we take the Food Standards Agency, the designated senior officer is a grade 6 officer; if we take the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board, the officer is the watch manager of control; and, to take one more example, for the Office of Communications, the officer is a senior associate. The point that I made last week was that, where there are wide powers of retention under the Bill, which we will come to later, the threshold for accessing the data is vital. The number of relevant public authorities is too wide and the level of the designated senior officers too low to provide a proper safeguard.
The amendment is intended to address that defect by setting out in the legislation a narrower set of relevant public authorities, listed in paragraphs (a) to (o) of proposed new subsection (1). It is a shorter and tighter list, but would none the less be a functional and effective one. Proposed new subsections (2) and (3) are an attempt to tie in other relevant public authorities to the particular power that would be appropriate for them to exercise. The relevant public authorities for the purposes of authorisation under clause 53(7)(g) are listed under proposed new subsection (2) and, similarly, those for clause 53(7)(h) are listed under proposed new subsection (3).
The amendment would tighten up the drafting of the Bill to limit the number of relevant public authorities and tie the lists more closely to the particular objectives set out in clause 53. Logically, therefore, it follows from the point that I was making last week and anticipates the one that I will make later this morning about the scope of the retention powers.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
There is one small difference between amendment 135, which was tabled by the Labour party, and amendment 236, which was tabled by the Scottish National party. Amendment 236 includes, in proposed new subsection (2)(p), the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is a separate body. I say that for completeness.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Dorries. I welcome the spirit in which the amendments have been tabled. There is a common sense of purpose among Committee members to ensure that the ambit of the authorities that have power to access communications data should always be strictly scrutinised. In that spirit, the Government have progressively reduced the number of such authorities. They have reviewed that number and keep it under review. The list of such authorities in the Bill is not simply a replication of the list in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, but has been the subject of careful consideration.
It has been judged that it is necessary for those public authorities to be allowed to access communications data for a narrow range of purposes. For example, insider trading needs to be investigated, and the Financial Conduct Authority is the body to do that. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will need access to such information to locate people lost at sea. Bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Work and Pensions have been given clear remits by Parliament to investigate certain types of criminality and civil matters, because such investigations often require dedicated resources and specialist knowledge. To unduly restrict those agencies in their work would cause an imbalance.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman shares those views, because in his previous incarnation as the Director of Public Prosecutions he made it clear, for example, that communications data should be available to organisations such as the DWP in investigating any abuse of the welfare system or other public funds. I therefore know that he has a common purpose in mind.
The Bill for the first time brings together all the public authorities with access to communications data in primary legislation. That is an important and welcome step up from previous practice. I should be clear that all the authorities listed in the Bill were required to make the case that they needed the power to access communications data. Therefore, as I have outlined, the list in the Bill is not just a blind replication of existing lists. As I have said, we removed 13 public authorities from the list in February last year. Amendments that were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and that we will debate shortly will introduce further restrictions on certain public authorities. That shows that the Government are taking great care in this area.
Keir Starmer
I wonder whether the Solicitor General can assist the Committee, either now or at some later stage, by setting out some detail about how the case was made for each of the agencies, and in particular why the designated senior officer grades were chosen. That is quite a complicated question, but it is striking, from the Committee’s point of view, that a watch manager is listed as a designated senior officer when one is talking about accessing communications data. I have already given other examples.
The Solicitor General
I shall try to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will not be able to give him an exhaustive list here and now, as he is aware, and I am pretty sure that the information that he seeks is available in some form. We will, of course, help to signpost him to it.
I make the simple case about watch managers that there will be emergency situations, such as missing persons inquiries, in which fleetness of foot is essential. Suggesting that a more senior level of management would be appropriate risks important data being lost or not being available in those emergency situations. There are certain key situations where we are talking about the protection of life in which the balance needs to be struck in the way that we suggest in schedule 4.
With regard to schedule 4, public authorities cannot all acquire communications data for the full range of statutory purposes. Each can acquire data only for the purposes for which it has justified a need for them. That maintains the essential principle of proportionality, so that the public authorities concerned only have the powers for which they have made a compelling case.
To give some examples of the changes from RIPA, ambulance services will no longer be able to acquire communications data for the purposes of preventing and detecting crime, and the Prudential Regulation Authority will no longer be able to acquire communications data in any circumstances. In addition, the Bill allows for the ability of a public authority to access communications data to be removed, should a public authority cease to have a requirement to make those acquisitions. That is a very important check and balance.
To fill in some more detail in respect of the question the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras asked about the detailed justification for each public authority, each authority has been required to provide evidence of utility and the need to acquire communications data. That included detailed consideration of the level of authorising officers, so that we got the balance right in terms of appropriateness.
Joanna Cherry
I note that the Solicitor General spoke of details of the “utility”, but the Digital Rights Ireland case sets out that states must limit the number of persons authorised to access and use this sort of data to what is “strictly necessary”. Does he agree that a long list of authorities, many of whose primary functions are wholly unrelated to law enforcement in the context of serious crime, is inconsistent with the requirement of strict necessity laid down in the Digital Rights case?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady and can correct the record in this way. I should have used the phrase “utility and need”. I think that important word, to which she quite rightly draws my attention, answers the point. In one of the examples I have given, where a need was not demonstrated by the PRU, the power was removed entirely.
Among the bodies that the amendment seeks to remove are Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. I am afraid that both bodies are intercepting agencies, and communications data are part of their work in targeting interception so that the powers which we all accept are intrusive are used in as tightly constrained circumstances as possible. My worry is that the amendment, however well intentioned, might well have the contrary effect on that important targeted work and the need for those organisations to target their activities.
I remind the Committee that David Anderson QC concluded in his report:
“It should not be assumed that the public interest is served by reducing the number of bodies with such powers, unless there are bodies which have no use for them.”
The Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill also recognised communications data as
“an important tool for law enforcement and other public bodies.”
For those reasons, I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Solicitor General. There is obviously concern about the threshold and safeguards for accessing communications data. That is what the Digital Rights case is all about; it is what the Tom Watson and David Davis case will test. To some extent, until that case is concluded, we will not know in specific terms what the safeguards are, although, as I foreshadowed last week, my view is that the requirements for safeguards will tighten as time goes by. It may not be exactly as the divisional court set out.
The Solicitor General has indicated that he will point me to the material that at least summarises why it was thought that each body should be on list. I am grateful for that and will consider it carefully. Will he also, either in a letter or some other appropriate form, set out the test that was applied in clear terms, so that it can be contrasted with the Digital Rights case and any outcome of the David Davis case in due course? I acknowledge that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes a powerful point about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joanna Cherry
According to the list I have, Ms Dorries, amendment 236 is also to be dealt with. As I explained, there are small differences between amendments 135 and 236.
Joanna Cherry
I realise that, but I have not been asked whether I want to put amendment 236 to a vote.
The Chair
Amendment 236 is not formally before the Committee. As I said in the opening notes at the beginning of the Committee, if you wanted to put it to a vote, you had to make me aware of that at the beginning.
Joanna Cherry
For the assistance of the Committee, I and Mr Starmer have spent a long time discussing who would lead on which clause, in order to speed matters up. I wish to put amendment 236 to a vote, although I did not speak to it. I would like that to be recorded in the minutes. If I am to be prevented from doing so, so be it.
The Chair
Although this is unusual, as we have not actually moved on we can vote on amendment 236 so that the matter is transparent, with the leave of the Committee.
The Chair
Ms Cherry, would you like to speak to your amendment before the Committee votes?
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add to what Mr Starmer said and the points that I made in my intervention.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms Dorries. It may be that I am in error, and if I am I apologise and will take your chastisement. I thought I was correct in believing that when we are in a Public Bill Committee, it is as if we are having a debate on the Floor of the House and we are therefore referred to as the hon. Member or hon. Gentleman or whatever, rather than using Christian or first name and surname. Can you confirm that? I know some people get frightfully anxious about all the traditions of the House, but I just wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct.
The Chair
On that point, Ms Cherry and I had an informal discussion outside the Committee earlier this morning.
Amendment proposed: 236, in clause 61, page 49, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) For the purposes of this Part, a relevant public authority is—
(a) a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996,
(b) the Metropolitan Police Force,
(c) the City of London Police Force,
(d) the Police Service of Scotland,
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
(f) the British Transport Police Force,
(g) the Ministry of Defence Police,
(h) the Royal Navy Police,
(i) the Royal Military Police,
(j) the Royal Air Force Police,
(k) the Security Service,
(l) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(m) the GCHQ,
(n) the National Crime Agency,
(o) the Criminal Cases Review Commission, or
(p) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
(2A) For the purposes of authorisations sought pursuant to 53(7)(g), a relevant public authority also includes—
(a) a National Health Service Trust established under section 5 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 whose functions include the provision of emergency ambulance service,
(b) a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004,
(c) the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care trust,
(d) the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board,
(e) the Scottish Ambulance Service Board, and
(f) the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust.
(2B) For the purposes of authorisations sought pursuant to Section 57(3)(h), a relevant public authority also includes—
(a) the Criminal Cases Review Commission and
(b) the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.”—(Joanna Cherry.)
This amendment ensures that only police forces and security agencies may request a communications data warrant, except where the warrant is issued for the purpose of preventing death, in which circumstances emergency and rescue services also fall within the definition.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 105, in schedule 4, page 206, line 40, at end insert—
“An ambulance trust in England | Duty Manager of Ambulance Trust Control Rooms | All | (g)” |
This amendment and amendments 106 and 108 replace the existing entry for ambulance trusts in England with a new entry containing a revised definition for such trusts and restricting the purposes for which data may be obtained.
Mr Hayes
Welcome to the Chair, Ms Dorries.
The amendments make minor changes to schedule 4. As has already been said, schedule 4 lists the public authorities that are able to acquire communications data, the types of communications that they are able to acquire and the statutory purposes for which they can do so. Amendment 105 adds a new entry for ambulance trusts in England, amendment 106 removes the existing entry and amendment 108 introduces the definition of an ambulance trust. The changes make the definition of ambulance trusts consistent with the definition in the Policing and Crime Bill.
The amendments also remove purpose (b) in clause 53(7) from the purposes for which ambulance trusts can acquire communications data, because ambulance trusts obviously do not need to acquire communications data for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime. In the same vein, amendment 107 restricts the purposes that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board can use to acquire communications data, consistent with the purposes for English fire and rescue authorities. These are uncontentious amendments designed to make the Bill consistent and coherent.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Amendments made: 106, in schedule 4, page 207, leave out lines 24 to 35.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 105.
Amendment 107, in schedule 4, page 207, line 39, leave out—
“Group Manager (Control) | All | (b) and (d)” |
This amendment prevents the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board from obtaining data for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, or in the interests of public safety.
Amendment 108, in schedule 4, page 208, line 10, after “Schedule” insert “—
“ambulance trust in England” means—
(a) an NHS trust all or most of whose hospitals, establishments and facilities are in England and which provides ambulance services, or
(b) an NHS foundation trust which provides such services,”.—(Mr Hayes.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 105.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I rise to put on the record a concern about the clause and to remind the Committee that with the wide power of retention, the safeguards on access provisions are critical to the operation of the Bill as a whole. Broadly speaking, the safeguards are: who can authorise access, what the test is, the scope of the conduct authorised and such checks and limits as are otherwise put in the Bill. The clause covers who can authorise access, and my strong feeling is that that should be in the Bill rather than left to regulations, because it is a central safeguard. I will not vote against the clause, but I want to put on the record my view that a provision as important as who can access should be in the Bill and that amendments should be made to legislation rather than through regulation.
Mr Hayes
I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is probing. He is right that the clause sets out how the Secretary of State may, by regulation, add or remove public bodies listed in schedule 4 and make modifications accordingly, but it also sets out that the Secretary of State does so by means of regulations. He will have noted that in practice that means a statutory instrument, which is subject to the affirmative procedure, as is made clear in clause 63(3).
I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, which is reasonable, but there are limits on what the Secretary of State can do in the sense that the affirmative procedure must be followed, which will give an opportunity for further consideration. I am happy to confirm that the intention in the Bill and the spirit in which it was constructed are very much along the lines he described.
Joanna Cherry
I wish to oppose this clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I wish to raise two issues for the Committee’s consideration. The first is that the test in subsection (5) for a judicial authority is very weak. We are talking about restrictions on local authorities and we have moved from a test of reviewing the decision, found in other parts of the clause, to a test whether the judicial authority, in this case a justice of the peace, considers that
“there are reasonable grounds for considering requirements of this Part would be satisfied”.
The second is that the authority in this case is a JP. I accept that this a replication of another scheme in the same words, as the Solicitor General says. I will not oppose the clause, but in a Bill that is tightening safeguards, there is nothing to prevent that test being aligned with the other tests applied when judges, magistrates or other independent judicial figures oversee authorisations by bodies such as local authorities.
In fairness, I think these clauses were put in to tighten the controls on local authorities.
Keir Starmer
That is welcome and we support them for that reason. In tightening controls, there has been a failure, perhaps deliberate, not to align this with the test in other cases. The judicial authority would be able to say, “I would not in fact authorise, but there were reasonable grounds on which somebody else could have done so.” I am making a probing point; no amendment was tabled. I support the further protection in relation to local authorities. I just wondered whether there was a deliberate intention not to align this provision with the other safeguard provisions in the Bill.
Mr Hayes
There are two things to say. First, the measure replicates the current position under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so it is established practice. Secondly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman conceded, it is an attempt to add an additional safeguard, for the reasons he gave. It seemed important that this was not used permissively. The only other thing I would add, given that he is probing, is that all of this would have to pass the tests of proportionality and necessity; that is a given. I am happy to look at whether we need to reinforce that, in the code or perhaps elsewhere, because proportionality and necessity underpin all of this; that is not specified in this part, but it is a prevailing and underpinning assumption about authorisation. I understand that he is probing and also appreciate that he understands what we are trying to do.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he is approaching this issue. I accept that necessity and proportionality are the key tests for the application in the first place. The question for the magistrate is then whether there are reasonable grounds for considering it to be necessary and proportionate. That leaves room for the magistrate to say, “I personally do not think it is necessary and proportionate but I accept that somebody else might think there are reasonable grounds.” I do not want to take this too far because it is a relatively minor provision in the Bill and I accept that it is in the scheme of tightening the safeguards; however, I just wonder whether some thought can be given. When the other tests have been so carefully construed—and we will have further discussion on what those tests are—this is an outlier in the way that it is expressed. I accept that it reflects current practice, but I do not think that is necessarily a good reason for simply replicating that unless, on reflection, current practice is thought to be the right way forward from here.
Mr Hayes
I will test that. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a reasonable point, so I will test our experience of current practice regarding this issue and I will also test and consider whether we need to provide further guidance. I would not want to go too far because, as he says, it is a minor matter, but he is right to say that it is important that it is consistent. I am more than happy to take a look at that, and on that basis I think we should move on.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 241, in clause 67, page 53, line 8, leave out subsections (4)(a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) is an officer appointed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner;
(b) works subject to the supervision of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner; and is responsible for advising—
(i) officers of the relevant public authorities about applying for authorisations; or
(ii) designated senior officers of public authorities about granting authorisations.”
The amendment provides for the SPoC scheme to be operated under the authority of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
The clause deals with the use of a single point of contact. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the single point of contact scheme to be operated under the authority of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The Bill, as it currently stands, provides that authorisations shall be largely self-approved by officials and officers of public bodies, subject to the advice of a single point of contact. The single point of contact is within the organisation and is responsible for advising on the lawfulness of the authorisation. Local authorities, police forces and public bodies that are too small to have their own single point of contact are required by the Bill to enter into collaboration agreements with others and if the amendment is successful, it will necessitate leaving out clauses 69 to 71.
The Scottish National party’s preferred model would be judicial authorisation for access to communications data, as addressed in the amendments to clause 53 that we discussed in Committee last week—I have no doubt that they will be revisited on Report. But if we are to be stuck with the current model, we in the SNP think it only fair and right that the Bill should provide for the single point of contact scheme to be operated under the authority of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. In my submission, that would give the sort of oversight that we were promised in advance of the Bill but that is absent from the Bill itself.
It is my argument that it is completely unacceptable for a public authority to be able to authorise itself to have access to revealing personal data. In making this argument, I do not seek to impugn the integrity of public officials or, indeed, senior employees of our law enforcement agencies, but rather to point out the glaring reality that the primary concern of such persons will relate to the operational capacity of their agencies. That is simply a matter of organisational culture: it is perfectly understandable, but it militates in favour of independent third-party authorisation. If we are to have an Investigatory Powers Commissioner, why not give him or her that power, so that there will be meaningful oversight?
In my argument, the value and credibility of any single point of contact model would be enhanced by ensuring its independence from the public authority that seeks to use the intrusive powers given under this part of the Bill. That would also remove the need for collaboration agreements, because the single point of contact advisers would be centralised within the IPC framework. It would lift a great deal of bureaucracy out of the public organisations and law enforcement agencies by putting oversight in the hands of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who would then be able to encourage, across the board, a standardised approach to the advice given and, importantly, consistency in the application of the law.
The provisions currently in the Bill consolidate existing practice on the guidance issue for single points of contact and the self-authorisation regime, but the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill recommended consolidation under the leadership of police forces. However, I would argue that, while the single points of contact remain embedded within the same organisations that seek to access this intrusive material, they cannot be considered to be independent for the purposes of the role they play in the authorisation process. If they are not independent, we risk passing legislation that conflicts with European law, which, for the time being at least, applies in the United Kingdom.
The amendment would mean that the single point of contact framework, if continued, would operate as part of an overriding single oversight body, under the auspices of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. As I said, that would create a single consistent body of staff, capable of providing help, assistance and guidance before the final determination of any application. To my mind, that is a highly sensible and appropriate approach; I would like to know why the Government are not prepared to support it.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her amendment and her observations, because they give me an opportunity to remind the Committee how important the single point of contact system is, and how envied it is by other parts of the world. Those are not just my words; paragraph 9.93 of David Anderson’s important report, “A Question of Trust” states:
“As to the authorisation of communications data requests, the police took a good deal of pride in the SPoC system, which was said to be ‘the envy of many friendly countries’.”
Mr Anderson makes a particularly important observation in paragraph 9.94, when he states:
“Within law enforcement generally, it was felt that SPoCs should have strong relationships with the investigators and this was more likely to happen where they were part of the same organisation, working to the same goal (albeit with distinct and independent responsibilities).”
I will finish the paragraph:
“Their effectiveness as a ‘guardian and gatekeeper’ could however diminish were they to become simply part of the investigation team”.
Here the hon. and learned Lady’s point is a strong one, but it has to be observed in the right context, which is that of the investigation. I absolutely agree with her about the importance of having an arm’s length approach, which is why the designated senior officer who is allowed to authorise an application must not be part of that operation. The draft code of practice contains helpful guidance from paragraph 4.28 to paragraph 4.47, and paragraph 4.48 then deals with the question of the designation of a single responsible officer.
Therefore, in the light of all the careful consideration that has been given to this tried and tested system, I argue that the balance is being properly struck here. Indeed, the extensive benefit and the safeguarding mechanism which the SPOC role brings to this process has been recognised by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who in his report of March 2015 described the SPOC role as “a stringent safeguard”. These are people who are specially trained in the acquisition of communications data.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I reiterate that this point was made very clearly by Michael Atkinson of the National Police Council’s Data Communications Group. He described the role of the SPOC as being “independent of the investigation” and subject to IOCCO inspections. They would also be regularly overseen, scrutinised and challenged on their work. So there is a very robust system of oversight and review, is there not?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is that oversight which I argue establishes the essential checks and balances here, to prevent the sort of abuse about which all of us on the Committee would, rightly, be worried. These are sensitive matters.
Joanna Cherry
At the Scottish Bar we often use the phrase “nemo iudex in sua causa”, which means “no man should be a judge in his own cause”. I am sure that that is used at the English Bar as well. Will the Solicitor General tell me how he is able to elide this principle, as the SPOC comes from the same organisation as the initial authoriser?
The Solicitor General
I thought I had made it clear to the hon. and learned Lady that the key word here is investigation. Those officers who are responsible for the course of the investigation are not the SPOC. That person is independent and they are at arm’s length. They are therefore able to exercise the objectivity and the sense of self-discipline that is essential if public authorities are to retain our confidence. It is all underpinned by the scrutiny of the IOCCO. In my submission, to move away from a tried and tested system that is internationally recognised would be, with regret, a mistake.
With respect to the hon. and learned Lady, I do not see how the process would be enhanced if it were to be done in the way that the amendment suggests. We already have oversight, as I have indicated. In fact, my concern is that the expertise within public authorities of how best to facilitate these sort of requests could be diminished, and there could be a detrimental impact on the relationships with both the service providers and the investigators. My worry is therefore that the understandable aims behind this amendment could be frustrated in a way that is perhaps not being properly foreseen.
Joanna Cherry
On a connected point, the evidence from Jo Cavan at IOCCO has expressed concern about the inclusion of subsection (3)(b), “the interests of national security”. I would like to probe this. It has been suggested that the justification for deeming the interests of national security to be almost an exceptional circumstance is unclear. What is the justification?
The Solicitor General
In a nutshell, we are talking here about rare and exceptional circumstances where it might not be possible to consult an SPOC. Where we are talking about national security, I would envisage a risk to the nation that all of us would understand if we saw it—rather like an elephant in a room. As I have said, though, it is couched with particular regard to the governing part of that clause, which is exceptional circumstances. Therefore the hon. Lady can be reassured that this is not some sort of back door by which this power would be misused. For all the reasons I have advanced, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 67, page 53, line 26, at end insert—
‘( ) the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data; and
( ) the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 140, in clause 67, page 53, line 38, at end insert—
‘( ) the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data; and
( ) the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks.”
Keir Starmer
The two amendments can essentially be read together: they bite on clause 67(5) and (6) respectively. The purpose of this clause, as I understand it, is to provide a mandatory consultation exercise for designated senior officers, with a single point of contact. That will be particularly important where the designated senior officer has little if any experience of authorising and will therefore be particular important in some of the smaller relevant public authorities, which may not exercise this power on a regular basis, although I realise it is mandatory in all cases. The point of amendments 138 and 140 is to put in the Bill a requirement that, in the course of that consultation exercise, the single point of contact advises not only on issues such as appropriate methods, costs, resource implications, unintended consequences and so on, but, as set out in amendment 138, on
“the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data; and…the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks.”
Such an amendment is necessary because there is a lack of an overarching privacy provision that can be read into each of these clauses. When a designated senior officer is being advised, it would be prudent and sensible for them to be advised not only about costs and resources, but about privacy and integrity, which are critical to the operation of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
The amendments are jointly supported by Labour and the Scottish National party.
Throughout this part of the Bill, public authorities and other decision makers are placed under a duty to consider a range of factors connected to the decision to access retained communications data. Those factors include cost and other resource implications and
“any issues as to the lawfulness of the proposed authorisation.”
These amendments include a specific duty to consider the public interest and the protection of individual privacy—that is, the protection of the privacy of our constituents; and the security of communications systems and computer networks—that is, the security of our constituents’ private data. Both David Anderson, in his independent review, and the Intelligence and Security Committee, in its report on the draft Bill, emphasise the importance of privacy principles and the need to make clear the legality of the use of surveillance powers in this new legislation.
Although we are focusing on a specific amendment to increase safeguards for individual privacy and security of data, we are concerned that throughout the Bill there appear to be statutory duties on public agencies, officials and agents and on judicial commissioners, to consider factors relevant to national security and the prevention and detection of crime, and the effectiveness of powers and resources expended, but there is no specific treatment of privacy standards and the public interest.
While the clauses that these amendments are attached to refer to
“any issues as to the lawfulness”
of the powers, the vagueness of this instruction is, in my submission, very contradictory. Surely it must be the first consideration of any individual considering the exercise of powers under the Bill that they should be legal. Legality should be a first consideration; treating it as just one at the end of a list of other factors to be considered seems entirely inappropriate. In this regard, it would be of huge assistance if the Minister could give us a fuller explanation of why statutory duties in the Bill have been approached in this way, with legality as a final duty; of the objectives of including the factors as provided in the manner in which they are drafted; and of why the protection of privacy and the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks will not be mentioned unless this amendment is made.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras is right about the purpose of the clause, and I understand the reason for the amendments. The single point of contact may advise the applicant and designated senior officer of the cost and resource implications for the public authority, and the communications service provider of any unintended consequences of the proposed authorisation and any issues surrounding the lawfulness of the proposed authorisation—one of the points that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West raised.
The points about cost and lawfulness that the hon. and learned Lady raised are certainly part of the advice that the applicant should receive, as well as the appropriate methods to obtain the data they are seeking, while the designated senior officer will be advised on the practicality of obtaining the data sought. Bear in mind that the single point of contact can already advise on the lawfulness of proposed authorisations. For authorisation to be lawful, it has to be both necessary for one of the statutory purposes in the Bill, and proportionate in all circumstances.
The point the hon. and learned Lady made about privacy is a reprise of the debate we had at the very beginning of our consideration, when I argued—I thought pretty convincingly, but clearly not—that privacy is woven through the Bill. For the sake of emphasis, I say again that the protection of privacy and personal data must be a key consideration in gauging proportionality.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the Minister is saying. As I understand it, he is saying that the issues highlighted by the amendments will be taken into account, so why not say so? What is the detriment in saying so and making it crystal clear? This is for the comfort of the many constituents and members of the public who are concerned about the privacy and integrity of their data, so why not say so in the Bill? What possible detriment could there be in following that course of action?
Mr Hayes
Let me rehearse the argument that I used originally, because despite what I described as its persuasiveness, it clearly was not sufficiently well articulated to convert the hon. and learned Lady to the cause of virtue. Let me rearticulate it: if privacy is separated out in the way that some argue we should have done and might do now, and it is identified in the desiccated way that those people suggest, its significance is curiously—one might even go so far as to say paradoxically—weakened as a defining characteristic of the purposes of the legislation. However, it is worth emphasising the point I made a few moments ago about the need to tie personal interests and the protection of private data in to the test of proportionality in the draft codes of practice.
I draw attention to the codes of practice at paragraph 3.18—the heading is “Further guidance on necessity and proportionality”—which says:
“An examination of the proportionality of the application should particularly include a consideration of the rights (particularly to privacy and, in relevant cases, freedom of expression) of the individual and a balancing of these rights against the benefit to the investigation.”
That could not be plainer in doing precisely what I have described, which is to look at the right to privacy—I do not like to use the word “right”; I prefer to use “entitlement”—the entitlement to privacy with the functioning nature of an investigation into the effectiveness of the process.
Joanna Cherry
As I understand it, the Minister is saying that privacy is so important and so woven into the Bill that to single it out would weaken its importance. Surely lawfulness is equally important and that has been singled out by the draftsmen in subsection (6)(d).
Mr Hayes
I have already argued that lawfulness is, again, an underpinning requirement in these terms. Just to be absolutely categorical, the designated senior officer is the one who makes the final assessment of necessity and proportionality, as required by the code of practice. They must have a working knowledge of legislation, specifically that which relates to necessity and proportionality and the entitlements of individuals in those terms.
I just think that the combination of the Bill and the codes of practice render the amendment unnecessary. I emphasised previously that the codes of practice are drafts and the final code of practice will reflect some of this Committee’s considerations. If I may turn my attention momentarily from the hon. and learned Lady, if the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras feels that the code should be strengthened in that regard—I re-emphasise that I think they are pretty clear—I would of course be prepared to hear his argument. [Interruption.] Before I move on to the amendment about system integrity, I can see that he is champing at the bit, or maybe I am misinterpreting him.
Keir Starmer
I was going to cover this in my reply, but the argument the Minister is now putting is unpersuasive, and I am afraid I found it unpersuasive a week ago. In practical reality, when a senior designated officer gets to lawfulness, they will be thinking necessity and proportionality, and they are likely to be advised about that. That is the test for restricting privacy. What we do not see is the statement of privacy, either in this subsection or an overarching clause—I have been trying to articulate what is nagging away as to why the overarching clause is needed. In the end, real people, in real time, will find that lawfulness will mean going back to check necessity and proportionality. That is welcome and right, but they are not the definition of privacy; they are the permitted restrictions of it.
Mr Hayes
That is a fair argument and that is why it is necessary to supplement what the hon. and learned Gentleman describes with the code of practice in the way that I have described. My invitation to him was that if he accepts that, he might want to focus attention on the code of practice to see whether it is as good as it might be. I drew attention to the provision on the necessity and proportionality. It might be that the draft could be further improved. After all, nothing, at least on earth, is perfect, and certainly no Government would want to claim perfection—
Suella Fernandes
Is it not impossible that privacy will not be considered as part of any application? Proportionality runs through the authorisation regime, and if a single point of contact has to apply a proportionality test, by definition and necessity, he will incorporate a wide-ranging consideration of the impact on privacy.
Mr Hayes
Yes, I agree. That is an elegant re-articulation of the point that I was imperfectly making about the intrinsic relationship between a consideration of personal interest and the test of proportionality. For the exercise of the power to be proportionate, it must take proper account of the balance that I described between personal interest and investigative effectiveness.
Keir Starmer
This is a relatively minor point, but it goes to the wider question of the overarching clause.
Keir Starmer
We have to look at this issue practically, through the eyes of the people who will operate such authorisations. I know how it will work: they will be directed to look at the necessity against clause 53(7) and they will go through a list. They will then be asked to look at the proportionality against the matters set out in clause 53. That does not point them to privacy. In the vast majority of cases—in good faith, I am sure—they will go through that clause, rather like a checklist. I do not mean to demean or undermine the exercise that they will go through, but I have seen the operation of such tests many times. Those people will ask themselves, “Is it in the interests of X, Y and Z? Is it proportionate to that?” I accept the point about the code of practice, but they will not necessarily ask themselves about privacy. That point is probably more about the overarching clause than about the specific amendment, but that is our nagging concern. One has to see this issue through the eyes of how in practice the process will work on the ground in real time.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman describes the concerns and says that he knows them. Of course, he will also know that it is part of the requirements that those people undertake the right training and that they are expected to have competence, in particular an understanding of all the necessary legislation, including rights legislation. It is important to understand that those people will be making an assessment based on both evidence and comprehension. I re-emphasise that the code of practice is vital. I am trying to tip him off—perhaps I am being too subtle—that he may want to press me further on those very matters in terms of the draft code of practice, which is pretty good, but such drafts can always be improved.
Let me be even more generous. I am an Hegelian, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and I believe that the truth lies in the whole, as Hegel said. The emphasis on privacy that underpins the whole Bill is fundamentally important, but in this regard I take his point that those missioned to do this job need to be very clear about that balance. To be still more generous, he is right in his strong implication that the training and guidance that those people receive about the interpretation of proportionality in this regard is important. That is the purpose of the code of practice, but we might want to go still further and I am happy to be tested further on that during the course of our consideration. I want to move on to the next group of amendments, because otherwise we will do this to death, but have I signalled clearly my direction of travel?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I raised this issue of how we go through this exercise with the codes of practice, to which we cannot table amendments, a week ago today. I take his comments as an invitation to draft or suggest tightening amendments—not necessarily in Committee, but outside it—where we think they are appropriate. I take it that those will be taken into consideration in any possible re-drafting of the code. I am grateful for that and we will engage with that exercise.
Mr Hayes
I would like to think I was a young blood with an old head. That is how I would see it; let us leave it there and move on.
Let me turn to systems integrity. It is important to set out the process for obtaining communications data. A public authority must require a communications provider to disclose communication data or it may engage in activity to acquire the data directly from a telecommunications system. Where data are sought from a provider, they will mostly be data that the provider has for business purposes or data retained under a retention notice. To the extent that a provider has put in place any dedicated system to provide for the acquisition of communications data, that capability and the necessary security assurances will be provided for under a data retention notice or technical capability notice.
In relation to obtaining data directly from a telecommunications system, the communications data code of practice makes it clear that communications data authorisation cannot permit the undertaking of any technique that involves interference with those systems themselves. That is quite important because, as various Committee members will know, that is an important assurance for providers. Such techniques could be authorised only under an equipment interference warrant. We will discuss those matters in the next part of the Bill.
The processes of requiring a provider to disclose data or the obtaining of data directly from a network will not have any impact on the integrity of telecommunications systems or the computer networks concerned. Accordingly, this is not an area on which the applicant or designated person will require advice. In essence, with that absolute firm assurance, the amendment is unnecessary and I invite the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras to withdraw it.
Keir Starmer
The more I have listened to the debate on the amendment, the more convinced I have become that there is a need for an overarching privacy clause, to which I will turn our attention at a later stage. It follows from that that I will focus my energies elsewhere, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the Opposition spokesman says in this regard, and I have much sympathy with it. However, I wish to press the amendment, for the simple reason that if privacy and integrity are as important as the Minister acknowledges, why not have them in the Bill? That would cause no possible detriment; it can only do good. Therefore, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 68, page 54, leave out lines 3 to 13 and insert—
“( ) An application for an order shall be made on notice to the journalist or journalists affected unless the Judicial Commissioner determines that an application without such notice is required in order to avoid prejudice to the investigation.
( ) Paragraphs 7 – 9 of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall apply in relation to the service of a notice of application for an order under subsection (1) as if the application were for an order under Schedule 1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
( ) Criminal Procedure Rules may make provision about proceedings under this section where the Judicial Commissioner determines that an application without such notice is required.
( ) A Judicial Commissioner may only make an order if the person making the application has convincingly established that—
(a) the order is directed to one or more of the legitimate aims specified in Article 10.2 of the Convention, and
(b) there is an overriding public interest necessitating the order, and
(c) reasonable alternative measures to the order do not exist or have been exhausted, and
(d) the order is proportionate to the legitimate aim or aims being pursued.
( ) The costs of any application and of anything done or to be done in pursuance of an order made under it shall be in the discretion of the Judicial Commissioner”.
How journalistic material and in particular journalists’ sources are to be protected under part 3 of the Bill is a substantive issue of real importance in a modern democracy.
“Issues surrounding the infringement of the right to freedom of expression may arise where an application is made for the communications data of a journalist. There is a strong public interest in protecting a free press and freedom of expression in a democratic society, including the willingness of sources to provide information to journalists anonymously.”
Those strong statements of principle that underpin our democracy are agreed across this House. I say that with confidence not only because of the strong public interest, but because they are written into the code of practice at paragraph 6.5. That suggests they are shared and important democratic principles. I argue that that expression of principle is not translated into reality in the provisions of the clause or through the Bill, and the clause is of considerable concern.
Let me give the background, as there is a chequered history. It is now clear that, in the case of Tom Newton Dunn, the police used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to access his phone records in secret in 2014. They did not notify him that they had accessed his material or sources; the Metropolitan police obtained the phone records without notification or consent. In other RIPA cases, no journalists were informed in advance. The Interception of Communications Commissioner highlighted in a report in February 2015 that 19 police forces had accessed the communications data of 82 journalists using RIPA in that way. The point of real importance is that there is no fundamental difference between the authorities asking for a journalist’s physical contact book and footage or for their telephone and communications records; the effect on journalists and sources is exactly the same and the same legal safeguards must apply to both.
The safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set a higher standard than those in the Bill as it stands. Under PACE, journalists are notified when the authorities want to access their material and sources, and they have the ability to defend their sources. Neither RIPA nor the Bill apply the same protections and safeguards. The RIPA interim codes of practice, published in March 2015, stated that the authorities must use the PACE procedures to apply to the court for a production order to obtain data. The Bill fails to meet that test.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am trying to think how this will work in practice. Under the usual rules for a non-notice application, to show that it will be without notice it would be necessary to highlight a number of factors of history as to why it should be without notice rather than on notice—for example, fraud or historical events. In this case, what would the circumstance be that would make it without notice rather than on notice? There would be a significant risk that any journalist would take action. What evidence could be put to the judicial commissioner to persuade them that this should be a without-notice application? There would be no history on the journalist himself.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that intervention. As she will know, there is a 20 to 25-year history of the evolution of protections for journalists, from the point when they were not put on notice to the point when they are now routinely put on notice. There are exceptions that have been tested in the Court of Appeal, but journalists are pretty well always put on notice and on many occasions will go and argue their corner to protect their source. Over the years, the case law has determined what the proper test is; on some occasions it has protected the source and on others it has allowed access. Under the PACE regime, there is now a clearly established way to proceed in cases in which journalists’ sources are an issue. It is well understood and it works well. It is significant that none of the law enforcement bodies to my knowledge are complaining that the on-notice PACE procedure for obtaining material that relates to journalists’ sources is not working in practice. Having battled it out over 25 years, pretty well all the sides accept that the current arrangement represents and protects their interests.
The amendment would essentially apply the same regime to communications data where communications data has been retained and is now being accessed. In the modern world, as journalists have made absolutely clear, to say that authorities have to go via PACE when they want to get a physical address book with a source in it but not when they want the virtual version through comms data is to cut right through the protection that has been so carefully crafted over the last 20 to 25 years. That does not protect journalists’ sources and is a cause of real concern.
Amendment 141 reflects current practice by providing for exceptional circumstances in which applications do not have to be on notice, whereas the Bill simply does not offer journalists any meaningful protection whatever. It is a carefully thought through, constructive amendment, intended to give journalists the protection they need without thwarting an investigation that needs to be protected. The test in paragraph (b) of the fourth subsection of the amendment puts the code of practice into the Bill. There is then a provision on costs.
The amendment is simple: it preserves PACE protections and extends them to communications data. It sets out the right test for the designated senior official and the judicial commissioner to apply. Nobody can quarrel with the test, because it is taken from the code of practice itself. It is all very well having warm words in the code of practice and warm words, which we have heard many times, about the protection of journalists’ sources, but unless they are translated into something that has real bite and effect, they remain warm words. I do not say that to underplay what the Solicitor General will say. I know that he believes in the underpinning principles I have outlined, but history shows that unless protection for journalists is written into legislation in a meaningful and effective way, it will not apply in practice as it should.
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for clearly outlining the kernel of his concern about the way the clause is drafted. Although in the drafting of the clause we have tried, quite properly, to address what is a sensitive occupation—I hesitate to use the word “profession” because some journalists do not like to be described in that way—we are in danger of moving the focus away from the public interest that journalists serve, which is freedom of expression in a democratic society without fear of intrusion by the authorities and in a way in which sources, and the journalists themselves, can be protected. We have to draw a very important distinction. It is tempting to try to draft amendments dealing with journalists in an ad hominem, or group, way. However, we are not talking about that; we are talking about the source material. Therefore, in a nutshell, I am afraid that the amendment does not really deal with the essential public interest, and that is why I commend the Government’s approach to the Committee.
I will say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, by way of reassurance, that if we can do better in the code of practice, we will. I am certainly open to active consideration of the ways in which we can improve the drafting to make the principles of freedom of expression, and the points that he and I agree on, even clearer to those applying these rules.
Keir Starmer
The Solicitor General is resisting this sensible and constructive amendment, which reflects the PACE approach, on the basis that one should not get too specific and one needs to understand the underlying public interest. He must accept that the points he makes apply equally to the PACE test. It does not matter whether someone is physically seizing a document that reveals a source or seizing something that serves virtually the same purpose. He must accept that the test is working well in practice and that all sides are pretty content with the way it works at the moment.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but, tempting though it is to draw that comparison, I think that he is mistaken. The PACE code of practice focuses on the person who, as it appears to the judge, is in possession of the material. That is not always the journalist; for example, a journalist’s material in regards to comms data will be held by the communication service providers and not by the journalist. Under PACE, journalists are not notified in such cases.
The Solicitor General
I will not give way at this stage because I want to explain the position. I have given way repeatedly and I want the chance to make my argument. I am sorry if people think, for some reason, that I am not listening or being reasonable. I need to explain the case because I do not think that it has been fully understood.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to talk about the position under PACE whereby journalists are asked to surrender data, such as in notebooks; however, under RIPA and the PACE procedures, applications are already being made to others in possession of material, journalists are not notified and the principles are very clear. I do not think it is right of him to draw such an easy comparison and to say, “It is working for PACE, therefore it should be read across the provisions of the Bill.” That is comparing apples with pears—with respect to him.
Keir Starmer
I have obviously looked carefully at what the Government said in the past on this issue and what was said in response to the pre-legislative Committees. The point has been made that, on the one hand, it is seizing from the journalist themselves and on the other hand, it is seizing from the person who holds the data; that is a material difference and we cannot compare the two schemes. I wonder whether that withstands proper scrutiny. The whole point is to give a source confidence that they can come forward and tell a journalist something and they will be protected. Otherwise, all the case law recites the fact that sources will not come forward and wrongdoing will not be exposed, which is unhealthy for democracy.
The argument that, if you seize my name in physical form from a journalist, it is to be protected, but if my name is being held by a data holder it can be given up and does not require protection, defies common sense. For the source, the question is: what is the protection for me if I come forward and try to expose someone? The argument that you are fine if it is written in a notebook and held by the journalist, but you are not protected if it finds its way into a bit of data held by someone else does not hold up.
The Solicitor General
Yes, but with respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman is ignoring the function of this clause, which is that where you do have that list, we have a special procedure. The problem with that argument is that there is a sensitive issue here. Where someone—whether they are a journalist or not—is the subject of a legitimate investigation, that could undermine such an investigation. Getting the balance right is therefore very important—[Interruption.] I want to finish this point. That is why, both in the Bill and this clause, special procedures apply where the sort of mischief about a source being compromised is indeed a live issue.
Keir Starmer
In amendment 141, which the Solicitor General is resisting, we have deliberately and intentionally accommodated the test that notice need not be given where it is necessary
“in order to avoid prejudice to the investigation.”
He has given a powerful example, but we have catered for that by saying that notice does not need to be given in that instance. The norm is that notice is given in the usual way, but the exception is where there is prejudice to the investigation. That absolutely meets his concerns; but it does meet my point that notice should otherwise be given.
The Solicitor General
I am glad we both note that we are trying to get to the same objective. I have already said to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the combination of legislation and the code of practice will be the way in which this framework is set out. I have indicated that if we can do better on the code of practice, we will; we will work with him on that. I also reiterate the amount of care that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I are taking on this particular issue. We have met with leading representatives from journalism on three occasions to discuss the Bill. We have written to the National Union of Journalists and the News Media Association about the concerns they have raised. This is part of a dialogue that is very much ongoing about the protections afforded by the Bill to journalistic material. They rightly say to us that it is not about them but about the interests that they serve. I cannot reiterate enough that we must focus on that issue when drafting the legislation.
May I deal with other Members who have considered the issue? The Interception of Communications Commissioner carefully considered it last year. He made it clear in his recommendation that, where communications data are sought that do not relate to investigation to determine the source of journalistic information, then judicial authorisation is not necessary. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying in effect to replicate that carve-out. On the proposed restrictions on the circumstances in which a communications commissioner may approve the obtaining of communications data that are journalistic in nature, where the request is for one of the legitimate aims in article 10.2 of the convention, there is an overriding public interest necessitating the order and the order is proportionate to the legitimate aim or aims being pursued, we already have the concepts of necessity and proportionality under part 3 as spelt out in the draft code of practice—as indeed they are in the code of practice for existing legislation. We already have a tightly constrained framework here, which offers a high degree of reassurance to all of us who care passionately about these issues, as I do. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has been clear in recent authority, such as the case of News Group Newspapers Ltd and others v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner in December last year, that the 2015 code of practice drafted under the current provisions and replicated in the regime in the Bill meets the standards on freedom of expression set out in article 10.
On the proposed requirement for a judicial commissioner to ensure that all reasonable alternative measures to such an authorisation have been exhausted, I am afraid that in my view, there are problems with its practicability. There are many reasons why a particular approach to an investigation might be selected and the use of a particular power might be called for. Judicial commissioners, with respect to them, are not the experts in this consideration and should not be expected to be. It is for those with expertise in the range of investigative options available in the particular circumstances of the case to decide that. Then, of course, the tests can be applied.
I do not want to take technical points. With regard to the technicalities of the amendment, there are some drafting issues that would need to be worked on, but I accept that it is really about principle and the approach to be taken. At this stage, although I disagree with the means by which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to make the change, continuing dialogue on the issue is meaningful. For those reasons and in that context, I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I have listened carefully to the Solicitor General. In the end, it boils down to a matter of principle. I think that he accepts what amendment 141 says in proposed new subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d). He criticises (c), but I will not spend time on that. The most important thing is to establish that the order is directed to one or more of the legitimate aims in article 10.2 and that an overriding public interest makes it necessary. He says that that is the framework within which the decisions should be taken, so there is no disagreement between them.
The difference, then, appears to be simply that I say it should be on the face of the statute and clear to all, and he says, “No, it can be in a code without express reference in statute.” There is a problem in principle with that. Protection of journalists’ sources should be on the face of the Bill. That is important in a modern democracy. For the Bill to be silent about the test, and for only the code of practice to apply it, is wrong in principle.
Secondly, I am afraid that there is a test spelled out in the Bill, and it is inconsistent with that test. The test for the judicial commissioner in the Bill is simply to check that there were reasonable grounds for considering something, but that the other requirements in the provisions were complied with. As a matter of statutory construction, the judicial commissioner is bound to apply the test in the Bill and cannot apply any other test, so it is wrong in principle not to put it in the Bill. It is also problematic, because there is a test in the Bill and it is not a special test. Ultimately, it says that the judicial commissioner must ensure that the other provisions of the Act are complied with. We would expect that; it is hardly an enhanced test by anybody’s standards.
In those circumstances, I am afraid that the Solicitor General’s arguments are wholly unpersuasive. I will withdraw the amendment, partly because I think that there is room for improvement, on which I will certainly work with the Government. To be absolutely clear, partly because I want to reserve my position to propose the amendment at a later stage, as it is of such importance to the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 68, page 54, line 5, leave out from “data” to “and” on line 7 and insert “further to this Part”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 143, in clause 68, page 54, line 18, leave out “considers” and insert “determines”.
Amendment 144, in clause 68, page 54, line 19, leave out subsections (5) (a) and (b) and insert—
‘( ) that the conduct permitted by the authorisation is necessary for one or more of the purposes in section 53(7); and
( ) that the conduct permitted by the authorisation is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.”
Amendment 145, in clause 68, page 54, line 29, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘( ) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may for the purposes of approving authorisations under this Section appoint Deputy Judicial Commissioners.
( ) A “Deputy Judicial Commissioner” must be—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, a justice of the peace,
(b) in relation to Scotland, a sheriff, and
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, a district judge (magistrates’ courts) in Northern Ireland.
( ) An authorisation under this Section may not grant authorisation in relation to the obtaining by a relevant public authority of communications data—
(a) 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.
( ) 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.
( ) An application which contains a statement that the purpose of a warrant is to access communications data in connection with communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal purpose, but which would otherwise attract legal privilege must be considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
( ) A Judicial Commissioner may issue an authorisation sought under subsection (3), if satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the communications data relates to communications made with the intent of furthering a criminal purpose;
(b) that the data is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made; and
(c) that the data concerned is likely to be relevant evidence;
(d) other proportionate methods of obtaining the data have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail;
(e) it is in the public interest that the authorisation is granted, having regard to—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the data 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,
( ) 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.
( ) Where an authorisation issued under this Part would seek to authorise any activity which may involve access to special procedure material, the following subclauses apply.
( ) Special procedure material subject to subsection (1) will include—
(a) journalistic material other than material which a person holds in confidence and
(b) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of the relevant legislature.
( ) The special procedure authorisation may only be granted on application to a Judicial Commissioner.
( ) The Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe 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—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed,
(ii) the importance of the prosecution,
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of journalists’ work product, and/or communications with members of relevant legislatures and
(iv) the public interest in the freedom of expression enjoyed by journalists and the members of the relevant legislatures, including as protected by Article 10 ECHR.
( ) Where data could reasonably be obtained by means of a search and seizure order pursuant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a warrant under this Part will not be in the public interest.
( ) An application for an authorisation concerning journalistic material held in confidence or information for the purpose of identifying or confirming a source of journalistic information, may only be considered by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe—
(a) a criminal offence has been committed,
(b) the communications data 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 authorisation is granted, having regard to—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the information is accessed;
(ii) the importance of the prosecution;
(iii) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of journalists’ work product and
(iv) the public interest in the freedom of expression enjoyed by journalists and the members of the relevant legislatures, including as protected by Article 10 ECHR.
( ) In considering an authorisation concerning journalistic material held in confidence, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must give notice to the journalist concerned, unless it would not be in the public interest to do so.
( ) If an authorisation is considered without notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must appoint a Special Advocate to represent the interests of the journalist and the person to whom confidence is owed, and the wider public interest in the integrity of journalists sources and freedom of expression, including as protected by Article 10 ECHR.
( ) Journalistic material is held in confidence for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it is held subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation and
(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.”
Amendment 242, in clause 68, page 54, line 29, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘( ) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may for the purposes of approving authorisations under this Section appoint Deputy Judicial Commissioners.
( ) A “Deputy Judicial Commissioner” must be—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, a justice of the peace,
(b) in relation to Scotland, a sheriff, and
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, a district judge (magistrates’ courts) in Northern Ireland.
( ) An authorisation under this Section may not grant authorisation in relation to the obtaining by a relevant public authority of communications data—
(a) 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.
( ) 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.
( ) An application which contains a statement that the purpose of a warrant is to access communications data in connection with communications made for the purpose of furthering a criminal purpose, but which would otherwise attract legal privilege must be considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
( ) A Judicial Commissioner may issue an authorisation sought under subsection (3), if satisfied that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the communications data relates to communications made with the intent of furthering a criminal purpose;
(b) that the data is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made;
(c) that the data concerned is likely to be relevant evidence;
(d) other proportionate methods of obtaining the data have been tried without success or were not tried because they were bound to fail;
(e) it is in the public interest that the authorisation is granted, having regard to the—
(i) benefit likely to accrue to the investigation and prosecution if the data is accessed;
(ii) importance of the prosecution; and
(iii) importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
( ) 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.
( ) Where an authorisation issued under this Part would seek to authorise any activity which may involve access to special procedure material, the following subclauses apply.
( ) Special procedure material subject to subsection (1) will include—
(a) journalistic material other than material which a person holds in confidence;
(b) communications sent by, or intended for, a member of the relevant legislature.
( ) The special procedure authorisation may only be granted on application to a Judicial Commissioner.
( ) The Judicial Commissioner must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe 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;
(iii) importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of journalists’ work product; and
(iv) public interest in the freedom of expression enjoyed by journalists and the members of the relevant legislatures, including as protected by Article 10 ECHR.
( ) In considering an authorisation concerning journalistic material held in confidence, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must give notice to the journalist concerned, unless it would not be in the public interest to do so.
( ) If an authorisation is considered without notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must appoint a Special Advocate to represent the interests of the journalist and the person to whom confidence is owed, and the wider public interest in the integrity of journalists sources and freedom of expression, including as protected by Article 10 ECHR.
( ) Journalistic material is held 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 proposes special procedures for communications data, subject to legal professional privilege, and for the protection of journalistic material and the communications data of politicians. It also provides for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to appoint Deputy Judicial Commissioners to consider applications for the authorisation of access to Communications Data.
New clause 14—Authorisations in relation to items subject to legal privilege—
‘(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply if—
(a) an application is made by or on behalf of a relevant public authority for authorisation under this Part, and
(b) the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the authorisation is to obtain communications data which contains, or might tend to reveal the content of, items presumptively subject to legal privilege.
(2) The application must contain a statement that the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the authorisation is to obtain communications data which contains, or might tend to reveal the content of, items presumptively subject to legal privilege.
(3) The person to whom the application is made may grant the authorisation only if the person considers—
(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 acquisition of the communications data in question, and
(b) that the relevant public authority has made arrangements of the kind described in section 46 (safeguards relating to retention and disclosure of intercepted material), including specific arrangements for the handling, retention, use and destruction of such items.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply if—
(a) an application is made by or on behalf of a relevant public authority for authorisation under this Part,
(b) the relevant public authority considers that the relevant communications data is likely to include communications data which contains, or might tend to reveal the content of, items subject to legal privilege, and
(c) subsections (2) and (3) do not apply.
(5) The application must contain—
(a) a statement that the relevant public authority considers that the relevant communications data is likely to include communications data which contains, or might tend to reveal the content of, items subject to legal privilege, and
(b) an assessment of how likely it is that the relevant communications data will include communications data which contains, or might tend to reveal the content of, such items.
(6) The person to whom the application is made may grant the authorisation only if the person considers that the relevant public authority has made arrangements of the kind described in section 46 (safeguards relating to retention and disclosure of material), including specific arrangements for the handling, retention, use and destruction of any communications data which contains, or might tend to reveal the content of, items subject to legal privilege.
(7) Subsections (1) to (6) of section 68 (commissioner approval for authorisations in relation to journalistic sources) apply to an authorisation to which this section applies as they apply to an authorisation in relation to the obtaining by a relevant public authority of communications data for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of that section.
(8) In this section “relevant communications data” means any communications data the obtaining of which is authorised by the authorisation.”
Keir Starmer
Although there are numerous amendments, they will not take as long as the previous amendment, because to some extent they cover the same ground. Amendments 142 to 144 are intended to tighten up the test for journalistic material and apply a stricter test. Amendment 145 is an attempt comprehensively to redraft clause 68 to provide meaningful protection for journalist’s material and the protection of journalist’s sources. It is also an attempt to provide protection for other protected information, namely that which is subject to legal privilege and communications between MPs. This is a form that we have seen on previous occasions.
I invite interventions because I cannot now quite remember, but I do not think that in this part of the Bill there is a self-standing provision for MPs in relation to access to data. I will happily be intervened on if I am wrong, because then this would not apply. My concern when drafting this amendment was that, while in other parts of the Bill there is a specific provision—although we can argue about whether it is strong enough—for MPs’ correspondence in relation to accessing the communications data of MPs, there is no provision at this point in the Bill. That should be a cause of concern to everyone on the Committee, and it will certainly be a cause of concern to others.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the typically clear and concise way in which he has approached these amendments to clause 68, on which I wholeheartedly support him. On the question of protection for parliamentarians, the wording that has been used is a “relevant” parliamentarian. That will cover Members of the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Assemblies as well.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that. On looking at it, it is clear that clause 94 applies generally across this—actually, I am not sure that it does. I am sorry to pause on this, Ms Dorries.
Joanna Cherry
Perhaps I could assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. The phraseology that is used is “a member of a relevant legislature”, which is defined to include the Scottish Parliament and the devolved Assemblies.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that. The purpose of the amendment is really to cover all three protected areas—legal professional privilege, MPs’ correspondence and journalism—and to set out a comprehensive test for all three. It is similar to a provision that we have already looked at in relation to other parts of the Bill. I commend it as a constructive way to protect the interests that ought properly to be protected on the face of the Bill.
The Solicitor General
I will not revisit the arguments except to say that there are important differences between the regime for communications data and that which is contained within clause 94, for example, which deals with equipment interference. We will come on to that in due course. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that paragraph 6.4 of the code of practice contains specific reference to a number of sensitive occupations, including,
“medical doctors, lawyers, journalists, Members of Parliament, or ministers of religion”.
If there is any lack of clarity in the code as to whether this includes Members of the Scottish Parliament or indeed of other devolved institutions, I am sure that that could be cleared up, and it should be.
Joanna Cherry
My point is not about the definition of parliamentarians but on the question of legal professional privilege. I think I am right in saying that the Government do not currently recognise that comms data come within the definition of legally privileged material. Does he not agree with me that a phone call from or to a lawyer could, for example, identify a potential witness in a case, and therefore comms data should come within the definition of legal professional privilege?
The Solicitor General
I do not want to go back to arguments that we have already had on this or to anticipate any future arguments. With regards to legal professional privilege, sometimes it might be difficult to establish precisely what comes within and without that category. However, we are talking not about the content of what has been said or done but about the fact of a communication having been made, so communications data will rarely, if ever, attract legal professional privilege; it is difficult to think of an example when it would.
Keir Starmer
I think the guidance that we are given in declaring our interests to the House is that, for legal work, the identity of the person advised is not to be disclosed, because that comes within legal professional privilege. In other words, the fact that somebody has sought advice and who has sought advice are protected by legal professional privilege. I have never known there to be any doubt about that. This is an area where there is a need for special protection; that ought to be in the statute. I think that is common ground. That is how I have always understood it. I am not entitled to say who instructs me without the consent of the client, certainly before the matter comes to court.
The Solicitor General
While I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on the principle and the absolute nature of the privilege—subject to the iniquity exemption that we all know about and those of us who practise are familiar with—I am talking about a restricted area, in which we are looking at the threads of an investigation as opposed to the actual meat of the subject.
The Solicitor General
May I just deal with this matter? As I said, I am having difficulty identifying a circumstance in which communications data—material without context or wider information—would attract that protection. In what we call the David Davis and Tom Watson case, which has been referred by the Court of Appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment the court of first instance, the divisional court, said:
“No doubt such an example of privilege would rarely arise.”
I think it is important to note that, while I am not saying that it would never arise, I am having difficulty in imagining that the material itself would breach the dam, if you like, of the important safeguard of legal professional privilege.
Lucy Frazer
Just in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the identity of the person being subject to legal professional privilege: in litigation it is always known, because the solicitor is on the record as to who he acts for, and at a case management conference the barristers who are taking the matter forward will be identified.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. There might be an earlier stage, for example at a police station in a criminal investigation, when that might not be a matter that is automatically disclosed in that way.
Keir Starmer
I absolutely accept that, for litigation in open court, it is pretty clear who everybody is acting for. It is common practice in the commercial world for protection to be put around whether a client is seeking advice and from whom. That is jealously guarded by every law firm that I have ever had anything to do with, for very obvious reasons. People go to lawyers; they do not necessarily want the world at large to know that they have gone and to which lawyer they have gone. I cannot over-emphasise that, in the commercial reality of the real world, that is jealously guarded.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to hon. Members for trying to sift their way through what appears to be something of a labyrinth at times. I do not want to overcomplicate the situation. The Government’s view is that, combined with the code of practice, we have the necessary protections in the Bill that acknowledge that the degree and nature of the interference in an individual’s rights and freedoms will of course be greater in these sort of circumstances, so considerations of the necessity and proportionality become highly germane because they draw attention to any such circumstances that might lead to an unusual degree of intrusion or infringement of rights and freedoms, in particular privacy.
Joanna Cherry
The Solicitor General is very generous in taking interventions. We currently have four silks arguing about whether LPP can apply to comms data. Too many lawyers spoil the broth perhaps, but is that not an indication that a code of practice is not going to be enough to resolve this issue? It should go before a judicial commissioner, as proposed by the amendment.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady makes her point with force. Although the concerns she has about content and the issues that we have debated and will debate in part 5 are understandable, we are talking about a different nature of material and a different regime, where considerations can be distinct from those that apply in other parts of the Bill.
I will deal as quickly as I can with the points that have been made. I would argue that we have, in effect, a particular restriction that I would regard as not striking the right balance with respect to those who need it. We have to think in the context of the operational capability of our security and intelligence services in particular.
If there is a specific requirement for the use of PACE powers in these circumstances, I am worried that the requirements of clarity, consistency and transparency that we have to abide by will be undermined. The Interception of Communications Commissioners Office was clear in its rejection of the claim that public authorities had utilised RIPA to avoid the use of PACE. In fact, under this Bill part 3 authorisations for communications data to identify or confirm a journalistic source are subject to more stringent safeguards than under PACE, because the Bill replicates those procedures but at a higher level of authorisation, with a serving or former High Court judge, as opposed to a circuit judge, making the authorisation.
Making communications data accessible to those who have a lawful need for them at the right level of authorisation is a fine balance, but it is struck most effectively in the Bill as drafted. I am sure that Opposition Members do not intend us to reach a position where communications that have been made for the intent of furthering a criminal purpose are missed or are not accessible as they would want them to be. For those reasons, I urge the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am afraid I simply do not follow the argument that transparency and accountability are lost if the protection that should properly be accorded to lawyers, journalists and MPs is spelled out in the Bill, with clear guidance to those who operate the authorisations on how to apply them. As I have indicated, these are matters of real concern that go to important issues in the Bill. In order to reserve my rights at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Collaboration agreements
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 19th April 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 April 2016 - (19 Apr 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
This will be a long session: five hours. If anyone is worried about comfort breaks, I do not have the constitution of Mr Speaker, so I will call one at around 4 o’clock or 4.15 pm. We are then expecting a vote on a programme motion at around 6 o’clock. That will, I hope, break it up nicely.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I mentioned at the outset this morning that I had written to you and intended to make copies of that correspondence available to Committee members. In the course of the proceedings, I heard the Solicitor General report that I had also written to journalists. Hard copies of all that correspondence are available at the front of the room for collection by members, and I understand that it has also been sent to members by email.
The Chair
Thank you very much.
Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Lawfulness of conduct authorised by this Part
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 72, page 57, line 35, leave out from “subsection (1)” to end of line 40.
This amendment ensures that if conduct cannot be justified it must remain unlawful.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 148, in clause 72, page 57, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
Joanna Cherry
I think I can take this in fairly short compass. The clause deals with the lawfulness of conduct authorised by this part of the Bill. The amendment would delete clause 72(2)(b), the effect of which would be that conduct would have to remain unlawful if it could not be justified. As it is currently worded, the clause allows an exception to that principle, and that is not an appropriate exception. Conduct is either lawful or unlawful. If it is unlawful, it should be characterised as such and should not be justified. Strictly, if the amendment were to be passed, subsection (3) would have to be left out as well, for tidying-up purposes.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
May I reassure the hon. and learned Lady that the provisions relating to lawfulness of conduct authorised by part 3 of the Bill replicate those that currently apply in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the Bill goes no further in providing indemnity from civil liability for conduct incidental to or reasonably undertaken in connection with a communications data authorisation? The clause is drafted to ensure that a person who engages in conduct only in connection with an authorisation cannot be subject to civil liability unless that activity could itself have been authorised separately under a relevant power. It must follow that the removal of that provision would mean that a person who was acting lawfully under an authorisation that had properly been granted under the Bill would be at risk of civil liability if some incidental or reasonably connected conduct were not expressly covered by the authorisation.
I can see the thrust of the hon. and learned Lady’s argument, but I hope that I have reassured her that the Bill does not go any further than the status quo. For that reason, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Certain transfer and agency arrangements with public authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
There are matters relating to this clause on which I would like to press the Minister. This is the clause that provides for what is effectively the transfer of certain functions between the Secretary of State and other public authorities. The functions to be transferred are the functions in clauses 58 to 60, at which we looked in some detail last week: the filtering arrangements for obtaining data. As set out in clause 58, it is for the Secretary of State to maintain and operate arrangements. It is then for the relevant public authority, acting through a designated senior officer, to effectively carry out the exercise, using authorisations as and where necessary and appropriate. We discussed that arrangement.
Clause 74 provides for a transfer of functions of the Secretary of State—which I take to include establishing, maintaining and operating arrangements—from the Secretary of State to another public authority. That seems to me to cut through the thrust and the purpose of clause 58, which has a clear hierarchy to it: the Secretary of State, then the designated senior officer. Subsection (1)(b) is freestanding and transfers any function exercisable by a public authority back the other way to the Secretary of State, so there is a complete provision for a swap of roles. Subsection (3) indicates that:
“Regulations under subsection (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the exercise of the functions concerned”.
Then schedule 5, in the back of the Bill, is referred to, but that does not add a great deal.
The question for the Minister is: how is it anticipated that these powers are to be exercised? On the face of it, this is an odd structure for a Bill to set out. This structure goes from the Secretary of State down to the relevant public authority, with the Secretary of State having a much wider role of setting up the arrangements, only for us to find, several clauses later, that it is possible to flip the functions and have the public authority making the arrangements. That seems to remove some of the formality and the safeguards intended by clause 58.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman, with his typical diligence—which is at least matched, by the way, by those on the Treasury Bench—has identified, quite properly, both the reasons for this clause and the character of the transfer of arrangements that it details. He accurately identified subsection (3), which emphasises that:
“Regulations under subsection (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the exercise of the functions concerned”.
The transfer of arrangements will change neither the Secretary of State’s responsibility nor the process for authorising requests for data. It is about the technical running of the filtering capability. It is there to require flexibility; it might be appropriate at some future point for another authority to exercise the filtering function, but without responsibility moving from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will retain responsibility, but the operational running of the filter might change over time. This is essentially about future proofing.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I am not being pernickety; I just want to be clear. Subsection (3) appears to apply only to regulations under subsection (2), which I think is about changing the powers of public authorities lest they should not have the power to carry out functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. In other words, when the Secretary of State is modifying the powers available to a public authority, that comes within subsection (3). On reflection, I wonder whether sub-clause 3 should say “regulations under subsections (1) and (2) do not affect the Secretary of State’s responsibility”, because I think that is the thrust of what the Minister said.
Mr Hayes
That is not an unreasonable point, actually. Someone who read the Bill could certainly come to the same conclusion as the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will look at that from a drafting perspective, because it is important that we are clear. First, in all these matters, filtering arrangements take effect only as the result of a lawful process; the process for permission will not change. Secondly, that permission rests with the Secretary of State; I do not want there to be any ambiguity—as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests there might be—about which parts of this clause that affects. On re-reading the clause, I can see what he means, so I am happy to take it away and check whether the drafting needs to be amended in the way that he describes. In that spirit, and with that immensely generous offer, I hope we can move on.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Extra-territorial application of Part 3
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 76, page 59, line 26, after “Kingdom”, insert
“the notice shall be served at that person’s principal office outside the United Kingdom where it is established for the provision of services. Where it is considered unfeasible or inappropriate in the circumstances,”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 151, in clause 76, page 59, line 39, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Subsections (1) or (2) of section 57 shall not be applicable where the taking of any steps by a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom—
(a) would cause the operator to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or
(b) could be achieved via a notice served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”.
Keir Starmer
We return to familiar territory here, in relation to the extraterritorial application of authorisations under part 3. When I made my observations last week, I outlined the concerns that a number of service providers and tech companies have; I do not intend to repeat them.
Amendment 150 would tighten the service provisions in relation to the extraterritorial application of part 3. Amendment 151 would introduce a restriction that had the effect of not requiring a relevant operator outside the UK
“to act contrary to any laws or restrictions under the law of the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services,”
or to take steps that
“could be achieved via a notice served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
We reached this point last week in relation to provisions that were not dissimilar. The Minister made various points, both about service and about other provisions—particularly those relating to the way international mutual assistance agreements currently work. I will not press these amendments to a vote, for the same reasons as last week, but would indicate that the thrust and purpose of the amendments was to anticipate the agreements on extraterritorial application that it is hoped will be reached—particularly with the US—and that are being negotiated at the moment.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate I was not chairing the Committee, so this is very much my own impression of what went on. Lord Murphy was, as one would expect, very keen to accommodate the service providers and the Committee Clerks proposed several dates. We were grateful for the written evidence and formed the view we did, but it would have been nice if they could have fitted us into their busy schedules.
Keir Starmer
We probably will not gain much by arguing the detail, particularly as I was not there. The point that the service providers wanted to get across was that in principle they did want to give evidence. They gave written evidence. It was simply that the dates would not work for them as a group, rather than any unwillingness to share their concerns.
The Minister for Security raised a point about the Sheinwald arrangements and the progress being made. As I said a moment ago, these amendments are intended to foreshadow the—I hope—new world of working arrangements, which will cover not only evidence for use in prosecutions but the facilitation of the exercise of powers of this Bill in much faster time than some of the current mutual assistance agreements. The Minister made a further point about the differing views of the companies concerned. There are different views about some aspects of the Bill, but on the issues of extraterritorial application they speak with one voice.
There is an important broader issue to put on the table. As we move forward to international agreements, particularly with the US, it is very important that not only our Government but the US Government are comfortable with the arrangements, because whatever arrangements are put in place will be reciprocal.
Finally, may I hand a schedule to you, Ms Dorries, to the Minister and his team and to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West? I do not intend to speak at great length to this document, which was prepared for me. What it points out is the inconsistency in approach on extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is quite telling in a number of respects. It tracks whether there is extraterritorial jurisdiction, which clauses give rise to it, whether there is a reasonableness test or a reference to conflict of laws built in, whether it is enforced by overseas service providers, whether there is an international mutual assistance framework and whether there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult. What struck me when I went through the document was the inconsistencies. If they are intentional inconsistencies that can be defended, all well and good. I am simply bringing it to the Minister’s attention that we have found these apparent inconsistencies. If they are not intentional, it might be a good idea if somebody looked at them to tidy up the provisions and ensure that where they should be consistent, they are.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am looking at the hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment 150, and of course it is necessary to serve someone so that they get notice. The provisions of service are always about the substance of whether the person gets the notice. It is clear to me from the current drafting that if there were service in accordance with any of clause 76(3), the company would get notice. I have a few concerns about the amendment. I am very wary, because people often take points of service to disrupt a substantive issue. It would be unfortunate if people could take the point that they were not properly served and therefore not comply. Does “principal office” have a meaning in other jurisdictions? If there are different services, will “provision of services” cause confusion? What is the meaning of “unfeasible or inappropriate” and how will it be applied? I believe that the clause will maintain what is desired, which is that it will come to the company’s attention, so I am slightly concerned about the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her intervention. I am not pressing amendments 150 and 151. They have been put forward to draw attention to concerns. The hon. and learned Lady made submissions last week about service in relation to civil proceedings under the White Book, which I noted and could see the sense of. I do not want to push amendment 150 and accept that “unfeasible” and “inappropriate” may not be the best way to articulate the point.
What underlies both amendments is a genuine concern on the part of those who, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be called on to assist in relation to warrants and who want clarity on how the procedure is to operate, what they are to do and what the safeguards are, in particular when they find themselves, as we mentioned last week, required under penalty of criminal proceedings in this country to do something that constitutes an offence in the country in which they are operating. That is a very real concern for them.
Mr Hayes
I shall deal as pithily as is possible with the points the hon. and learned Gentleman made. The first was his helpful contribution in the form of this schematic, to which I will not respond now. He would not expect me to as I have only just seen it. It might form part of my next letter to the Committee to explain why in different parts of the Bill these matters are handled in different ways. In doing so, I will implicitly consider his point about whether that is healthy eclecticism or unhappy inconsistency.
Secondly, it is important to point out that clause 76 essentially maintains provisions on extraterritoriality as they are now, replicating the arrangements under RIPA, clarified by the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right, but there is nothing new here.
Thirdly, there is a need to retain flexibility about where the notices are served. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point that companies may take a view on these things, and sometimes those might be overlapping or conflicting views about different aspects of the Bill, but in those terms it is important to maintain a degree of flexibility about the communications data notice and where it can be delivered.
Fourthly, on the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about coming more speedily to an agreement that is more satisfactory than either current arrangements or those that might be delivered through a mutual legal assistance treaty, I can offer the Committee the assurance, as I have previously, that that work is under way. We are hopeful—indeed, confident—that we can achieve the sort of outcome that he has described. He referred, as I did, to the comments of David Anderson, which were critical of the mutual legal assistance treaty process on the grounds that it is slow. It is not always the best way of achieving the objective set out in the Bill, because it is not designed for that purpose but an entirely different one.
Finally, I would say that this is really important. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that this is a particular part of a particular part of the Bill and so could be overlooked, it is important to understand that, in terms of the objectives we seek to achieve—that is, those of us who want the Bill to work well, which I think applies to the whole Committee—these powers are significant. Much of what happens is now happening overseas and much of the process by which we deal with overseas organisations is vital to the work of our security services and others. Dealing with extraterritorial matters is significant, but not straightforward. It is dynamic, for the reasons that we have both offered to the Committee. In that respect, I believe we have got the Bill about where it wants to be. I do not say that these things will not evolve over time, but for the purposes we have set out, the clause works.
As with all these things, I start from the perspective of wanting to be both convivial and conciliatory; both helpful and positive. I never ignore arguments put in these Committees or on the Floor of the House, as people know who know how I operate. The House has an important function in making government as good as it can be, and that is partly about the interaction and tension between Government and Opposition. Of course I am always prepared to listen, but I think we have got this right. With the appropriate humility, I suggest that we move on.
Keir Starmer
I indicated would not press the amendments at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
I oppose the clause. I hear what the Minister has to say, but I am not reassured by the Government’s approach. Harking back to something I said last week, I do not think that the Government have got the balance right, because in seeking to gather to themselves an extraterritorial application through United Kingdom law, there are hidden dangers.
If international companies are required to arbitrate between conflicting legal systems, it is leaving the protection of human rights to the good will and judgment of those companies. Companies such as the ones the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras mentioned have already expressed concerns to David Anderson, for his report “A Question of Trust”, that
“unqualified cooperation with the British government would lead to expectations of similar cooperation with authoritarian governments, which would not be in their customers’, their own corporate or democratic governments’ interests.”
In my view, the most appropriate way forward is to pursue the route, which I am pleased the Minister has assured us that the Government are well down, of mutual legal assistance agreements with other states. If we do not pursue that route in the way that both David Anderson and Sir Nigel Sheinwald recommended with appropriate alacrity, and instead rely simply on clauses such as this one, which are spread throughout the Bill, we will create real difficulty for corporate entities. We will also create difficulties for the international enforcement of human rights, which I consider a bit more important than difficulties for corporate entities, although we should not set the latter to one side, because they are significant. For that reason, notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, the SNP opposes clause stand part.
Mr Hayes
I will not make a case again for the clause, but I shall say this, in the spirit of helpfulness and kindness. It is really important that the Committee sends out a combined message to overseas communications service providers—on which the obligations will have an important effect because their commercial endeavours have a significant relationship with the powers we are trying to cement in the Bill—so that they have a very clear impression that we as a Committee of this Parliament are clear that we expect them to do their bit to do what is right. We should not, out of a sense of good will, allow ourselves to be misled and encouraged not to have high expectations or make serious demands of those organisations.
I simply say to the hon. and learned Lady that clause 76 is about giving a clear signal, as does clause 57, with which it should be read in tandem, that telecommunications operators should comply with the notice given, whether or not they are in this country. I accept that that is difficult and challenging—I made that point at the outset—but my goodness, it is vital that we take these steps. I know that she is open-minded and a woman of great good will, but we should not allow that to dilute in any way that common message to those big companies. I do not want those companies to get away with anything that that should not get away with.
Joanna Cherry
I am not so much concerned about the message we send out to the companies; I am more concerned about the message we send out internationally and potentially to authoritarian regimes. The difficulty is that if the British Government demand from these companies unqualified co-operation with British laws, that might encourage authoritarian Governments to do likewise. We clearly would not want that, so we need to be very careful about the messages we send out and think carefully about their full implications. That is why such matters should be approached by way of mutual legal agreement internationally, rather than the unilateral imposition of one Parliament’s will outwith the area where its sovereignty operates.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 78, page 61, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) A Judicial Commissioner may issue a data retention warrant under this Part to authorise the retention of relevant communications data if the Judicial Commissioner considers that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the following purposes—
(a) in the interests of national security, or
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or
(c) for the purpose of preventing death or serious injury.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 165, in clause 78, page 61, line 10, leave out “A retention notice may” and insert “A data retention warrant must”.
Amendment 154, in clause 78, page 61, line 19, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 155, in clause 78, page 61, line 30, leave out “retention notice” and insert “retention warrant”.
Amendment 235, in clause 78, page 61, line 30, leave out second “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 156, in clause 78, page 61, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 157, in clause 78, page 61, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 158, in clause 78, page 61, line 34, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 159, in clause 78, page 61, line 36, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 160, in clause 78, page 61, line 37, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 161, in clause 78, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 162, in clause 78, page 61, line 41, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 166, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 220, in clause 79, page 62, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 62, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 169, in clause 79, page 62, line 30, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 170, in clause 79, page 62, line 31, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 171, in clause 79, page 62, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 172, in clause 79, page 62, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 173, in clause 79, page 62, line 35, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 174, in clause 79, page 62, line 35, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 176, in clause 80, page 62, line 38, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 198, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “back to the Secretary of State” and insert “to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for review”.
Amendment 335, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 177, in clause 80, page 62, line 41, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 178, in clause 80, page 62, line 42, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 180, in clause 80, page 63, line 5, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 181, in clause 80, page 63, line 6, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 199, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 182, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 183, in clause 80, page 63, line 8, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 200, in clause 80, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “the Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 201, in clause 80, page 63, line 12, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment 184, in clause 80, page 63, line 14, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 185, in clause 80, page 63, line 16, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 193, in clause 80, page 63, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 194, in clause 80, page 63, line 24, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 202, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 249, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “and the Commissioner”.
Amendment 186, in clause 80, page 63, line 27, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 187, in clause 80, page 63, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 188, in clause 80, page 63, line 30, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 203, in clause 80, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 197, in clause 80, page 63, line 33, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 189, in clause 80, page 63, line 33, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 204, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 210, in clause 83, page 64, line 13, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 205, in clause 83, page 64, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 206, in clause 83, page 64, line 15, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 211, in clause 83, page 64, line 22, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 207, in clause 83, page 64, line 23, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 212, in clause 83, page 64, line 27, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 213, in clause 83, page 64, line 28, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 214, in clause 83, page 64, line 31, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 215, in clause 83, page 64, line 32, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 216, in clause 83, page 64, line 34, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 217, in clause 83, page 64, line 36, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 218, in clause 83, page 64, line 37, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 208, in clause 83, page 64, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 370, in clause 83, page 64, line 39, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 372, in clause 83, page 64, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 209, in clause 83, page 64, line 41, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 219, in clause 83, page 65, line 7, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Amendment 221, in clause 83, page 65, line 9, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
New clause 7—Persons who may apply for issue of warrant—
“(1) Each of the following organisations may apply for a communications data retention warrant—
(a) a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996,
(b) the Metropolitan Police Force,
(c) the City of London Police Force,
(d) the Police Service of Scotland,
(e) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
(f) the British Transport Police Force,
(g) the Ministry of Defence Police,
(h) the Royal Navy Police,
(i) the Royal Military Police,
(j) the Royal Air Force Police,
(k) the Security Service,
(l) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(m) GCHQ, and
(n) the National Crime Agency.”
New clause 10—Requirements that must be met by warrants—
“(1) A warrant issued under this Part must name or otherwise identify the person or persons, organisation, premises, or location to which the warrant relates.
(2) A warrant issued under this Part must describe the investigation or operation to which the warrant relates.
(3) A warrant issued under this Part must relate to one or more of the following purposes—
(a) in the interests of national security, or
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, where there is reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed, or
(c) for the purpose of preventing death or injury.
(4) A warrant may only be issued under this Part if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation or operation to which the warrant relates.”
Keir Starmer
I will not say, at this stage, that I am withdrawing all of those amendments.
Keir Starmer
It is a joke, Ms Dorries. We now come to a very important clause. In some respects, over the last part of Thursday and today we have been working backwards through the way in which the functions will be exercised, because clause 78 is the starting point in relation to communications data. It relates to the power to require retention of data in the first place, and everything we have discussed has been about how those data can be filtered and accessed after they have been retained. It is a very important clause.
I draw attention to the breadth of the clause, which states:
“The Secretary of State may by notice…require a telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data if the Secretary of State considers that the requirement is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 53(7)”.
The first thing that crops up in relation to the clause is what the test for retention is. The test is, of course, necessity and proportionality but the real question is: what does that necessity and proportionality bite on? That pushes us straight back to clause 53(7), which is problematic because it sets such a low threshold for these extensive retention powers.
There should be no doubt that this provision gives the Secretary of State the power to require the retention of a huge amount of data. There may be circumstances in which that is necessary and proportionate, but the test for whether that power is exercised is pushed all the way back to clause 53(7). To take an example that we touched on last week, extensive data can be retained
“for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”—
any crime. Any crime of any level can trigger a power to retain data. The importance of the issue of retention over that of access is that at this stage it is about retaining the data of those who are not necessarily suspects or targets but anybody whose data come within the types that are intended to be retained. It is a very wide provision.
Sign-off is by the Secretary of State, so there is no double lock and no reference to a judicial commissioner here. The Secretary of State operates the powers, which are very wide. Clause 78(2) states that
“a retention notice may…relate to a particular operator”;
it may
“require the retention of all data or any”;
it may
“identify…periods for which data is to be retained”;
it may “contain…restrictions” and
“make different provision for different purposes,”;
and it may “relate to data” that are not even in existence at the time. These are very wide-ranging powers triggered by the test set out in clause 53(7), and that is a cause of significant concern. The retention period is 12 months, so this is an extensive hoovering-up exercise.
It is clear that the clause applies to internet connection records, because that is stated in subsection (9). We touched on internet connection records last week in relation to when internet connection records are to be accessed. Now, I touch on it for a different purpose: to highlight how all our internet connection records can be swept up in a data retention notice issued under this provision.
For that purpose, one obviously starts with the definition of internet connection record in clause 54(6)(a) and (b), which we looked at last week. I will not read it out again but just give some examples of what is intended to be included. I will do so in chronological order. The operational case for the retention of internet connection records was published in August last year. Page 3 made it clear that internet connection records are:
“a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to—such as a website or instant messaging application—captured by the company providing access to the internet”.
So that is within the scope of an internet connection record, as set out in the operational case of August 2015. An annexe setting out terminology and definitions was put in evidence before the Joint Committee in January this year, which made it clear that not only web and IP addresses are included, but names and addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, billing data, customers, users, and so on. In the explanatory notes to the Bill, paragraph 2.30, on clause 78(9) makes it clear that,
“communications data that can be retained includes internet connection records. Internet connection records, which are defined in clause 54(6), are a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to—such as a website”
That is therefore consistent with the operational case.
What is swept up under clause 78 are internet connection records, which means connections to the internet and websites to which any device has connected. When anyone uses a device to connect to a website, that is recorded by the provider and comes within the definition. It therefore comes within the retention order. That is what the clause gives the Secretary of State power to retain.
It is fair to point out that clause 54(4), which deals with accessing the data that are retained, says that the access through an authorisation can be allowed only if the purpose is to identify: which person is using the internet, which internet service is being used, where the person or apparatus whose identity is already known is, and so on. It is true to say that on the point of access there is restriction of the way in which internet connection records are accessed, but we need to be absolutely clear that for the purpose of retention, it is a record of all websites visited or accessed by a device.
Mr Hayes
I do not doubt that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will deal with these points at some length, but is it not fair to say—the hon. and learned Gentleman is in the mood to be fair—that the two subsequent clauses both build a set of safeguards into the system and provide for a review of the system? There is further work in the Bill that caveats what might be taken to be the extremes of his argument.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, and I accept that there are safeguards in subsequent provisions. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but on the face of it at least—I am not saying they are incapable of a review—the safeguards do not restrict the definition of an internet connection record in a way that would prevent websites visited being swept up in the retention order.
Keir Starmer
The message to my and all of our constituents is that, even if they are not a target, a record of the websites they have visited can be retained under a data retention order, and if retained will be retained for 12 months—every website they have visited. But if somebody later wants to access it, there is then a tighter test for that. The chilling effect of clause 78 is that the websites visited will be retained if a retention order is issued. We need to be absolutely clear about that. The tighter definition does not kick in until a later stage of the exercise, and that is a cause of real concern to our constituents, certainly to the people who have engaged with me on the topic, and to our fellows across both sides of the House.
Joanna Cherry
I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about web addresses being revealed. Is it not also the case that we see from the data released by the Home Office, after being pressed about its factsheet accompanying ICRs, that what will be revealed is not only web addresses and IP addresses, but the names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and billing data of customers—our constituents?
Keir Starmer
I cannot double check on my feet, but that sounds like the further evidence that was put before the Joint Committee when it was in the middle of its deliberations. In fairness, the Home Office did go beyond websites to include some, maybe all, of the matters to which the hon. and learned Lady just referred.
The way this will operate in practice is a cause of real concern. The Secretary of State, without the double check of a judicial commissioner, and operating against a low-level threshold—clause 53(7)—can issue a retention order that will permit the retention of a record of all the websites that somebody has visited. That record will then be kept for 12 months, albeit with a different test if it is to be accessed later.
The amendments—I think you have called them the first set of amendments, Ms Dorries—are intended to construct in the first instance a different framework around this power, because it is so extensive, and put it in the hands of a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. That would provide a greater safeguard in relation to clause 78, with independent oversight through the function of the judicial commissioner. Alternatively, amendments 152, 153 and 222 would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner some oversight. In other words, the intention behind these amendments is to put some rigour and independence into the exercise of what is a very wide power that, in fact, is the starting point for the exercise of all the other powers under the parts of the Bill that we are now concerned with.
Anxiety has been expressed on a number of occasions about cost. Huge amounts of data could be required for retention under clause 78. The Government have estimated the cost at £170 million. That is considered to be a gross underestimate by those who will no doubt be called upon to actually retain the data. For those reasons, these amendments are intended to tighten up a clause that is very wide and very loose. It permits a huge amount of data to be retained, including websites visited by you, by me, or by our constituents.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to rise as part of this ongoing scrutiny, and to offer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West brief respite in this Committee. It is also a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It is great to follow the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who in his customary fastidious and engaging manner has covered in a short space of time all the aspects of many amendments. Some of that bears repeating, and I will speak to new clause 10, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke at length about the important role that the judiciary, in the form of judicial commissioners, should bring to this process. We do not think it is good enough that the Bill only proposes to use judicial commissioners to review the process used by the Secretary of State in making a decision. The Government may claim that it is important that the Home Secretary retains the power to issue retention notices to internet service providers, as it will ensure that democratic accountability is a salient feature of the process, but I do not accept that to be the case. In fact, I would argue that because of the political arena that any Home Secretary operates in, it is right that this power is handed to and delegated to an independent official such as a judicial commissioner.
It is also worth noting that we know very little of the various notices that the Home Secretary issues, and as such there is no possible opportunity to hold her to account for them. Building the role of judicial commissioners into this part of the process will help to ensure that we have appropriate checks and balances when it comes to the retention of communications data. This is vitally important, because it is the proper constitutional function of the independent judiciary to act as a check on the use of intrusive and coercive powers by state bodies, and to oversee the application of law to individuals and organisations. Liberty rightly points out that judges are professionally best equipped to apply the legal tests of necessity and proportionality to ensure that any surveillance is conducted lawfully.
I turn now to new clause 7. Schedule 4 provides a lengthy list of bodies that are able to access or retain data, including several Government Departments, such as the Department for Transport, and a range of regulatory bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission. This suggests that access to communications data may be allowed for a range of purposes which may be disproportionate and inconsistent with the guidance offered by the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Hayes
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to clause 79, which we are not debating at the moment but which is directly relevant to the point he made about proportionality. Clause 79(1)(a) states:
“(1) Before giving a retention notice, the Secretary of State must, among other matters, take into account—
(a) the likely benefits of the notice”.
To me, that would be a pretty strong way of enforcing proportionality. Yet the hon. Gentleman is in his peroration claiming that that would not be taken into account, or not sufficiently so.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention. I appreciate that that is a safeguard, but we must ask whether those Departments should be getting access in the first place.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to be unnecessarily brutal with the hon. Gentleman, but either he is making an argument about proportionality or he is not. If he is saying that nothing is proportional, then it should not happen at all, that is hardly an argument about proportionality. Those of us who take a more measured view of these things are considering whether such collection and access to data are proportionate. Proportions by their nature require an assessment of balance, do they not? Yet the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the scales are weighted all on one side.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister did not actually address why these Departments need access to these data in the first place. I appreciate the point that he is making, but these Departments should not, in my view, require access to this information.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister talked about the duty to take into account the likely benefits of the notice, but does my hon. Friend agree that something may be beneficial without being necessary?
Gavin Newlands
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. We are not opposed to every measure in the Bill. There are benefits, but unfortunately they are not covered by enough safeguards and are not drawn tightly enough. I would like to make progress but I will give way once more.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I apologise if I missed the hon. Gentleman outlining the Departments, but could he tell me which ones should be excluded and not have access to this?
Gavin Newlands
That has been dealt with at length. I have already mentioned the Food Standards Agency as one of the regulatory bodies. Schedule 4 does currently provide a lengthy list of bodies that should be able to access the data. New clause 7 would ensure that only the police forces and security agencies may request a communications data warrant, except where the warrant is issued for the purpose of preventing death, in which circumstances emergency and rescue services also fall within the definition.
New clause 10 outlines the requirements that must be met by warrants.
Simon Hoare
As, for example, the Food Standards Agency cannot itself bring a prosecution, may I conjure in the hon. Gentleman’s mind a situation whereby a criminal gang, as part of its activities, seeks to bring into the United Kingdom for sale to the British public a contaminated food source? Is that not something to which the Food Standards Agency should have access to information in order to ensure that citizens and consumers are safe?
Gavin Newlands
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but surely the police would be interested in that scenario and would have access.
Simon Hoare
In the abstract—by golly, isn’t this debate being held in the abstract?—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but we invest the powers with the agency. The police are not an infinite resource. If we have the many who are charged with multiple areas of our lives—
Gavin Newlands
These powers are very large and we should limit who has access to them. The police can pass on the relevant information to the agencies that can deal with that particular incident, but in my view, only the police and security forces should have access. I want to finish my point on new clause 10 but I will allow one last intervention.
Victoria Atkins
I want to understand the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of how cases are prosecuted in England and Wales, if not in Scotland. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, should not have access to any of these powers? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the investigation of economic crime that can potentially alter the GDP of another member state is not worthy of these powers? I wonder what the differentiation is between those organisations he thinks should have these powers and those that cannot. At the moment, it is not clear.
The Chair
Order. May I just ask that interventions be kept short, please, or we will be here all night? Mr Newlands.
Gavin Newlands
I appreciate what the hon. Lady says but, as I am not a lawyer, I am struggling to distinguish the difference between Scottish and English law. Perhaps my colleague could address that.
Joanna Cherry
My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that, in Scotland at least, it is the police who investigate serious crime, under the direction of the Lord Advocate.
Gavin Newlands
The point has been dealt with, and I think we need to move on. The effect of new clause 10 —[Interruption.] I will finish, amid the chuntering. These new clauses require data retention notices to be issued only for specific investigative or operational purposes, to obtain specified data where those data are believed to be of substantial value. We do not believe, however, that the role of communications data in the investigation of crime justifies the Secretary of State’s mandate for blanket retention of historical communications data for the entire population for 12 months.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I am delighted to see you back in the Chair, Ms Dorries, as I break my couple of sessions’ silence; it is always very reassuring. I certainly do not wish to keep the Committee here all night, but I will reiterate a point that I made earlier in our considerations, and that relates to the retention of certain data. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras pointed out, we understand the need for data retention. However, on looking at the Bill, I am still not entirely satisfied that the Government have taken into account the need for additional security for data retention.
I look to the Minister for reassurance that, when telecommunications and internet providers and suchlike are obliged to retain data, there is a consequent obligation on them to maintain it securely. We know that several such providers have problems with internet security: we saw that with the TalkTalk hack, and we believe another large provider has been hacked recently. Those attacks were on personal data; the Solicitor General and I have had exchanges in this room about the potential for charging them as theft—about whether the sanctions against somebody who committed that offence would be contained in existing legislation.
This part of the Bill needs to look at obliging or maintaining a minimum acceptable level of security, to provide security and privacy for people whose data may have been accepted. I realise that it might not necessarily be covered in detail in the new clause, but now might be a good time for the Ministers to consider whether they believe internet security and the security of personal data held under the terms of clause 79 should be considered in the Bill. Do they believe guidance should be given to telecommunications providers to maintain that security, or do they feel that it is not relevant and that they are quite satisfied with the status quo? I must say that I am not. Notwithstanding the need for the retention of individual data, as described so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend, it remains a major concern of mine that individual privacy and data are at risk: it puts a question mark over the whole clause and over the areas we are discussing.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to hon. Members for a wide-ranging debate. I would first like to reiterate on behalf of the Government the position adopted by the Joint Committee on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, which quite clearly indicated its conclusion that the case was made for a retention period of up to 12 months for relevant communications data. In the report from David Anderson QC, “A Question of Trust”, recommendation 14 is:
“The Home Secretary should be able by Notice (as under DRIPA 2014 s1 and CTSA 2015 s21) to require service providers to retain relevant communications data for periods of up to a year”.
There we have it: the Government are acting upon the specific endorsement of an independent reviewer and a Joint Committee of this House. There is an element of the waving of the proverbial shroud when it comes to the retention of data, because the word “relevant”, which is contained in the second line of clause 78(1), is the governing word here. It is very important to remember that this is not carte blanche for the Secretary of State to authorise communications service providers to retain everything for 12 months. That is not the case. Where there is no case of necessity and proportionality for a 12-month period, a shorter period must be adhered to. Indeed, if the material is not relevant, it falls outwith the ambit of any such authorisation.
I reassure the hon. Member for City of Chester, who makes quite proper points about the integrity of data, that he is right to make them. That issue affects all those in this room and beyond. He is also right to allude to the criminal law. I reassure him that communications service providers have to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which together contain those requirements that the data is appropriately secured. When he has the time—which I am sure is as precious to him as it is to the rest of us—chapter 16 of the draft communications code of practice contains an entire set of provisions relating to the security, integrity and, indeed, destruction of retained data, which very much underpin the principles of why CSPs have to operate and will give him the reassurance that he properly seeks about the position with regard to individual data and people’s privacy.
Data retention legislation has existed in this country since the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which allowed the Secretary of State to enter into voluntary agreements with telecommunications operators so that they could retain data that otherwise would be deleted. The Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2007 were the first piece of data retention legislation that provided for the Secretary of State to require the retention of such data. We currently have DRIPA 2014 and the data retention regulations of that year. We hope to replace those with the provisions in the Bill. A very important point is that there is nothing new about these proposals. Our data retention legislation has always had the Secretary of State involved in the process and there are very good reasons for that. It has worked successfully until now. As I have indicated, it has been recommended to us by David Anderson.
The amendments that have been tabled seek to drive a coach and horses through all of that. There is a simple and blindingly obvious reason why we wish to maintain the system of data retention. For example, when a crime happens or a child goes missing, it is impossible to know in advance which data would be relevant in any subsequent investigation. It is therefore important that we require the retention of all relevant communications data that matches a certain description wherever it is necessary and important. Because it is impossible to know which data will be the most relevant in advance of any crime, it is impossible to know whether a specific piece of data will be of value to MI5 in locating a terrorist, for example, or to the National Crime Agency in identifying a paedophile, or for any other legitimate purpose. For that reason it does not make sense for those authorities to apply for retention warrants individually. What makes sense is for the requirement of all relevant public authorities to be considered together. The person best placed to do that is the Secretary of State. Public authorities set out their requirements for data retention to the Home Office and they are then carefully considered. As they usually overlap, the Secretary of State is able to identify the specific telecommunications operators and specific data types that it is necessary and proportionate to make subject to data retention notices. As the full costs of data retention are covered by the Secretary of State, only he or she can decide whether or not the benefits of data retention are proportionate to the costs.
There has been some discussion about cost again today. The £170 million figure is based on the cost of our anticipated implementation, which takes into account data that is already obtained under existing legislation. We noted the evidence of BT when it talked about the costs being dictated by its implementation approach, and we continue to discuss implementation with those communication service providers likely to be inspected. Whatever the final cost, however, the important underwriting by the Government is a vital factor in giving reassurance to the industry, not only on the practicability of these measures, but on the importance therefore of involving the Secretary of State.
My worry is that if we went down the road proposed by the amendments, we would end up with a rather confused system that would not allow for the overall benefits of retaining a particular type of data, because the judicial commissioner would only ever be able to consider the benefits to the particular public authority applying for a warrant. It would therefore be impossible to judge the overall necessity and proportionality of requiring a particular company to retain a particular dataset.
We have heard about new clause 10 and its provisions. Given that it is impossible to predict in advance what data would need to be retained, this approach relies on data being retained only after a crime has been committed and/or an investigation has begun. Preservation only works if the data are there to preserve and it is of limited benefit without an existing retention scheme. Without data retention, data protection rules require that the data that are no longer needed for business purposes must be deleted. Without data retention, the data that are needed would not exist. Therefore, the regime of warrantry—the double lock, indeed the proposals put forward by Opposition Members—none of it would matter, because the material would not be there. That is particularly relevant when it comes to the increasing move of criminals and their ilk away from conventional telecommunications to the internet and internet connections.
A number of reports published by the EU Commission show the value of communications data and why the concept of data preservation, as envisaged in new clause 10, is not a viable alternative. In a Europe-wide investigation into online child sexual exploitation, of the 371 suspects identified here in the UK, 240 cases were investigated and 121 arrests or convictions were then possible. Of the 377 suspects in Germany, which does not have a data retention regime, only seven could be investigated and no arrests were made.
I have explained why the existing data retention regime that the Bill replicates is the appropriate model. May I deal with the change proposed by a set of amendments that involve changing the word “may” to “must” in clause 78(2)? That would require a data retention notice to cover certain issues. I am sympathetic to the aim of the amendment, because I am in favour of specific requirements, but the amendment is misconceived because subsection (7) already requires that a retention notice must specify the operator to whom it relates, the data which are to be retained, the period of retention, the requirements and restrictions imposed by the notice, and information on costs. Subsection (2) sets out the scope of what a notice may require and subsection (7) requires that the notice must make clear what is required. The two subsections are therefore aimed at different things.
The effect of this amendment would be to require a notice to cover issues that it might not have any reason to cover. For example, a retention notice may
“make different provision for different purposes”.
With respect, it therefore does not make sense to say it must make different provision for different purposes, because a notice may not relate to those different purposes. I would argue that there is therefore nothing to be gained by moving these amendments. That is all I wish to say, but for those reasons I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Keir Starmer
Clause 78 is important for all the reasons that I have set out, but at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 303, in clause 78, page 61, line 12, leave out—
“of all data or any description of data”
and insert
“of specified relevant communications data”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 304, in clause 78, page 61, line 14, leave out paragraph (2)(d).
Amendment 305, in clause 78, page 61, line 16, leave out paragraph (2)(e).
Gavin Newlands
I will not detain the Committee for too long; these issues have already largely been addressed. Amendments 304 and 305 seek to remove paragraphs (d) and (e) from clause 78(2). In a Bill replete with vagueness, those two subsections stand out as being particularly vague. The new clause that I will come to in a moment would require a data retention notice—or warrant, as we would wish—to be issued only for a specific investigative or operational purpose. The SNP has tabled amendments that will bring greater clarity to when and why a warrant would be issued.
As we know, communications data are defined as data that would be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the who, where and how. However, instead of allowing a blanket surveillance approach that treats everyone as a suspect, the amendments would allow the police to apply to a judicial commissioner for targeted retention warrants, in which data are required for the purposes of a specific investigation into serious crime, or for the purpose of preventing death or injury. I trust that these amendments are acceptable to the Government.
The Solicitor General
I rise to address the concerns of the hon. Gentleman. It is good to hear from him; I should have said that during the last group. He has made the point about his concerns of vagueness. However, I would argue that it is very important that a notice can have a degree of flexibility within it, because a single telecommunications operator may provide a number of different communications services, such as mobile telephony and internet access. However, there may be different complexities and sensitivities about the different types of communications data that are generated by those services. Considerable preliminary work is carried out between the Government and telecoms operators in advance of the service of a retention notice. That covers a number of issues, including the type of data that will be retained, the complexities of the operator’s systems, and the relevant security requirements. Flexibility is needed to ensure that the notice can appropriately reflect those issues, and that it imposes the minimum requirements necessary to meet the operational requirements.
What we are counter-intuitively getting at is to make sure that there is necessary give and take within the system to prevent what the hon. Gentleman and I would regard as an overweening approach from the Secretary of State, which would impede the ability of communications service providers to carry out their operations. For that reason, I respectfully urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Gavin Newlands
I hear what the Solicitor General has said, but I do not wholly agree with him. I reserve the right to bring this back at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 306, in clause 78, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
‘(2A) A retention notice may not require a telecommunications operator to retain any data belonging to a third party data, unless that third party data is retained by the telecommunications operator for their own business purposes.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to amendment 306, leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.
Joanna Cherry
Amendment 306 would insert at the end of clause 78(2) a provision in relation to third party data. Third party data are defined in the code of practice as data that a communications service provider is able to see
“in relation to applications or services running over their network…but does not process that communications data in any way to route the communication across the network”.
To its credit, the Home Office has been unequivocal that such third party data would not be covered in the Bill; the Home Secretary informed the House on 4 November 2015 that the Bill
“will not include powers to force UK companies to capture and retain third party internet traffic from companies based overseas”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 969.]
The draft code of practice for communications data states at paragraph 2.61:
“A data retention notice can never require a CSP to retain the content of communications or third party data”.
The overly broad definition of relevant communications data, which now extends to 16 different definitions and sub-definitions, could however be interpreted as giving the Secretary of State the power to require a communications service provider to retain third party data, since the definition does not expressly exclude third party data unless this amendment is agreed. There are currently no clauses in the Bill that explicitly state that communications service providers will not be required to retain third party data. That is the purpose of the amendment. Given that they have been so clear on the Floor of the House and in the code of practice that that is their intention, if the Government will not accept the amendment, the Minister must tell us why. Where we are dealing with such potentially intrusive powers, we must be as clear as possible.
The Solicitor General
Amendment 306 is tabled, quite properly, to tease out from the Government the more detailed reasoning behind the important statement made by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. The hon. and learned Lady is quite right to refer to that statement. I once again reiterate the Government’s position that we will not be requiring the retention of third party data through these provisions.
The question is how best to achieve that; therein lies the tension. Attractive though the approach advanced by the hon. and learned Lady might be, there are some drafting issues and problems about legal certainty, which mean that putting those provisions in the Bill with suitable detail is problematic.
One of the main functions of the Bill—and one of my desiderata—is to ensure that it is resilient and stands the test of time. My concern is that if we end up with a definition that is too technologically neutral, it will either fail the test of time in this place, or be subject to challenge. As a Law Officer, legal uncertainty is something I have to take very seriously when considering how legislation is presented. That is why I commend the detailed provisions within the draft code of practice on third party data—paragraphs 2.68 to 2.72—that the hon. and learned Lady referred to. That is not only an explicit reiteration of our commitment but the sort of detail needed for those operating the provisions, which could not be properly put in the Bill.
It is generally well understood what third party data are, but perhaps I should briefly explain the important areas of detail that could not be covered on Second Reading. Where one communications service provider is able to see the communications data in relation to applications or services that run over their network, but does not process that communications data in any way to route the communication across the network, then that is regarded as third party data. For example, an email provider, such as Yahoo or Gmail, knows that a certain internet access service, such as BT Internet, was used to send email, but that fact is not needed or used to send it. So it is in everybody’s interest, not least that of the service providers themselves, that there is sufficient clarity about the data that can be retained under the provisions. As I have said, I think the code of practice is the right vehicle for this. It is also the appropriate vehicle for ensuring that there can be a sufficiently detailed definition of third party data for the reasons I have outlined. In those circumstances, I respectfully ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I am not happy about withdrawing the amendment in the absence of elaboration of what the Solicitor General means by drafting issues and problems of legal certainty. I am not clear at the moment why we cannot have both the amendment and the further elaboration that will be provided in the codes of practice.
Amendment proposed to amendment 306: (a), leave out “notice” and insert “warrant”.—(Gavin Newlands.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 317, in clause 78, page 61, line 34, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 315, in clause 78, page 61, line 37, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
Amendment 319, in clause 78, page 61, line 42, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
Amendment 328, in clause 79, page 62, line 33, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
Amendment 338, in clause 80, page 62, line 42, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 361, in clause 83, page 64, line 16, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
Amendment 374, in clause 83, page 65, line 1, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
Amendment 375, in clause 83, page 65, line 8, leave out “(or description of operators)” and insert “or operators”.
Gavin Newlands
The SNP has tabled the amendments to provide for clear, appropriate and limited grounds on which data retention warrants may be issued. The amendments require that the data to be retained are specified and that organisations served with warrants to retain communications data should be identified rather than merely described.
Amendments 315 and 317 affirm that organisations that have been served a notice or warrant to retain the communications of their customers are properly and explicitly identified. The term “description of operators” is far too vague and we urge that it is changed to “or operators”. Amendment 328 ensures that those organisations are defined and named before a retention notice can be issued. Amendment 338 removes the possibility of the Home Secretary being able merely to describe the telecommunications operators that she wants to target. Amendments 361, 374 and 375 provide the basis for a concrete description to be included when there is any variation of a notice.
The amendments attempt to bring to the Bill some clarity, which is sadly lacking. It is not good enough that the Home Secretary can sign a notice that merely describes who is impinged on or directly affected by these intrusive powers, because that approach opens up the space for the powers to be abused. We need to act to ensure that, as much as possible, we operate a targeted approach.
The Solicitor General
I understand the purpose behind the amendment in that, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, it would ensure greater specificity in the giving of notices. However, I shall give a brief example of what a “description of operators” might be. With this provision we would have been able to give the same retention notice to all wi-fi providers supplying wi-fi to the Olympic park in London during the 2012 Olympics. In these circumstances the operators are providing precisely the same kind of communications service and the data required to be retained are the same. Whether a notice relates to a description of operators or to a single operator, it can only contain what the Bill’s provisions allow and the Secretary of State must consult with the operators to which it relates. Operators also have the opportunity to refer the notice back to him or her in relation to any aspect of it. Therefore, on that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gavin Newlands
I am content to withdraw the amendments at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I rise to speak to amendment 152, in clause 78, page 61, line 36, at end insert “, and
(c) only when approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
(5A) In deciding whether to approve a notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must determine whether a notice is—
(a) that the conduct required by the notice is necessary for one or more of the purposes in section 53(7); and
(b) that the conduct required by the notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 153, in clause 78, page 61, line 38, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Amendment 222, in clause 83, page 64, line 21, at end insert “and
( ) the variation has been approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.”
Keir Starmer
For better or for worse, I spoke to these amendments during my submission on earlier amendments. I do not have any additional points and I will not press the amendment.
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 320, in clause 78, page 62, line 13, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) In this Part ‘relevant communications data’ means—
(a) communications data of the kind mentioned in the Schedule to the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/859), or
(b) relevant internet data not falling within paragraph (a).
(9A) In this part ‘relevant internet data’ means communications data which may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the sender or recipient of a communication (whether or not a person).”
Thus far while debating the clause we have covered providing for the judiciary, in the shape of judicial commissioners, to issue data retention warrants rather than notices, and removing the Secretary of State from the role, making it clear on the face of the Bill who is eligible to apply for a warrant; limiting the grounds for the issuing of warrants; ensuring that all targets are identified and not described; and that the data to be retained should be specified. The fact that we in opposition have had to table so many amendments highlights the main problem in the drafting of the Bill: vagueness. The Bill is wholly lacking in specificity and clarity and nothing highlights that more than the issue of internet connection records.
As trailed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West during the debate on clause 54, the SNP has significant reservations about the provisions on internet connection records as drafted in the Bill. Not only are the definition and legality of the provisions unclear, but the Government's case for ICRs has simply not been made. Amendment 320, which stands in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend, would effectively remove ICRs from the Bill and replicate the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 in its original form, to ensure that the definition of “relevant communications data” is consistent with current legislation. That will help provide the legal certainty and clarity that the industry needs to understand its legal obligations appropriately. At the moment the industry is having difficulty in understanding what exactly the Government want and require it to do. Although the industry is willing to work with the Government to try to implement their vision for ICRs, it does not know what ICRs are, and it looks as though the Government do not altogether know either.
Despite the significance of ICRs, very little detail about them has been provided, with the Government consistently saying that the detail can be worked out later. That lack of clarity is simply not good enough when the Government are asking us to sign off on legislation that will have a significant impact on the industry and impinge significantly on the right to basic privacy that our constituents, quite rightly, expect. Indeed, the Internet Service Providers Association says:
“The Investigatory Powers Bill deals with highly complex technical matters, however, our members do not believe that complexity should lead to a Bill lacking in clarity.”
I could not agree more. As has been mentioned already, the clearest definition of an ICR is not in the Bill itself but in the document “Operational Case for the Retention of Internet Connection Records” from the Home Office. That describes ICRs as
“a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to – such as a website or instant messaging application – generated and processed by the company providing access to the internet.”
A concrete definition of what specific data form an ICR, exactly who has access, precisely what for and exactly who must retain the data must be on the face of the Bill.
The Home Office may want to have a “flexible” definition, as typified in clause 54(6), but given that we are dealing with a Bill that may have the biggest impact on civil liberties than any other Bill for generations, that simply will not cut the mustard. The Intelligence and Security Committee helpfully referred to ICRs as providing information on the “who, when and where” of someone’s internet use. The Government claim that they have no plans to acquire the content of the said communications, but DRIPA and RIPA suggest that that does not matter, given that acquiring the sort of information that is going to be held under an ICR can provide important details on the date, time, location and type of communication used. Liberty suggests that ICRs will provide a detailed and revealing picture of somebody’s life in the digital age. That point was highlighted by the Information Commissioner when he said that ICRs can reveal a great deal about the behaviours and activities of an individual. In fact, Stewart Baker, former senior counsel to the United States National Security Agency, stated that it
“absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.”
Based on those statements alone, it is important to assess the proportionality and necessity of ICRs, but also question whether they are in accordance with the law. We live in a digital world and, quite rightly, our constituents place a lot of importance on their right to privacy as they use the internet. We accept that the security authorities need adequate powers to keep us safe and it is only proper that the Government consider what new powers they need for the digital age. However, like most people, I am deeply concerned about the complete lack of specifics about ICRs. In publishing such widely drafted legislation and telling the sector that the detail will come shortly, the Government are asking us all to trust them. They are asking us, as Members of this House, to pass and approve legislation without knowing what its full impact, costs or consequences—unintended or otherwise—will be. In effect, they are asking us to sign a blank cheque on much of the communications data powers. Is that really a proper and effective way to devise and develop legislation that has such civil liberty repercussions?
The SNP is not opposed to certain authorities having the power to obtain communications data or internet connection information critical to their investigations. We fully accept that some power is not only necessary, but crucial, for law enforcement in the 21st century. However, rather than a blanket collection of the websites that everyone in the UK has visited in the last 12 months, we prefer a specific, targeted solution. We agree that intercepting someone’s communication data can be an important part of any criminal investigation and it is important that we do that for those suspected of being engaged in criminal activity. There is an obvious difference, though, in intercepting the communications of those suspected of criminal activity and those of the vast majority of our constituents, who are, by and large, law-abiding citizens.
The Government are asking companies to hold and retain information on all the internet sites that an individual visits. It is unclear how much information the Government want those companies to hold, but it is clear that it is going to be a huge amount of data and we still do not know about the feasibility or costs involved. The sort of information that the Government want companies to retain could be sites that the person has mistakenly accessed; it could be a website that the person has spent only a few seconds on; it could also be an internet site that a person has accessed for deeply personal reasons, such as receiving advice on domestic violence or on health matters. Putting the sensitivity and privacy argument to one side, we need to consider whether the Government are going to have too much information at their disposal and thus, inadvertently, make it harder for our security services to complete their investigations.
During the evidence session I made a point about mobile devices always being connected to the internet via various apps, following a similar point made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. Those applications are constantly creating ICRs and that will increase as phones become even more advanced and able to process more information more quickly, with bigger memories.
It is unclear how many automatic ICRs are being created by my phone alone, but the Government are demanding that the various communications companies retain these ICRs for a period of 12 months. Conversations with people in the industry have shown that companies have yet to figure out how they will separate the automatic data that are generated through a third-party app from the data that are generated manually by a user. According to the definitions in the Bill, both will generate the same data, showing that the user has accessed an app and recording the date, location, time and so on of that use.
Another industry expert told me that a single app could generate up to 100 ICRs per minute—that is just one single app. I am unsure of the figures for over here, but in America there is an average of 27 apps on every smartphone. If it is the same in the UK, and taking into account the average number of apps and possible connections, this could lead to 2,700 ICRs per phone per minute, or 100,000 ICRs per phone per day. Well over 3 million ICRs could be generated just by the phones in this room. The third party app issue has been raised by the industry time and time again, but it has not been properly addressed by the Government. In evidence given to this Committee, the CEO of BT security, which has been working with the Government, said in response to the third party app issue:
“We are considering whether to propose an amendment to the Home Office on the third party data question, which is the case in point here, and how that should be approached. We think that the principle is that other providers who have that data are the ones who should be subject to it, and that it should be explicit in the Bill”.
I then pressed him on whether at the moment the Bill was not clear enough on that aspect. He replied:
“It could be clearer, and we are thinking about proposing an amendment specifically to over-the-top providers, making it clear that they are responsible for that”.––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 49, Q137-138.]
I have to say, if BT are unsure who is involved, how are the rest of the industry supposed to know? We have to ask whether or not it is necessary or proportionate for the Government to have information and data on the apps that I or anyone else has on their phone. Given these points, among others, I can understand why so many people are calling ICRs a Home Office solution to a police problem, instead of being a police solution to a police problem. This point was articulated during the evidence session by Sara Ogilvie of Liberty, who said:
“It seems clear that, given the bulk nature of these powers, they will not deliver that kind of information in a helpful manner. If anything, it seems more likely to drive criminals to use bits of the internet that will not be captured by the service”.––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 15, Q31.]
We also need to be mindful of the amount of information that we want to expose and the potential for this to be targeted by criminal hackers. When a similar plan to collect web logs was proposed in 2012, the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill concluded that it would create a
“honeypot for casual hackers, blackmailers, criminals large and small from around the world, and foreign states”.
This wealth of data in the wrong hands could be used for identity theft, scamming, fraud, blackmail and even burglaries, as connection records can show when internet access occurs in or out of the house, representing a daily routine. This is an unacceptable level of risk to inflict on innocent internet users. The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee said:
“There remain questions about the feasibility of collecting and storing Internet Connection Records (ICRs), including concerns about ensuring security for the records from hackers. The Bill was intended to provide clarity to the industry, but the current draft contains very broad and ambiguous definitions of ICRs, which are confusing communications providers. This must be put right for the Bill to achieve its stated security goals”.
Furthermore, not to be outdone, the Joint Committee tasked with scrutinising the draft Communications Data Bill said in its final report that,
“storing web log data, however securely, carries the possible risk that it may be hacked into or may fall accidentally into the wrong hands, and that, if this were to happen, potentially damaging inferences about people’s interests or activities could be drawn”.
Surely with these warnings, which were issued by such influential and important Committees, the Government should have listened and addressed some of their concerns, but it would seem not. With regard to some of the case studies laid out in “Operational Case for the Retention of Internet Connection Records”, the likelihood of ICRs proving vital in identifying criminals has been questioned by ISPs and technologists. The justification for ICRs being helpful relies on the assumption that online criminals offend using a regular browser or public file sharing service on their own device, using personal internet connections, without employing the most basic of the widely available anonymity tools to avoid detection. The use of VPNs or Tor helps anonymise users of the internet. As such, ICRs will be unusable and, in fact, misleading where such privacy tools have been used. It is obvious for all to see that the more information that is retained, the greater the costs entailed to either the industry or the taxpayer.
When I spoke to people at TechUK last week, they explained that the introduction of ICRs will be a significant change to the industry and that all organisations will have to re-adapt to meet the new expectations and responsibilities that are being put on them. In addition, they are concerned about the new types of technology that they will need to install to allow them to cope with the new demands from Government. For example, they are concerned that many in the industry will have to install new filtering systems to help companies deal with the vast amount of data they now have to retain. It is difficult even to question the feasibility of such demands due to the limited information and detail provided by the Home Office.
Gavin Newlands
This is the first speech I have made in this place that has required an intermission. It has been suggested that I start from the beginning as I cannot remember where I had got to. I am nothing but a crowd pleaser, Ms Dorries, but I have found the place where I left off, so I shall continue.
I was saying that the question whether the Bill is in accordance with the law is up for debate. If this part is left unchanged, Liberty and others suggest that it will be in conflict with human rights law, including breaching the EU charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. In July 2015, the High Court upheld its challenge and struck down sections 1 and 2 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, finding them incompatible with the British public’s right to respect for private life and communications, and protection of personal data under articles 7 and 8 of the EU charter of fundamental rights.
In addition, we should be mindful that the challenge against DRIPA is ongoing and that the outcome will have an impact on whether this part of the Bill is lawful, although I suspect not. On that basis, I question whether ICRs will do the job the Government intend them to do. The Home Office has become entrenched with regard to ICRs and its fixation with them is clouding its ability not only to look at alternatives, but to assess whether ICRs are proportionate, necessary or in accordance with the law. The SNP believes that ICRs fail those three basic assessments.
I want to quote an unlikely ally, who, in 2009, said in Committee:
“Our consideration of the regulations comes against the backdrop of an increasingly interventionist approach by the Government into all of our lives, seemingly taking the maxim ‘need to know’ to mean that they need to know everything. Certainly, we need to know what the Government’s intentions are in relation to the creation of a new central database, which would create a central store of our electronic communications.”—[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 16 March 2009; c. 6.]
That ally was none other than the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), now Minister for Immigration at the Home Office, speaking in a Delegated Legislation Committee on an EC directive with very similar provisions to parts of this Bill. That statutory instrument was passed by the House, but notable opponents included Members who are now Scottish Secretary, Home Secretary and Minister for Security—the Minister in charge of this Bill.
We in the SNP are mindful of the evidence that has been presented and submitted to the Committee, but it is our opinion, backed up by case law, that the power to retain ICRs is incompatible with the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and I urge hon. Members to amend the Bill and ask the Government to think again.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to hon. Members for this important debate, which, although it relates to an amendment, inevitably strayed into what is, in effect, the stand part debate on communications data.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North set out his case comprehensively, but his arguments relate to measures and proposals that are not before the Committee. We have moved a long way from 2009, and certainly from 2012, when the original draft Bill was considered by a predecessor Joint Committee. We are not in the situation where the Government will hold a centralised database. That sort of measure was rightly opposed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and other of my hon. Friends at that time, because we are naturally suspicious of an organ of Government directly blanket-holding such data.
That is why this provision is not remotely like that. It does not contain anything like the provisions that the hon. Gentleman rightly cautions against, most importantly because the retention of that data is not in the hands of Government. That arm’s length approach is a key difference, which I am afraid undermines all the seeming quality of his argument.
Gavin Newlands
Will the series of private databases under the Bill be any safer from hacking than a central Government database?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman makes a proper point about security. This, in respect of the code of practice and in collaboration with the industry, will be at the forefront of everybody’s mind. What is important is that the Government do not have a pick-and-mix or help yourself avenue within which they can mine data for their own capricious purposes.
The framework of the Bill quite properly severely circumscribes the circumstances within which the Government can seek access to that material. Most importantly, when it comes to content, the warrantry system—the world-leading double lock system we are proposing—will apply. An internet connection record is not content; it is a record of an event that will be held by that telecommunications operator. It relates to the fact of whether or not a customer has connected to the internet in a particular way. If it goes further into content, the warrantry provisions will apply. It is important to remember that framework when determining, and describing and putting into context, what we are talking about. The Committee deserves better than indiscriminate shroud-waving about prospects and concerns that simply do not arise from the measures in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman quite properly raised the Danish experience. The Danish Government and authorities are in regular conversation with the United Kingdom Government. That dialogue goes on because they are naturally very interested to see how our model develops, although there are important differences that should be set out briefly. The Danish legislation was not technology neutral, unlike these proposals, because it specified two options that proved unworkable. We work with operators case by case so that the best option for their network at the appropriate time will be determined. The Bill builds on existing data retention requirements, such as the retention of data necessary to resolve IP addresses, which regime already exists under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The full cost recovery underpinning by the Government means that there is no incentive for communications service providers to cut corners, as I am afraid happened in Denmark. There are important differences between the two.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about IPV6. Although it is a great aim and something that all of us who have an interest in this area will have considered carefully, it still is, with the best will in the world, a way away, I am afraid. It will take a long time for all service providers to implement in full, and until then, there will be both types of system. Even with IPV6, CSPs may choose to implement address sharing or network address translation, meaning that it is not the guaranteed solution that perhaps has been suggested. Servers who host illegal material are much less likely to move to that system, meaning that, in practice, IPV4 may well remain with us. We therefore have to act in the interim, because, as has been said, the drift away from what I have called conventional telecommunications to the internet carries on whether we like it or not. We have to face up to the world as it is, rather than the world as we would love it to be, and therefore take into account the fact that we are in danger of being unable to detect criminality and terrorism.
Joanna Cherry
The Solicitor General says we have to face up to the world as it is. Why is it, then, that no other democratic nation in the world is implementing legislation of this sort?
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady has asked that question before, and I have said to her before that somebody has to step up, try it and make that change. I am proud that the United Kingdom is prepared to do that, as we have done it in so many ways.
Joanna Cherry
Is the Solicitor General aware that it is not that other countries have not looked at the problem? They have looked at the problem and decided that this is not the way to solve it.
The Solicitor General
I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady. What they have looked at is the sort of centralised, governmental-based database that all of us have quite properly rejected. They are looking with interest to see how this particular proposal develops, bearing in mind that it has now been refined through many Committees of the House. Accordingly, I think what we are doing is innovative, world leading and, with its technology-neutral approach to the definitions, striking the right balance.
The problem with the amendment as I see it is not only that it is technically deficient, but that, on close reading, it does not exclude the retention of internet connection records, because it talks about the sender and recipient of communications, which is either end of the communication we are talking about when it comes to ICRs. Let us assume that that is an error. Even if we consider its intention at face value, the problem with going back to the 2009 regulations is that we are returning to the language of dial-up—the sort of non-broadband, non-mobile internet access we were all used to 15 years ago, but which now belongs in a museum. If we imprison ourselves in that sort of language, the danger that I have outlined becomes very real.
What next? Are we going back to the telex or the marconigram? We have to make sure that the language of the Bill keeps pace with the breathtaking scale of technological change. In the words of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the amendment just does not cut the mustard and I urge that it be withdrawn.
Gavin Newlands
I hear what the Minister has to say but I am not assuaged by his comments, so this shroud-waver would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 79, page 62, line 34, at end insert—
“() the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data; and
() the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks.”.
Clause 79 sets out those matters to be taken into account before giving a retention notice, as well as likely benefits and the likely number of users. Amendment 175 would add two public interest matters to that list. My argument is similar to the one I made on other provisions. Where matters are to be taken into account, it is important that the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data and of communications systems are specifically listed. I have moved to a position of thinking that an overarching privacy clause is probably the way to achieve this end; this is therefore a probing amendment and I will not press it to a vote.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman states his case. To put it extremely simply, we would argue that the public interest in the protection of privacy and in the integrity of personal data are already factored in by the provisions of the Bill.
First, proportionality must include consideration of the protection of privacy. Secondly, the integrity of personal data being such an important public interest is why clause 81 requires any retained communications data to be of at least the same integrity as the business data from which they are derived. A retention notice will therefore not be permitted to do anything that would undermine the integrity of the data that the operator already holds for business purposes. That is all I want to say about the matter, but I assure hon. and learned Gentleman that those important considerations are at the heart of the processes we have followed.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Review by the Secretary of State
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 179, in clause 80, page 62, line 40, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 190, in clause 80, page 63, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 191, in clause 80, page 63, line 8, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 192, in clause 80, page 63, line 10, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 195, in clause 80, page 63, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 196, in clause 80, page 63, line 31, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Keir Starmer
As members of the Committee will have observed, these tidying-up amendments are consistent with previous amendments that would have entrusted decision making to a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. We had the discussion in principle in relation to those earlier amendments, which I withdrew, and I will not repeat my arguments now, although I would like to return to them at a later stage.
Joanna Cherry
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the amendments would require that review under clause 80 be by a judicial commissioner rather than the Secretary of State. Will the Government tell us why the provision of such a route of review would not, in their opinion, give the telecommunications providers greater reassurance that notices are not only lawful, necessary and proportionate but stable and legally certain? It seems to me that a review by a judicial commissioner, or at the very least by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, would provide that reassurance.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady asks a perfectly proper question. I reiterate the position that we have taken in principle: the Secretary of State is the appropriate and accountable person to be responsible for reviewing retention notices. However, although the Secretary of State must be responsible for giving notices and must therefore be the person ultimately responsible for deciding on the outcome of the review, that does not mean that she or he can make the decision on the outcome of the review without consultation—far from it.
Clause 80(6) ensures that the Secretary of State must consult both the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the technical advisory board. The commissioner must consider the proportionality of the notice; the board must consider the technical feasibility and financial consequences of it; and both must consult the operator concerned and report their conclusions to the operator and the Secretary of State. Only then can the Secretary of State can decide whether to vary, revoke or give effect to the notice. That system provides rigorous scrutiny of the notice and maintains the accountability of the final decision resting with the Secretary of State. We therefore believe it is the best mechanism for review. Accordingly, I commend the unamended clause to the Committee.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
Data integrity and security
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Christian Matheson
I seek the Minister’s guidance. Throughout our considerations, I have spoken of my fears whether data held under this Act are held securely. I hope that clause 81 will address many of my fears; I seek the Minister’s advice on whether it lays responsibility on communications providers to maintain those data securely. I simply reiterate my concern that when theft does take place, there has to be a consideration of an offence of unlawful possession of stolen data, on the basis that the communications provider that has suffered the theft would also be legally responsible for that theft when the provider is in fact a victim of the theft itself. Bodies that seek to obtain illicitly a person’s private communications data may try to make financial gain as a result. Is the Minister confident that clause 81 gives me the kind of assurances that I have been looking for on internet security? Is there sufficient deterrent, in terms of possession of unlawfully obtained data, that might be included later in the Bill?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in stating his concerns. I assure him that clause 81 contains the sort of requirements that he would reasonably expect. It sets out the matter clearly. It should be read in conjunction not only with other legislation that I have mentioned, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy in Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, but with clause 210, which provides for the Information Commissioner to audit the security, integrity and destruction of retained data, and the codes of practice to which I referred earlier. The provisions in the communications data draft code of practice go into more detail about the security arrangements.
We had a discussion some days ago about the existence of adequate criminal legislation. The Bill has a number of provisions that relate to those who hold data, and we discussed whether existing legislation could cover those who come into possession of the data unlawfully. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I will take the matter away and consider it, and come up with a proper considered response to his query.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Enforcement of notices and certain other requirements and restrictions
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 225, in clause 84, page 65, line 20, after “not”, insert “, without reasonable excuse,”.
There are two points to make here. One is to state the principle that reasonable excuse defences are needed to protect those who are exposed in wrongdoing. We had that debate last week and I listened carefully to the response given. The practical reason is the inconsistencies may be intentional, or they may be unintentional. Clause 73(1), under which unlawful disclosure is made an offence under part 3, has a “without reasonable excuse” provision. Clause 84, which is in part 4, does not. There may be a very good reason for that, but it escapes me at the moment. That is either a point that the Solicitor General can deal with now, or I am happy for him to deal with it later on. It may be just one of those things when you draft a long, complicated Bill, but there is an inconsistency of approach here, because reasonable excuse is sometimes written in and other times not, for no apparent reason.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Gentleman askes what the policy objective is of not having such a defence. The clear policy underlining this is the Government’s policy of not revealing the existence of data retention notices. They are kept secret because revealing their existence could damage national security and hamper the prevention and detection of crimes, because criminals may change how they communicate in order to use a provider that is not subject to data retention requirements. Clause 84 places a duty on providers not to reveal the existence of notices.
Keir Starmer
Just to be clear, I do not need to be persuaded about the policy objective of a clause that keeps a retention notice safe. It is the policy objective of not having a “reasonable excuse” defence to the provision, which operates as an exclusion to the prohibition, of which I need to be persuaded. I do not need persuading about the prohibition for safety.
The Solicitor General
I was coming to that. We are talking about a duty here; the earlier clause the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to is an offence. That will, I think, explain the importantly different context.
To deal with the question of “reasonable excuse”, the problem is that once the information is out in the public domain, it cannot be withdrawn—whether that information has been introduced with good or bad intentions does not matter. It cannot be right for the Bill to allow a person to release sensitive information in that way and then subsequently rely on a “reasonable excuse”.
May I deal with clause 84(4), which is relevant to this provision? It provides an exemption where the Secretary of State has given permission for the existence of the notice to be revealed. The Government intend that such permission would be given, for example, where a provider wishes to discuss the existence of their retention notice with another provider subject to similar requirements. Should the operator wish to reveal the existence of the notice, they should discuss the matter with the Secretary of State, and in such circumstances permission is likely to be given. There will be those sort of scenarios, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, and they will help improve the operational model.
My concern about using the “reasonable excuse” provision in the context of a duty would be that it would undermine the important policy objective that I have set out. For that reason I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I will withdraw the amendment. As to the difference between a duty and an offence, I understand that in principle, but I am pretty convinced that elsewhere in the Bill a breach of the duty becomes an offence, as otherwise it is an unenforceable provision, so I am not sure it is a distinction that withstands scrutiny. That being said, I am not going to press this to a vote. It would be helpful and reassuring if the Solicitor General would agree to set out the route by which a whistleblower brings this to attention. I think we have already agreed in general terms and it may come within the umbrella of the undertaking that has been given; if it does, all well and good. That would reassure those that have concerns about exposing wrongdoing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 84, page 65, line 21, after “person”, insert
“except the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or a Judicial Commissioner”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 224, in clause 84, page 65, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
Keir Starmer
These amendments were consistent with earlier amendments that have now been withdrawn, the purpose of which was to put the decision-making power in the hands of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or the judicial commissioner. The other amendments having been withdrawn, I will not press these to a vote; they do not make sense within the unamended Bill as it now stands.
The Solicitor General
We have already discussed the importance of protecting the identities of those companies subject to data retention notices, but there are circumstances where a telecommunications operator should be able to disclose the existence of a retention notice. Clause 84 allows the Secretary of State to give them permission to do so. The amendment would ensure that a telecommunications operator could disclose the existence or content of a retention notice to the IPC without the need for permission to be given. I would say the proposal is unnecessary, because it is absolutely the Government’s intention to give telecommunications operators permission to disclose the existence and content of the retention notice to both the relevant oversight bodies—the IPC and the Information Commissioner—at the point at which a notice is given. In any event, clause 203 as drafted would permit the telecommunications operator to disclose a retention notice to the IPC in relation to any of his functions.
Amendment 224 would mean that the IPC, not the Secretary of State, would be granting permission for a telecoms operator to disclose the existence of the notice. In practice the Secretary of State would consider, at the point that a retention notice was issued, to whom the telecommunications operator could disclose the existence of a notice. It would not make any sense for this issue to be considered separately by the commissioner following the issue of a notice by the Secretary of State.
Further requests by a telecommunications operator to disclose a retention notice are likely to cover administrative matters, such as disclosure to a new systems supplier. Such matters should appropriately be considered by the Secretary of State. I think that explanation not only justifies opposition to the amendments, which I know are being withdrawn, but supports clause 84.
Keir Starmer
I have nothing further to add, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 226, in clause 84, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(2B) No notice shall be served under subsection (1) where the relevant telecommunications operator outside the United Kingdom.
(a) is already subject to a comparable retention requirement in the country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services, or
(b) where there is no comparable retention requirement under its domestic law, any extraterritorial requirement is limited to the making of preservation requests to the telecommunications operator.”
Committee members will understand why this amendment has been tabled. It reflects the concerns of those who will be caught by these provisions in cases where a comparable retention requirement exists in the country in which they are working. The provisions in this part of the Bill are unnecessary in relation to them. That is the amendment’s intention and purpose.
Mr Hayes
I think we can deal with this briefly. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman: where it was neither necessary nor proportionate to attempt to retain data in another place, we would not do so, so that is very straightforward. All data retention notices that are given to telecommunications companies, whether here or abroad, must pass the test of necessity and proportionality. Where they did not do so, it simply would not happen, because it would not be necessary, so for that purpose the amendment is unnecessary.
The second part of the amendment would remove the ability to serve data retention notices on telecommunications operators in countries that do not have a comparable data retention regime. Of course, the fact that they do not have a comparable data retention regime does not necessarily mean that there are no data to obtain, and I think that this part of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposal would add rigidity where flexibility is needed. I accept that there are not always comparable systems, but that does not mean that no system of any kind prevails. Again, with the caveat of proportionality and the proven need established, I think it would be unhelpful to limit our capacity to take action as necessary in the way that he suggests. The same could be said of the third element of his proposal, which is about the preservation of data. When there are no data to preserve, this does not really apply, but when there are, we need at least the capacity, born of the flexibilities provided by the Bill, to take action as is necessary and reasonable.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that those who have the primary concern here will take some comfort from what is said about necessity and proportionality but, in practice, where there are comparable retention requirements in the country, it will rarely, if ever, be necessary or proportionate. Obviously, that will have to be determined case by case, or authorisation by authorisation, but I note what he has said on the record. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Extra-territorial application of Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
The clause relates to extraterritorial effect and the SNP’s opposition is for the same reasons as outlined in relation to clause 76.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 381, in clause 88, page 66, line 38, leave out “information” and insert “specified data”.
This amendment seeks to more clearly outline what material may be obtained by hacking.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 382, in clause 88, page 67, line 40, leave out from “6” to end of line 43.
This amendment requires that an examination warrant is required for the examination of all data, removing the exception of equipment data and the broad category of ‘not private information’ which is collected under bulk warrants.
Keir Starmer
We need to spend some time on this clause, because it is the one that deals with equipment interference under part 5. There are real concerns about the breadth of the clause, which provides for two kinds of warrant: a targeted equipment interference warrant and a targeted examination warrant. Those warrants allow interference with equipment, such as remote—not always remote—interference with equipment with your, my and many other people’s equipment, Ms Dorries, to secure any of the purposes under subsection (2).
The warrants allow others to interfere with our communications data equipment to obtain “communications”, “equipment data” or, to draw attention to subsection (2)(c), “any other information”—to hack into or interfere with equipment to obtain unlimited “any other information”. That is why the amendment seeks to limit subsection (2)(c) to “any other specified data”. In other words, the clause as drafted will in effect allow interference for pretty well any purpose, as long as it is to obtain information from your computer, my computer, my laptop, your laptop and so on. The provisions are very wide.
The equipment interference in subsection (4) includes interfering by
“monitoring, observing or listening to a person’s communications or other activities”
or
“recording anything which is monitored, observed or listened to.”
Let us pause there and reflect on how wide the provision is. In terms of invasion of privacy, that will put an incredibly powerful provision in the hands of those who will operate these measures.
Mr Hayes
I intervene merely because I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is as much a stickler for accuracy as I am and is perhaps even less prone to hyperbole than me. He will therefore want the Committee to consider the draft code of practice, particularly where it deals with exactly the matters to which he is referring. I will discuss this at greater length than an intervention will allow in a moment, but he will see in the draft code of practice a comprehensive list of qualifications to the breadth that he is outlining.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. I have been referring throughout to the code of practice and its role. Consistent with the in-principle argument I have been making, the Bill and the code serve different functions. I understand the argument that a code is one way not only to give more detail to the provisions in the Bill, but to future-proof it. In other words, a code allows an approach that can be changed without amending the legislation.
As a matter of principle, though, I argue that where limits are to be put on the exercise of the power, and thus important safeguards are in place, they should be in the Bill. What should be resisted is a wide and generalised power in the Bill that finds constraint and limitation only in the code of practice. The extent of these powers should be set out in the Bill. The code of practice is the place for more detailed provision—provision that may change over time—and other obvious future-proofing techniques; it is not the right place for the limitations themselves.
Moving on, consistent with the earlier clauses on warrants, subsection (5) allows conduct in addition to the interference itself in order to do what is expressly authorised or required and any conduct that facilitates or gives effect to the warrant. I now want to take a bit of time on subsection (6).
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. It is helpful to have such matters on the record so that others can follow how the clauses are intended to operate.
Returning to subsection (6), one of the welcome measures in the Bill is that clause 3(4) makes it clear that, when a communication is intercepted, interception includes the communication at
“any time when the communication is stored in or by the system”.
I know that sounds very technical, but it became a real issue in a number of cases in which the question was whether a voicemail that was accessed once it was on a voicemail machine was in the course of its transmission. If the answer to that was no, there was nothing unlawful about retrieving it, listening to it and publishing it. A lot of time and energy went into the interpretation of the relevant clause. One of the advantages of the Bill is that clause 3 spells out in no uncertain terms that communications are protected if they are intercepted in the course of transmission, including if stored either before or after transmission. That protects any communication, sent to us or anybody else, which is either listened to at the time or not, but is later stored either in a voicemail, on a computer or in any way. We all store communications all the time; it is very rare that they exist only in real time. That is a step in the right direction.
We then get to clause 88(6):
“A targeted equipment interference warrant may not, by virtue of subsection (3), authorise or require a person to engage in conduct, in relation to a communication other than a stored communication”.
It protects the communication and excludes its content from this part—I think that is the idea—but only half does the job and leaves quite a gap, in my view. We get back to the same problem. If there is equipment interference to obtain a communication, that communication would be protected from one of these warrants as long as it is in the course of its transmission. If it has arrived, it is not. If I am wrong about this I will stand corrected, but all of the good that was done by amending clause 3 will be undone by clause 88; the same ends could be achieved by using an equipment interference warrant, namely obtaining by interference a communication that is in the course of its transmission, either before or after it is sent.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his humility in suggesting that he would stand corrected; I now stand to correct him. An equipment interference warrant would not allow interception of real-time information of the kind that he describes. He is right that to intercept that kind of information would require a different process, as we discussed earlier in our considerations. If further explanatory notes need to be made available to provide greater clarity about that I am more than happy to do so. I will talk more when I respond, before you rightly chide me for going on for too long, Ms Dorries.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. If he could point to the provision that makes good the submission he has just made, then that will deal with this particular point. Just to be clear, subsection (6) is intended to ring-fence and exclude from one of these warrants communications the interception of which would
“constitute an offence under section 2(1)”,
but only in relation to communications in the course of their transmission in the real sense of the term, not including those that are “stored”. I put on the record—if this is capable of being answered, so be it—that “stored” in subsection (6) has the same meaning as in clause 3, which is intended to include stored communications within the prohibition. I will not take it any further; the Minister has my point, which is that one would expect subsection (6) to protect the same content that is expressly protected by clause 3(4), but it does not—unless he or somebody else can point to another provision that adds to subsection (6), though that would be an odd way of doing it.
I will move on. Subsection (9) defines targeted examination warrants. This is important because subsections (1) to (8) deal with targeted equipment interference warrants—warrants issued in a targeted way; the targeted examination warrant deals with examining material obtained by way of a bulk warrant. It therefore serves a different purpose. Subsection (9) is an extremely wide provision:
“A targeted examination warrant is a warrant which authorises the person to whom it is addressed to carry out the selection of protected material…in breach of the prohibition in section 170(4)”.
To understand that, we need to turn to section 170(4), which raises questions that relate to an argument I made earlier on another, not dissimilar, provision. It states:
“The prohibition…is that the protected material may not…be selected for examination if (a) any criteria used for the selection of the material for examination are referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands at that time, and (b) the purpose of using those criteria is to identify protected material consisting of communications sent by, or intended for, that individual or private information relating to that individual.”
That is intended to give protection to individuals known to be in the British islands, by placing limits on the examination of their material: in relation to their material or their communications one needs a targeted examination warrant to get around the prohibition in clause 170(4). The point I make here is similar to the point that I made before: this is temporal. Whether a person is in the British islands or not depends on where they are physically. I am protected so long as I am in the British islands, but I fall out of protection—as would everybody else—the moment I leave them, whether I am leaving for a day, a week, a month or a year. That is a real cause for concern, as is the wide definition of protected material that immediately follows in clause 88(9); amendment 382 would limit the extent of that definition by stopping the clause after the words “Part 6”, which are on page 67, line 40, of the draft Bill.
In conclusion, this is a very wide-ranging clause, and it contains insufficient safeguards—if there are safeguards, they should be in the Bill. There are questions on subsections (6) in (9), taken in conjunction with clause 170(4), that the Minister will have to deal with.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to support the hon. and learned Gentleman in his submissions on these two amendments. As we have just reached part 5, I want to take the opportunity to make some general comments on it. Powers to conduct equipment interference—or “hack”, which is the more generally used term—are new; they do not exist in any previous legislation. They therefore require significant scrutiny, by the Committee and by parliamentarians generally, before they are added to the statute book. By its very nature, hacking is an extremely intrusive power, because it grants the authority to see all past and future information and activity on a computer or other device. Beyond the implications for privacy, the potential ramifications for the whole country’s cyber-security and for fair trials mean that hacking should be used only as a tool of last resort. The SNP’s position is that stronger protections must be added to the Bill.
Mr Hayes
As the shadow Minister said, part 5 of the Bill is very important. It deals with equipment interference. He is right to say that equipment interference is, by its nature, quite a radical technique—I will explain that in a few moments—but of course it is for a purpose. It fulfils a proper function and allows those missioned to keep us safe to do so by means of the exercise of that power.
Let me deal with the hon. and learned Lady first. I thought that her contribution—I say this kindly because, despite all of my instincts, I cannot help liking her—[Interruption.] Someone said “saintly instincts”. I would not go as far as to say “saintly”; I would say “wholesome instincts”. I thought that her speech exemplified the curious cocktail at the heart of Scottish nationalism: a mix of paranoia and assertiveness.
I have two things to say in response to her. First, these powers are not new; they already exist in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997. Secondly, the exercise of those existing powers has been scrutinised. They are particularly used by GCHQ.
The Chair
Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes, or 25 if there are two. Be back as quickly as you can if there are three.
Mr Hayes
Having characterised the Scottish National party in a vivid and, in some people’s view, slightly too generous way, I will move on to the specifics of what the hon. and learned Lady said. She is right that there need to be important safeguards in respect of equipment interference. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that. She is right that GCHQ’s use of equipment interference powers—although they are more widely available, it is GCHQ that uses them particularly—are central to its purpose and of course must be lawful. She will be pleased to know that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found them to be just that when it looked at the matter as recently as February of this year. Of course it is right, given the radical character of those powers, that we put in place all the right checks and balances. One might say that transparency and stronger safeguards are part of what the Bill is defined by.
It is important to emphasise in that context the draft codes of practice, which I drew attention to in a brief intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. They are clear in two respects. I draw attention first, in general terms, to part 8 of the draft code of practice on equipment interference, which deals with handling information, general safeguards and so on, and secondly to the specific areas covered in part 4.10, which lists an extensive series of requirements for the information that a targeted equipment interference warrant should contain. I will not go through them exhaustively, Ms Dorries, because that would please neither you nor other Committee members. Suffice it to say that such a warrant should contain details of the purpose and background of the application, be descriptive and clearly identify individuals where that can be done. Those requirements also necessitate an explanation of why equipment interference is regarded as essential and refer to conduct in respect of the exercise of such powers, collateral intrusion, and so on. They are pertinent to the consideration of the clause.
There is always, as I predicted there would be in this case, a debate in Committee about what is put in the Bill and what is put in the supporting material. As you will be familiar with, Ms Dorries, having been involved in all kinds of Committees over time, Oppositions usually want more in Bills and Governments usually want more flexibility. Perhaps that is the nature of the tension between government and opposition. I have no doubt that were the Labour party ever to return to Government, the roles would be reversed; we would be the ones saying, “More in the Bill,” and that Labour Government would probably be arguing for more flexibility. The truth lies somewhere between the two: of course it is important to ensure that there is sufficient in the Bill both to ensure straightforward legal interpretation and to cement the safeguards and protections for which the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly calls, but in achieving those ends one must always be careful that specificity does not metamorphose into rigidity. Where we are dealing with highly dynamic circumstances, changing technology and, therefore, changing needs on the part of the agencies and others, rigidity is a particular worry.
In the Bill as a whole, and in this part of the Bill, we have tried to provide sufficient detail to provide transparency, navigability and a degree of resilience to legal challenge while simultaneously providing the flexibility that is necessary in the changing landscape. That is why the codes of practice matter so much, particularly in respect of this clause and these amendments, and it is why the codes of practice have changed in the light of the consideration of the Joint Committee of both Houses, and others. It is also why I predict—I put it no less strongly than that—that the codes of practice will change again as a result of the commentary that we have already enjoyed in Committee and will continue to provide over the coming days.
The need for equipment interference could not be more significant, and I will explain what it comprises. Equipment interference is a set of techniques used to obtain a variety of data from equipment that includes traditional computers, computer-like devices—such as tablets, smartphones, cables, wires—and static storage devices. Interference can be carried out remotely or by physically interacting with the equipment. Although equipment interference is increasingly important for the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is not new. Law enforcement agencies have been conducting equipment interference for many years, and I described the legislative basis for that in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. It is probably fair to say that equipment interference is likely to become still more important as a result of the effect that changes in technology are having on other capabilities. I do not want to overstate this, but encryption, for example, is likely to make equipment interference more significant over time.
I will amplify the clarity with which I delivered my advice to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. Warrants cannot be issued without specifying what information is being sought, and on that basis it is hard to see why clause 88 should be amended. Chapter 4 of the code of practice states:
“An application for a targeted equipment interference warrant should contain… A general description of any communications, equipment data or other information that is to be (or may be) obtained”.
Together, the provisions provide the issuing authority with the information it needs to assess an application and with the power to constrain the authorised interference as it sees fit on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 382 would extend the requirement to obtain a targeted examination warrant to circumstances where the agencies need to select for examination the equipment data and non-private information of an individual who is known to be in the British islands. I tend to agree with the argument made by the hon. Member for City of Chester in an earlier sitting of the Committee that it is right that there are particular provisions for UK citizens in what we do in this Bill, rather than with the argument made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West.
Keir Starmer
I just want to clarify my concern, because I think the Minister just said, “UK citizens”. I understand that the distinction is made between UK citizens and others. My concern about this provision is that, whether someone is a citizen or not, if they are physically outside of the British Isles they fall outside the protection. That has been my driving concern, or one of my driving concerns, here. There may be a good reason for this and there may be a longer explanation for it, but I was surprised to see in the Bill that the protection was not to British citizens or to some other description of people with the right of residence in this country, but in fact depends on whether someone is physically in the country or not. On my understanding, I lose the protection that is provided by this Bill in this and other provisions if I go to France for a short period of time.
Mr Hayes
To be fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Bill refers to people within “the British Islands”, so he is right, and there are very good reasons why enhanced safeguards should apply for the content of people in the UK. As he implied, we explored these issues in an earlier part of the debate.
I will conclude, but I want to do so on the basis of clarifying this matter, too. The subsection that the hon. and learned Gentleman described earlier makes it clear that when a warrant for equipment interference is used to examine a phone, the police can look at all data on the phone, including text messages, but not in real time. I wonder whether there has been a misunderstanding or misapprehension about this issue—either a mis- understanding about the meaning or misapprehension about the purpose.
I repeat this solely for the sake of convincing the hon. and learned Gentleman and others that we are doing the right thing. These are important powers with stronger safeguards with absolute determination to be clear about legal purpose; they can only be used when necessary and can only be used lawfully. They are fundamentally not new but a confirmation of what is already vital to our national interest and to the common good.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through in some detail how the clause is intended to work with the code of practice. I reiterate my point that the essential safeguards should be in the Bill. Amendments 381 and 382 would not delete the provisions in clause 88; they would tighten the provisions in clause 88, and I intend to push both of them to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 384, in clause 89, page 68, line 13, leave out from “information” to end of line 15.
This amendment acknowledges that “data” relating to the fact of a communication or the existence of information has meaning and must not be exempt from privacy protections afforded to other categories of data.
This amendment deletes the words
“or from any data relating to that fact”.
It is important because an equipment interference warrant can permit interference with equipment data, as in clause 88(2)(b). As we have seen, clause 88(9) makes provision for protected material, the definition of which includes equipment data. Over the page, clause 89 deals with the meaning of “equipment data”:
“(a) systems data;
(b) data which falls within subsection (2).”
Subsection (2), broadly speaking, refers to systems data as identifying data that are included in, attached to or associated with a communication but that can be separated from it and that, if separated,
“would not reveal anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning (if any) of the communication”.
That is a logical way of approaching it—data linked to a communication that can be separated from it, but if separated, they would not reveal the meaning of the communication. Thus, it does not undermine the special protection given to the communication.
Then the final part of clause 89(2), paragraph (c), says
“disregarding any meaning arising from the fact of the communication”.
As has been said today, the fact of the communication, in many respects, can be as revealing as the content. However, the provision goes on to say
“or from any data relating to that fact”,
which broadens even further the exclusion from protection intended for communications.
In that way, the clause undermines the very protection being given to communications, so this short amendment would omit the words that I have indicated, in order to limit the exclusion from protection for the communication.
Joanna Cherry
May I add my supportive comments? This is a joint amendment from the Labour party and the Scottish National party.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to add my support to amendment 384 on behalf of the Scottish National party. Historically, communications data were considered much less revealing than the content of the communication, and consequently the protections offered to communications data under RIPA were weaker than those existing in the interception regime. However, as communications have become increasingly digital, the data generated are much more revealing and copious than before, allowing the state to put together a complete and rich picture of what a person does and thinks, who they do it with, when they do it and where they do it.
As the Bill stands, clause 88(9) would allow for the examination of potentially vast amounts of data on people in Britain obtained under bulk equipment interference warrants, as vague categories of “data” in 88(9)(a) and (b) are asserted to have no meaning. Data relating to the fact of a communication or the existence of information do have meaning and must not be exempt from the privacy protections afforded to other categories of data.
I urge the Committee to ensure that the Bill does not treat data relating to the fact of a communication or the existence of information relating to that fact as unimportant. In fact, there is extraordinarily high value to such material, precisely because it is highly revealing. It therefore demands equal protection.
Mr Hayes
All these disruptions and delays are adding interest and variety to our affairs. There is a straightforward argument for why the amendment is unnecessary, which I will make. If that is insufficient to persuade the Committee, I will add further thoughts.
The straightforward reason why the amendment is unnecessary is that it would undermine the principle that the most robust privacy protections should apply to the most intrusive kinds of data. I simply do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady that, for example, systems data—the highly technical data that will be separated out as a result of the endeavours in this part of the Bill—are better excluded from those extra protections. The unintended consequence of the amendment—at least, I hope it is unintended—is that it would lead to disproportionate access requirements for less intrusive data. That would be unhelpful and could, through confusion, hamper the work of the services.
Keir Starmer
I want to be clear as to how clause 89 operates, because subsection (2) suggests it is an attempt to identify data associated with a communication that can be separated from the communication, but which, if separated, would not touch on the meaning of the communication, thereby protecting it. That is all good. That is a safeguard, which is supported and welcome, but after the comma, as I read it, disregarded from that protection is everything that follows on. At the moment, I do not follow how the amendment removes protection, because the last bit of clause 89(2)(c) after the comma disregards from the protection and thus leaves unprotected from the scheme of clause 89
“the fact of the communication or the existence of the item of information or from any data relating to that fact.”
If I am wrong about that, there is a problem with the amendment, but I understand that part of clause 89(2)(c) to detract from the protection that the subsection is otherwise intending to put in place.
Mr Hayes
Let me see if I can deal with that question specifically. Equipment data include identifying data. Most communications and items of information will contain information that identifies individuals, apparatus, systems and services, or events and sometimes the location of those individuals or events. Those data are operationally critical to the agencies, as the hon. and learned Gentleman understands. In most cases that information will form part of the systems data, but there will be cases where it does not.
The work that has been done to separate out and define data has been carefully designed to categorise logically the range of data generated by modern communications. Identifying data are operationally critical. It is important to be able to classify data correctly and coherently throughout the Bill. My assertion, therefore, drawing on the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question, is that the amendment would inhibit though not prevent that by making the distinction less clear.
We can talk at length if necessary, although I suspect that at this juncture it is not necessary, about inferred meaning and its importance and relevance here. Misunderstanding frequently arises on inference, but I do not think that that is critical to this particular part of our discussion. My case is that the work we have done in better categorising the difference between the kinds of data assists the application of this part of the Bill, and assists the agencies accordingly. As I said, the amendment, perversely, would afford to those bits of technical data, for example, the same protection that is deliberately granted to more sensitive data under the Bill.
I do not like to do this on every amendment, or we would drown in a sea of paper, but as I write to the Committee regularly, if it would be helpful to cement that point in my next letter, I will happily do so. I am, however, confident that what I have said to the Committee is an accurate reflection of the work that I have described and of the content of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister, first for spelling out in detail the intended operation of the clause and, secondly, for indicating his willingness to write on the matter. This is something that ought to be in the Bill. My clear reading is that the amendment would not ring-fence anything from examination; it would simply require a warrant under clause 88 if equipment data, having satisfied all the other provisions under subsection (2)(a) to (c), included anything where there was a meaning arising from fact communication and so on. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Joanna Cherry
I have nothing to add in support.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 385, in clause 90, page 68, line 24, leave out paragraph (b)
This amendment, and others to Clause 90, refine the matters to which targeted equipment interference warrants may relate by removing vague and broad categories including “equipment interference for training purposes”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 386, in clause 90, page 68, line 33, leave out paragraph (f).
Amendment 387, in clause 90, page 68, line 35, leave out paragraph (g).
Amendment 388, in clause 90, page 68, line 38, leave out paragraph (h).
Amendment 456, in clause 90, page 68, line 44, leave out subsection (2)(b).
Amendment 391, in clause 90, page 69, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 392, in clause 90, page 69, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).
Amendment 265, in clause 101, page 78, leave out lines 21 to 27.
Amendment 272, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 3 to 7.
Amendment 273, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Amendment 274, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 13 to 18.
Amendment 457, in clause 101, page 79, leave out lines 31 to 36.
Amendment 279, in clause 101, page 80, leave out lines 3 to 7.
Amendment 280, in clause 101, page 80, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Keir Starmer
We move to a different topic within the same general subject matter of thematic warrants.
Clause 90(1) sets out that a
“targeted equipment interference warrant may relate to”
and thereafter follows a long list from paragraph (a) to paragraph (h). Paragraph (a) specifies
“equipment belonging to, used by or in the possession of a particular person or organisation”.
Paragraph (b) deals with groups or those
“who share a common purpose or who carry on…a particular activity”.
Paragraph (c) deals with equipment
“in the possession of more than one person or organisation, where the interference is for the purpose of a single investigation or operation”.
Paragraph (d) deals with
“equipment in a particular location”.
And on it goes. In other words, the clause allows a very broad range of matters to be included in what is intended to be a targeted equipment interference warrant.
The evidence from the independent reviewer, David Anderson, was, in essence, that clause 90, or its forerunner, was so wide that he thought it was difficult to suggest anything that could not be included in a thematic targeted interference warrant. That gives rise to the suggestion that, in truth, this is a disguised bulk power. It is called a targeted equipment interference warrant, but it is so wide as to be tantamount to a bulk power. In so far as this sort of interference has been carried out in the past, it has been carried out under provisions of this sort rather than any bulk provision. It is an extremely wide and permissive thematic warrant that allows interference with equipment in a very wide range of circumstances, which of course includes monitoring, observing, listening to and so on. It is far too wide.
Amendments 385 and 386 are intended to cut out part of the wide thematic approach in subsection (1). Subsection (2) deals with a targeted examination warrant, and again there is a wide range of matters that the warrant may relate to, including
“a particular person or organisation…a group of persons”
and so on. As far as subsection (2) is concerned, the examination warrant is to operate in conjunction with or following on from a bulk warrant, so subsection (2) indicates the matters to which such a targeted warrant may relate, notwithstanding the wide breadth of the bulk warrant.
The powers are far too wide and they need to be better specified. The amendments are intended to draw in and narrow the scope of the thematic warrants, because otherwise it is hard to resist David Anderson’s conclusion that it is hard to think what would not be included in one or other of the descriptions I have outlined.
Joanna Cherry
I want to add my voice in support of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s suspicions—sorry, submissions! We share suspicions about this clause. The clause unamended permits thematic, suspicion less warrants and these shade into general warrants. General warrants are anathema to the common law of England and Scotland and fall foul of international human rights law.
I am pleased that the hon. and learned Gentleman prayed in aid what David Anderson QC said about clause 90. If Members have read his supplementary written evidence to the Committee, they will have seen that at paragraph 5a he expressed grave concern about clause 90, describing it as “extremely broad” and continuing:
“The ISC noted this in relation to the EI power in February 2016…The Operational Case lodged with the Bill also acknowledged…that a targeted thematic EI”—
equipment interference—
“warrant may ‘cover a large geographical area or involve the collection of a large volume of data’. This matters, because as the Operational Case also acknowledged…the protections inherent in a thematic warrant are in some respects less than those inherent in a bulk warrant. The very broad clause 90 definition effectively imports an alternative means of performing bulk EI, with fewer safeguards. The Government’s explanation for this–that it will opt for a bulk warrant where extra safeguards are deemed necessary–may be argued to place excessive weight on the discretion of decision-makers.”
That concern—that it gives excessive discretion to decision makers—is one that the Scottish National party has as a thread running through the Bill. David Anderson goes on to say:
“If bulk EI warrants are judged necessary, then it should be possible to reduce the scope of clause 90 so as to permit only such warrants as could safely be issued without the extra safeguards associated with bulk.”
Even if the Minister does not consider the SNP’s and the Labour party’s concerns valid, what does he have to say about the lengthy passage that David Anderson has devoted to the matter in his supplementary written evidence?
Joanna Cherry
Will the Minister tell us the legal basis of the existing powers?
Mr Hayes
I have done so already, but I will repeat it for the sake of the record. The powers are contained in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997. I am more than happy to provide more information to the hon. and learned Lady on that detail, should she want me to do so.
Joanna Cherry
I am looking at the 1994 Act and it seems to me that it contains broad and vague enabling powers, which bear no resemblance to the powers in the Bill. Can the Minister contradict that?
Mr Hayes
One of the stated purposes of the Bill is to bring together those powers—to cement them and to put in place extra clarification and further safeguards. I have argued throughout that the essence of the Bill is delivering clarity and certainty. I would accept the hon. and learned Lady’s point if she was arguing that, at the moment, the agencies draw on a range of legal bases for what they do, for that is a simple statement of fact. We are all engaged in the business of perfecting the Bill, because we know it is right that these powers are contained in one place, creating greater transparency and greater navigability, and making legislation more comprehensible and more resistant to challenge. That is at the heart of our mission.
I said I would talk about breadth. The breadth of the circumstances in which equipment interference could be used reflects the fact that, at the time of making an application for a warrant, the information initially known about a subject of interest may vary considerably. Last week, we spoke about the kind of case in which there may be an unfolding series of events, such as a kidnapping, where a limited amount might be known at the outset when a warrant is applied for. The warrant’s purpose will be to gather sufficient information as to build up a picture of a network of people involved in a gang or an organised crime. That is very common and I intend to offer some worked examples in a number of areas.
Identifying members of such a gang can often come from interception arising from a thematic warrant. That might apply to interception, but frankly it might also apply to equipment interference where that is a more appropriate and more effective means of finding the information. Another example may be a group of people involved in child sexual exploitation. Frequently, partial information will allow for further exploration of a network of people who are communicating over a wide area, and who are careful about how they communicate, mindful of the activity that they are involved in. They will not be easy to discover or find, as they will very often disguise their identity. For that reason, it may be necessary to start by looking at sites commonly used to share indecent images of children and from there uncover information that leads, through the use of equipment interference, to those who are driving that unhappy practice. Those examples are not merely matters of theory; they are matters of fact. I know that in cases of kidnapping and in cases of child sexual exploitation, those techniques have been used and continue to be used.
Keir Starmer
I understand the point the Minister is making and the need for these powers to be practical and effective in real time. He says that they are not theoretical but real, and I absolutely accept that, but David Anderson is someone who will have appreciated that more than many others. He has been working in this field and dealing with those issues for many years. He is hardly likely to make the mistake of theorising about something that he knows about in great detail in the practical examination, so is he just plain wrong when he raises this concern? He has raised it not just once, but on a number of occasions, in detail, and he knows how these things work.
Mr Hayes
I will return to that point because it is important and fair, and I will return to the Anderson critique in a moment, but before I do so, I want to be clear about the second thing that I said I would speak about—speed.
The kind of cases that I have outlined can move rapidly. The information that becomes available from the kind of initial inquiries that I have described, when the character or names of individual actors may not be known but will become known through these techniques, may require law enforcement agencies to act very quickly to avert further serious crime. Owing to the need for speed, it is vital that those missioned to protect us are able to exercise all the powers when they need to, with confidence and lawfully. The Anderson critique is why the codes of practice limit specifically how thematic warrants can be used. I draw the Committee’s attention to page 25 of the draft code of practice, which deals with such warrants and defines again, in some detail, exactly how they should be as specific as possible, given the breadth and speed requirements that I have set out.
I hear what is said about the David Anderson criticism. I think that we have gone further in being specific in the code of practice than we might have been expected to by our critics, but, rather as I said in relation to our consideration of an earlier group of amendments on warranting, I do not want to inhibit what is currently done; I do not want the Bill to leave the agencies and law enforcement with fewer powers; I do not want to leave them emasculated as a result of our consideration. It is right that we should have safeguards, definition, constraints and, where necessary, specificity, but these powers are vital to protect us from those who want to exploit our children and do us harm. Criminals are increasingly adaptable and sophisticated, rather like terrorists. We must outmatch them at every turn and I believe that those powers are vital for us to be able to do so. So I am unapologetic about making the case for them to the Committee and to Parliament.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his case in that way. To be clear, particularly in relation to his last point, I do not think that anyone is suggesting that those powers should not be available. The discussion is about whether they are rightly described as thematic warrants or whether they are, in truth, bulk warrants, which operate in different ways and have different safeguards, procedures and processes to go through. I do not want our challenging and probing to be portrayed as somehow to undermine the work that has to be done by law enforcement and others in real time, often in difficult circumstances.
That said, this is an important issue. I have listened to what has been said and I want to preserve the position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 389, in clause 90, page 68, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) A targeted equipment interference warrant may only be issued in relation to any of the matters that fall under subsection (1) if the persons, organisations or location to which the warrant relates are named or otherwise identified.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 458, in clause 90, page 69, line 4, at end insert—
“(2A) A targeted examination warrant may only be issued in relation to any of the matters that fall under subsection (2) if the persons, organisations or location to which the warrant relates are named or otherwise identified.”
Amendment 266, in clause 101, page 78, line 18, leave out
“or a description of the person or organisation”
and insert
“or another identifier of the person or organisation”.
Amendment 474, in clause 101, page 78, line 27, leave out
“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”
and insert
“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.
Amendment 473, in clause 101, page 78, line 28, at beginning insert “The name and”.
Amendment 268, in clause 101, page 78, line 31, leave out
“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”
and insert
“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.
Amendment 269, in clause 101, page 78, line 36, leave out “description” and insert “specification”.
Amendment 270, in clause 101, page 78, line 38, at beginning insert “The name and”.
Amendment 271, in clause 101, page 78, line 40, leave out
“a description of as many of the locations as it is reasonably practicable to describe”
and insert “specification of each location”.
Amendment 276, in clause 101, page 79, line 29, leave out
“or a description of the person or organisation”
and insert
“or another identifier of the person or organisation”.
Amendment 278, in clause 101, page 79, line 40, leave out
“or a description of, as many of the persons or organisations as it is reasonably practicable to name or describe”
and insert
“or another identifier of, each person or organisation”.
Keir Starmer
Ms Dorries, you have been indulgent in allowing me to trespass on the territory of some of these amendments in my general remarks on the clause. That probably applies to the Minister in reply as well. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for me to say any more about this group.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Power to issue warrants to intelligence services: the Secretary of State
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 468, 469, 470, 403, 404, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 and 292.
Keir Starmer
The clause deals with the power to issue warrants to the intelligence services. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with targeted equipment interference warrants, and subsections (3) and (4) deal with targeted examination warrants.
We have two concerns. First, although the test of necessity and proportionality is spelled out in the clause—in particular, in subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) and (b)—the objective and aims to which the test of necessity and proportionality are attached, which are set out in subsection (5), are broad in the extreme. They are
“national security…preventing or detecting serious crime”
and our old friend,
“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
We have concerns about the breadth of those powers. Examination warrants obviously allow the examination of the material as well as its interception, and they go with the bulk power.
The first batch of amendments is intended to put some rigour and independence into the scheme by replacing the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner. We have been over this territory in depth once and in summary form at least once again. I am not sure anybody is going to benefit, and they certainly will not welcome, my going over it at great length again—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The amendments would replace the Secretary of State with the judicial commissioner for the same reasons that I advanced a week ago today at a not dissimilar hour. I will not say more than that. In light of our discussion last week and the fact that I withdrew my amendments in relation to the scheme, I will not move these amendments; they are probing.
The Chair
Amendment not moved.
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
Unaccompanied Children
(8 years, 8 months 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 David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered unaccompanied children.
It is a great pleasure to secure the debate and to open it. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported the application to the Backbench Business Committee, but especially the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who helped to secure the debate.
Sadly, the issue of unaccompanied children has in many ways become a focal point of consideration in Parliament, not least in the House of Lords. We will shortly consider the amendment tabled by Lord Dubs in relation to the campaign for 3,000 unaccompanied children to be accepted in addition to previous requirements. This is the sad reality of the situation facing children as they take a precarious route across Europe. Only yesterday there was a report that 400 migrants and refugees died when their boat capsized; they were travelling from Egypt to Turkey. The reality is that today another two children will probably die while crossing the Mediterranean. That is the context and it is a focal point of concern.
The focus of this debate, although hon. Members will no doubt want to deal with issues around it, is our responsibilities for separated children as they arrive in this country, whether they come by means of a formal resettlement plan—we can talk further about where that could take us—or whether they come via irregular routes into the United Kingdom. I want to have a long-term plan. My hon. Friends will know all about the mantra of a long-term plan, particularly in relation to economic plans. I want to get that mantra into the parlance on this issue: would it not be wonderful if Parliament had a long-term plan for separated children? I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend the Minister about that. We need a long-term plan for some of the most vulnerable children.
If we look at the statistics, we see that it is right for Parliament to be concerned about these children. In February 2016, children accounted for more than one third of all refugees and migrants, compared with just one in 10 in June 2015. There has been a 57% increase in the number of these children seeking asylum in the past year in the United Kingdom. Undocumented unaccompanied children are often beneath the radar, certainly before they get anywhere near the age of adulthood. There were 2,168 asylum applications from such children in the year ending June 2015. That was an increase of 46% on the previous year. The Minister for Immigration will be very much aware, not least because it is on his desk, that this is an issue of increasing importance for the Home Office.
It is important that we are compassionate. The word “compassion” is mentioned a lot these days, and rightly so. We must have an ambition properly to accept our fair share of unaccompanied children. The Minister was very much leading in relation to the announcement on 28 January. We look forward to hearing further details on the commitment in the coming days. There was a promise to step up efforts to reunite lone children with their families in Europe and the United Kingdom. There was a commitment to bring children who are on their own in conflict zones straight to the United Kingdom to prevent them from making perilous journeys, and there was a promise of more expertise and resources to help to protect child refugees in Europe and the United Kingdom. It is important that we have the right ambition, and I look forward to hearing those details.
As well as the compassion in terms of the length of commitment, I want to look at the breadth and depth of that compassion. We should be in this for the long term. That is an issue for children as they arrive here. I want to see how that looks and what it could look like, to ensure that we meet the concerns that have been expressed, not least by the Children’s Society, to which I pay tribute and which I thank very much. Those concerns formed the basis of my application and that of others to hold this debate. Its recent report, “Not just a temporary fix”, makes the point in the title, highlighting the need for a lasting outcome for unaccompanied children in the UK. This issue can often be missed in debate. These children, who come from some of the most appalling backgrounds and are often traumatised, are at risk of exploitation, not least as they make these journeys. As they come into this country, we need to ensure that we have the right package of support for them.
A point highlighted in the report that I have mentioned is the transition to adulthood. That is unsettling and unpleasant for all children, but particularly for separated children who have fled war and persecution. They have faced exploitation and destitution and have no parent or carer in this country to safeguard their best interests. We need to step in to support them to avoid their being at risk of further exploitation and destitution.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on attracting such support for this very important debate. I am glad that he is talking about long-term stability. Does he share my concern, which I think he was touching on, that we may have arguments about the number of children we welcome into this country, but we need to address the rights of those children when they become adults, particularly if they have been in care? They do not qualify for housing. They do not qualify for the Staying Put scheme. They do not qualify for various benefits. They do not qualify for loans if they want to go on to higher education. Their vulnerability does not change on the day they become 18, nor the danger they are in if they go back to their country of origin. We need to have a better long-term plan for those children as they progress into adulthood in the safety of this country.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend: he is already talking about a long-term plan for separated children. Undocumented children may well not even make an application for asylum, not least because they are under the cover of being children and have the protection of the state, but as they get close to the age of adulthood, an application needs to be made. Their status becomes insecure and uncertain and they are very much at risk of going through the care system and, sadly, out on to the streets, where they are prone to further exploitation. I will touch on that issue as well.
The support for those vulnerable children who have found their way by so-called irregular means differs from support under the formal resettlement programme. I pay tribute to the Government for the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and the 20,000 commitment. I think that 1,500 people have been resettled. That is part of a package that is not just about numbers. It is a serious package of support involving local authorities and communities. I understand that at the recent meeting in Geneva, attended by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, the British Government were praised as an example of good practice that other countries need to follow for their serious commitment to long-term support for these vulnerable people. That needs to be matched, including for those who arrive by different means. People may not arrive through that formal scheme, but they are no less vulnerable; their concerns and needs are no different. It is important that we do not in effect discriminate against them because of how they arrive.
When a child arrives by means of a formal resettlement programme, they are offered a five-year humanitarian protection visa. The Government have previously responded to concerns about what happens when such children turn 18; the likelihood is that they will be granted indefinite leave to remain. However, undocumented children, particularly those who arrive in the United Kingdom unaccompanied and by irregular means, are granted unaccompanied asylum-seeking child leave. That leave fails to represent the long-term solution that we all want, as it is granted for a period of 30 months or until the child is 17 and a half years old, whichever period is shorter. At that point, whichever comes first, the child is treated as an adult migrant and is not subject to the same protection that they had, but their needs have not suddenly changed dramatically just because an age threshold has been reached or they have reached the end of their UASC leave. We will fail that vulnerable person unless we provide long-term support.
The Children’s Society has found that the widespread granting of UASC leave, with further determination delayed sometimes until just before the child turns 18, does not serve the best interests of children and leaves them open to risk. We need to look carefully at who we are dealing with, because UASC leave often fails to represent a long-term solution, and it leaves young people anxious and uncertain about their future, which will store up problems. Such young people are transitioning to adulthood, and they want to have a say. Any child wants safety, support and a loving home, which continues as they get older—for these children probably even more so, given their background. The Government increasingly do that for care leavers. This is not just something that ends at 18; it is a longer-term commitment. So many of these vulnerable people, wherever they come from, need longer-term support.
We must have a different understanding of children. We should not rely simply on their reaching the high threshold set by refugee conventions and the established legal understanding of “refugee”; we should also recognise the needs of separated children who may not necessarily meet that threshold. Such children are at particular risk. We have seen across Europe that, appallingly, some 10,000 children—we do not know the exact numbers—have gone missing, many sadly into the hands of traffickers and exploitation. Such children are at risk, and they must be treated as such. We must consider how to categorise and support them properly with a child protection status that recognises their inherent at-risk status, which will not end just because they have come to this country and a place of safety. That status continues because of their background and their need for support so that, when they reach the age of 18, or if their ordinary application for asylum fails, they do not run the risk of further destitution and exploitation. It would be an appalling dereliction of our duty if, after we help to provide sanctuary from the risk of exploitation and destitution, they face that same cycle of risk in this country.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation and as a Kent MP. Kent County Council has an overwhelming case load of unaccompanied, vulnerable and needy children for whom to care. Does he agree that not enough local authorities will help out and take those children identified by Kent and that much more co-operation is needed between local authorities?
Mr Burrowes
There is a proper long-term duty that has a disproportionate impact on Kent County Council. A case has been made in previous debates for how we could find a new way of enabling a fair distribution across the country. We recognise that local authorities have been willing to come forward, along with many community and other organisations. Towards the end of my speech I will mention some organisations that want to share the burden with local authorities. Communities want to come alongside to provide that long-term support.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his commitment to the issue. When unaccompanied children are settled here and a parent is later found, does he agree that they should have the same rights to family reunion as adult refugees? I know that is a controversial subject, but other countries seem to manage it without any fear of abuse. There are fundamental rights to family reunion that should be upheld.
Mr Burrowes
Family reunions are currently prevented by the rules on unaccompanied children, which are not in line with the rules for adults. The position that children cannot sponsor their parents or carers to join them means that they do not have the same rights as adults, which is a particular concern. The Government, considering their own and international legal obligations to protect the best interests of children already in this country, should not be in a position where they are effectively denying a child the right to be reunited with their family and to be safe.
It is important that we consider the situation more broadly, such as the issue of dependency in relation to families. Who is the family? There should be a broader understanding of dependency. It might not be the father or the mother; it might be a brother. I have visited Calais, and I have seen the appalling conditions at the Dunkirk camp. I spoke to a young person from Afghanistan who was fleeing a war-torn area, and he was desperate to be with his brother—this was when the French police were dispersing people, and he was at risk of being dispersed into the hands of traffickers. We need to find ways of providing safety for such people, and of recognising that his dependent relationship was with his brother. We need to find practical ways of supporting such people.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. It is good to see Members from so many parties here. Does he agree that funding for local authorities should be increased so that they can do the necessary child protection work so that we can speed up the reuniting of children with their parents?
Mr Burrowes
There will be significant financial costs, and I hope that we will see the details of the commitment to relocate more unaccompanied children. The financial costs need to be clear. We need a proper package to be able to make that commitment—the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme included a financial commitment to local authorities—because we must take account of the additional costs of working with highly traumatised, vulnerable children.
In the childcare system, more than 24,000 missing children were reported from January 2012 to December 2013. Given that figure, we need to ensure that the care system is up to speed and fit for purpose so that children who risked going missing on their journey or, indeed, in their own country do not face the same risk of exploitation and destitution in this country. It is important to work with local authorities to find the best long-term solution, and I particularly draw attention to undocumented children who may never apply for asylum. We need to bring those children out into the open to show them that there is a future and a pathway for them in this country, rather than their waiting until the very last moment and becoming stuck in a system that lacks advocacy. They might then be prone to being outside the system and falling into the hands of those who may abuse them.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is important to a great number of us. Does he agree that, in this almost impossibly hard policy area, we must be driven by our heart and our head? We must focus on what works in the longer term for these children. We must be driven by evidence-based programmes led by experts, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for a long-term, enduring commitment to some of the most vulnerable families caught up in this tragic conflict. That would be something of which we, as a nation, could be truly proud.
Mr Burrowes
I agree. We need to be guided by the UNHCR on vulnerability and on its assessment of children at risk. It is encouraging that the Government’s approach has focused on vulnerability, and that approach needs to continue for those in the region, in Europe and in this country. That must guide us throughout.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I share with everyone else an admiration for the hon. Gentleman’s securing of this important debate. We know that children of Vietnamese origin are much more likely than not to go missing. Does he agree that there should be a specific focus on that group of children, who are absolutely at risk from exploiters and traffickers, and that, at the moment, we are failing them by not having that focus?
Mr Burrowes
I agree that we need to do that. The right hon. Lady and I are both members of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, and I share her concern. Following the passage of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, we need to make sure that we recognise the inherent risk faced by such children and that there is a package available to do more than the current care system to provide help. We must end the uncertainty on the status of those children and ensure that there is a long-term commitment to their protection. Those children in particular are struggling, and there was a debate during our consideration of the Immigration Bill on restrictions on unaccompanied children receiving leaving-care support provisions, such as access to accommodation and subsistence, as well as foster placements, education, training and legal advice. Whether those children are applying for immigration or for asylum, we need to recognise that those needs continue.
Mrs Grant
On the issue of advocacy to which my hon. Friend referred, children are being trafficked younger and younger, facing loneliness and bewilderment. Does he agree that implementing a child advocate scheme similar to the one recently trialled by the Government could bring not only clarity to local authorities but the certainty and continuity of a long-term plan for children?
Mr Burrowes
Yes, certainly. I championed child trafficking advocates along with other Members across the House, and we were pleased when they were eventually included in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The scheme has been piloted with mixed results, but it is important to recognise that trafficked children have a similar profile to separated children coming to this country. In his response, will the Minister confirm a link with the advocates who help those at risk of being trafficked, as well as their relevance to separated children? If the scheme needs to be expanded, let us hear the details, but the national roll-out must properly include unaccompanied children.
I appreciate that a number of hon. Members want to contribute, so I will not hog the debate. I draw attention to the commitment made by the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees at the Geneva summit. He said that we need
“to harness the generous offers of support from the UK public by developing a community sponsorship scheme.”
That is welcome, and we need to see how it might work, particularly for separated children. For example, Home for Good, a fostering charity, has signed up more than 10,000 UK households willing to provide a home for such children. We need to use that welcome offer of support, which goes beyond what was happening back in September—“I’ll give my house.” It is a practical offer of long-term fostering support from an excellent organisation. Home for Good, among others, asks the Government to tell us how they will use the resources offered by charities, faith groups, churches and businesses to support unaccompanied children. I look forward to hearing the debate, particularly if it focuses on a long-term plan for separated children, and I welcome all hon. Members’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I propose to start the winding-up speeches at about 10.30 or 10.35. A number of Members have indicated that they want to speak, so if Members can restrict their speeches to four to five minutes, everyone should be able to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on presenting his case and giving us all a chance to participate in this debate.
The migrant crisis was undoubtedly one of the defining issues of 2015, and it will undoubtedly be a defining issue this year as well. It is impossible to avoid it, and hard to find a member of the public who does not have an opinion on it, whether we consider the negative consequences seen in Cologne or the positive stories of relocated refugees settling successfully into a new society. It is a major issue that will take some time to resolve. In Belfast and in Northern Ireland, we have had our first refugees, sponsored by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has encouraged them to relocate and be part of Northern Ireland. Church groups have also gathered around to ensure that that happens.
We have all seen the images of what ISIS or Daesh do: they behead, rape, murder and pillage. It is not hard to understand why any human being would want to get as far away from that as possible. More than 14 million Syrians in the country are in need of help, 7 million of whom are internally displaced, and nearly 5 million have fled abroad, including the hundreds of thousands making their way into Europe. Nevertheless, it is important to be rational and not let our emotions make us lose the run of ourselves. Syrian nationals were the fourth largest group of asylum applicants in the year to September 2015.
We cannot ignore the heart-breaking plight of genuine refugees. In 2015, some 3,043 asylum applications were received from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, 56% more than in 2014 and 141% more than in 2013. More than half of all applications were from Eritrea, Afghanistan and Albania.
I want to underline the plight of Christians fleeing Syria. Some 900,000 Christians have been displaced in Syria, many of them families and children. Although we focus on Syria, it is clear that there is quite a spread of people seeking to come to Europe. We must be careful to do the right thing and have a compassionate approach, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned.
Regardless of our approach, we must ensure that refugees are processed correctly, in order to give genuine refugees the dignity that they deserve and root out potential criminal elements or security threats. We have all seen the distressing images from the Mediterranean. The news last night referred to the unscrupulous people in Libya and elsewhere who fill boats full of people, often without regard to safety. They are an obvious threat to people making the perilous and often fatal journey to Europe.
When it comes to children, especially unaccompanied children, we must act. We must be compassionate and do the right thing. The Syria crisis, in addition to the political situation across the middle east and north Africa, has resulted in an ever increasing number of unaccompanied migrant children making their way to Europe. Concerns about such children have been raised, not least after Europol warned that at least 10,000 unaccompanied children have gone missing since entering Europe. We must ask ourselves where those children are, what has happened to them, whether we are concerned and whether we are doing our best to find them.
People will know that I am a Christian and have strong views on these issues. From a compassionate point of view, I would say: where are those children, and what are we doing about them? Our Saviour said:
“Suffer the little children to come unto me”.
What are we in this House doing as Christians? What is this House doing as a leader of society to help those children?
Jim Shannon
I accept that, and I thank the hon. Lady for outlining the issue clearly. Yes, we should have learned something in our own society about how to deal with and respond to the issue. We need, honestly and consciously, to take it seriously.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that it is important that registration occurs at the point of entry, so that we can track children and ensure that appropriate child protection measures are in place?
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree.
At least 3,000 displaced children will be resettled in the UK, but the problem is that the Government initiative to relocate child refugees will not include those already in Europe. It is not the case that the whole of Syria is marching into Europe, although sometimes people listening to the news might think that it is. That is not how it is; let us keep things in perspective and focus on the important issues. The European Commission’s chief spokesman said that 60% of those arriving in the EU as part of the movement were economic migrants rather than refugees. We must empathise with genuine refugees.
I am conscious of time, so I will finish with this comment. We should do what we can do to help. There are screening and security issues to be addressed, but we need to be part of the humanitarian effort, most definitely with regard to children. I can only hope that this debate will put pressure on the Government to reconsider and start helping with the efforts to assist unaccompanied children who are already in Europe. We need to get the right approach, reconsider the current one and be part of the humanitarian effort to help those poor children, who absolutely need and deserve our help.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I will start with a quote that some Members may have heard before. On 14 December 1938, Mr Noel-Baker asked:
“Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these children in Germany in many cases are in really terrible conditions, without adult protection and without the means of finding food, and is he aware that the machinery of the Home Office for granting visas is so inadequate that the visas cannot be obtained in sufficient quantities to save their lives?”—[Official Report, 14 December 1938; Vol. 342, c. 1976.]
Unfortunately, 78 years on, not a lot has changed. We do not have much time to debate that issue, or indeed to debate what we could most effectively do to help children in the camps surrounding Syria, for instance, because this debate, secured by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), rightly focuses on what we can do for children who are already in the United Kingdom. As a minimum—the hon. Gentleman touched on this—we should provide a five-year humanitarian protection order, in line with those people being relocated under the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme. That approach is needed simply because it provides security for the children and because it also makes the job of local authorities much easier, regarding what they have to plan for in the future for those children.
We also need the Home Office to extend the guardianship pilots for trafficked children to include unaccompanied children. I know that the Children’s Society is keen that the Minister for Immigration provides an update on the child trafficking advocates pilot, as well as clarification of whether he recognises the importance of there being an independent advocate for separated and unaccompanied children, particularly in their transition to adulthood and in providing support with regularising their immigration status before they turn 18. Indeed, there are strong arguments for extending that support beyond 18 to 21, as is the case with care leavers.
The provisions for transfers or disposals need to be addressed very early on. The worst that can happen to a child is that they remain in one place for an extended period only to be moved on much later. Action needs to be taken very soon on where children will be relocated within the UK.
We need effective and improved co-ordination mechanisms. My understanding is that in London, which was mentioned in an intervention earlier, the Greater London Authority is taking responsibility for co-ordinating certain aspects of the arrival of children, but that the mechanisms are not working very effectively. As I understand it, the latest figures suggest that a maximum of 10 children have been distributed through those mechanisms. Clearly, more action needs to be taken at a London level, so that co-ordination is in place and the boroughs can tap into what has been organised.
We also need to ensure that where family ties exist, every effort is made to ensure that family members in the same local authority area can provide support to unaccompanied children where appropriate. As well as improving conditions for the child, that approach has the advantage of reducing the burden on local authorities.
We need to make sure that there is better resourcing for foster carers, and we would like the regional assessment hub model to be explored further, although that is not a call to reduce the scrutiny of foster carers. A national register would also make a substantial contribution, because it would enable foster carers who move from one local authority area to another to remain available to provide foster care. Of course, the need to check things such as the foster carer’s new home would remain; a national register would not deal with such issues.
Some authorities are clearly on the frontline in providing funding—Kent has already been mentioned. The Home Office needs to model scenarios to compensate local authorities that step up and take responsibility for unaccompanied children. The Government also need to identify which authorities are currently overburdened and have to rely heavily on out-of-county options for their own looked-after population before they take on any additional unaccompanied children.
The target advocated by Save the Children and others—including my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who has outlined his blueprint for 3,000 children—is attainable, and it would make a substantial contribution towards dealing at EU level with the 30,000 or so unaccompanied children who are already in the UK. However, we need many of the measures that I and previous speakers have discussed this morning, to ensure that the framework—the support network—is in place before those children can be supported.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can aim to speak for about four minutes, everyone should be able to get in.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I very much welcome this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing it.
I imagine that we are all here today because we want Britain to play its part in dealing with the refugee situation and in looking after the unaccompanied children in this country, and across Europe and the middle east. The debate is very much about how we do that and how we ensure that we do it well.
I visited Calais last year—I think it was in October— and clearly I saw awful conditions there. There were very few children; the few children I saw were with their parents. However, we know that there are some unaccompanied children there and that those children who are there are usually in their teens, although some may be younger than that. I have also visited a refugee camp in Turkey, where I saw pretty good conditions—okay, it was a refugee camp that the Turkish Government chose to show visitors. However, I spoke to people there who were living in relatively good conditions, and without exception they wanted to come to Europe all the same.
I also represent a constituency in Kent and as my neighbour—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who was here earlier—has already mentioned, we have a large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent. It is one of the areas that is feeling the effect of this issue particularly heavily, but we also have experience of how to deal with it well.
In the limited time available to me, I will just make a couple of other points. The first is that in addressing this problem of unaccompanied children, we must absolutely be compassionate, but we must also avoid being emotional and failing to think through the unintended consequences of whatever choices we make. And we must realise that we are making choices.
In the debate as to whether we should bring 3,000 unaccompanied children over from Europe, for instance, we should be mindful that, although we usually talk about Syrian refugees, about half of the unaccompanied children in Europe are Eritrean, and many others are from Afghanistan and Albania, although there will be some Syrian children among them. We need to be conscious that those who are calling for more children to be brought here are calling for children of many nationalities to be helped. That would be one decision, and a different decision from choosing, for instance, to focus our efforts on helping children who are fleeing Syria. I am not saying that the children from other countries do not need help; any unaccompanied child needs some help. I am just saying that there is a decision to be made.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend has, in fact, just answered the question that I was going to ask. Does it make children any less vulnerable or at risk that they are from a country other than Syria? However, she just answered that question, for which I thank her.
Helen Whately
Indeed I did, but I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s point and thank her for it.
My second point, which is very much in keeping with the tone and focus of this debate, is the importance of doing a really good job by those who come here. The worst thing is to raise hopes among young people—in fact, it is even worse to encourage them to come here—and then to let them down and not do a good job. Having talked to organisations that are active in Kent in looking after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, I know that it is difficult to do a good job. Children need an enormous amount of help, and they really need foster homes; they need to be placed in a family environment, and to be given health, mental health, schooling and all of that.
The particular challenge that we have in Kent is that foster homes are full. We have around 800 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are under 18 and around 400 to 500 care leavers, so we have a huge number of children to look after. We need a national drive to find more foster homes, to ensure that children who come here can be looked after and British children who need foster homes can also be found places in foster homes. There is a limited supply of such homes.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said that 10,000 foster homes were available through the Homes for Good charity. That sounds like a fantastic supply and there needs to be some way of matching the demand with what appears to be the supply; I hope that the Minister can pick up on that point.
Finally, we need a plan for what happens when these children reach 18, and for care leavers. In Kent, we welcome the extra funding that the Government have provided for under-18s, which has made it more feasible to look after under-18s, but there is a question about care leavers, as they still need extra help, which requires extra money.
The most important thing is that when we bring unaccompanied children here, we do a good job. We must not raise hopes and then dash them; we must do a very good job by those children, so that they have a really good start in life.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
If Members take about five minutes, not everyone will get in.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) because her points about emotion and about our fostering and adoptive care provision are crucial to the debate. Those points need to be focused on, not just by us in the debate but by the Minister, and I hope that he will use the debate and the contributions offered to formulate his policies and plans—I say this with the greatest respect—before Monday. If we are removing emotion from the debate, Parliament should not cajole the Government. If on Monday a vote went against the Government, and Parliament cajoled them into a position that they were either unprepared for or unwilling to engage in, it would be a disaster for unaccompanied children.
I will focus a tad on emotion. I recall that back in the summer I felt that the Government’s position was callous and heartless, and that it lacked the compassion of which we, as a country, should be proud. That was my emotional position at that time and I now accept that it was wrong. It was misplaced. It would have been wrong to resettle vulnerable people in this country without provisions such as homes, schools and GPs. Those things give them the best chance to assimilate, and so too with young unaccompanied children. It would be no justice to those who need the support, help and friendship of this country to bring them here without adequate support mechanisms in place. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take the opportunity not only to formulate their plans but to seek and receive the endorsement of Save the Children and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so that we know that what we do has both the helping hand and the endorsement of organisations and NGOs that respect what this country is doing and recognise the contribution that we can make.
We have a proud history in this country, and the important point that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent made is that when we consider today those many thousands of young people elsewhere who need our help it would be remiss of us if we did not also consider those in this country. If we could encourage more families to come forward as prospective adopters or foster carers, that would be a wonderful achievement for us, as a nation. If you take the Scotland and England figures together, there are more than 7,000 children in care homes so the idea that we would bring others to add to their number—and in many cases, their plight—is not something I can support. In building that support and that help, and in opening up the opportunity, I hope that this discussion can be of benefit not only for those seeking to come to a country of safety and sanctuary but for those who currently live without the true love and support of a family in this country.
I will conclude now, Ms Vaz, to give you some extra time for others. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, not just in his response to the debate but over the coming days and, with any luck, in advance of Monday, about just how best we can get a scheme that we can be proud of and that does justice to those who so much need it.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Robinson. That was excellent, and perhaps other Members could follow the example.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the important debate. When he started his speech he made some cracks about needing a long-term plan, and I want to talk about time, because one of the problems with the immigration system is that it does not recognise how important timeliness is in a child’s life. A week, a month or a year in a child’s life, in comparison with an adult’s, is an enormous amount of time. One of the problems is the lack of timely intervention and support for vulnerable children, in France and also when they are in the UK.
In the case of ZAT et ors in the immigration tribunal, the judgment said:
“Insufficient and inappropriate reception conditions for unaccompanied asylum seeking children”—
in France—
“were considered to impair their effective access to the asylum procedure”.
We also learned that the children in that case were not eligible for legal aid, and that there was an endlessly bureaucratic process for their cases even to begin. I hear about Home Office officials being sent to France to help sort out those things but I do not see the speeding up of individual applications as a result, so that is the first step we should take.
The second step is trying to help local authorities that are acting on the issue. A number of Members have spoken about the situation in Kent. I attended a presentation by Philip Segurola from Kent and, strikingly, in September last year, instead of the usual 20 or so individual unaccompanied children more than 200 arrived there in a single month. We need to support local authorities better to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Beyond that, we know that child advocates work—the mixed results claim about the advocacy trial is spin. The independent University of Bedfordshire analysis of the outcomes of the trial was overwhelmingly positive. It showed that children experienced someone being on their side. That is the most essential thing. With overburdened social workers, children do not have an experience of anyone being on their side in the labyrinthine bureaucracy of asylum seeking, and it is urgent that we ensure that every child at risk of trafficking or who has been trafficked, and also asylum-seeking children, get access to an advocate who can be on their side. Although it is true that some of those children went missing, in almost every case in the trial it was before they were allocated an advocate. A number of the case studies in the Bedfordshire report showed that it was the child advocate who found a child who had gone missing. That is the second area where we need to act urgently.
Thirdly, we need to change a procedure that has existed for decades. When a child applies for asylum, the Home Office does nothing—it does not take action; it does not investigate the claim; it waits until just before the child’s 18th birthday to take any action in relation to the claim. The process was described by the Home Affairs Committee as serving
“administrative convenience more than the best interests of children”,
and that is right.
I understand that it is difficult for a child to make a compelling case for asylum, but the state has a responsibility, at an early stage, to investigate the nature of the claim because three, four or five years later it is difficult to be able to support such a child. We are in a situation where children are failing to be supported in Europe, all over the place. In Lesbos they are being fed by sandwiches being thrown over a fence. That is unacceptable, and we should not be part of it.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about not knowing the full situation and about a number of children disappearing. In light of that, I have put parliamentary questions to the Minister about the number of take charge requests that have come to the British Government and I have been told that they cannot provide that information. It really troubles me that we do not have the information on which to even make the decisions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a huge problem? How can the Government reassure us if they do not even have the facts?
Fiona Mactaggart
Indeed, and it is not only the UK that does not have the facts; strikingly, many Administrations all over Europe, including in countries we admire for being bureaucratically effective, such as Germany, do not have the statistics. We really are not looking after children. The state is the parent in those circumstances and, frankly, we are the kind of parent who, if we were a human being, should be facing court for failure to adequately parent. That is not acceptable, and action is needed urgently.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for bringing this important debate to Parliament, and I thank you, Ms Vaz, for chairing this debate. I hope I can get through my speech very quickly.
I will talk about the experience of refugee children who do not have parents to care for them, but first I want to talk about the situation with unaccompanied children who are given the opportunity to come to the UK and the Government’s record on that. To be clear, I am referring to Governments of all colours; I am not in any way making a party political point. The Government have pledged to do more, and I am glad, because their record up to now has been pretty abysmal. When unaccompanied children come to the UK, they are placed in local authority care. Local authorities and communities do their best to care for them, but as soon as they turn 18 the situation changes drastically: they can apply for naturalisation, and too many are turned away. The only place they have ever found safety and comfort turns them away.
We give these children a home and a family. They make friends and learn English. Then, when they turn 18, we send them back to the war zone they came from. Between 2008 and 2012, we sent nearly 2,000 children back to Afghanistan. In the same period, we sent 345 children back to Iraq and at least 22 back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2009 and 2010, we sent back children who were stateless. I do not even know how that works. They were stateless. No state was accepting responsibility for those children, and we sent them out of our country. A bairn who comes to our country as an unaccompanied minor and has no rights anywhere else is refused the right to stay after they turn 18. That is inhumane.
Things must change, and I am therefore pleased that we are having this debate today. The Scottish National party is calling for the UK Government to ensure that all separated children are allocated an independent legal guardian. I am glad that that point was made earlier. It is important that the kids have a voice and someone able to fight their side and navigate our incredibly complicated immigration system. We would like the UK Government to backtrack on the provisions in the Immigration Bill that discriminate against former looked-after children.
I will now turn my attention to the circumstances that displaced children and young people find themselves in throughout Europe, the middle east and other parts of the world. The other night, my four-year-old woke up having had a nightmare. I went in and gave him a hug and he went back to sleep. He had all his favourite toys around him. He had his own pyjamas on and was in his own bed. He knew that his mum and dad were just along the corridor, able to come in and give him the comfort and support he needed. The horror and terror that unaccompanied children must experience is unimaginable. Refugee children are waking from their nightmares and finding that real life is worse. Every day, every hour, displaced children are hoping and praying for comfort and safety. How can we, when we have the means to help them, justify leaving them in that situation?
I went to visit Kittybrewster primary school recently and the children there were talking to me about refugees. They were concerned for refugee children. They are passionate young people, and they grilled me at length about why the Government were not doing more to help children who are like them, but who are alone in a foreign country. They wanted to know what I was doing to help. They wanted to know what Members and the Government were doing to help. They wanted to know how dropping bombs on people in Syria would help to improve the lives of the many thousands of children who find themselves homeless and alone as a result of conflict.
Why, when we have more than enough, are we do not doing more to help those who have nothing? The Government have not been flexible enough. I do not think we should be removing emotion from the debate. We should be thinking about these children as young human beings whom we have a responsibility to help. We need to be doing everything we can to take action now. We should be helping people with compassion and humanity and not simply considering these youngsters as numbers.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I add my voice to those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate. I will not talk about giving children a voice, because that has already been covered, as has supporting local government, which is hugely important, particularly in ensuring that no one area is overburdened at the expense of others.
When I visited Lesbos, an island that is not on the news most days, my first impressions were shocking in their tranquillity. It looked like any other Greek fishing village waiting for the summer trade to begin, but that belied what lay away from the port. The first camp was a functioning United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees camp. There were huts, and people had few possessions—only what they could carry. Charities such as Save the Children were doing a sterling job, providing safe places for families and vulnerable children. The play scheme, like any play scheme, was noisy and messy.
I want to address two issues, predominantly: timeliness, to which the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) alluded, and procedural appropriateness. The second camp was less ordered. Infrastructure was sparse and the detention centre housed vulnerable children. The barbed wire looked less than comforting. It is practically impossible to monitor where a child is. Children travelling on their own are vulnerable at every stage, as we have heard repeatedly. The lack of safe routes once they have arrived in Europe is appalling and frightening—think of travelling up through Albania and the like. To protect a child, we need to know where they are.
I was struck by two things: the size of the problem and the inadequacy of the provision. Do not get me wrong; the Greek population are doing a staggeringly good job. They did not ask for their islands to be the front door to more than 856,000 refugees in 2015. Lesbos is the same size as one of our constituencies in population. Refugees do not have many choices of where to go, and the situation will not change any time soon, so we need to step up and assist. The island administration struggles to cope with the high volume. It has poor facilities and a lack of expertise. The hotspot we saw in January was a digger and a bloke. That is not much of a hotspot. The Greeks and other possible first points of arrival need practical help with expertise from a broad base of countries. The Greeks’ ability to cope is affected by the prefecture system of governance, a challenging economy and a lack of procedural competence, although all that is offset by the most enormous humanitarian response of basic decency and kindness by the people of the island and the country. Countries at the sharp end do not need fine words; we need to ask them how we can help. Vulnerable children need particular help.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I shared that experience with my hon. Friend, and I also saw the scale of the issue and the paucity of the response. There has been a rallying cry today around time, the right thing and the long term. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke powerfully about the exploitation and destitution of unaccompanied minors in our midst, especially that experienced by those who have come by irregular ways and means. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) agree that the right thing to do is, as she has outlined, to find a new gear in the process of identifying children and young people in Calais and likewise in Lesbos so that they can be reunited swiftly with their family? We also need to extend our work with vulnerable unaccompanied children in the region so that they do not make this perilous journey and risk an uncertain future.
Jo Churchill
I could not agree more. We have to ensure that we are not a magnet. The trade is absolutely immoral. We need to ensure that handling procedures for all vulnerable people are speedy and timely. We need biometric machinery so that people are registered where they arrive. Vulnerable children have no one to ensure that they are looked after on this journey. An increasing concern is that money given to Frontex is not being spent correctly. Improved monitoring is a must.
Young single people are at particular risk on all parts of their journey. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said, they continue to be vulnerable once they are here, and we have a duty from the time they set sail. Taking people from camps in north Africa and Syria helps to show that assistance is there. A friend whose family comes from Lesbos said:
“It is not like an earthquake over in minutes. This is never-ending, like living on a motorway with daily car crashes. Some of the islanders can’t sleep and see boats when they are not there.”
The Greek people are tired, but I worry about having debates on numbers when we do not know the extent of the issue, when processing is not being done properly and when facts are scarce. Those things are critical. The amendment this week talks of 3,000 children, but as a mother, I have to ask: what about the 3,001st? Understanding situations properly is the key to sorting them, and we must ensure that councils are helped to provide the right support. Processing people quickly and decently is imperative, which brings me to the “jungle”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) said, we need to do the same here. Keeping people in squalor is no deterrent; it merely dehumanises. The French authorities need to speed up decision making, ensuring that reunification of family members happens swiftly, if appropriate. To do the right thing should be possible in Europe.
It is being recognised that we in this country are making decisions more swiftly. That is to be welcomed, but I, like many other Members here, want to see more. In the coming days, I look forward to the Minister, who has met with us on many occasions, meeting Save the Children. It can provide up-to-date local information, but I want to know what more we can do in practice to assist the processing, both in technical and influential terms. I want to make sure that vulnerable people get the help they acutely require. We have heard fine words today; please let us see some action.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
We have five minutes left for the last two speakers.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for securing this important debate. Given the dramatic rise in the number of children travelling through Europe in recent years, it is impossible to remove emotion from the debate. Too often, too many children are left unaccounted for and unrecognised in a system that focuses on bureaucracy, timing and filling in forms, and fails to remember that these are children and they are our responsibility. As a result of the ongoing crisis in Syria—sadly, in no way unique or the first of its kind—too many children are facing perilous journeys. Last month, while I was in Calais, I spoke to volunteers from Help Refugees. Both Annie and Maddie spoke of the utterly horrifying fact that too many children aged as young as nine are climbing into trucks, trying to get to the border and being sent back. One child, Hasan, had taken 15 perilous journeys. He had attempted to cross the border and been sent back. However, today he will reach the UK and he will be reunited with his family. That is a good story, but that is only one good story in the face of so many stories of children who may or may not make it.
I spoke to a mother who had put her two young children aged two and seven on the back of a truck in the hope that they would make it to the UK. I do not know whether they did. She will never know where those children are. This is the emotion of the debate and the reality. We do not know where those children are and that is the reality that we must face.
Save the Children, living up to its name, has put pressure on the Government to resettle the 3,000 unaccompanied children already in Europe. That is a responsibility that we in the UK must take seriously, and we must step up to the plate. However, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said, in order to protect children we need to know where they are. That is vital. If I drive one point home in this debate, it is that there are too many children whose whereabouts we do not know; we do not know where they are going and we do not know where they will end up. That is not good enough.
The standard of care that we know they will receive when they get to the UK will be exceptional. It will be top class and delivered by some of the best local authorities across the UK in Scotland, England, Wales and elsewhere. Funding local government to deliver the services is absolutely vital. The stark reality is that three times more teenagers are deported than the Home Office previously admitted, which highlights that this bureaucratic process is still penalising people and creating an arbitrary line in the sand between what is a child and what is not a child. This is not good enough.
I will leave this point with the Government. I echo the sentiments of timeliness and the need to protect. The Government are failing children. We can always do more, so let us step up to the plate and do that.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I will be as fast as I can, Madam Chair.
Heidi Allen
Our ability to save the lives of children is immediate, doable and incumbent on us as members of the human race. In the past two months, I have visited Lesbos and Calais. Given the world’s attention on these unprecedented levels of migration, I was astounded to find a lack of coherent asylum processing and support for the most vulnerable refugees—children. In Lesbos, aid workers told of the promise of hotspots and resources to identify and process migrants, but we saw little more than organised chaos. Children identified as unaccompanied were held for their safety in a disused jail—welcome to Europe. So it was not altogether surprising that many sought to avoid that fate by ducking through the net of the authorities, but at least there was some kind of system. If I thought that was bad, nothing could have prepared me for what I saw—or did not see—in Calais. There was no asylum processing and no sign saying, “This way to safety.” Neither were there signs saying, “This way to avoid prostitution, trafficking and abuse.” The camp is eerily quiet until late morning because during the night, everyone, children included, is trying to board anything with wheels.
We met a young boy from Syria called Karim. He was desperate for human contact and hugged us and smiled sheepishly. He disappeared days after our visit. After the jungle was semi-demolished, a census carried out by self-appointed good British people, Help Refugees and Citizens UK, discovered that 129 children had gone missing. Karim did turn up a week or so later in Kent, thank God. However, he should not have had to make such a journey of danger and desperation.
In January, the Government said that they would work with the UNHCR to resettle unaccompanied children and with charities to assist and protect the children in transit across Europe. I do not doubt the herculean efforts of the Government in the region, but in Europe we must do more.
I have one final thought. I travelled home from Calais on a train with three young boys from Syria, the first to be resettled in the new reunification process. There should have been four, but there was no room in the car to the station for four children, so one was sent back to the “jungle” for one more month until the next car came along.
When the great British public are feeding and safeguarding the refugee children of Calais, I am filled with immense pride, but also embarrassment that they are having to do that work. If the British people are there, so should the Government be there. It is not France’s problem. Our compassion, Dunkirk spirit and geographical proximity have made it our problem, too, so I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to find those children before it is too late and bring them home for good.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate, on his commitment to the issue and on opening with an excellent speech. The debate has continued in that fashion, with a series of powerful, thought-provoking and wide-ranging speeches setting out the huge scale of the humanitarian challenge that the crisis poses and the action that is necessary to support unaccompanied children who have fled their home countries as a result.
What has underpinned the speeches is a belief that those children should be treated as children. We should provide for them as we would want and reasonably expect our own children to be provided for were they to be in the same situation, arriving alone in a strange new country. It is hardly a radical idea, yet in so many respects Governments across the EU have failed to take that approach. Looking from the outside, too often it seems it is not the best interests of the child that informs policy but perceived national interests in closed borders and fencing, and Government targets and party politics.
It would be impossible for me to cover in the short time available the full range of the debate in any detail, so I will make a few short, sharp points in a handful of different policy areas, echoing some of the arguments and concerns that Members have raised. The main focus of the debate has of course been on providing durable solutions. I agree with hon. Members who have said that it is time for the Government to think again about the nature of the leave that is provided to unaccompanied children, particularly in the form of UASC leave.
We could argue all day about how safe it is to return an 18-year-old lad to Afghanistan, for example. For the record, I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that such a practice is reprehensible. Even putting that to one side, what we say will happen to someone when they turn 18 has an immediate impact on a child facing up to that threat in the here and now. Dangling what amounts to a sword of Damocles over an unaccompanied child is plain cruel, creating uncertainty and anxiety and stoking fear. It is not in any child’s best interests and not what we would hope or expect for our own children. It is far short of the long-term plan of support that various Members highlighted.
Ultimately, those who are granted UASC leave are granted it on the basis that there are inadequate reception arrangements in their country of origin—in other words, they would face destitution, discrimination, homelessness and lack of access to medical treatment if returned home. Although that does not mean they will get protection under the refugee convention, it surely merits something of an equivalent nature. There is a strong case for saying that no child should have to leave immediately on reaching adulthood. Furthermore, there is a powerful argument that in many cases we should be prepared to say that these kids, whose rights under the conventions would be breached if they were immediately removed, should be offered permanent settlement immediately.
I ask the Government to think again about the effect of the Immigration Bill, which we will be considering again next Monday. They should think particularly about the proposals to remove the ability of local authority social work departments to provide support to unaccompanied kids up to the age of 21. The Bill would remove that support at the age of 18, a change that is opposed by a host of Members, the British Association of Social Workers and others.
I support Members’ calls for the roll-out of guardianship and advocate schemes throughout England and Wales. In Scotland, a successful pilot showed that guardianship schemes can be crucial in helping unaccompanied children and young people to be heard and to realise their individual potential. Northern Ireland and several other countries throughout Europe have similar schemes. I urge the Government to roll out the scheme to unaccompanied children in England and Wales.
I back what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said about family reunion. It is plain wrong that unaccompanied children cannot apply as sponsors for their parents or carers. Such a failure to provide for reunion is a clear breach of children’s best interests.
Members touched briefly on legal aid in their speeches. Will the Government revisit some of the previous Justice Secretary’s reforms so that more than 2,500 unaccompanied children will no longer have to try to act as their own solicitors? Legal aid should be available for non-asylum immigration and family reunion cases. Such matters are not straightforward. As a solicitor in Scotland I was able to assist with such applications, with recompense from the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the form of advice and assistance funding. I know that was welcome, and it was clearly justified.
I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) made about Calais, where a significant number of unaccompanied children are living in what are essentially shanty towns. A significant number of those children have strong connections to the United Kingdom. Charities have estimated that there are more than 150 unaccompanied children at Calais who they believe would be able to come to the United Kingdom using take charge requests. As the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, the tribunal judgment was that the system in France is working at barely a snail’s pace.
As I understand it, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made an offer to the Home Office to provide support, including through the distribution of an information leaflet; technical comments and suggestions on the implementation of the Dublin regulations; assisting persons of concern, particularly unaccompanied minors, with the identification of relatives in France; supporting the family links evidence gathering process; and a referral or signposting mechanism for individual cases. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government would not accept that offer. I hope we hear from the Minister that they are going to do so.
We could have a whole separate debate on the situation across Europe, but I shall leave that for another day as time is running short. In all the policy areas I have mentioned, we need to rethink our approach as a country. I hope that the Government will listen to what Members have said.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for securing such a timely and appropriate debate. I also thank him because whenever I hear him in Committees or the Chamber, he is always moderate and thoughtful and really has the best interests of the most vulnerable people in his heart.
Nobody who has heard today’s speeches can be in any doubt about the level of concern Members have about the growing number of unaccompanied children in Europe, or their frustration at the Government’s response. The debate is timely as it comes just a week before the House will have the chance to consider an amendment to the Immigration Bill that would require the Government to relocate and support 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children from across Europe. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for pushing that issue for a long time.
The amendment is small but significant, with the potential to provide safety and stability to children for whom conflicts in their home countries are far beyond their comprehension, let alone their control. As Members will know, the amendment was tabled by my colleague Lord Dubs, himself a refugee who arrived in Britain in 1939 as one of almost 10,000 Jewish children saved by the Kindertransport. The quote from 1938 that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) read out was therefore particularly pertinent.
Lord Dubs’ amendment passed in the Lords by more than 100 votes and has the support of a wide range of charities and campaign groups. It will have the support of Labour Members in the Commons next week, and I implore all Members of all parties to support it. I do not pretend that the amendment will solve the growing problem on its own. The number of unaccompanied children who are now making such treacherous journeys to Europe is an incredibly serious and complex issue. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said, two more children died making the journey last night.
In February this year, children accounted for more than a third of all refugees and migrants in Europe, compared with one in 10 in June 2015. Beyond the refugee crisis, 982 of the 3,266 people identified as potential victims of trafficking in the UK last year were children, who are vulnerable to unimaginable exploitation and violence. As with so many other challenges we face, our response to unaccompanied children in Europe, whether they are here as refugees or as the victims of traffickers, will require an EU-wide solution and EU countries working together to address a problem that cuts across borders.
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). There needs to be an improved framework to support migrant children in Europe and reduce the risks of them falling into the hands of traffickers or suffering sexual exploitation and violence. Recent reports by UNICEF and the Children’s Society have emphasised the urgency of finding a more durable solution, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Save the Children estimate that there are currently 24,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, so we believe that 3,000 would be a reasonable figure for the UK to take at this stage. That would be in addition to the number already being taken under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, a scheme that we fully support but that does not allow the resettlement of vulnerable refugees who have already reached Europe. Given the sheer scale and immediacy of the problem of unaccompanied refugee children in Europe, we believe that the amendment is fair and realistic.
Now for some asks. The Minister has stated that he is sorting out the issues relating to the Dublin III resolution, but so far he has not told us about the facts. Will he do so today? Does he agree with the UNHCR, Save the Children and countless other bodies on that matter? If he does not, what alternative proposal do the Government have in mind? If the Minister can introduce some constructive proposals today, we would like to hear them, because of course we have a vote in a week. My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was right to bring up the issues relating to the support given to local authorities. Will the Minister update us on the support that the Government are making available for local authorities that are resettling unaccompanied child refugees? For how long will such funding and support be continued?
I am sure the Minister will appreciate that it is not enough to simply allow children to find sanctuary in this country; we must afford them the security and safety that we would expect for our own children. Yet in April 2013, the Government implemented changes to the legal aid system that mean that separated or unaccompanied migrant children are no longer able to get free advice and representation for their immigration cases. However, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the former Lord Chancellor acted ultra vires when he made changes to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 using secondary legislation.
The cases that were affected by the changes to the 2012 Act primarily involved children who have non-asylum immigration claims. Their claims are often about their right to a family and private life, and the children have often grown up in the UK in foster homes and have no lasting connections to their country of origin. Cases include those of lone children making citizenship applications; child trafficking victims; children involved in international adoption processes; and children who have been abandoned or estranged from their care-givers.
The restriction in legal aid means that some of the most vulnerable children are left without clarity as to their immigration status as they turn 18, which affects their access to housing, education and employment. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for making that point more completely. Without legal aid, the children affected no longer have independent access to legal professionals who can help establish their immigration status and advise them on their options to find a permanent solution. They are at increased risk of removal to countries to which they have little, if any, connection. Worse still, children desperate to resolve their legal issues are faced with the intense risk of being exploited through unregulated labour, or of being sexually exploited or groomed by criminal networks, because of the need to raise the funds to pay for their legal fees. Can the Minister tell us that he will look into reinstating legal aid for all separated children for their immigration cases?
Although the debate is timely, it is also depressingly familiar. For a number of years Labour has been calling on the Government to do more to help vulnerable refugees fleeing violence, abuse and oppression, but at every stage they have been reluctant to do so. They must recognise and respond to public and parliamentary pressure and support unaccompanied children in Europe. Children are vulnerable to the most horrifying exploitation and abuse. I end where the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate began: the Government must offer these children not just a temporary safe haven but a lasting solution, and the opportunity to make the UK their safe and secure childhood home.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
This debate has been marked by passionate and compassionate contributions. The Members who contributed did so with a genuine desire to inform the debate, based on their own experiences. Many of them have travelled out to areas affected by the migration crisis and to the refugee camps. This has therefore been a very well informed debate, and the Government will continue to reflect on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who always speak with a genuine desire to make a difference on these extraordinarily difficult issues. The Government must act appropriately to make the biggest difference that we can on the challenging issue of vulnerable children who have been affected by conflict and are fleeing persecution.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) not just on securing the debate but on his continued focus on these issues. I very much appreciate the conversations we have had over many months—indeed, over many years—on these themes. He focused principally on what happens in the UK, an issue that he feels keenly, although many contributors strayed more widely. We will continue to reflect on the points that he and others made this morning.
In the time available, I will struggle to do justice to this very good debate, but I will address a number of the points that have been made. I echo a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer): it is right that we have a sense of compassion, but we have to act with head and heart to do the right thing in an extraordinarily difficult situation. It is worth reflecting on the fact that up to 90% of asylum seekers pay a criminal gang to reach Europe. We therefore have to be careful not to do anything to encourage vulnerable individuals to put their lives in the hands of criminals seeking to exploit migrants for profit. I know that things can get twisted in their presentation, but none of us wants more children being exploited or losing their lives after being pushed out to sea in the Mediterranean. We must prevent that appalling tragedy.
The UK has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who genuinely need it, including children. The Government take our responsibility for the welfare of children seriously. The crisis in Syria and events in the middle east, north Africa and beyond have led to an unprecedented number of migrants and asylum seekers, including children and families, arriving in Europe. Some of those children have been separated from their families and, as we have heard, have gone on to reach the UK via northern France. It is absolutely right that Britain fulfils its moral duty to help refugees. The Government take our responsibility on asylum cases involving children very seriously.
As we have heard, last year there was a 56% increase in the number of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK, which placed significant pressure on some local authority children’s services. It is important to understand that nearly two thirds of those children are aged 16 or 17 upon arrival.
From the points that have been made, I know that Members are aware of the pressure faced by Kent County Council, which is currently caring for nearly 900 unaccompanied children, 300 of whom have had to be placed in other local authority areas. I have previously put on the record my gratitude for the way in which Kent and other local authorities such as Croydon responded to the pressures, but I have also been clear that a national response is needed to ensure that all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children get the support they need and are appropriately safeguarded. The current situation is not in the best interests of either the children or those councils. That is why a voluntary transfer scheme was put in place last summer, and additional funding has been made available to local authorities that take on the legal responsibility from Kent County Council for caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
However, it is clear that we need to go further to promote a fair and equitable distribution of cases across the country in a way that protects the best interests of those children. Government officials continue to work with the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, the devolved Administrations, local government organisations and a range of charities and non-governmental organisations to put in place a longer-term, more sustainable transfer scheme that will assist not only Kent but other local authorities caring for high numbers of unaccompanied children.
I believe that a regional approach to the transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is the best way to support local authorities, which are legally responsible for caring for those children, but that will work only if local authorities are funded appropriately. I know that that is a concern for many. The Home Office provides funding for the care of UASCs, and last week I confirmed that all existing rates, including the rate offered to local authorities willing to accept the transfer of unaccompanied children from Kent—as outlined in the joint letter from the Home Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Communities and Local Government Secretary last November—will continue until a new transfer scheme is introduced. I hope that local authorities will support the transfer scheme and that it will remain voluntary. However, we are keen to avoid a repeat of the situation in Kent last summer, which is why we included provisions in the new Immigration Bill to underpin the voluntary transfer scheme, and, if necessary, to enforce it.
Comments have been made about advocacy services. All unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are entitled to legal aid throughout their asylum application. It is right that they are supported throughout their application. I am aware that there have been some instances in which children have been unable to access advocacy services in a timely manner, which has been particularly problematic in areas with a high concentration of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. My officials continue to work with the Legal Aid Agency to ensure that such problems are resolved as quickly as possible to progress cases in a timely manner. It is imperative that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have access to legal advice as soon as possible. Equally, I am working closely with my colleagues in the Department for Education on the issue of fostering.
On the issue of independent child trafficking advocates, the Government are committed to supporting trafficked children. When children are found to have been trafficked, their safety and welfare must be addressed as a priority. In January 2014, the Government announced proposals to trial specialist independent advocates for trafficked children. That trial formally ended on 8 September 2015, and the Government report on the child trafficking advocates scheme was published on 17 December 2015. We are continuing to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders to determine how best to support trafficked children, and we are considering the use of independent child trafficking advocates. We will update Parliament in due course, but I recognise some of the benefits to supporting children that were highlighted.
It is not true that the Home Office does nothing in relation to asylum places before the age of 17 and a half. The Home Office works with the Refugee Council to ensure that children can access legal support, and each child is given a statement of evidence to help prepare their case. The Home Office decides straightforward cases within six months.
Hon. Members touched on a number of other issues, but I want to talk about the call for the Government to take more action on issue of resettlement. I intend to follow through on the statement that I made at the end of January, and I will make a clearer statement to Parliament in the coming days. I recognise the call for the Government to take more action. The UK has been working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on this issue, and we will do more. I acknowledge the call for more information. I am not able to give it this morning, but the Government intend to reflect carefully on the advice we received from the UNHCR, and we will come forward with more information in due course.
I am conscious that we are rapidly running out of time, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for the fact that I have not left him much for his right of reply, but I have sought to reflect on the issues raised. If I have further thoughts to give, I will write to him. I very much welcome today’s debate, which has helped to inform this very important issue.
Mr Burrowes
I welcome the fact that 27 hon. Members have been involved in considering this motion about unaccompanied refugee children. Over the coming days, ahead of Monday, we look forward to the Minister’s response to show the length, depth and breadth of our compassion for the most vulnerable unaccompanied children.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
M6 Toll Road
(8 years, 8 months 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
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered usage of the M6 toll road.
It is a great pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
On 4 February, a day that will live in infamy for west midlands motorists, the M6 motorway was paralysed for more than 24 hours. Drivers looked for alternative routes, which meant significant knock-on effects on nearby roads such as the M42. The only road that was not heavily congested was the M6 toll.
Our country’s only toll motorway was originally designed as the Birmingham relief road, but it brings no relief, so it does not serve the function for which it was originally intended. High prices have driven ordinary motorists from the road, creating a rich person’s motorway, which is underutilised even in normal, everyday conditions.
During times of crisis, when we need a relief road the most, the contingency plans in place might have been deliberately designed to never be used. To open the toll to general traffic costs £300,000, an astonishing sum that represents, at best, a generous estimate of the cost of a day’s toll take—although the toll waiver might not even be needed for a full day, but just for a few short hours. Worse, the final decision to implement the plan, dubbed Operation Freeway, rests with civil servants, who are not accountable to local residents and cannot be fairly expected to make snap decisions about such huge sums of taxpayers’ money.
If the M6 toll is to serve the best interests of the west midlands and our economy, as it was built to do, we must see fundamental reform of how it operates, especially during gridlock and crises. There are several options to consider. We could move towards a system in which the toll road is free to use during periods of gridlock, with an annual fee paid to the operator to secure that service and access, rather than having a one-off, never-generated fee. Midland Expressway Limited needs its compensation, but at the moment it is in the worst of all worlds: it never gets the money anyway, because it is never triggered. Alternatively, an annual fee could purchase an allotment of days of access—five days during the year, for example. Only last night, the M6 northbound, at junction 6, I think, was again entirely gridlocked due to a spillage of diesel. In such cases, such an option could be triggered for a few short hours to bring genuine relief to the people of Birmingham.
Either way, we must vest the final authority to implement such measures in people who are properly accountable to local residents. The new West Midlands combined authority, under the excellent leadership of Councillor Bob Sleigh from Solihull, is the ideal institution to make such a decision. The WMCA’s leadership would be able to take a broader view of the best interests of residents and of the region than a Highways Agency official can do. For example, February’s gridlock is estimated to have cost the west midlands economy an eye-watering £40 million in such things as lost days, products not reaching their intended destinations and people not being able to turn up to work.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. My constituency is very close to the M6 toll and, indeed, to the M6. Does he agree that any cost is not only financial? When the M6 is blocked, the ensuing gridlock impacts on local communities, on places such as Brownhills, which has the A5 running through it. They can be adversely affected by the extra traffic, so we need to look at ways in which to mitigate that.
Julian Knight
My hon. Friend makes a good point, as a strong advocate for her community. As I said at the start of my speech, there is the damage to arterial routes and the heavy congestion in surrounding areas, but emergency services and their access to those areas are also affected. The West Midlands police and crime commissioner is deeply concerned about what happened on 4 February, and has happened on other days. The PCC would like to see action and a fairer means by which we can gain access to the M6 toll when necessary.
It is unfair, however, to expect specialist public servants to take such considerations into account, especially at short notice. That is precisely why they are not the right people to be making those decisions.
We should also consider lowering the day-to-day cost of the M6 toll. When it opened in 2003, the standard fare for cars was only £2, compared with £5.50 today. The charge for vans has also more than doubled, from £5 to £11. The result is a very quiet road, which is an absolute pleasure to drive on for the minority prepared to pay for the privilege, but it does not serve the wider community as it should. In effect, motorists are presented with a game of chicken as they approach the turning for the M6 toll: do they take the risk? Do they go through Birmingham and all those junctions, or do they pay the money to take the M6 toll? I genuinely believe that if we lower the cost, more motorists will make the decision to take the M6 toll, and that alone will help congestion.
A report on the M6 toll was done for Alistair Darling, then the Secretary of State for Transport, soon after the road was opened. It concluded that the road was bringing relief and helping to decrease traffic in the M6 area. According to later reports, however, since the escalation in toll prices, relief has not taken place; a lot of the good work that was done has now been undone by the very excessive charges.
International comparisons are certainly not flattering. Depending on the time of day, the M6 toll charges a car driver between 14p and 20p per mile, compared with averages of 9.6p per mile in France, 8p in Italy and Spain, and only 6p in the world’s largest economy, the United States. It is no coincidence that those countries have a broad network of toll roads, whereas Britain has never built a second. If the operator is interested in the long-term future of road charging in this country, it is in its interests to work with us to make the M6 toll more accessible and attractive to motorists. That could even have an immediate benefit—an increase in traffic—which would be good news for Roadchef’s Norton Canes service station, which has always seemed quiet on the few occasions when I have stopped there.
Renewing support for the project might also allow us, once again, to take an optimistic view of the future of the M6 toll—for example, it could be extended to connect with the M54, as originally intended. Opening up the toll to more traffic will also have considerable benefits for motorists and the wider west midlands region: journey times will be cut; emissions will be reduced as congestion on the free roads is eased by the better distribution of traffic across the system; and better road access will open up the local economy and better connect west midlands businesses to suppliers and customers around the UK. If a day’s gridlock costs the local economy £40 million, the benefits of year-round smooth operation must be considerable indeed.
The system is in clear need of reform, which offers the Government a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the strength and benefits of the devolution agenda. The new combined authority provides the ideal means to put that vital piece of regional infrastructure under democratic, accountable local control, which would not only lead to better management of the road, but be a concrete demonstration to residents of the benefits of the new arrangements and of our decentralisation agenda. Too many voters see the WMCA as just another layer of bureaucracy; they do not yet appreciate the important role it can play in promoting regional growth. If they see action on the M6 toll to ease congestion in the area, they would see a real benefit of the WMCA.
Other measures should also be considered. I have proposed elsewhere that the WMCA be given control of air passenger duty. Birmingham airport is an important employer in my constituency, and we must be allowed to maintain a level playing field for it and its counterparts in Scotland, where the First Minister has announced plans to scrap APD entirely. Control of the toll would be a positive first step. The Government have placed the northern powerhouse at the centre of their agenda, focusing on delivering greater autonomy and improved infrastructure to our cities and regions. There is now an excellent opportunity to put those principles into action in the west midlands engine. Empowering local leaders to fix the problems created by bureaucratic control and unlock the potential of our existing road network will benefit local residents and businesses, stimulate the regional economy, and make a powerful case for devolution.
I do not suggest that what I have outlined is a silver bullet and will somehow solve all congestion. I know that a lot of the traffic that goes on to the M6 gets off between junctions 6 and 8, an area not covered by the toll. However, if people are sitting in gridlock and can see a sign that says “M6 toll clear” but cannot get to it, that is a failing. I believe that the rich person’s motorway is a sign of failings in the transport system in the west midlands, and that by bringing some relief to the situation we can help the devolution agenda, save money for the economy, and promote growth and jobs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz—for the first time, I think. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing the debate.
The motion relates to the usage of the M6 toll road, so I shall begin by reflecting on how it is used. The toll road is open to all traffic, and is priced according to vehicle type. Average traffic levels have recently been rising, and have reached about 50,000 vehicles a day, which is catching up with the volume experienced before the recession.
Julian Knight
The current figures I have are about 48,000 to 50,000; the Minister is correct. However, that is still below the 72,000 a day that was originally envisaged when the toll road was built.
Andrew Jones
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a good point, and he has made an important case today. He highlighted the cost to the west midlands economy of the terrible incident on 4 February, but what he said was also part of a wider case about how road investment opens up local economic development. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) cited the social impact of the incident on 4 February. The two aspects of the matter are aligned. Our road network is not just an economic tool; it is how our society travels—how people reach schools, workplaces and hospital appointments, and go to see family and friends. If we have a failure in our road network we see that in all aspects of our lives.
What happened on 4 February was a terrible incident for the west midlands, and it is important to debate it. It may be helpful if I give a little information about it. On that day, the M6 between junctions 5 and 6 was closed for 24 hours following a serious traffic accident, which sadly involved a fatality. As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State and I are keen to explore whether more can be done to prevent such a degree of impact on road users and business in future. The recent event highlighted our expectation that our road network should be reliable and resilient. The issue is not only what alternatives there are should parts of the network be unavailable, but how quickly and effectively key organisations are able to respond to the circumstances. I think that the incident on 4 February showed that we have to review that, and work to improve the situation.
I shall explain the incident in more detail. The M6 northbound between junctions 5 and 6 was closed from 1.50 am on Thursday 4 February 2016 until 1.45 am on Friday 5 February owing to a collision involving two heavy goods vehicles and a car. As I mentioned, very sadly that resulted in one fatality. Extensive incident investigation work was carried out by the central motorway police group before Highways England could fully assess the damage to the carriageway. Once Highways England had access to the road it became evident that all four lanes of the carriageway—a section about 200 metres in length—required resurfacing repair work as a result of the large volume of diesel that had spilt on to the carriageway causing widespread damage to the road surface. The closure of that section of road resulted in inevitable disruption for road users and communities. My hon. Friends the Members for Solihull and for Aldridge-Brownhills discussed the impact in their constituencies, and many other areas were affected. In fact I was caught up in the traffic jams myself, and so was the Secretary of State. There was a big impact across the west midlands.
As hon. Members would expect, Highways England has diversion routes agreed with relevant local authorities to mitigate the impact of incidents on the road network. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull is aware, there is an agreement in place with Midland Expressway Ltd to make use of the M6 toll road in cases where there is an extreme event over and above that associated with a serious road traffic collision. The agreement is known as Operation Freeway and it enables tolls to be suspended for an agreed period of time—24 hours. As the M6 toll road is a commercial operation, suspension brings with it a fee of £300,000 excluding VAT per day, which is a significant cost. The arrangement is a little clumsy—it has never been used, despite the fact that the agreement has been in place a long time.
Highways England has criteria for deciding whether to activate Operation Freeway. The deciding factor is whether the road is likely to have to be closed for a number of days, rather than hours. After the event on 4 February, Highways England took the decision not to suspend the toll because the incident did not meet the criteria for activation: it was not seen to be an extreme event impacting the carriageway over and above what is associated with a serious road traffic collision.
I know my hon. Friend has his own ideas about how the west midlands could make better use of the M6 toll road, not only when there has been an incident but at times of heavy congestion. We all know that there are many periods when the M6 and M5 suffer from heavy congestion. I also note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the most appropriate way in which to take the decision whether to implement Operation Freeway. He has made important suggestions today, and we are due to meet—I think our meeting is only a few weeks away—to discuss that very issue. Of course there are a whole range of issues which we need to consider, including cost, policy and value for money. I look forward to the meeting, and it is clearly appropriate to review everything, in the light of the serious incident that occurred.
It may be helpful if I now talk about how local areas can shape the decisions that are made about them. If there is desire locally for specific schemes or improvements through local authority groups such as the West Midlands Combined Authority, there is a process to put forward ideas as part of the development of the second road investment strategy. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government agreed a devolution deal with the WMCA in November, in anticipation of its transition to a formal combined authority. The deal sets out the terms of a proposed agreement between the West Midlands Combined Authority shadow board and the Government to move forward with a radical devolution of funding, powers and responsibilities. In particular, it sets out the expectation that the Government and the WMCA will work together through the development of the second road investment strategy to examine options for the most effective way to facilitate the movement of goods and people, and manage congestion in the region on the strategic road network.
At this year’s Budget we launched the process for the second road investment strategy. Over the next couple of years, we will seek input from stakeholders on what the Government should fund during the period 2020 to 2025. We are one year into the first road investment strategy, as my hon. Friend knows. It is on budget and on schedule and has proved to be a success so far. As we develop and build on that, we have a secure stream of funding through road hypothecation—the reforms to vehicle excise duty—so we have visibility for many years ahead on road investment budgets.
As we develop the content of RIS 2, I want to ensure that we are able to take input from a much broader range of people. The core work preparing that will be the route strategies prepared by Highways England; they will be the basis for that work. However, I want people to be able to contribute on a local basis—certainly colleagues here or local authorities, combined authorities or local enterprise partnerships.
We should view our road investment strategy as a key facilitator of our longer-term economic growth, so over the next couple of years I want to ensure that we receive input from as many stakeholders as possible on what that scheme will look like. Of course, we already have significant commitments to the strategic road network in the west midlands in the current road investment strategy, which runs until 2020 and is indeed an investment. It is a step change for our country: this is the first time we have had a statutory road investment strategy. It commits £15 billion of funding for strategic roads. That is on a national basis, but £3 billion of that spending is within the midlands. It includes key investments such as rolling out smart motorways—smart motorways have increased capacity by bringing in all-lane running, either full time or part time—and upgrading key junctions such as the M6 junction 10 and the M42 junction 6.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I apologise for my late arrival. I have just spoken to my local council leader about junction 6 of the M42, which needs to be redesigned. Would my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that Highways England takes account of the master plans of the local authority; the local plan, which is for a garden city at that location; the fact that the interchange station for High Speed 2 is to be built at that location; and the fact that the airport has its own separate master plan? We have concerns about the lack of joined-up thinking in the redesign of that junction, which is failing to take account of other planning proposals.
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend has clearly had a most timely meeting with her local council leader and makes a really important point. I am very happy to give a commitment and ensure that Highways England discusses the proposals with the bodies that she has just mentioned. I will raise that with Highways England personally, so that commitment is very easily provided.
I have met council leaders in the area. They came down to express their concerns about the incident on 4 February and to ask for my support in terms of what can be done to bring people together to find solutions. I have talked to them about how collaboration or communication on a local basis needs to improve, but they are building on some success, and the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull made on the importance of local decisions and local capacity for decision making is building are completely true. I have also met the police and crime commissioner about that incident.
We are at the beginning of a process. We recognise that there has been under-investment in the road network across our country for years. We are addressing that with the first road investment strategy. We are building on that work with the second road investment strategy. I want as much local input as possible so that we can provide schemes that make a difference on a local basis. The incident on 4 February was not just a personal tragedy for the family who lost a loved one; it also highlighted the lack of resilience and capacity in the network around Birmingham and the fact that we have to think about all elements of that capacity, including the M6 toll road, as we plan both for resilience and for extra growth. I am happy to have such conversations, which have already begun, but we need to build on them. I am happy to work with everyone locally to make that happen.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull on securing this debate. Ensuring that we are making the best use of our network is an important issue that is worthy of debate, and he has my support on proceeding with the local issue. The Department and Highways England are investigating whether improvements can be made to respond better to incidents such as the one on the M6 on 4 February.
Mrs Spelman
There is a real appetite locally for the Minister to visit the area to see how the loaded M42 and M6 easily snarl and how that relates to other transport infrastructure. He is the roads Minister, but the midlands motorway crossroad combines with Birmingham airport, the west coast main line, the M6 and the A45. We would be grateful if he paid a visit so that we can show him the situation first hand.
Andrew Jones
That is another commitment that I am happy to give. I would be delighted to visit the area to see the situation for myself. Seeing an area first hand helps to bring the issue home. I am familiar with the area—having been caught up in a traffic jam for many hours on 4 and 5 February, I saw even more of it than I normally might. I am happy to make that commitment and to work with colleagues, both here and locally, to improve the situation.
This is an important issue for the west midlands, and the serious incident highlighted the lack of resilience and capacity. We need to work together, with continued dialogue, to improve the situation for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Children’s Homes
(8 years, 8 months 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
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children’s homes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. In October last year, the Prime Minister announced a review of children’s homes led by Sir Martin Narey. The final report is due this spring. The review
“will look at which children should be in residential care, how it can be improved and how government can achieve the very best for every single child in their care.”
It is a huge and complex task, and an important review. The area that interests me in the review is the commissioning of residential care homes and distant placements.
By way of context, Ofsted figures show that in 2015, 69% of children’s homes were in the private sector, 8% were in the voluntary sector and 23% were run by local authorities. The number of children’s homes run by local authorities has decreased and the number run by the private sector has increased. Seventy-one per cent of private providers own one to two homes. The largest private companies provide just over a quarter of all placements. Owners range from families to private equity and venture capital companies.
I first initiated a debate on children’s homes in March 1995, on the issue of the registration of children’s homes. At the time, homes providing care to fewer than four children did not have to register and were not inspected. Social workers were responsible for fire inspections—the situation was completely astonishing. Clearly, we have come a long way since then in regulation and inspection, but in that debate, I expressed concern about the most vulnerable children being placed hundreds of miles away from home. Twenty-one years later, I am still expressing the same concern, and we still have a long way to go.
It is staggering that despite successive Governments calling for a clampdown on distant placements, the latest figures show that the number of children being sent away has increased. The 2014 Department for Education data pack shows that in 2013, 31% of children in children’s homes were placed 20 miles or more from their local area—an increase of 2% from 2011. In fact, 35% of new placements in 2014 were distant placements. It is clear that one reason is the unequal distribution of children’s homes in England. Until we sort that out, we will never be able to solve the problem of vulnerable children being placed miles away from home, with all the horrendous problems and risks that can flow from that. The present situation in the continuing unequal distribution of children’s homes demonstrates a continuing catastrophic failure of the care market for some children. It seems to be working for the providers but not for the children themselves.
In 2012, a joint inquiry into children missing from care was conducted by the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, of which I am the chair, and the all-party group for looked-after children and care leavers. It was supported by the Children’s Society. One of the main conclusions was that the unequal geographical distribution of children’s homes meant that large numbers of vulnerable children were placed at a distance from their home area. We found that many placement decisions were last minute, driven by what was available at the time rather than by the needs of the child. This meant that the child was often not involved in planning. Children told the APPG inquiry that they felt dumped in children’s homes many miles away from home. That increased their propensity to go missing and to come to harm from, for example, sexual exploitation.
The recommendations of the APPG report, including a call for urgent action on reducing the number of out-of-borough placements, were accepted in full by the Government and changes were made to regulations. An expert group on the quality of children’s homes was set up and reported to the Department for Education in 2012. A key finding in the expert group’s report was that local authorities could not overcome the uneven pattern of supply of children’s homes across England through their commissioning arrangements. In other words, the locations of children’s homes were determined, and continue to be determined, by providers.
According to Ofsted, a third of all local authorities— 54 in total, when excluding short-break provision—run no children’s homes. With local authority and voluntary sector provision decreasing, this means greater dependency on the private sector for places in children’s homes. That makes it even more essential that we address urgently the underlying issues that result in the unequal distribution of private children’s homes and the resulting distant placements.
In 2012, the DFE data pack showed that homes were concentrated in the north-west, the west midlands and the south-east. As of March 2015, that situation is unchanged—Ofsted stats show that Lancashire, Kent and the west midlands have the highest number of places, and London the fewest. The local supply of children’s homes places does not reflect the needs of local looked-after children. The situation is most extreme in London, which has 17% of the children’s homes population but only 6% of children’s homes. The north-west has 15% of the children’s homes population but has 25% of the children’s homes. In Greater Manchester, 71% of the children living in children’s homes in Rochdale came from outside the borough, and in Stockport, the number was 63%. Some authorities in England have no children’s homes at all and all their children are placed outside the borough.
Why are distant placements a problem? Children placed in care homes face huge challenges compared with other children in care. They are typically older and more likely to have emotional and behavioural difficulties. They are more likely to have substance misuse issues, more likely to have engaged in criminal activity, and more likely to be excluded from school and achieve worse GCSE results. They are also more likely to go missing from their placement, and those who go missing are more likely to go missing multiple times. Again, however, that was not the fate of all children in children’s homes: stability of placement is a critical factor in improving outcomes, but distant placements can make it more difficult to secure that stability for a child.
Ofsted’s 2014 thematic review, “From a distance”, highlighted a number of serious continuing problems in this area. Its research showed that in far too many cases, the local authorities in its sample were failing to pay appropriate attention to the quality of care provided, leaving too many children without the support and help that they needed. It is not difficult to understand why: with pressure on social work time, it is easier to make time to visit a child in a near placement than a distant one. Last year, 520 London children were placed an average distance of 52 miles and an average journey time of 69 minutes from their home area. That makes it very difficult for children to keep in contact with their family.
It is not clear to what extent the situation has improved since Ofsted’s “From a distance” report. If we look at the single inspection framework reports published by Ofsted in the last year, we see that although in many authorities work with children in distant placements was generally good, in just under half the reports, the work with children living far from home did not come up to standard. The most common shortfall was that decisions to place children out of the area were driven by a shortage of placements close to home rather than by individual need.
The last Labour Government placed a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children in the local authority area, so far as is “reasonably practicable”. The intention was to ensure local provision for looked-after children so that they could be placed nearer home, with access to friends, family and support services. Local authorities are required to publish a local sufficiency plan detailing how they are meeting that duty. However, the numbers of children sent away from their home area remains stubbornly high, despite the existence of those plans.
Why are so many children still being placed in distant placements? A major reason, as the expert group said in 2012, may be that although individual local authorities can recruit foster carers to meet local needs, they are not able similarly to influence the supply of children’s home places in their areas. It is also not clear if and to what extent the experiences and choices of children are influencing care provision. In preparing the “Real Voices” report on child sexual exploitation in Greater Manchester, I talked to children who had been in children’s homes. What was important for them was being listened to; they thought decisions about where they lived should be made with them rather than imposed on them, so it is important that there is choice in placements, including local choice.
The reasons for the geographical distribution may be that property costs are lower in some areas, that health and education support services are better in some areas, that the planning process is easier in some local authorities, that there are existing good relationships or that having a cluster of homes is easier. However, even in those areas that have a sufficient supply of children’s home places to meet local demand in principle, it may not be possible for the local authority to guarantee placements to providers in advance, and providers will not hold places, meaning that in the event children may still be placed out of their home area although there is actually a sufficiency of local places.
That is the situation in Greater Manchester. In February 2014, Greater Manchester had 192 regulated children’s homes. In 2013, 390 children were placed in children’s homes by the 10 local authorities; 185 of those children were placed in another local authority area. Rochdale, which has a high number of children’s homes, placed 41% of its children inside the local authority area and 18% of children more than 20 miles away, while in the children’s homes in the borough, 71% of the places went to children from outside the area, and of those 45% were from outside Greater Manchester. By contrast, in Stockport, which also has a high number of homes, 88% of the children were placed within the local authority boundary, but again they accounted for only 36% of the local children’s home places; 64% were from other local authority areas and, of those, 28% came from outside the Greater Manchester Police area.
Private and independent providers dominate in both boroughs. In Rochdale, the majority of the private providers are homes containing just one or two placements, while in Stockport the homes are larger and there has been a long relationship with the Together Trust, a voluntary sector organisation. That may go some way towards explaining the different figures.
In terms of distance and familiarity with an area, a child from Bury placed in Stockport will feel a long way from home in a place that is unfamiliar, and they may well respond by going missing. Greater Manchester Police calculate that missing children in Greater Manchester cost the police up to £30.9 million a year, and there are additional difficulties in keeping children safe when information needs to be passed across police boundaries.
Given all that, it is ludicrous that we have an oversupply of children’s homes in some areas that do not guarantee a place for local children, while children from areas many miles away that have few children’s homes are placed in Greater Manchester. That chaotic situation sometimes has long-lasting consequences for the children concerned.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has secured this very important debate. Will she join me in welcoming Sir Martin Narey’s review of residential children’s homes, and does she agree that sometimes children can have incredibly positive experiences in the residential care system?
Ann Coffey
I will of course agree with the hon. Lady: children’s homes are an important part of the care system. It is equally important that children’s homes offer the highest-quality care, and it is very important that children’s homes are where they need to be, which is the point I am making.
The situation is just as difficult where there is an undersupply of places. A local authority struggles to attract new providers when it cannot guarantee bed occupancy.
What is the answer? In 2014, the Select Committee on Education said:
“We can see the attraction of adopting a rule which prohibits the placement of children more than 20 miles from home unless there is a proven need to do so.”
That would work only if it were part of a wider strategy to tackle the unequal distribution of children’s homes. Local authorities could increase the number of homes that they run, especially in areas that have little or no private provision. They could do that by using available capital borrowing powers or, if they do not want to manage the homes directly, they could provide the capital and a provider could manage the home.
Alternatively, the answer might be the co-commissioning of private providers by a consortium of local authorities. At present, there are regional or sub-regional frameworks in place to purchase places from providers, but in practice those can amount to little more than “catalogues” giving information about homes. Co-commissioning is a challenge, but one that recent devolution facilitates. For the 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester, it offers not only an opportunity for all children’s services to look at how they can use their individual resources such as fostering services in a more co-operative way, but an opportunity to commission from the private sector the provision that will meet the needs of children in Greater Manchester. The DFE could helpfully publish a toolkit for consortiums of local authorities showing them how legally and financially they could structure regional and sub-regional commissioning of children’s home places to meet projected need, instead of merely relying on spot purchasing.
There is a large sum of unspent capital allocated for free schools. Perhaps providers could work with consortiums of local authorities to bid for that funding. Local authorities can currently access basic need funding from the DFE to provide sufficient school places, and capital funding for the childcare offer for two-year-olds. Why should that not be the case for residential placements for looked-after children?
Greater Manchester could provide the perfect test bed for any new approach, as could any other group of local authorities willing to work together, as the problems differ from area to area, depending on the number of children’s homes, local policies and the needs of the looked-after children.
Structural problems with the children’s homes market have no easy solutions. That said, if we mean what we say about seeking to
“achieve the very best for every single child in…care”,
we must overcome them. We cannot allow this situation to continue. I hope that Sir Martin Narey’s review will recognise that reducing distant placements should be at the heart of reforms to the children’s homes market and that therefore action must be taken by the Government, by local authorities and by providers to tackle the unequal geographical distribution of children’s homes.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I would like to express my delight at serving under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan, and to extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this important debate. I come to the debate with a career of more than 20 years as an English teacher, and the subject of the debate is close to my heart. I have had the experience of teaching young people who have had the misfortune, the upset, of being caught up in adverse family circumstances and have become what we now call looked-after children and sometimes residents of children’s homes.
Putting a child in a children’s home must be a last resort, for reasons that I will go on to explain. It is no great surprise that children who find themselves in children’s homes are often very angry. Despite the best efforts of the well-meaning staff in homes, those young people become angry and disengaged from the world. That is because, regardless of how challenging the home circumstances might be, it is, as we can imagine, extremely traumatic for a young person to be removed from their loved ones and placed with strangers. However much attention, affection or concern is expressed by those people, they are strangers to the young person, and it is a very difficult transition for them to make, even if it is only on a temporary basis.
We know that some homes for children do an excellent job. I have examples from my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. But for the young person that is not necessarily the point. It is the strangeness, the unfamiliarity, the confusion and very often the social stigma in their peer group of being removed to a children’s home that cause so much distress, and it is very important to be mindful of that.
Of course, not every looked-after child ends up in a children’s home. There are other options. They may be looked after at home under a supervision requirement. They may be in foster care, a residential unit or school, a secure unit or a kinship placement.
In Scotland we have made some progress, with a 1% reduction in the number of looked-after children from 2014—the third consecutive year in which the numbers have decreased. The numbers leaving care each year are lower than the numbers entering care. The number of looked-after children in England is rising. If the situation were reversed and the numbers were rising in Scotland, I would be taking a great interest in what was happening in England to see what we could learn from that. I would be urging the Scottish Government, of whatever political make-up, to look at the work being done in England to see whether we could apply the same lessons in Scotland, because this is not a party political issue. We all seek the best outcomes for our children, wherever they come from in the United Kingdom. The beauty of devolution is that it allows component parts of the United Kingdom to seek the best solutions, which provides excellent opportunities for us to learn from each other and to look at the different experiences as those solutions are applied. Such opportunities should be seized with enthusiasm and curiosity.
I applaud kinship care. The number of looked-after children in Scotland benefiting from kinship care exceeds the number of children looked after at home. For all the good work undertaken in children’s homes, there is little doubt that kinship care is the most effective way of providing care for vulnerable young people. As a society, we all owe a debt of gratitude to those who assume kinship care roles. Kinship care is a challenging role that does not receive the recognition it deserves, and I am proud to say that the SNP Government in Scotland have provided kinship carers with additional support so that their care allowances are the same as those provided to foster carers.
There is no reason why children living with kinship carers should not be treated in the same way as children in foster care. Their stories are no less traumatic and no less distressing, and their vulnerability is no less real. Supporting families is vital, and it has been the entire approach in Scotland. Action is increasingly being taken earlier in children’s lives to address any concerns before they escalate, which has reduced the number of children on child protection registers by 4%. The way forward must be stable, secure placements either at home with their parents or in a different home environment where the child can benefit from the security and stability upon which child development thrives.
At the end of last year, I was involved in a Backbench Business Committee debate on the sexual exploitation of young people. The Chamber was urged by various speakers to consider examples from Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Name any country in Europe, and good examples of best practice were being held up for the Chamber to consider. Although it is important to learn from other nations, I said that we had some excellent examples in Scotland, where a child in foster, kinship or residential care can continue their residency up to the age of 21 and where support can also be provided to care leavers up to the age of 26 if it is considered necessary and desirable. Although I held up such examples of good practice, I am afraid that my contribution was covered over by the chatter in the Chamber. Of course there are excellent examples in mainland Europe, but we must learn from each other in the United Kingdom because the whole point is to have the best outcomes for all the children of the United Kingdom, wherever they live.
We all agree that we need to ensure that all children who need extra support are able to access it. We need to learn from each other, and we need to keep on learning from each other, about the best way of ensuring that such support is in place. That is the least that our children deserve.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this important debate. She has done excellent work on such matters, for which she should be commended.
I also pay tribute to an outstanding constituent, Jonathan Rigg, whose company, Meadows Care, is responsible for the safe running of a number of children’s homes in Rochdale. I have witnessed the standard of service and the facilities that the company’s premises provide, and it is a credit to the childcare sector. The standard of the homes is second to none. The social care sector has faced a wave of pressures, but those homes have remained a stable and integral service to many vulnerable children. The private sector receives a lot of negative press on health and social care provision, but Jonathan and Meadows Care are evidence that individuals who are wholly passionate about the provision of care, whether public or private, can have a positive impact on the care industry. Indeed, I do not take the general view that seems to be in fashion in some places that all private is bad and all public is good; the situation is obviously much more complex.
My hon. Friend touched on the distance of children’s placements from their original home. Although it may be a concern that some children are moved many miles from their original area, I have spoken to a number of professionals in the sector, and many looked-after children require specialist care. Some have suffered severe mental or physical trauma and abuse, and they have sometimes missed many years of education. Such children are likely to require bespoke treatment, which is the important point. In such situations, geography is likely to fall way down the list of priorities. It sometimes is not appropriate to place children close to their family, or close to where they originally came from, if they have suffered abuse or trauma. We need a flexible approach to placing children in care homes that puts their needs and requirements first. We must not allow ourselves to substitute quality for locality.
The gap between referrals and placements is a growing concern, as discussed in the “State of the Market” report by the Independent Children’s Homes Association. The report states that the number of referrals received by homes is going up. Some 66% of providers report higher referral rates, but only 32% report growth in occupancy rates. What appears to be happening is that local authorities are just blanket emailing and bombarding providers with possible referrals. They are not checking whether the provider is appropriate for an individual child or sifting to find the most appropriate provider to make a referral to, which shows the disregard within local authorities of trying to get a bespoke service for each individual child. Just bombarding providers wastes their time and does not get the best deal for the young person—local authorities need to look at that.
Another concern in the “State of the Market” report is the lack of market confidence within the children’s homes sector. There is still significant uncertainty in the sector, with 60% remaining unsure, or worse, about their current outlook. Although that is down on the previous year’s figure of 78%, it is still worrying that the majority of respondents in the sector remain uncertain about how they will operate. There are a number of reasons for that. As I have outlined, there is the complexity of cases and the occupancy rates, but there is also the lack of funding for children’s homes. Unless we begin to address those problems, confidence and service delivery will begin to be negatively impacted. We must do more to relieve the pressures on the sector, which needs proper funding.
Those who run children’s homes provide a vital service to people who have fallen on the toughest of times. We should be doing everything we can to make life easier for such service providers and to allow them to provide the care that they want to provide. The points that they have raised are a warning sign that we cannot ignore. If we do, we will be failing some of the most vulnerable people in our society by not allowing them to grow and develop the opportunities that so many of us have been fortunate enough to enjoy.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to participate in this debate, Mrs Gillan. I also commend the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate on an important topic. It has been interesting to listen to the contributions so far. A number of important points have been made.
So far—I am sure this will continue—there has been clear agreement that it is vital to ensure that care is provided in the most effective and appropriate way for all of our looked-after children. I appreciate that this debate has an English perspective, and I will focus to some extent on what I have heard today and on what differences there are between how things work here and how they work in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, it is useful that we can all listen to one another, because it is vital that lessons are learned and that best practice is shared in all corners of the United Kingdom, and more widely, on such an important issue. Of course there are no easy answers, but we must appreciate that much can be done.
This topic should concern everyone. The hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Stockport, have noted the vulnerability of many of the children who find themselves being looked after. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran pointed out, all those children are particularly vulnerable. They all deserve our care and concern, and we have a collective responsibility, particularly in this place, to be as aware as possible of the issues facing them in order to facilitate the best possible outcomes and safeguards, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said, for these most vulnerable children.
Local authorities have a responsibility to provide support to our looked-after children and vulnerable young people. We know that a young person might be looked after for a number of reasons, including neglect, abuse, complex disability requiring specialist care or involvement in the youth justice system. Those are all challenging situations for young people and merit our support. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and the hon. Member for Rochdale refer to the positive intentions and hard work of many who work in and with the sector. It is vital.
Looked-after children have often had to deal with myriad challenges in their lives, so we should take seriously our obligation to minimise those challenges rather than add to them. Where possible, for instance, avenues other than children’s home accommodation might be more suitable to the needs of the children concerned. For instance, as we have heard, kinship care might be possible. Kinship care is not always fully understood and can be far more challenging than many people realise. For that reason, the SNP Scottish Government have provided additional support to kinship carers and were the first to introduce kinship care payments to ensure that children looked after by relatives, which I acknowledge is not always possible, are entitled, as they should be, to the same support as those placed with foster care families.
As my hon. Friend said, I am enthusiastic about the £10.1 million in support that the SNP Government provided to councils last year to increase kinship care allowances. Importantly, we have also extended support to eligible children on the edge of care, who are subject to what will be known from this month as a kinship care order. Because vulnerable children come in all varieties, we must consider their needs as a whole in deciding how best to deal with them.
As we have heard from a number of speakers, the circumstances leading to a child or young person being looked after or taken into the home of a relative can be heartbreaking, confusing and complex for the family as well as the child. If we can encourage a family relationship that provides some stability and support, we must do so, but like moving into care, such situations are significant and involve huge upheaval, and we need proper frameworks in place. The additional investment in Scotland recognises that we need to make practical provision for people who have had to struggle more than they should, in order to provide the stability that such children need and that some of the most vulnerable people in our society deserve.
Anne Swartz, chair of the Scottish Kinship Care Alliance, has applauded that way forward and rightly commended kinship carers’ tireless efforts to raise the bar. I applaud them as well as her for their efforts. It is important that such work continues. I look forward to hearing more about the work between the Scottish Kinship Care Alliance and the Scottish Government on that issue.
However, kinship care often might not be possible. Due to the variety of situations involved, some children might have to be looked after in children’s homes, and additional considerations need to be taken into account there. The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) rightly pointed out that in some cases, the experience of children looked after in children’s homes can be very positive, and I agree. It is absolutely true, and we must not lose sight of it, but we must also acknowledge and work on the genuine issues and decide the best way forward.
Any action that we can take to minimise additional complication in the lives of children in such situations and maximise stability and support is vital, especially if we do so at the earliest stage possible, as it can have a profound impact on children’s lives. On the basis that a significant number of children in Scotland and the UK are affected by this debate, we must consider the matter as a whole and where the issues might be, so that we can move forward.
In England, the number of children being looked after is rising, which is not what any of us want. In the year ending 31 March 2015, nearly 70,000 children were looked after by local authorities in England, and the absolute number of looked-after children has increased by 6% since 2011. That number has increased steadily over the past seven years, and is now higher than at any point since 1985.
Ann Coffey
I am always anxious to learn from Scotland’s experience, because I am a Scot, but I have been waiting to hear the hon. Lady share experiences of accommodating children in children’s homes in Scotland. What observations does she have about the children being placed in those homes, and how far those children’s homes are from their home authority? What are the Scottish Government overcoming, and how do they work with the private sector? That is the focus of the debate.
Kirsten Oswald
I will come to some of the points raised by the hon. Lady, particularly the issue of distance, which I know is a concern of hers.
Most looked-after children in England are between 10 and 15 years old. More boys than girls are looked after, and the gender distribution seems relatively unchanging. Although the majority of the looked-after population is white, children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds appear to be over-represented in the looked-after population. Those figures are concerning. Those are our children, and we must be conscious of the impact on their lives.
As the hon. Member for Stockport and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, things in Scotland might be different—useful progress has been made in recent years—but we must all consider what needs to be done and can be done at any time, because there is always progress to be made. I am pleased that under the Scottish Government, the number of children in the care system has dropped for the third consecutive year. It means that there is a possibility that we are taking action earlier in children’s lives to address some concerns before they escalate.
Between August 2014 and July 2015, the number of looked-after children in Scotland decreased by 1%, and the number of children on the child protection register decreased by 4%. We recently introduced a successful programme to help find permanent homes for vulnerable youngsters, and the Centre for Excellence for Looked-After Children in Scotland will receive around £580,000 a year to support improvements in helping looked-after children find a permanent home, because we have seen the positive outcomes of doing so.
The permanence and care excellence programme aims to find permanent homes for children in care. It has been piloted by Aberdeen city and Renfrewshire councils, and importantly, it brings together multi-agency staff teams to build capacity so that we can continue to improve service and outcomes, which the hon. Member for Stockport was rightly concerned about, for some of our most vulnerable young people. I think we agree that it is vital that, wherever possible, children should be able to achieve a permanent home, including through family rehabilitation where appropriate, at the earliest opportunity.
Of course, there are still children and young people who spend too long being looked after or on the child protection register. Sometimes it is appropriate to consider children’s homes and how we might provide better support, and sometimes we must acknowledge that that support needs to extend beyond what it might have been traditionally. I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about the positive impact of extending the right to stay in foster, kinship or residential care settings up to the age of 21, and supporting care leavers up to the age of 26 to help them move to independent living. When children cannot live at home, we owe it to them to help them find a stable, loving environment where possible and move forward in their lives as they get older.
Patricia Gibson
Perhaps one of the defining differences between England and Scotland is that in Scotland there has been far greater emphasis in the past five to 10 years than ever before on supporting families, using kinship care where appropriate or foster care, and moving away from children’s homes wherever another solution can be found.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with her. The hon. Member for Rochdale also emphasised that it is very important that the whole range of options for each child is fully considered. I acknowledge the great eloquence of the hon. Member for Stockport on the topic of authority placements. I sympathise with her concerns about the potential for increased difficulties for some children who may find themselves in such situations. I think she is correct that children accommodated far from home may be particularly vulnerable. I am concerned about some of the pull factors that may lead them into potentially damaging and dangerous situations. She made the point very well—she was passionate about this—that there is the potential for a significant impact on these children.
However, I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale that on occasion there may be sound reasons for distant placements. The Education Committee was very thoughtful in its assessment of the situation, and I look forward to hearing more when the report that was referred to earlier comes out.
In contrast with England, I think there has been some progress in Scotland in recent years, which it is useful to look at. The number of children in the care system has dropped for the third consecutive year. However, in our aspirations, I think we are all of one mind here. I hope that our shared desire to see the best possible outcomes for all of our children can lead to further progress and lead us to listen carefully to one another. We must always remember that children who need to be looked after, in care or in the situations we have discussed today, face challenges that we, their peers, and wider society often struggle to understand. We need to make sure that our systems are in place to give them the best help possible at the earliest possible stage to lay the trust and foundation for a successful and happy life.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. First, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for securing this important debate this afternoon. She is probably the most knowledgeable MP in the House on this issue. As she said, she spoke on this issue in the House more than 21 years ago, and it could be quite frustrating for her that 21 years later she is still raising some of those same issues. It shows her tenacity that she has not given up and, hopefully, we might see some movement this afternoon. We live in hope.
We have heard thoughtful contributions this afternoon from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), and from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) who is a Front-Bench spokesperson for the Scottish National party. We have had very thoughtful contributions. Debates are sometimes disappointing. I was in the debate on brain tumours yesterday and there was standing room only. I would not like to think that this debate is any less important than one that needs to have large numbers of people contributing, but let us hope that in our contributions today the quality will outweigh the quantity. I also thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for her interventions.
What comes across very clearly is that we are sending a message to Sir Martin Narey—the hon. Member for Telford mentioned him—before the publication of his review that we hope to see reforms that will support and improve the lives of looked-after children in residential care. This debate has been on the wider aspects of the Narey review, but there are two areas that I wish to touch on this afternoon: out-of-area placements, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, and the criminalisation of looked-after children.
Ever since the passing of the Children Act 1989, there has been a strong statutory duty on local authorities to place a child who enters the care system in the local authority area and ensure that their needs are met. However, guidance released by the Department last summer stated:
“There will be circumstances where a distant placement will be the most suitable for a child”.
Since then, there has been a clear trajectory in Government thinking that has raised the many concerns eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. It is important that children receive the best care possible and, in certain circumstances, that may mean that an out-of-area placement is necessary to meet their needs. However, there is no conclusive evidence to support that strategy becoming wider practice. That is why the evidence that was used to come to the Government’s conclusion must be clarified.
Until out-of-area placements’ effectiveness is made clearer, it is important that they do not become the norm, yet when we see more and more children living more than 20 miles away from what they define as their home—their local area—it is not hard to believe that this is now becoming common practice. Recent Department for Education figures show that since 2010 we have seen an increase of over 20% in the number of children placed out of area, which now totals 17.9% of looked-after children. We need to unpick why that is happening, and I hope that the Minister will clarify what is going on in his response to this debate.
We know it is not the case that all local authorities have a children’s home within their boundaries. Many are based, as we have heard, in the west midlands, the south-east and north-west. This is an issue of infrastructure, and I hope that that will be addressed in Sir Martin Narey’s review.
One example of how care homes work, which I believe should be considered by the Government, is the Scandinavian and Germanic model of residential care, with smaller children’s homes with highly educated social pedagogues in charge. This idea of social pedagogy was backed by the “Care Matters” White Paper in 2007, which finally took it out of the confines of academic discourse and brought it into practical policy development. It included a recommendation to pilot a model in England to gather more evidence. A pilot was commissioned by the Social Education Trust and managed by the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care, a specialist unit under the watchful eye of the National Children’s Bureau.
Reviews of the pilots found that residential care staff welcomed the holistic and child-centred approach that social pedagogy could have on real change to the lives of children in residential care. The idea was backed as a valuable way to work in our residential care homes by the then Department for Children, Schools and Families in its looked-after children report in 2009. However, we have unfortunately seen this important step forward put on the back burner since the Government came to office in 2010. I am therefore interested to hear what assessment the DFE has made of how much this would cost and whether it is feasible for the UK. It is clear that the model is working in other countries, and it was welcomed here during the pilots, so an assurance by the Minister to look into this further, as the previous Labour Government had done, would be welcome.
For some children, residential care is the best option to meet their needs, but what is best for children is being in an environment that they know. To rip them away from some of the only constants in their life, including their school place and links to positive support from family—let us remember that not all family members of a looked-after child are irresponsible—can be damaging. In addition, reduced access to social workers and other support services that they have grown accustomed to can be damaging.
It is also concerning when the private sector gets involved and fails to market the services correctly. In a recent case, a looked-after child was moved from Oxfordshire to an expensive placement in Wales, and sadly committed suicide shortly after arriving. The serious case review investigation identified the fact that the quality of the provision on offer was not what had been marketed at all.
Although removing a child from influences such as gang violence or sexual exploitation is honourable and necessary, there is a need to support a child to manage risks and build personal resilience in their home area, especially when many of them return there once they have left a children’s home. Can we blame them? It is the place they know best, where friends and family are, and we all have that homing instinct within us, after all. The Challenging Behaviour Foundation recently came out strongly against out-of-area placements, and it has lobbied for more investment in local communities and areas. That included making the case for renting a home in a child’s local area and supplying staff for children on a one-to-one basis, which is not dissimilar to the Scandinavian model that I mentioned earlier.
Many serious questions about out-of-area placements arise, including the involvement of private companies in the system, which must be addressed urgently by the Government. There is no better time, especially with the review pending, for the Government to take the bull by the horns and make significant strides in reforming the provision on offer to looked-after children. I hope that the Government anticipate that all the issues I have mentioned will be addressed in Sir Martin’s review. However, I hope that another area, which has recently been brought into the public debate, will be considered: the criminalisation of children in residential care.
Recently, the Howard League for Penal Reform released data that showed there had been more than 10,000 police call-outs to residential settings. That is more than two for every child in residential care, and many of the call-outs concerned the most minor of incidents. An excellent report from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, by Claire Sands, entitled “Growing Up, Moving On”, deals with the long-term effect of even minor offences becoming a criminal record that is never wiped clean. The criminalising of children in residential care is deeply concerning for children who are negatively labelled in many ways before they reach adulthood. If we add “criminal” to that list, we are burdening them further with a label that will impede any life chances that may come their way as they move into adulthood. There are some pertinent examples in “Growing Up, Moving On”, which I encourage hon. Members and the Minister to refer to. I hope that the Government are considering that issue seriously and that they will provide strong guidance to residential care homes to prevent further damage to the lives of children and young people by the very system that is trying to help and care for them.
We all want children, no matter what their background, to have the best start in life. That belief should be central to any reforms that affect the lives of children, and I hope that the Government will not squander the opportunity presented by Sir Martin’s review to take significant steps towards achieving that. I look forward to reading the review when it is published, and will continue to press the Government to keep the improvement of looked-after children’s lives at the heart of everything they do, ensuring that they are protected and nurtured and live a happy childhood, just like their peers.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings today, Mrs Gillan. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this valuable debate. As she reminded us in her typically humble way she has pursued the issue with unstinting commitment and authority for many years. I know she shares my determination that we should do all we can to protect vulnerable children across England and beyond, whether they are in residential care or any other form of placement. Her commitment has been demonstrated in her work as chair of the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, and as a member of my Department’s quality expert group on children’s homes in 2012. She was an important contributor to that work.
Although we await the impending Narey review of residential care, the debate is a welcome opportunity to consider the action that has already been taken, and the further important work now under way to improve quality, transparency, oversight and decision making in children’s residential care. I acknowledge the speeches by the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I always accept an invitation from SNP Members to look at what they are doing north of the border, and it is one that I would extend in the opposite direction, particularly because of the work that we are doing to try to inject greater innovation into children’s services.
Although I want to keep my remarks to the discrete and important issue of residential care in England, there is one issue that I cannot allow to pass without challenge, and that is the care population in England. It is important not to oversimplify the reasons why a care population may fall or rise, and why there may be variations across the country. It is not always right to say that a rising care population is bad and a falling one is good. What matters is whether the right decisions are being made for each individual child. For example, in a high-performing practice-based social work area, staff can spot where children may be in a situation of neglect, and take them into care. If they are not performing well they may miss the opportunity, so that the child remains outside state care. That is not good for the child, but it would not necessarily be reflected in the statistics, if we look at them in a simplistic way.
Children’s homes are a vital part of the care landscape, particularly for older children and children for whom a family setting might not be the right placement. In England the law is very clear: where a child cannot live with their birth parents, the first port of call should be to look at the immediate family and see whether there is anyone who can support them, as an individual or as a group of relations or friends. That happens for many children in this country. Three quarters of young people in children’s homes are between 14 and 17 years old and two thirds are likely to have a significant mental health difficulty. There are some excellent examples of good practice in supporting them, with homes providing superb care. I know from personal experience, and from visiting children’s homes around the country, that that excellent care makes a real and lasting difference to children’s lives. Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the dedicated care staff who do all they can to help change lives for the better.
I am the first to acknowledge, however, that despite the concerted efforts of consecutive Governments not all children’s homes deliver as they should. As the hon. Member for Stockport set out, challenges remain. That is why, as we have heard, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education asked Sir Martin Narey to undertake an independent review of children’s residential care. Sir Martin, as hon. Members know, worked in the Prison Service and was the chief executive of Barnardo’s. He is much respected in the field, and we look forward to receiving his report, whose purpose is to set out the role of residential care in the wider care system, and to make recommendations about how outcomes for children can be improved. It is a complex undertaking, but I expect the review to look at some key issues such as commissioning and the geographical distribution of children’s homes, which the hon. Member for Stockport rightly concentrated on in her speech.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West raised the issue of criminalisation, and I have seen the report by the Howard League for Penal Reform. Sir Martin Narey has also seen it, and I hope that he will be able to address the issue in his review. We will wait to see what he has to say. The review’s call for evidence has received a strong response and Sir Martin will report later this spring. Understandably, I do not want to pre-empt the independent review’s findings, but I am determined to use it as a catalyst to help to drive further improvements in residential care and I hope that all, including hon. Members present for the debate, will continue to lend their support and expertise to the process.
It is right to acknowledge, as the hon. Member for Stockport does, that we have made significant progress in improving the quality and safety of residential care. We have introduced an enhanced legislative framework and a new set of quality standards for children’s homes. We brought those standards in to move away from the de minimis approach and to focus much more on outcomes and what is being achieved for those young people. The standards are backed up by rigorous Ofsted inspection and they challenge managers and staff to apply their skills and professional judgment—that, to me, is important —to ensure that there is properly tailored, high-quality care for each and every child in their home, and to make it possible for children to reach their potential in a safe and secure environment. There is a protection of children standard, which requires homes to have the skills to identify and take effective action on concerns about a child’s welfare.
A £500,000 programme of training and support has been made available to help homes to embed those new standards, and to make that crucial shift to a more aspirational and outcome-focused way of working. Although it is too early to assess the full impact of the changes through the quality standards, the independent small-scale research that has been carried out on implementing the standards indicates that they have resulted in a greater focus on evidencing outcomes for young people, which is exactly what we wanted to see, and on the need to consult young people about improvements, so that they feel that they are part of their journey through care, rather than feeling that it is being “done” to them.
To that end, it is positive that 12% of the children’s homes in England inspected between 1 April 2015 and 30 September 2015 were rated outstanding for their overall effectiveness, which is an increase of five percentage points from the same period in the previous year. In addition, because 62% of those in residential care have clinically significant mental health difficulties, which is something we should never overlook, I am pleased that the Department of Health has commissioned its own expert group to develop new care pathways, so that children living in children’s homes can better access mental healthcare.
The NHS England five-year forward view for mental health, which was recently published, and local transformation plans bring focus and resources to meet the mental health needs of children, including those in children’s homes. I also welcome the forthcoming publication of the quality standard from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on attachment difficulties in children and young people who are looked after, adopted from care, in special guardianship, or on the edge of care. If professionals and others working with and caring for children in care, including in residential care, really understand how to address the presentation of attachment problems, significant progress can be made.
I will address the specific point made by the hon. Member for Stockport and other hon. Members about out-of-area placements. As the hon. Lady mentioned, in order to address that issue we have sought to strengthen protection for children placed out of area by ensuring that it is now the directors of children’s services who have oversight of all decisions to place a child in a distant placement, and local authorities should now consult the authority where they intend to place a child to ensure that the placement meets the child’s needs.
We should be clear that for some children a placement at distance may be right, due to risks associated with their own home area or, as the hon. Member for Rochdale pointed out, because of the need for a very specialised placement but, as has been highlighted, we should ensure that Ofsted and local authorities make sure the right placement is made for the right reason. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Stockport said, it is a concern that there are still instances where the supply of places distorts too many decisions.
That is why we have improved the transparency and quality of data regarding children missing from care, to ensure that Government and local authorities have much more reliable data when they try to tackle this issue. Local authorities are now required to tell us about all instances of children going missing from their placements, even those that last less than 24 hours, because those 24 hours could be crucial.
Turning specifically to children’s homes, in January 2014, we strengthened children’s home regulations regarding children going missing from a home. All children’s homes must have clear policies to prevent children from going missing and they must respond when children go missing. It is no good their simply acknowledging that fact on a piece of paper; there needs to be follow-up action. We have also beefed up arrangements for monthly independent monitoring visits to children’s homes, to make sure that such action happens. Those visits scrutinise standards of safeguarding and care, and reports on visits are now sent to Ofsted. Those reports are valuable to identify concerns, and also patterns, as Ofsted continues its inspection of every children’s home.
We have strengthened regulation to ensure that local agencies, including the police, are more aware of vulnerable children in their area and therefore are more able to protect them. Ofsted can now share information on the location of children’s homes with the police. That practice was established by the expert group and many of us were extremely surprised to find that it was not happening before. However, it is now in place. In addition, children’s homes must notify their local authority of all admissions and leavers.
In this debate, it is important to acknowledge that for a very small number of children a secure home is the best option to address the reasons why they go missing from care. That is why we are improving the availability of this specialised provision, in partnership with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, the Local Government Association, the Youth Justice Board and the Secure Accommodation Network.
By the summer, we will have determined the best long-term commissioning arrangements for secure homes. In the interim, we have funded secure homes to raise their capacity and improve the skills of their staff. With Hampshire County Council we have established for the first time a central point of contact and source of support for all local authorities seeking secure placements. On top of that, a further £10 million-worth of funding, alongside action from NHS England, will strengthen the quality of the mental health support available to children in secure children’s homes. I know that is an area that the hon. Member for Stockport has a deep interest in, and I am happy to keep her informed of developments as they occur.
All of this work will help, but I share the hon. Lady’s interest in the uneven distribution of children’s homes. Local authorities remain responsible for ensuring a sufficient range of placements for looked-after children and for managing local markets, which includes managing children’s homes. However, as has been identified, in 2013-14, 60% of children’s homes were concentrated in just three regions, including what for many of us participating in this debate is the shared region of the north-west, which accounts for a quarter of all children’s homes.
I should add that before 2012 there was no comprehensive overview of the location, status, quality, ownership and track record of children’s homes in England. That is why, as the hon. Lady alluded to, we set about pulling together all that data for the first time ever in the children’s homes data pack, which is a hugely valuable resource that enables patterns, trends, gaps and the like to be more easily spotted and acted on. Those who are in the role of commissioning places should use that information to be much smarter and savvier about how they commission them, so that they are not always the ones who have to acquiesce; the providers should try to ensure that they shape their homes to meet the demand from every local authority.
In tackling the issue of uneven distribution, I agree very much with the hon. Lady about the value of joint work between local authorities in ensuring adequate provision of homes. Research commissioned by the Department for Education from the Institute of Public Care showed that in May 2015 most local authorities were taking part in a wide variety of commissioning consortia and partnership arrangements. For instance, there are 14 regional or sub-regional commissioning consortia for residential care, and typically authorities were able to achieve 4% to 5% in savings for placement costs as a result of those arrangements. However, I believe that they can go much further.
Ann Coffey
The Minister is quite right—in the north-west, Placements Northwest provides that information. The difficulty is getting local authorities into a more proactive commissioning role, so that their staff sit down together not only to exchange information but to say, “In five years’ time, we will need this number of children’s homes and this number of places.” Without support, it is very difficult for local authorities to work with each other to do that.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, just for the information of Members here in Westminster Hall I will point out that I have had a report that we may have a vote shortly in the main Chamber. I leave it to the Minister and Ann Coffey to decide how long they speak, but I thought that it would be helpful to bring that information to your attention. I call the Minister to speak.
Edward Timpson
That is extremely helpful, Mrs Gillan, and I will take heed of that information as I continue.
As ever, the hon. Member for Stockport is right, and that is why we need to establish a much more coherent way for every local authority to carry out forward planning, not only about their residential care population but about their whole care population, including where people need to be placed and in what type of arrangements. There has to be some flexibility in the system—no one can predict exactly what the system will look like—but we can certainly have a far better and more cohesive approach than the one that currently exists.
There are some models out there, including in the north-east, where regional arrangements are much more solidified, but there is a lot more that we need to do. Sir Martin Narey is looking very carefully at this issue as part of his independent review. That is because the research that I referred to showed that consortia are confident that working together brings non-cash savings, primarily through sharing commissioning costs, procurement costs and other elements of working with providers, such as monitoring.
The devolution deals, including in Greater Manchester, where children’s services form part of those new regional arrangements, provide a real opportunity to shift that relationship between the purchaser and the provider in a much smarter way when it comes to commissioning. As we look through every devolution deal, I am keeping a close eye to ensure that there is serious thinking on how the new children’s services can benefit from the new organisations. However, the new arrangements continue to develop, and we look forward to Sir Martin Narey’s recommendations on what more might be done.
Where there is good and innovative practice, I want to be able to share it more widely across the system. The way it is set up at the moment means that pockets of excellence are the preserve of those people. We need to open up the system so that those who are in a position to make good, strong decisions on behalf of vulnerable children are at the forefront not only of great practice, but of cleverer commissioning. Where there are ways of putting the purchaser in a stronger position, we should explore them carefully.
I listened with interest to the remarks that the hon. Member for Stockport made on the need for innovation and new models in residential care, and I absolutely agree with her. I am pleased to say that as part of the Government’s children’s social care innovation programme, which is £310 million over phases 1 and 2, we are testing two new models of residential care for children who are at risk or are victims of sexual exploitation. “Step Down”, based in the Aycliffe secure children’s home, targets the trauma experienced by victims of sexual exploitation and includes an extensive step-down service for children preparing to leave secure care. In addition, “Safe Steps”, a high-supervision children’s home model run by St Christopher’s Fellowship, is designed to protect girls at risk of sexual exploitation.
The learning that the innovation programme continues to give us and the many other associated projects will help generate further evidence of impact in the next six to 12 months that we can take forward. The innovation programme learning network will share those key findings through a series of publications and resources and through the new What Works Centre focusing on children’s social care. It will include a focus on residential care and will be launched at the end of the year.
The innovation programme provides a fantastic opportunity for front-line services and practitioners to show creativity and collaboration, and to explore new models of practice, including in residential care, as has been demonstrated. I would warmly welcome a range of high-quality bids focused on residential care for the current round of the programme, which was launched earlier this month. In that endeavour, I encourage the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West to look at where a bid based on the Scandinavian model that champions social pedagogy may add to the innovative practice we want to unleash.
The work I have outlined is only a small part of the work being undertaken in my Department. In January this year, we published “Children’s social care reform: a vision for change”, which outlined our ambitious programme of work in the key areas of people and leadership; practice and systems; and governance and accountability. The programme aims to achieve our vision of every child in the country, whatever their age, background, ethnicity or gender being able to fulfil their potential. The Narey review will sit alongside those wider reforms once it is published.
I am enormously grateful for the support that the hon. Member for Stockport has given to this issue yet again today. She has expressed some important, well-argued concerns, which I will consider carefully in light of this debate and the work of Sir Martin Narey. I hope that this debate reassures her that the Government echo many of the concerns she has expressed. The steps we have taken underline the importance of ensuring that residential care provides the high-quality care that vulnerable children deserve. We cannot be satisfied until we have achieved a system that consistently delivers excellent care. We should expect nothing less for our most vulnerable children than the care we would want for our own children.
Ann Coffey
I thank the Minister for his reply. He has demonstrated yet again his complete and continuing commitment to improving the lives of looked-after children. He is a very experienced Minister—I think he has been in the role for four years—and he reflects the value of having a Minister in place for that length of time. It is an idea that should be considered for other positions.
I thank all other Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) has also taken a long interest in this area, and he is right to remind everyone that residential children’s homes offer a very good-quality and much-needed provision. They are not a last resort; for some children, they should be a first resort. I thank the SNP Members for their observations on the situation in Scotland, which are always welcome. I also thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She is also incredibly committed to this area, and has also been in post for quite a long time. It just shows the value of people being in post for a long time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered children’s homes.
Port of Liverpool: Road and Rail Access
(8 years, 8 months 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
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered road and rail access to the Port of Liverpool.
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate under your stewardship, Mr Chope. The port of Liverpool, which is primarily situated in my constituency and falls within Bootle and Seaforth, has a long history of serving this country in times of peace and war. Many buildings around the port hinterland still bear the marks and shadows of the bombing of the port in the May blitz of 1941. As we approach the 75th anniversary of the bombing, I pay tribute to everyone who served on or near the port in those dark days and to the people who were killed or injured, of whom there were many.
The port became a lifeline to these islands during the war in general, and during the battle of the Atlantic in particular. Between 1 and 8 May 1941, over seven consecutive nights, German planes dropped 870 tonnes of high-explosive bombs and more than 112,000 incendiary bombs around the Bootle, Litherland and Seaforth environs. Lord Haw Haw addressed the people of Bootle with the words,
“the kisses on your windows won’t help you”,
referring to the tape supposed to prevent flying glass. Unbelievably, only 10% to 15% of the properties in the town were left unscathed.
Thankfully, those days are gone, and we have much better, friendlier and more peaceful relationships with our European neighbours. During the dim recessionary days of the 1980s and for most of the 1990s, our connection with the European Union was a lifeline when the Government turned their back on us and talked of the managed decline of the city. I am pleased that those days are over, and I look forward to devolution gaining pace, which will enable us to run many of our own affairs rather than be run from this place.
That sets the context for what I want to say about rail and road access to the port of Liverpool. I am afraid that the degree of synergy, co-operation and collaboration among the various agencies responsible for transport has been woeful. I believe that the devolution process will help to address that lacuna. While Highways England pushes on with its assessment of the road links—new constructions or reconstructions—Network Rail appears to be taking a “mañana” approach to the need for significant investment in the rail links to the port. It seems to have put the rail freight connection in the “too difficult to do” box. Highways England is talking of anything between £120 million for a new road and £300 million for a realigned road being needed. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Network Rail has decided that £10 million in total over three financial years will do the trick. That is the sum of investment in the port rail infrastructure. To use a phrase much used in Merseyside, are they having a laugh?
Highways England has not covered itself in glory. It has shown a pretty grim attitude over many years to the people who have to live along the Dunnings Bridge corridor. The local authority and my councillor colleagues have had to fight tooth and nail, through their contractors, to keep the Dunnings Bridge corridor cleaned, to get its street lights sorted out, to get its gullies unblocked, to have the grass cut and to enforce standards on lorry drivers who feel free to use the lay-bys as toilets, among other things.
Highways England seems incapable of providing soundproofing to just half a dozen semi-detached houses that have no acoustic protection from the thousands of cars and lorries that pass through night and day. It spent huge sums on glossy leaflets and several million pounds on decommissioning a traffic island on the route to the docks, but it seems incapable of sorting out triple glazing or some other acoustic amelioration. I am afraid that the Government’s recent response to me on that matter does not instil confidence that this long-standing issue will be sorted any time soon.
For those and other reasons, many people in my constituency and beyond have little confidence in Highways England’s ability to get the road link from the M57 and M58 right. Will it listen to calls for significant tunnelling along either route—in the Rimrose Valley country park or the Dunnings Bridge-Church Road corridor? What other more or less radical plans will it consider? Have the decisions already been made? The devil is in the detail. The agency’s history of dealing with local concerns sets the scene for local communities’ levels of confidence in future plans and proposals.
At the mention of the building or reconstruction of major highways, Highways England’s lethargy dissipates and its energy levels grow, because they are sexy, big projects. Why would it bother with the routine things that affect people’s daily lives when it can pore over road plans and spend hundreds of millions of pounds to boot?
Many people in the area surrounding the port—or the docks, as it is better known—are suspicious of the local benefits that the expansion will bring. That will not come as a big surprise to most people in the area. People understand the regional, national and even international benefits, but they ask themselves what the local benefits for jobs and growth will be. They are sceptical. I do not share that level of scepticism. I believe that the port expansion will bring benefits to our community.
I have discussed the issue with many of my local councillor colleagues, including Councillor Gordon Friel, who is a councillor in that area. However, it is difficult to break through the scepticism when people believe the vast majority of port-related traffic will simply move in and out of the port along one or other road, and when the rail option, which most believe to be the most appropriate, languishes on a shelf somewhere, if indeed it has even been produced. The rail line I refer to is the Bootle branch line. It is about 7 miles long and runs from the west coast main line to the port. I use word “runs” loosely, because it is in a dreadful state. I will not take up Members’ time by setting out how dreadful it actually is—suffice it to say that it is.
We can compare that with the activity of professional rail aficionados, civil servants and the Government on High Speed 2 or Crossrail 1 and 2. We can compare the £16 billion spent on Crossrail’s 73 miles of track and 26 miles of tunnels, and the £30 billion projected for Crossrail 2, with the £10 million over three years that is to be spent on the Bootle branch line, which serves a port that is one of the largest in the country and expanding. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £80 million just to start the planning for Crossrail 2—a staggering eight times the amount that will be spent on the actual works on the Bootle branch line. Crossrail 1 cost £210 million per mile of track, so recent announcements of £340 million for rail services across my region equate to only 1.5 miles of Crossrail 1 track. The figure for Crossrail 2 will be double that for Crossrail 1.
Before anyone suggests that Liverpool city region should be grateful, don’t bother. The Government need to reprioritise capital spending, of which the south-east, and London, in particular get the lion’s share, to other areas—then we might be grateful. I agree with Mayor Joe Anderson of Liverpool and my colleague Councillor Ian Maher of Sefton Council that we now need transformational funding. I have a cunning plan: to rename the Bootle branch Crossrail 3. By that measure we would get money thrown at it, and the Minister would be falling over himself to accommodate us—but perhaps the plan is not cunning enough.
All stakeholders agree that a multi-modal solution is required. The requirement to improve rail access has been talked about for decades. The last study before the recent Highways England assessment was in 2011. It concluded that there was spare rail capacity, but that the port facilities were a major barrier. Five years later, that issue has still not been addressed. In 2011, it was estimated that a modal shift to rail could increase the amount of freight carried by rail from 2% to 11%. In the 2015 study, it was considered too “ambitious” to use a 15% rail share, due to funding constraints and the ability to persuade freight hauliers of the advantages of rail. The study concluded:
“It is clear that any increase in rail freight beyond 24 trains per day will most likely require a new rail line to be constructed to the port and there are expected to be a number of significant issues associated with this”.
By the way, Crossrail 1 will have 24 trains per hour each way. I accept that we are not comparing like with like, but the point is well made for illustrative purposes. So there is a surprise: evidence of a mentality that, as I suggested earlier, wants to put the issue in the “too difficult” box, because no one will care, and in any event it is not London.
Network Rail therefore has no such plans in its programme. If the Government were serious about rail freight, other than getting to grips with Network Rail, they would increase the investment in rail network in and out of the port of Liverpool to ensure the maximum modal shift to rail, and provide incentives for freight hauliers to shift to rail and so avoid overly congested roads.
The Government gave the port operators a significant regional growth fund grant to expand the port, even though a feasible strategy to ensure that goods could be moved in a variety of ways was not in place. I am afraid that the chaotic, unplanned, uncosted, piecemeal approach to the port’s transport needs is creating tension and irritation in local communities and uncertainty across the board, with a perception, at the very least, that Governments—not just this one—have not simply taken their eye off the ball but never had it on the ball in the first place.
I am sure the Minister can see that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that economic development and growth is seen as being just as important in the Liverpool city region as anywhere else. Given that, a crumbs-from-the-table approach to the infrastructure needs of the port of Liverpool is just not good enough. It is disrespectful to social, economic and business communities alike. I therefore exhort the Minister to take a fresh look at the plans, or rather the lack of plans, that Network Rail has for non-road port traffic ingress and egress. He should also ensure that Highways England stops acting like a robber baron and treats my community with the respect that it deserves.
If you detect an air of irritation in my voice, Mr Chope, you would be correct. The Luftwaffe could not push Bootle, Litherland or Seaforth around, so Highways England and Network Rail have little chance, and they would be well advised to take that into account in their deliberations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on securing this debate on road and rail access to the port of Liverpool. However, I am a little more optimistic and excited about the prospects for the city region. Recent times have seen an acceleration in the growth of the local economy and the creation of private sector jobs and business start-ups.
Liverpool is an historic maritime city and much of its growth came from its port, which is still a key economic asset for the city region, the north and our whole country. The local enterprise partnership’s Superport strategy is focused on growing the port, enabling the creation of a further 21,000 jobs by 2020. Peel Ports, the port’s owners, shares that vision and has invested significantly, including in Liverpool2, which is due to open later this year and has a new biomass handling facility. The port of Liverpool can handle vessels that carry between 3,000 and 4,000 20-foot-long containers. In order not to become marginalised on important trade routes, Liverpool needs to be able to handle larger vessels, and the new Liverpool2 facility at Seaforth will enable it to do so.
As hon. Members know, the Government do not directly invest in UK ports; the hundreds of millions of pounds invested by Peel Ports is private sector investment. That investment and the economic benefits that it brings will be stymied if it is difficult to move the goods around the UK after they have arrived in Liverpool. That is where the role of Government in ensuring that our road and rail networks meet the needs of people and businesses comes to the fore.
Improving multi-modal access to the port is a key priority for the Government and the Liverpool City Region combined authority. With the full support of the port, Highways England, Network Rail and my Department, the city region is leading on the delivery of a strategy to improve access to the port involving all modes of transport.
On roads, the A5036 is vital to the Liverpool city region, its businesses and, in particular, the port of Liverpool. The road is the principal link between the port and the motorway network. At current levels of port activity, the mix of local and port traffic is already causing difficulties, constraining the economic opportunities for the city region. As part of our £15 billion road investment strategy, therefore, we committed to a comprehensive upgrade to improve traffic conditions on that link.
Highways England is taking forward the development of the scheme. Consideration is currently being given to options, including an online one and an offline one, the latter being through the Rimrose valley. Both options present difficulties, which is why I recognise the local sensitivities, and that is why I welcome Highways England’s clear commitment to work with local stakeholders throughout the development and delivery of the scheme.
A recent programme of public information sessions has been held. I understand that they provided useful feedback for the project team. In addition, two newsletters have been produced, and local MPs have been kept informed and involved. The hon. Gentleman was highlighting how involved, and sceptical, the local community are. I make the commitment that public involvement in development of the plans will continue.
The next stage is for Highways England to move from option identification to option selection, with the aim of identifying those options that are to be taken forward to public consultation before the preferred route is announced. The current timetable has the public consultation happening this autumn, leading to a preferred route announcement in spring next year; the forecast for the start of works is spring 2020.
The A5036 scheme is only one element in a comprehensive access strategy being led locally by the combined authority. Measures to improve rail access have been considered. The Government recognise the importance of rail freight in delivering reduced congestion and lower carbon emissions. The investment that we are making through the strategic freight network fund includes a number of projects that improve access to the port of Liverpool, three of which are: the doubling of the single line link from the Bootle branch line into the port estate; increasing line speed on the Bootle branch; and improved signalling at the Earlestown West junction. All those schemes are scheduled to be completed by 2018-19 and will double the number of freight paths to the port to 48.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the biomass required to support more environmentally friendly power generation is already carried by rail from the port of Liverpool to its destination. The four trains per day that currently run are forecast to rise to 10, so rail is vital to the port’s current and future plans and we are investing to support its future growth. In addition, both Network Rail and Transport for the North have been studying the strategic requirements of freight movements across the north of England, and their work will inform future investment planning processes.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the investment going into HS2. The key reason why that project needs to be taken forward is that it will inject capacity into the rail network. The west coast main line, on which £9 billion has been spent in recent years, is nevertheless forecast to be full very soon. That means not that every train will be full but that we will not be able to put more train parts on to the track. The injection of capacity that HS2 will provide will free up capacity for freight.
There are of course other modes of transport. I want to highlight coastal shipping. Peel is investing in facilities on the Manchester ship canal so that more freight can be moved inland by water, and it is also promoting greater use of coastal shipping, which should help to reduce the growth in road traffic.
I should mention the wider investments we are making across the Liverpool city region. I understand why there is a degree of scepticism about transport investment in our country, because we have had a stop-start approach to rail and road investment for many years. Arguably, there has been more stop than start, but I do not think that that accusation can be levelled fairly at this Government. We are looking at a record level of rail investment—the highest since the Victorian era. Our first road investment strategy features £15 billion of investment, which is the highest in the road industry since the 1970s. All parts of the country are benefiting from that.
Between now and 2019, there will be £340 million to provide a bigger, better, more reliable railway for passengers. More than £179 million from the local growth fund has been provided to the local enterprise partnership and combined authority to deliver a number of transport schemes that are essential to local growth. There are provisions in the devolution deal to support Merseytravel to make progress with the locally funded procurement of new trains for the Merseyrail network. We have also supported the new Mersey Gateway crossing in Halton, one of the largest local transport schemes in the country, which is now under construction.
The north of England rail infrastructure upgrade programme has already delivered a significant benefit. The electrification of the routes from Liverpool to Manchester and Wigan has taken 15 minutes off the fastest journey between Liverpool and Manchester. On 1 April we saw the start of the Northern and TransPennine franchises, both of which will see significant investment—particularly in new rolling stock—that will benefit everybody in the area and provide an enormous boost for the rail sector.
Another important change that has not been mentioned is putting Transport for the North on a statutory basis. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, under which it was established, received Royal Assent only in January. It has brought together the 29 transport authorities throughout the north. I believe that we will plan transport like this much more in future. It is from the north, for the north. Transport for the North will be working alongside Highways England and Network Rail to plan investment in the area. Of course, it is already involved not only in planning but in the running of the rail franchises, which are being run jointly by the Department for Transport and Rail North. Again, that is run in the north, for the north. This is the first time that has happened.
We are seeing significant devolution in the world of transport that will bring benefits not only to the hon. Gentleman’s area but throughout the north. We are working with Transport for the North on northern powerhouse rail, which is sometimes called HS3. It will provide a fast link from Liverpool across to Hull, linking Manchester and Leeds, as well as Manchester airport and Sheffield. It is all about creating new fast links between northern cities and will, of course, release more capacity for freight. We agree that moving freight on to our railways is part of the answer to improving the freight sector’s environmental performance. As northern powerhouse rail develops, Liverpool’s aspiration for a direct connection to HS2—the mayor has personally told me about that—will be considered.
I hope that I have provided assurance to the hon. Gentleman that we fully recognise that it is most important that we improve access to the port—access to ports and airports has been underestimated in this country’s transport planning for too long—and that we are working constructively with local partners on implementing their multimodal strategy by investing in both road and rail schemes, through which we are playing our part in meeting the ambitions of the port, the city region and the north of England. What is happening at the port is a huge boost for the economies of all the affected areas, and it is therefore critical that we maximise the opportunities that this private investment brings by making corresponding public investment in connectivity to ensure that we capitalise on it for the benefit of everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Teenage Pregnancy: Regional Variations
(8 years, 8 months 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
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regional variations in the rate of teenage pregnancy.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am pleased to have been able to secure this afternoon’s debate; it is timely, because data published by the Office for National Statistics in March showed a steady decline in the average rates of teenage pregnancy in England and Wales. Those data have been widely celebrated, and rightly so. Teenage pregnancy is a huge barrier to opportunity; it creates lifelong and entrenched disadvantage. The causes and consequences so often overlap—deprivation, family breakdown, low aspiration, intergenerational worklessness, mental health difficulties, poor educational attainment and poor school attendance.
Despite the welcome fall in average rates, England and Wales still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in western Europe, so we must guard against complacency. An average is just an average and often masks extremes and regional variations. It is not really enough to say, “We are going in the right direction.”
Although high rates of teen pregnancy are closely correlated with deprivation, teen pregnancy should never be accepted as inevitable in any area, because that would fail the young people affected, many of whose lives are already profoundly insecure and who may see motherhood as a positive way out. Those are the young people most in need of help and support.
Hon. Members will share my commitment to improving the life chances of young people in our constituencies, so I would like briefly to talk about the situation in Telford. Back in 1998, Telford had a teen conception rate of 64 per thousand. It is no doubt good news that it has fallen to approximately 32 per thousand—it has halved, so the situation in Telford is much better than it was. However, in 1998 the rate of teen pregnancy in Telford was 36% higher than the national average, but today it is 42% higher, so rather than getting better, the gap between Telford’s teen pregnancy rates and the national average is getting worse.
I would argue that high rates of teen conception are not inevitable. My constituency lies in the heart of Shropshire. Although Telford is in the worst-performing decile of local authority areas, more affluent rural Shropshire, which surrounds Telford, is in the best-performing decile, with some of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Based on that fact alone, it would be too easy to argue that deprivation, poverty, health inequality and all that causes those difficulties cannot be improved. Naturally, many demographic and social factors play a part, and I fully accept that it is difficult to find a like-for-like comparison, which is why an average does not tell us that much. Equally, it is too often assumed in the most deprived areas that nothing much can be done. Good things get better and bad things get worse if they are not tackled actively.
There are some individual success stories in local authorities, which other local authority areas could learn from, and I will mention a couple. In 1998, Leicester had a teen pregnancy rate of 64 per thousand. That fell to 25 per thousand in 2014, which is close to the national average. Similarly, Caerphilly had a rate of 70 per thousand in 1998, which has also fallen to about the 25 per thousand mark. In Hammersmith and Fulham, a similar decline has been experienced, with the rate falling from 70 per thousand to 22 per thousand, which is just above the average.
There are plenty of examples of how high teenage pregnancy rates can be tackled over time, but I want specifically to draw attention to the model in the London borough of Wandsworth, which has been a success story that other local authorities would do well to look at closely. In 1998, the rate of teen pregnancy there was 71 per thousand. Wandsworth is now outperforming the national average, with a rate of 19 per thousand. That has been achieved through a true commitment to focusing on teen pregnancy. It was not just a statement in the joint strategic needs assessment. Teen pregnancy was treated as the No. 1 indicator of how the local authority was performing, and all partner agencies took that view. There was a clearly defined plan, with achievable goals, a teen pregnancy unit, outreach work and early intervention to identify the young people most at risk and provide support to address multiple causes and raise self-esteem. There was a genuine commitment and a belief in improving the life chances of those least able to help themselves. Young people’s aspirations were built up and their resilience was strengthened to help them to make informed decisions and fulfil their potential.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, not least because Torbay, my constituency, has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the whole of the south-west region. Does she agree that the statistics show the importance of having leadership at local level, given the wide variation between local authorities, let alone regions? For example, the rate in my constituency is very similar to that in the north-east, yet only a few miles away West Devon has one of the lowest rates in the entire country.
Lucy Allan
My hon. Friend eloquently makes the point that I hope to have made by the end of my speech. Torbay does indeed stand out as a stark example of the significant regional variation across the country. He rightly says that one would not necessarily expect that, given the demographic and age profile of his constituency.
The way the success was achieved in Wandsworth was that resources were targeted at the young people aged 15 to 17 who were most likely to become pregnant, such as young people in care and care leavers, those with disrupted family relationships and the children of teen parents. We had a debate earlier about young people in care, and I want to highlight the fact that a quarter of young women leaving care are either pregnant or already mothers. Too often they are trying to fill the emotional gap from growing up without a family of their own, and sometimes in a chaotic succession of different placements. Yes, teenage pregnancy has fallen nationally and across Europe—that tells us a lot about a changing world, with young girls routinely aspiring to jobs and college and a better future—but we need to do everything that we can at local level, as my hon. Friend mentions, to help young women on that path.
A debate of this kind must touch on solutions to problems, and as the causes are so complex in this case, we have to accept that the solution is not straightforward either. More advice on contraception is helpful, but it will not tackle the issue if it is the only tool in the box—if only it were that easy. It has become fashionable to see universal sex and relationship education as a silver bullet and the panacea to high rates of teenage pregnancy, but I think we can all accept that teen pregnancy is a far more complex social and emotional issue than that, and more advice on contraception alone will not fix it. We have to address the specific needs of the young people most likely to be affected, so the focus and concentration has to be on the at-risk groups—those most in need—in order to improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged young people.
Building stronger families and early intervention support for struggling families is part of the solution. We need also to recognise that looked-after children have different health and education needs from others. We mentioned in the debate earlier today the mental health of children in care, and that is a determinant in this complex issue. Also, school is not always a fixed certainty in the lives of the young people in question, so sex and relationship education at school will not necessarily tackle the problem if school attendance is a problem in itself.
One aspect of the marked regional variation is that we can identify young people who will be affected. An example is a young person who has been in contact with the police, or who does not like school and has been excluded. Young people not in education, employment or training are another group who are among the most likely to be affected by teen pregnancy. We have also touched on the role of a disrupted childhood and difficult relationships within families.
I pay particular tribute to the Government for their life chances strategy. I want to see a continued focus on championing stronger families, and addressing teenage pregnancy in the areas and groups where the rates are highest should be the overriding priority in achieving that goal.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
My heart swells to hear my hon. Friend speaking so warmly about the Government’s priorities. Placing families at the heart of policy and decision making is our stated aim, recognising that strong family relationships are fundamental to any and every outcome, be it prosperity or health outcomes. I think she would agree that it is not just the young girl, her extended family and the father of the child who are affected by teenage pregnancy; the child coming into that situation will suffer the same potential social inequalities. This is a generational issue that we must champion.
Lucy Allan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The rates of teen pregnancy among children of teenage parents are extremely high, so we should take the opportunity to target the groups that we know are more likely to be affected. By any measure, teen pregnancy rates are a primary indicator of an unhealthy society, and it is right that local authorities are charged with addressing the issue. I say to all local authorities, “Please don’t take your eye off the ball.” Whatever challenges a particular area may face, let us not accept it as some sort of immutable fact that can never be turned around. Some local authority areas with the highest rates of teenage pregnancy have been successful in bringing the rate down to below the national average, whereas many other local authority areas have not. It is essential that local authorities look closely at what they are doing and whether it is good enough. It simply is not acceptable to say that teen pregnancy is an inevitable consequence of deprivation and that there is nothing more to be done.
There are local authorities that have brought about real change, and there are others where local politicians have sometimes parked this sensitive issue. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to encourage local authorities that are performing less well to learn from the outstanding examples that I have mentioned. Does he agree that some local authorities should explain publicly why they are not making better progress? The life chances of young people depend on how their local authority addresses the issue, and I urge all local authorities where teen pregnancy rates have not come down closer to the national average in recent years to reassess why they are not doing what they should be doing and how they could do things better. We all owe it to all our children to ensure that they have strong life chances and the potential for a better future. Addressing high rates of teenage pregnancy in places where they are at the extreme end of the spectrum is essential to achieving that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was expecting a few more hon. and right hon. Members to participate in this debate, which is important to me as the Member for Strangford and for a great number of Members who would probably wish to participate but for whom there are many other distractions in the House today, with votes and other commitments. I am sure that those who are not here wish that they were and will read Hansard tomorrow.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this debate. I have some comments on the Northern Ireland perspective, and it is disappointing that the research on regional variations in the rate of teenage pregnancy has nothing on Northern Ireland. Perhaps that will change when we have other debates on similar issues. Teenage pregnancy is a public health concern in both the developed and the developing world.
Hopefully most of us in the Chamber have had the joy of holding our own babies in our hands when they were first born. The birth of a new baby in the world is a joy. Today we have had the chance to see the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) with her new baby boy, and not a person passed by without a smile on their face and without congratulating her on the birth of her firstborn. Seeing a new life in the world, loved by their mother and by everyone, is a joy.
When we talk about teenage pregnancies, we must recognise that many of those who become pregnant have a strong, loving relationship to their babies, the new additions to their family. In my constituency office, I have the privilege as the Member for Strangford to engage with many of those young mothers, helping them get the housing benefits, care, nurseries and other support that they need. Those are some of the things that we do. This debate is not meant to be about judging teenage pregnancies in any way; it is about what we can do to help and assist. My contribution will be along those lines, and will focus on how we can assist those young ladies who are teenage mothers.
The United Kingdom has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the whole of Europe. The most recent data show that teenage pregnancy rates in Northern Ireland continue to fall, including—I will qualify this later on—in my own constituency, where they have been relatively high in the past. Ours is still the third highest of all the constituencies in the Province, so my constituency still has a health issue to address. Health is devolved, so the Minister does not have responsibility for replying on that, but hopefully he can take note of my contribution.
Northern Ireland’s teenage pregnancy rates are now at a record low, according to the most recent figures released by the Department of Health in the Province, with a fall in teenage pregnancy rates of 37% in the last 10 years. That is a significant decrease, and I believe that it is caused by some of the policies that we have adopted. In December 2008, when I was in the old Northern Ireland Assembly and made some inside contribution to the relevant debates there, the regional sexual health promotion strategy and action plan was launched and set a target to reduce the rate of births to teenage mothers under 17 by 25% by 2013. We have exceeded that, and the target has been well beaten. The figures have gone the way that the NI Executive and Assembly desired, and the strategy undoubtedly played a large part in that.
I will mention a bit about that, if I can. Better sexual education and availability of contraception have helped drive down the rate of teenage pregnancy in the Province, and although the overall fertility rate in Northern Ireland has been falling, it is most welcome to see it falling more significantly where we want it to do so. Regional variations in teenage pregnancy rates are apparent, but within those, there are also key socioeconomic variations. The hon. Member for Telford referred to some of the reasons for teenage pregnancies, and I am sure that other Members who speak will comment on them.
As we have heard, there are many explanations for the variations in teenage pregnancy. As the rate falls nationwide, we need to take note of those indicators and of similar research to develop a strategy that can work nationally. I have always said that it is important to do so. I bring a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) will bring a Scottish perspective. We bring our perspectives to add to the debate and show that where what we are doing can be replicated in other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we should do so. If we see something being done in England, Wales or Scotland that can help us, we in Northern Ireland will look towards that as well. That is why I am commenting about how we can work together.
The factors involved in teenage pregnancy can affect anyone, regardless of where they are in the country, so they should be at the core of identifying how to reduce teenage pregnancy rates further and support teenage mothers. We want to support them. We want them to have the support that we as Members of Parliament can give, and that the Government, society and families can give as well. The hon. Member for Telford mentioned the effect on families, and we need to look at that as well.
Kevin Foster
The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. He referred to the potential to learn from other areas and he gave examples of the progress that has been made on the strategy in Ulster. Can he give a couple of examples of specific actions that have made a difference?
Jim Shannon
I am coming to that if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. He always makes a valuable contribution in his interventions. He and I seem to always attend these debates. Whatever they are, we are here together to make our contributions. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I will come on to the issues.
Within the main council area that dominates my parliamentary constituency, teenage pregnancy rates are the third highest—unfortunately—in Northern Ireland. Although there has been a decrease of 37%, I represent the area with the third highest teenage pregnancy rates in Northern Ireland. It is important for me to learn from other Members—to learn from their experience and understand their knowledge can add to the research that I have done so that I can take that back to Northern Ireland and to my constituency of Strangford.
Progress has undoubtedly been made through personal education. Families and those who are close such as brothers and sisters—probably more sisters to sisters or mothers to daughters—is something that we perhaps should focus on more. Sometimes relationships break down between parents. Young girls can find themselves at a loose end and sometimes things happen. Things happen for many reasons. They can happen because of what has happened at home or because of what is happening in society. They can happen because of peer pressure as well. Those are issues that Government cannot legislate for, but which we as parents need to do something about. We need to encourage the people who have influence to do likewise. When it comes to some of the things that we have done, I can point to the education plan, setting a target for reduction, and the availability of contraception. We have to address those issues. Sometimes we have to be aware that young people will want to do their own thing, but sometimes we have to be aware of what we can do as a society.
Caroline Ansell
I note the hon. Gentleman’s points on the availability of contraception and appropriate advice. We tend to assume that we are talking in the main about unplanned teenage pregnancies, and that is not always the case. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should do more to show that the role of parenting is a hugely challenging one? It is very rewarding, but challenging and costly—emotionally, financially and socially. Do we do enough in that regard?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and for her wise words. We in this Chamber will say yes, we have done our bit, but many of us here could perhaps do that wee bit more. People could be more conscious of where their children are at night; what they are doing; who they are with and what their peers are doing. I see this in my advice centre all the time; I see some of the issues. I am not here to criticise or to point the finger. That is not what this is about. This is about saying how we and Government can help and assist young people. We should aim to try and enable people to see how we can reduce teenage pregnancies, which we have done in Northern Ireland in significant numbers, but we need to do more. When it comes to whether people can do more, yes, they can. I have three boys—three young men. One is married and one is about to get engaged. If the third boy leaves it until the age of his dad, he has 10 years to go before he gets married, as I was married at 32.
We have to look at the issues individually. Society itself, but particularly the role of parents, is important. The hon. Lady is right. The role is critical and necessary. The Prime Minister has often said that families are at the core of society. I believe that as well, and that is where we need to start.
Although progress has undoubtedly been made, we cannot take our eye off the ball. With research ongoing, the Government need to keep on top of the issue of teenage pregnancies and work with the various bodies—private, voluntary and public sector—to continue the good work that has been done in Northern Ireland and elsewhere and to adapt to the ever-changing goals in the effort to address teenage pregnancies.
For me, the issue is knowing how we can do things better. The hon. Member for Telford referred to some of the reasons for teenage pregnancy. When we consider those reasons, we cannot ignore the variations and variables in the regions of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Department of Health has made clear what it has done to drive down the overall rate of teenage pregnancies and recognised socioeconomic variations. In June 2014, the Department amended the 2008 strategy to include the aim of reducing
“the gap in births to teenage mothers living in deprived areas.”
Identifying and targeting the population most at risk of an unplanned and possibly unwanted pregnancy is vital to both prevention and improving the accessibility and uptake of post-natal medical care. That is another issue that we have addressed. I hope that these comments are helpful and specific. Regardless of their background, all sexually active teenage girls are at risk of becoming pregnant. That fact cannot be denied. Teenage mothers are more likely to be in what are known as routine or semi-routine occupations—for example, sales and services operatives or low-grade administration. I am not doing those jobs down, but that is what the statistics say.
Research evidence from the Family Planning Association in Northern Ireland suggests that risk factors include low self-esteem; poverty; low educational attainment; declining educational achievement; alienation and non-attendance at school; children being looked after by health and social care trusts; children of teenage mothers; a history of sexual abuse; mental health problems; and a history of offending behaviour. Those are all explanations for the variations in the rate of teenage pregnancy. When we look at these issues as we did in Northern Ireland, we can come up with a strategy. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) asked what we did. That is what we did, and it has made a significant contribution to where we are.
I again thank the hon. Member for Telford for giving us the opportunity to participate in this debate. When the shadow Minister speaks and the Minister responds, I hope that we will hear how we can address teenage pregnancy to an even greater degree, because there are many ways we can do that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this debate and for her very interesting speech.
When we are discussing teenage pregnancy, it is critical that we do not seek to stigmatise or hurt young women. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, every baby born should be celebrated and every mother supported. Having a baby at any age has its challenges, and we should always seek first to offer assistance rather than dole out judgment.
Since the SNP Scottish Government were elected in 2007, the rate of teenage pregnancies in Scotland has fallen every single year, and it has dropped by about 35% in six years. All the NHS board areas in Scotland have seen reductions in their rates of teenage pregnancies. In the under-20 age group, it has decreased by 34.7%; in the under-18 age group, it has decreased by 41.5%; and in the under-16 age group, it has decreased by 39.8%. All that has not happened by accident. The SNP seeks to give every young person in the country a good start in life, regardless of their circumstances. The Scottish Government and the Minister for Children and Young People, Aileen Campbell MSP, have been working to achieve the goal of making Scotland the best place in the world to grow up, and they are leading policy in early years intervention.
The hon. Member for Telford mentioned looked-after children in particular. I draw attention to the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland—CELCIS—which does great work. The Scottish Government have also worked in a number of different ways to support care leavers by giving them an entitlement to university and further training. There are lots of measures to build their self-esteem and make them feel like the valued part of society that they are.
At the weekend, the SNP pledged to give every newborn baby born in Scotland a Finnish-style baby box to ensure that families have all the things they need to start in life. That programme has been hugely successful in Finland in reducing infant mortality from one of the highest rates in the world to one of the lowest. Interestingly, infant mortality is 60% higher among babies born to teenage mothers, so the baby box has the potential to become an important intervention for this vulnerable group.
It takes time and effort to change the causes and history of teenage pregnancy, as the hon. Member for Strangford indicated. I recently visited the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Glasgow. It is doing interesting and worthwhile work to support young mums. It is piloting an intervention that was started by Yale University called “Minding the Baby”. A health visitor and a social worker work with teenage mums from around seven months into pregnancy until the child is two. That very intensive model has resulted in benefits in improved attachment and better parenting skills. It has raised the self-esteem of the young women involved and had a wider effect on their families. Some have younger brothers and sisters who have seen a benefit in their family after teenage mums went through the programme, so there is a wider benefit to society. I was also delighted to hear that through the programme, a number of young women have been supported to breastfeed. That demographic has a low uptake of breastfeeding, but the babies gain a huge and significant benefit.
There is an undeniable correlation between deprivation and teenage pregnancy. Dundee is often mentioned very negatively in that light, but there has been significant progress. Over the past decade, Dundee has seen a 58% drop in teenage conception rates. That is credited to the close working of schools and the local health board and the valuable work of family-nurse partnerships. It is also credited to education. Dundee has a young mums’ unit, which keeps young women in full-time education, meaning that they do not lose out on their education—that vital piece of the jigsaw in moving out of deprivation.
The hon. Members for Telford and for Strangford mentioned the impact of sexual health and relationships education. The House of Commons Library research mentions in relation to England that it is unclear what obligation there will be for schools in England to provide sexual health and relationships education should the Government’s full academisation plans go through. The SNP sees the value in that education and urges the Government to clarify whether new academies will have an obligation to provide sex education in schools. It would be utterly unacceptable for schools to offer no sex education whatever.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned prevention and young men, who have an important role. It is not just up to young women; young men have a serious role in teenage pregnancy.
Alison Thewliss
A very significant role. If young men and young women together are not educated about sexual health and relationship more widely, we are missing an opportunity to impart important lessons about consent and respect. Leaving it to chance is hugely damaging, as we can see with the ongoing investigations in Parliament into harassment in schools and the higher education sector.
Sexual health and relationships education is very much part of the curriculum in Scotland. My son is five. His primary 1 class has just been learning about human bodies. We should not be daunted by these issues as parents or politicians, because serious issues such as consent can be taught at a young age. It can be as simple as stopping tickling a child when they say no. That is consent, and we need to think about these things more widely.
In Scotland, we updated our national guidance on relationships, sexual health and parenthood education in December 2014. That guidance puts into practice the commitment made in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 that the Scottish Government would actively promote the rights and wellbeing of children and young people. Education in schools should equip children and young people with information to help them keep themselves safe. Giving children and young people the knowledge and understanding of healthy, respectful and loving relationships and the opportunity to explore issues in a safe environment protects them from harm and promotes tolerance. Young people have the right to comprehensive, accurate and evidence-based information to help them make positive, healthy and responsible choices in their relationships.
Dr Alasdair Allan, our Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, said at the end of 2014:
“The issues covered by RSHP can be seen as the building blocks to how pupils look after themselves and engage with people for the rest of their lives. These classes allow pupils to think about their development and the importance of healthy living surrounded by their peers who will have similar experiences to them…The guidance recognises the professionalism of teachers, the expertise they bring to making lessons age appropriate and an invaluable addition to discussions that parents are likely already having with their children at home.”
Finally, I come back to my point about poverty and deprivation and the correlation with teenage pregnancy. In its most recent statistics, which are from 2013, the Information Services Division notes:
“There is a strong correlation between deprivation and teenage pregnancy. In the under 20 age group, a teenage female living in the most deprived area is 4.8 times as likely to experience a pregnancy as someone living in the least deprived area and nearly 12 times as likely to deliver their baby.”
The UK Government’s welfare cuts and sanctions are increasing poverty—that is the context in which this debate exists—and will not help the teen pregnancy rate. In particular, I draw Members’ attention to how young people aged 18 to 21 will lose access to housing benefits from next year. Centrepoint and Shelter have expressed concerns about the impact that will have on young people. One exception to that policy is where people of that age are parents. When the Government begin to make policies that take age and particular things into account and certain groups lose out, that will have a consequence. My concern is that by excluding that group from housing benefit, the Government perhaps encourage young people in particularly desperate circumstances to make huge life decisions for the wrong reasons, and that would be a seriously retrograde step.
Alison Thewliss
I would like to end my speech as I began. In our deliberations about teenage pregnancy we should not stigmatise, and in responding to the debate on behalf of the SNP I hope I have not done so. It has certainly not been my intention. We must do all we can to support young people, teenage mums and dads and their babies, and to invest in their future.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for securing this debate, which allows us to acknowledge the achievements made in addressing teenage pregnancy rates and to recognise that there is still a lot more to do, as she did so eloquently in her speech. I also want to acknowledge the excellent contributions of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who brought important perspectives from Northern Ireland and Scotland respectively.
Research shows that 61% of children born to teenage mothers are at a higher risk of infant mortality and that, by the age of 30, teenage mothers are 22% more likely to be living in poverty than those who gave birth at the age of 24 or over. I know that that is not universal, but those are the statistics. The fact that 21% of women aged between 16 and 18 who are not in education, employment or training are teenage mothers shows that teenage pregnancy is not only a cause but a consequence of the educational and health inequalities in our society. That is why we cannot sit by and ignore this situation, especially given that we still lag behind western Europe on our teenage pregnancy rate. Although it was welcome news that England last month achieved the long-held target of a 50% reduction—it actually achieved 51%—in the under-18 conception rate between 1998 and 2014, this is no time to be complacent. We must ensure that the positive work that has been done does not go to waste and that the trends do not flatline or worsen.
Although the overall rate has gone down for England, there are still wide-ranging variations—not just between regions but within them. For example, my own local authority, Sunderland City Council, has seen a 45% drop in the conception rate. However, just down the road, Stockton-on-Tees, in the same region, has seen only a 29% decrease between 1998 and 2014. That trend is replicated in all regions, with varying gaps and differences in the conception rate. A lot of that can be put down to local variations and the way in which the 10-year strategy, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government in 1999, was implemented by local authorities.
The strategy was informed by international evidence. A 30-point plan was launched to halve the under-18 conception rate and to improve the life chances not only of the teenagers who fall pregnant but of their children. The plan laid solid foundations for reducing teenage pregnancy by ensuring effective multi-agency work. In 2005, the plan was reviewed when it became apparent that the initial measures were not being implemented across the board. Instead, more prescriptive guidance was introduced. That review of the strategy’s actions was best described by Alison Hadley in a recent article in the Journal of Family Health. She said that the review was an understanding
“that high rates were not inevitable—even in deprived areas—if the right actions were put in place.”
That is the crux of the way that we should and must approach the issue of teenage pregnancy. It is not an inevitability of modern society, but it can be down to the inaction of those with the levers of power and their failure to implement the right interventions.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this debate. I do not know how many in the House have the experience that I had, but I was a mum at the age of 16. I come from a deprived background. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things we can do is to ensure that people have the opportunity to break that cycle and enable them to go back to education or to bring their child up? That is one of the things that I found really depressing when I watched the ITV programme “Long Lost Family”. It is one of the heartfelt things that made me burst into tears. My son is with me; I was able to raise him as a teenage mum because of the intervention and support that I got as a mum. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vitally important that we do that?
Mrs Hodgson
I do, and I commend my hon. Friend for raising that matter. She talked about it in her maiden speech so movingly for those who were in the Chamber or who listened to it afterwards. It brings important insight into this House in debates such as this to hear someone speak from experience. She is right that we need to support teenage mums. This is not about stigmatising them. Obviously, sometimes it is about helping them to make different choices if they do not want to make a particular choice. We must support them and ensure that the statistics I just mentioned, which we are all aware of, do not become the reality for young mums and their children. My hon. Friend has obviously broken that cycle: she is here as a Member of Parliament. The cycle of deprivation does not have to be inevitable. As I said, it is not universal, but the statistics are not where we would like them to be. There are obviously exceptions that prove the rule.
In 2010, the Department for Education set out a bonfire of policies that saw specific budgets directed at local councils, such as for addressing teenage pregnancy, rolled into the early intervention grant, which has sadly been repeatedly cut year on year and is a shell of what it used to be. The Government have failed to build on the work set out by the last Labour Government, thereby threatening the success seen to date with their short-sighted strategy on early intervention.
Instead of the Government seeing local authorities as a problem, rather than a solution, we need a renewal of the thinking that we had between 1997 and 2010, which harnessed the co-operative relationship between local and central Government to address issues such as teenage pregnancy effectively. For instance, one of the key measures that followed through in both the initial strategy and the updated version, as the hon. Member for Telford discussed in her opening speech, was the necessity to improve sex and relationship education in our schools.
No one will be surprised to hear that I am a passionate advocate of age-appropriate sex and relationship education. I understand the real benefits that equipping children with the right knowledge and tools will have on their futures as they become adults. However, it is not just me who believes that; it is the young people themselves. As the Sex Education Forum found in a survey of more than 2,000 young people earlier this year on the sex and relationship education that they receive, one in five was reported as saying that it was bad or very bad, which is deeply concerning when young people still say that they are embarrassed to seek advice about sex or relationship issues and half of 15-year-olds do not know about the existence of local contraception and sexual health services in their area.
Many opponents of age-appropriate sex and relationship education say that it is the job of parents, not teachers, to teach their children about sex and relationships, which shows just how out of touch many people are with the lives of children and young people. The Sex Education Forum reports that 7% of 15-year-old boys and 9% of 15-year-old girls have no trusted adult in their life to whom they can go when they need advice on sex and relationships. Some of them are children in care, about whom hon. Members spoke in the earlier debate. It is for that very reason that I and other Labour Members support the introduction of age-appropriate SRE as part of statutory personal, social, health and economic education, and many Government Members are slowly coming round to that idea, too. The lack of sex and relationship education in our schools is a ticking time bomb that the Government must address, especially with their impending forced academisation of all schools, which will bring into question the survival of SRE in any form in our schools.
Kevin Foster
I am interested to hear some of the points that the hon. Lady has made so far. Does she agree that it is important that schools buy into any duties? It is important that we have SRE and that its delivery does not become like the requirement to hold an act of religious worship in the morning. It is nice that that is statutory, but it is far more honoured in its breach than in its observance.
Mrs Hodgson
That is a very good point, because where sex and relationship education is compulsory in maintained schools, unlike in academies and free schools, there tend to be two elements: the biology and HIV/AIDS awareness, and then the relationship side. That is exactly the hon. Gentleman’s point. It has to be good-quality sex and relationship education, rather than just ticking some boxes.
The ticking time bomb is paired with the increasing sexualisation of young people, with recent freedom of information requests to local police forces showing that reported incidents of children sexting has skyrocketed by more than 1,200% in the past two years due to increased access to social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and even to dating apps such as Tinder, which is why it is welcome that the Women and Equalities Committee has announced today an investigation into sexting as part of its inquiry on sexual harassment among pupils in schools. I look forward to seeing what comes out of that inquiry.
It is high time that the Government took action and issued an update of the sex and relationship education guidance, which was published before the smartphone generation was even born. I hope the Minister can update Members on the DFE’s plans. I will not hold my breath, however, as when the opportunity came for the Government to take bold steps in introducing statutory PSHE and age-appropriate SRE following the most recent report of the Select Committee on Education on this area, it was blocked by no less than the Prime Minister. That was despite it being reported that many women Cabinet Ministers, including the Education Secretary herself, were strongly in favour of introducing this measure and were dismayed at the Prime Minister’s inaction.
Not only disgruntled Cabinet Ministers but the Children’s Commissioner, the Chief Medical Officer, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 88% of teachers, 90% of parents and 92% of young people themselves are in favour of introducing both subjects to the curriculum as statutory subjects. Yet again, the Prime Minister is putting himself on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to teaching our young people about life and the resilience to deal with what is thrown at them.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that we have made great strides forward on teenage pregnancy and those achievements must be celebrated, but there is still a long way to go. The Government must make clear their vision about how they will build on the important multi-agency, co-operative intervention work of the last Labour Government, and about how they will finally bring forward plans for PSHE and SRE that will make them effective tools in the young person’s arsenal and enable them to make informed choices in their lives.
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I should point out that this debate has to finish at 5.52 pm.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
As ever, Mr Chope, it is a delight to serve under your chairmanship.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) both on securing this debate and on her extremely well-judged contribution to it. Her contribution had at its heart something that I believe all Members could feel comfortable signing up to, which is the need to make sure that all children and young people, irrespective of their background, get a real and enduring chance to be the best that they can be, for themselves and—in the future—for their own families. I welcome the other contributions to the debate, by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), and by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).
To underline the genuine importance of this agenda, my hon. Friend the Member for Telford reminded us that it was the Prime Minister who set out in a significant and perceptive speech in January his intention for the Government to make improving the life chances of the most disadvantaged children and families in Britain a central tenet of our work over the next four years. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Telford, I welcome that commitment to cross-Government work to tackle some of the deep-rooted social problems that exist, and, in doing so, to help to transform children’s lives so that they can meet their full potential.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, although teenagers might still have the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies, we have seen a steady and impressive decline in that rate, to the extent that there are now 50% fewer teenage pregnancies than in 1998. In fact, teenage pregnancies are at their lowest since records began in 1969. That is important progress, which has a significant impact on young people’s lives and improves their life chances, whether in Telford, Crewe or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We heard about similar progress in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
However, although the rates are coming down, and doing so at a faster rate than elsewhere in Europe, they remain higher than in comparable western European countries. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, we simply cannot afford to take our eye off the ball, and as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, there is certainly no room for us to be complacent. Reducing the level of teenage pregnancy must remain a high priority, not only at national but at local level. My colleagues in the Department of Health have recognised that by including teenage pregnancy rates as a key indicator in the public health outcomes framework.
How will that outcomes framework be supported to deliver what is required? As we know, since 2013 local authorities have had responsibility for commissioning sexual health services. To support local commissioners, Public Health England has a teenage pregnancy expert adviser, whose role is to provide support to national teams by integrating teenage pregnancy data, evidence and best practice into relevant work programmes. It is good to hear about areas such as Leicester, Caerphilly and Wandsworth—in particular, Wandsworth sounds hugely impressive—that are helping to add to that best practice. The expert adviser also provides Public Health England with a teenage pregnancy link to the Local Government Association and relevant Department of Health policy teams.
The Government also provide support by facilitating the sharing of information and learning with local areas about what works in reducing teenage pregnancy. We have heard contributions this afternoon that touched on exactly that point. Most recently, in March this year, Public Health England and the Local Government Association produced an updated briefing for councils—I have even come to this debate armed with a copy. It is entitled “Good progress but more to do”, which probably sums up the message that has come out of this debate. Having been around for only a few weeks, it has already been downloaded more than 5,000 times, which suggests both a high degree of interest in the subject and a welcome continued commitment at local level to actively do something about it rather than just look at figures on a page.
As I am a Minister in the Department for Education, it would be remiss of me not to set out what the Government are doing to improve education standards for all children. As we have heard, education has a key role to play in keeping children on a positive path in life. I know from having visited Holmer Lake Primary School in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford that she believes strongly in the power of education to change lives. She will be aware that we have published a White Paper setting out how we will seek to achieve educational excellence everywhere. As the Secretary of State set out in the White Paper, it is imperative that we extend opportunity to every child, whatever their background. That is why we are completely committed to ensuring that all pupils receive an excellent education.
Since 2010, 1.4 million more children have enjoyed an education in a good or outstanding school. To support that, we have taken a number of measures to drive up performance: matching failing schools with strong sponsors; driving up the numbers of national leaders of education to support other schools, from 250 in 2010 to more than 1,000 last year; and providing schools with significant extra funding to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils through the pupil premium, which is worth £2.5 billion this year. We have protected that funding at per-pupil rates for the duration of this Parliament.
We must of course build on that, so that all children and young people receive the same standards of education enjoyed by those in the best schools. We acknowledge that some parts of the country suffer from acute problems and will need additional support for all children to achieve their potential. The White Paper identified areas of the country where low school standards are exacerbated by low capacity to deliver improvement. To support improvement in those parts of the country, we will designate achieving excellence areas, where we will work with local leaders to diagnose the underlying problems and then target our national programmes to help them secure sufficient high-quality teachers, leaders, system leaders, sponsors and governors. We will trial that approach from September this year and roll it out more widely from September 2017, with the aim of delivering lasting improvement to standards in those areas.
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that in order to ensure that all children can benefit, we must keep absences from school to an absolute minimum. Overall absence rates have followed a general downward trend from 6.5% in 2006-07 to 4.6% in 2014-15. Although we have made progress, with almost 200,000 fewer pupils regularly missing school than in 2010, we must keep our foot on the gas.
Why is that important in the context of this debate? With regard to educational underperformance and teenage pregnancy, my hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there is a correlation between teenage conception, deprivation and low educational attainment. In 2013, the Centre for Analysis of Youth Transitions, funded by the Department for Education, published a research report on teenage pregnancy in England. The report set out the evidence on the relationship between deprivation, low prior attainment and likelihood of teenage conception and maternity.
The research found that girls who are eligible for free school meals and girls who are persistently absent from school are more likely to become teenage mothers, both because they are more likely to conceive and because they are more likely to continue with their pregnancy. Researchers also found that girls who attend higher-performing schools are less likely to conceive, and that deterioration in academic performance between key stages 2 and 3 is associated with teenage pregnancy. Girls who make slower than expected progress during the early years of secondary school are significantly more likely to conceive, and to continue with the pregnancy after conception, than those who progress as expected.
Free school meals eligibility, persistent absenteeism and slower than expected academic progress during early secondary school can therefore be thought of as key individual risk factors associated with conceiving as a teenager and continuing with that pregnancy. That is exactly the sort of evidence-based research that we need to proliferate around the system so that those at local level can gain a much better understanding of what works.
As such research demonstrates, various risk factors are associated with increased teenage pregnancy rates, including educational underachievement. Schools can help all children to make better decisions in their personal life through high-quality teaching of personal, social, health and economic education. Unfortunately, time precludes me from rehearsing the many arguments of the past few weeks and months on the role of PSHE in equipping pupils with the knowledge and skills to make safe and informed decisions and in preparing them for adult life.
I think we can all agree that we want to equip young people and children with such skills. To achieve that, we need to ensure that PSHE is of the highest quality possible. That is why, with the support of the PSHE Association and after consultation with a wide variety of agencies and PSHE practitioners, we have produced a suggested programme of study, based on the needs of today’s pupils and schools. We have said that we will keep the issue under review, as we set out in our response to the report of the Select Committee on Education. We will do that in all seriousness, to ensure that as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West rightly said, we provide children with the arsenal that they require to meet many of the harder challenges that life throws at them when compared with our own childhoods, and at a much younger age.
Much is going on in government, including the provision of support for children in care and care leavers so that they are ready and prepared for adult life. The number of mothers who were previously looked-after children has declined over the years between 2011 and 2015, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford reminded us, about 20% of female care leavers become teenage parents, so we need to do even more. That is why we have committed to deliver real reform of social care services. We have our £200 million social care funding programme, as well as the Pause programme, with funding from the innovation fund, which I urge hon. Members to look at carefully. Pause breaks the cycle for the many young mothers who have repeated pregnancies only to have the child removed from their care, which we need to stop in future.
House of Lords
Crime: Historic Sex Abuse Allegations
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings have been arranged between Home Office ministers and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on historic sex abuse allegation enquiries.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, Home Office Ministers have regular meetings with chief police officers on a wide range of subjects, but no meetings have taken place or been arranged between Home Office Ministers and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the subject the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is there not now a gross imbalance in the treatment of suspects and complainants in sex abuse cases, with the result that the reputations of the falsely accused are shattered while the reputation of the false accuser remains intact behind a wall of secrecy—particularly in the case of this man “Nick”—unless of course they are prosecuted? In that light, should Ministers not be spelling out to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe that the leaking of operations in these cases and the subsequent identification of the accused, when often they are innocent, is an affront to human rights and natural justice? It is far too easy in this society to destroy the reputations of perfectly innocent people.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I have to acknowledge the noble Lord’s persistence in this matter. I think he will appreciate that it is a complex one. We recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike between the operational advantages of naming suspects in some criminal investigations and respecting suspects’ right to privacy. As my noble friend Lord Faulks said in answer to the noble Lord last month, Parliament itself has changed its mind on this issue. The Government’s position is that although in general there should be a right to anonymity before the point of charge, there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named. The College of Policing guidance is that the police should not routinely release information about suspects before charge and that the decision to do so should be made on a case-by-case basis by a chief officer, and only when the circumstances justify it. Notwithstanding that, and bearing in mind what the noble Lord said about human rights and justice, the former High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques has been commissioned to examine the way in which recent cases involving non-recent sexual allegations have been conducted, and to report to the commissioner.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
To what extent do specific allegations have to be made before a large-scale investigation of someone’s documents is initiated?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. I will have to write to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner recently told me that there was a lot of evidence to justify police investigations of historic child abuse that could not be made public. What evidence have the police produced to reassure the Government that such investigations have not been deliberately protracted to give the impression that the allegations are being taken seriously? In the case of Paul Gambaccini, for example, it must have become apparent very quickly that the allegations were never going to be substantiated.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord will know full well that the Home Secretary does not get involved in operational decisions with the Met or with any police force. However, if there are concerns about this, there are of course well-known methods by which people can complain: to the individual force itself, to the IPCC, and to the police and crime commissioner.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I take a slightly different point of view from some of my colleagues in the House. I need to make it clear that I have no detailed knowledge of the individual historic sexual offence investigations to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, refers. I recognise that there are widespread concerns about the way the Met has acted, and indeed, on what I have read, I share some of them. However, I put it to the House that the commissioner appears also to have recognised this, as evidenced by his decision to apologise personally to some of the individuals and to appoint a retired High Court judge to inquire into his force’s conduct. I therefore suggest to the Minister that the Home Office’s job now is to urge the commissioner in the strongest possible terms to publish Sir Richard’s report as soon as, and in as complete a form as, possible. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with the noble Lord on much of that. Sir Richard Henriques has agreed to conduct the independent review, as we said, and the key findings of it and the recommendations will be published later this year. However, I must make the point that it is a private report for the commissioner and will contain sensitive things, so the whole report will not necessarily be published.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Given the high-profile nature of the historic sex abuse allegations inquiries issue, and given the questions raised about the appropriateness and fairness of the actions taken and the interventions made by political figures and commentators, do the Government believe that this issue raises policy and strategic questions on which the Mayor of London or his deputy, as police and crime commissioner for the Met police, should have taken the lead; or do they still believe that this is merely an operational matter on which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner should make the key decisions on whether, and if so what, action should be taken?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a topical question, with the PCC elections coming up in May. The presumption of anonymity is a College of Policing guideline, and it expects that to be derogated from only when there are operational reasons for doing so; so that is a case for the chief officer of police, in the circumstances. The PCC holds the chief constable to account for the overall performance of the force, and the Mayor of London similarly holds the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to account. Paragraph 18 of the Policing Protocol Order 2011, which sets out the PCC’s roles and responsibilities, says that,
“the PCC must not fetter the operational independence of the police force and the Chief Constable who leads it”.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred to apologies, but one thing that has caused widespread concern is that the apologies do not appear to have been as unequivocal as they should have been.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, it is up to the commissioner in his private meeting with certain high-profile figures to deal with the matter in the way he thinks fit. One has to remember in these cases that there are sometimes public policy reasons why people’s identities should be revealed. It is obviously a sensitive issue, but one has to remember that in child sexual abuse cases, by and large, these are under-represented people and we want to encourage as many of them as possible to come forward. They face tremendous obstacles in doing so and they must be supported.
BBC Royal Charter
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ensure that the details of the forthcoming Royal Charter for the BBC are subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
For nearly 90 years a royal charter has been the constitutional basis of the BBC, underlying the independence of the BBC from political interference. The Government intend to hold debates in both Houses on the draft charter to provide the opportunity for Members to make their views known. The format of these debates has not been decided.
Lord Fowler (Con)
Is not the trouble with what my noble friend has just set out that it is not the case? The decisions on the BBC charter review rest entirely and exclusively with the Government. No parliamentary legislation follows—there is no check. The Executive decide what the future of the BBC is going to be. Is the Minister aware that many of us feel that this is not the way to decide the future of one of the most important institutions in Britain today?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am of course aware of strong feelings among colleagues in this House and I look forward to the debate that we have planned on this subject on Thursday. We have consulted on the way the BBC is enshrined and no strong argument is coming through to change the basis of a charter that has served us so well for 90 years.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, what do the Government think of the suggestion that the members of the BBC’s next ruling body—or perhaps a majority of them—should be elected by licence-fee payers and that that body should have the power to appoint and remove the chairman and the director-general?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, to help us to get the right answer we appointed the Clementi review, which reported, as the noble Lord will know, on 1 March. It has made a number of recommendations on how appointments should be made in future and we will be coming forward with our plans in May when we plan to publish the White Paper.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the only people who represent the licence-fee payers are in fact elected to the other House along the corridor? Should they not therefore have the right to decide what is in the royal charter for the BBC and the power to amend it if they think fit to do so?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am sure these points will again be discussed on Thursday. We believe that a royal charter system, which lasts for a good period of time and allows an independent and impartial BBC to move forward, seems to be the right approach. We will come back to all these issues in our debates.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Will the Minister kindly confirm that when the final draft of the charter is settled, the position of the Welsh language will be fully considered and protected by way of an entrenched measure in the charter to the effect that the independence of S4C, the Welsh channel, is completely maintained, thus honouring a solemn undertaking given when the public utilities Bill passed through this House some years ago?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, S4C and the Welsh language are important and I think we have talked before about “Pobol y Cwm”, which I used to watch on maternity leave. We have protected the funding at nearly £7 million and the BBC has confirmed that it will continue to protect its funding. Of course, there is a great creative operation in Cardiff, which I have visited, embracing both the Welsh BBC and S4C.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the charter lasting for a good period of time. To guarantee security for both planning and investment, will she ensure that the charter lasts for at least 10 years and that there is no attempt during any mid-term review to change it?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The length of time that the charter lasts will be one of the key issues that we address in the White Paper in May.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on two points? First, she did not specifically answer the Question originally posed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about whether the debates that she has promised will allow both Houses to approve the proposal to be made by the Government. Can she say yes or no to that, bearing in mind that when the debates were held the last time round an approval Motion was put down in the Commons? Secondly, on the timing, we heard last week in a debate in the other place that a draft White Paper had been sighted, and indeed may even have been read. Does that mean that we will in fact receive this in May, as promised?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Our plan and hope is that we will publish it in May, which was the original timing. In relation to votes, the Government will of course want to listen to the debate on the draft charter and respond accordingly, but I do not think that I can promise a vote.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend explain the Government’s policy to the House? Why does the BBC not fall under the same regulatory regime of Ofcom as other media outlets do?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
One recommendation from the Clementi review, which I mentioned earlier, is that in fact Ofcom might take responsibility for the BBC. That is obviously one of the recommendations that we are looking at and will be commenting on in May.
Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)
My Lords, it may surprise many noble Lords to hear that, having spent most of my professional career competing directly with the corporation, I am a great fan, and I absolutely do not support this market failure approach that many are promulgating. The BBC and many of its programmes are genuinely the envy of the world. What it needs is to be properly governed, properly regulated, with a very clear remit and licence for its services, and appropriately funded. The highly respected Communications Committee and the Select Committee in the House of Commons have made very significant contributions in their reports. I would urge the Minister to consider whether the debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords might make a valuable contribution to the future success of the BBC.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I agree with the noble Lord that these debates are incredibly important. The BBC is part of the fabric of this country, and a source of great pride—and great support—for our creative industries.
Lobbying: Government Grant Agreements
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered the effect on scientific and medical research, the arts, campaigning organisations and other bodies of the anti-lobbying clause in government grant agreements to be introduced on 1 May as a condition of public funding.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, grant recipients can continue to discuss the findings of publicly funded research with government or Parliament, whether that be by giving evidence or in an advisory capacity. The clause in question is about making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent as intended and not diverted from good causes to fund political campaigning and lobbying.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister believe that a healthy, open society not only allows but actively encourages the use of public money given out as grants to question the status quo, to challenge the Government over policy when felt necessary and, indeed, to make constructive recommendations for new policy? This is an essential aspect of the national public debate. This clause threatens that, will damage democracy and should be scrapped.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I fear that there is a fundamental point of principle on which I cannot agree with the noble Earl, who I know holds passionate views on this subject. This is about making sure that the many billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that go to grant recipients are spent on the original allocation of the grants and do not find their way into political lobbying and campaigning.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that many charitable organisations falling within the purview of this Question are fearful of voicing their opinion in the context of the referendum on the European question? Will he make it clear to all such organisations that they will not be penalised under any circumstances for voicing their opinion, on whichever side that may be, in the context of the referendum?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a good point. The Charity Commission has published guidance for charities that may wish to participate in debates on the forthcoming EU referendum. The commission’s guidance reflects the existing legal position that charities can undertake campaigning and political activity where it is in support of their charitable purposes and where the trustees consider it to be in the interests of the charity.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, is it not important that we err on the side of freedom? And is not it true that, almost universally, what the Government intend to do is seen to be a bar to freedom of expression? Should not the Government think again before they get a reputation of being a bit lily-livered about opposition?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am very sorry to say that, on this point, I disagree with my noble friend. As I said, it is not about curbing freedom of speech; it is about making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively and goes where it was meant to go.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that this anti-lobbying clause is going to have a serious impact on research, since most people do research in order to influence policy and make it more evidence-based? Is it not odd that this in fact does not apply in any way to commercial lobbying and restricts only government-funded lobbying? Should not its real emphasis be on the control of the abuse of funds, as with Kids Company? Would it not be wise in the present circumstances to postpone the application of this new agreement until after 1 May so that further consultation can take place on this very important threat to the freedom of research and speech?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I heed what the noble Lord is saying. I have certainly received concerns, as have other Ministers, from the research and academic community. Clearly, the implementation of this clause as regards science and research is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Let me tell your Lordships that it is not the department’s nor the Government’s intention for research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council or the national academies to be covered by this clause. Ministers in BIS are continuing to engage with the academic research community and they will outline more detail by 1 May.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister tell this House at what point in the process the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Mark Walport, was consulted about the impact on scientific research? Could the Minister also inform the House of Sir Mark’s response?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say that I cannot go into great detail on that, as I am not furnished with that information. However, obviously there have been conversations with Sir Mark and others in the scientific community.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the press release that announced this said that it was as a result of research done by the IEA—so that lobbying led to this, with no consultation either with the academic world or anyone else. If I have understood the Minister, he is now willing to exempt academic research but not research carried out by other organisations, be they charities, the Marine Management Organisation, English Heritage or any others. Will the Minister consult with them before they are restricted from giving information to Parliament, government and, under the rules, to the European Union?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Her concerns have been heeded in the sense that the consultation on the implementation of this clause began the minute that the clause was announced in February. As regards curbing freedom of speech by charities, that is not the case. Let me remind your Lordships that charities make up only 7% of grant spend. Charities can continue to use any other funds to lobby government. Indeed, in the DCLG, where this clause has been in place for the past 18 months, Shelter, which has been receiving a grant from the DCLG, has continued to lobby this House and the other place on the contents of the housing Bill, for example.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, could we remind the House that this public money has come from taxation of well-off people, poor people and other people throughout the kingdom? The money is there to be granted for useful purposes; it is not there to pay for campaigning and lobbying. It is public money. If people want to campaign or lobby—I have lobbied and given money for lobbying—it should not be done with public money.
Lord Bridges of Headley
It will not surprise your Lordships that I agree with my noble friend. As I said, £130 billion is paid out in grants, and it is absolutely concomitant on any Government to ensure that that money goes to where it is meant to go.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister not consider something which occurred in this House? The hybrid embryo Bill, an area with which I am particular familiar, was an example of a piece of science and legislation for which this kind of lobbying and consultation was really important. It depended hugely on the advice that we got from research councils and other experts who lobbied. Even I, who have a detailed knowledge of much about science, learned from that process. Therefore, it greatly helped our debate and decision on the process, which in fact turned out well. It would be a mistake to ignore that.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I completely defer to the noble Lord’s considerable experience in the scientific community. I say again that, if the grant is used to fund a public campaign to seek legislative or regulatory change, that would be in breach of the clause unless specified in the terms of the grant agreement. However, organisations are free to use their own funding to publicise their research. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for the recipient of a grant to appear on the media or write press articles so long as that does not incur costs to the public purse.
Gaza: Electricity Supply
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, we are concerned by the electricity shortage in Gaza and the serious impact it is having on the humanitarian situation. We are in regular dialogue with Israel, the Palestinian Authority and other development actors, specifically the EU and the UN, on the extension of the 161 power line and the conversion of the Gaza power station to gas. Close to £475,000 in DfID funding is being used to support planning for the Gaza desalination plant.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she not agree that the people—the men, women and children—of Gaza have had enough? With this latest total breakdown in generating capacity, the water supply for drinking is at minimal, hazardous levels, and the water that is available is far from guaranteed to be pure. Does she also agree that we are in a situation where sewage is now just not being treated but is being pumped in increasing amounts into the sea—and that behind all this lies the complete failure within Gaza of an economy in any meaningful sense with which order can be established, services can be properly provided and the future can be carried forward? It is not just the humanitarian situation, which is bad enough. Surely this is a festering point for instability in the area and a playground for extremists, and it has implications way beyond Gaza itself.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a series of very important points but ultimately, as he and other noble Lords will be aware, we need to encourage a two-state peace-process solution. That is what we, the UK Government, and others are encouraging. Ultimately, however, it is down to the two parties to make sure that they are fully engaged.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister weary of the obsessive blaming of Israel for whatever goes wrong in Gaza and the surrounding area? The failure in electricity appears to be due to Hamas and the PA. If they cannot manage their own electricity and water, what hope is there to expect Hamas, Gaza and the West Bank to run an independent state of Palestine?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness again raises an important point, but the really important point is that we must encourage that the sorts of activities that are taking place are stopped so that we can further encourage the dialogue that needs to take place to bring forward a two-state solution and make sure that Hamas and others do not violate the rights of those who are being badly affected.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that this is a humanitarian crisis. Some 1.8 million Gazans—more than 50% of whom are children—are subjected to a situation where they have no clean water. More than 90% of the water available to them is contaminated. This is not a political question, it is a humanitarian question. While those 1.8 million people are waiting for a two-state solution—on which Israel seems very reluctant to come to the table—children are being subjected to this cruelty. What pressure is being brought to bear to ensure that, in the year 2016, clean water is available to the people of Gaza?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the UK Government, in dialogue with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, are working hard with other donors, the UN, the World Food Programme and others to ensure that access is available to the things that the noble Baroness mentioned. However, this is a protracted humanitarian crisis and we need to be firm in our resolve to encourage the two players to come to the table so that the absolutely necessary two-state solution can be reached.
Lord Popat (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that last month the Qataris offered to fully supply the power plant in Gaza, and that the Israelis accepted but President Abbas rejected? Is my noble friend in dialogue with her Palestinian counterpart on this very important issue?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend is right to raise the point about the pledges made at the Cairo conference by the Qataris and other donors to put money forward. We have succeeded in forwarding our pledge but we need to encourage all donors to fully disburse their pledges as well. I am not absolutely sure about my noble friend’s reference to the reports but I know that pledges have been made and we need to ensure that everyone comes to the table with them.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I was fortunate enough today to receive a letter from the Minister as a consequence of the recent debate of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the Occupied Territories and, in particular, its water and electricity supply. Although I think everyone in the Chamber is committed to the peace process and the two-state solution, there is no reason, as my noble friend has indicated, why the two sides cannot talk about practical measures to deal with this matter. There have recently been discussions in Brussels in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee. I wonder if the Minister can inform the House what progress has been made in ensuring that the Palestinians respond to offers and that the Israelis do so as well.
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord is right: while we are discussing and pushing forward the two-state solution we need also to address issues such as safe water in Gaza. Those conversations have been taking place. We are in regular contact with the Israeli authorities responsible for the civil administration of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and have lobbied them to address Gaza’s immediate, medium and long-term energy and clean water shortages and wastewater treatment. We need to make sure that we support them in that. The UK Government are also providing funding towards preparation of the documents needed for the Gaza desalination plant.
Hereditary Peers By-election
Enterprise Bill [HL]
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 11.
“Power of Welsh Ministers to apply regulators’ principles and code of practice
In section 24 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (application of regulators’ principles and code of practice to functions specified by order)—
(a) for paragraph (c) of subsection (3) (Wales: limit on power of Minister of the Crown to specify functions) substitute—
“(c) a Welsh regulatory function.”;
(b) in subsection (4) (power of Welsh Ministers to specify functions) for “regulatory functions exercisable only in or as regards Wales” substitute “Welsh regulatory functions”;
(c) in subsection (10) (definitions) at the appropriate place insert—
““Welsh regulatory function” means a regulatory function, so far as exercisable in relation to Wales, if or to the extent that the function relates to matters—
(a) within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (see section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or
(b) in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers.”.”
“Devolved Welsh matters
(1) The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In each of the following provisions, for “Welsh ministerial” substitute “devolved Welsh”—
(a) in section 4 (meaning of “relevant function”), subsections (6) and (8)(b);
(b) in section 6 (guidance to local authorities), subsections (1) and (1A);
(c) in section 10 (advice to Welsh Ministers), subsection (1)(a);
(d) in section 12 (relationship between Secretary of State and other regulators), subsection (3);
(e) in section 16 (guidance or directions by Welsh Ministers), subsection (1);
(f) in section 36 (power to make orders providing for civil sanctions), subsection (2);
(g) in section 59 (consultation and consent for civil sanctions orders: Wales), subsection (2);
(h) in section 73 (functions to which duty not to impose or maintain unnecessary regulatory burdens applies), subsections (3)(c), (4)(c) and (5).
(3) In section 73 (functions to which section 72 applies), in subsections (3)(c) and (4)(c), for “in Wales” substitute “in relation to Wales”.
(4) In section 74 (general interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “Welsh ministerial matter”;
(b) before the definition of “Minister of the Crown” insert—
““devolved Welsh matter” means —
(a) a matter within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (see section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006), or
(b) a matter in relation to Wales in respect of which functions are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers,
and in this definition “Wales” has the same meaning as in the Government of Wales Act 2006;”.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as the best place in Europe to start and grow a business, and make sure people who work hard can succeed. When the Bill left this House for the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, whom I see in his seat, rightly said that it was,
“certainly a better Bill than the one that arrived”.—[Official Report, 15/12/15; col. 1985.]
Today, we welcome the Bill back to this House with further improvements and amendments.
Let me begin with the pubs provisions—always a favourite subject, since the men in my family love a pint. As part 2 of the government consultation on the Pubs Code confirmed, we do not intend to frustrate access to the market rent only option. Amendment 28 improves Clause 33 on the MRO by amending Section 43 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act to put beyond doubt that MRO will be available at rent assessment, irrespective of the level at which the rent is set. This has now been reflected in the draft Pubs Code regulations, which were laid on 14 April. These also satisfy the concerns and commitments relating to pubs made during the passage of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act and at earlier stages of this Bill.
In particular, on parallel rent assessment, tenants can consider tied and MRO offers in parallel. Further, we have retained all the conditions in the Act that would entitle a tenant to request the MRO option. We said we would exempt genuine franchises from MRO, and we have done just that. Similarly, we have exempted tenancies at will and other short agreements that cumulatively last for no more than 12 months from most of the other provisions of the code, including from MRO. We have enabled pub-owning businesses and tied tenants to agree to defer for up to seven years the point at which MRO is available at a rent assessment and renewal, where the pub-owning business makes a significant investment. The minimum threshold for a significant investment is set at 200% of the pub’s dry rent.
Amendment 29 tidies up Clause 34, which addresses concerns that pub companies were changing their practice to avoid application of the pubs provisions in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act. These amendments make it clear: first, that potential unfair business practices occurring since the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act was passed in March 2015 are covered; secondly, that the adjudicator will report on avoidance of both the Act and the Pubs Code; and, thirdly, that territorial extent is in line with the SBEE Act pubs provisions.
The new Pubs Code Adjudicator, Paul Newby, has now been appointed and will take up post on 2 May, ahead of the Pubs Code coming into force. Mr Newby brings great experience of the sector and a reputation for professionalism. Let us give him the opportunity to show his worth.
I am very pleased with the progress that we have made on pubs in both Houses and, particularly, by working with stakeholders through the Pubs Code consultation. I look forward to a final discussion next month on the draft regulations, as Parliament considers the details of the code via the affirmative procedure.
The amendments in this group relating to Wales have been developed in agreement with the Welsh Government and will allow Wales to benefit from further or extended regulation-making powers in devolved areas in respect of the Regulators’ Code, the primary authority scheme and business rates.
Lastly, we come to the amendments to the extent and commencement clauses. I hope noble Lords will accept my assurance that these amendments are technical and need no further debate.
I commend all these amendments to the House and I beg to move.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the progress we have made in matters relating to pubs. Throughout the Bill’s progress, in both Houses of Parliament, we have seen the reversion of the original intention in the small business Act and have reinstated the parallel rent assessments; legislated for additional checks to ensure that pub companies do not game the code; reversed the decision to offer MRO conditional on there being an increase in rent; and ensured protection for tenants being offered investment in turn for opting out of MRO. I am tremendously grateful to the Minister for dealing with this extremely well and making sure that these amendments properly express what this House intended when it passed that amendment. I also congratulate the officials in the department, who have done a terrific job in restoring the balance that we hoped had been struck in the small business Act and making sure that these provisions are adequately catered for. We are tremendously grateful for that.
We welcome these amendments, but I will raise just a couple of technical issues on which I seek some clarity from the Minister. For the draft Pubs Code that has now been published, Regulation 3 states that every time a pub tenant wishes the adjudicator to be appointed to arbitrate on an MRO dispute, they must pay a fee of £200. Also, when an arbitration goes forward, there is the possibility of costs of up to £2,000 being awarded against tenants. We understand that this is to discourage vexatious complaints, given that tenants’ conduct could result in an unreasonable increase in the costs of arbitration. However, I want to raise a couple of issues on that.
First, for tenants who are unfamiliar with how the code operates, it will be very useful to get some understanding of how it would apply to a tenant calling who lacks understanding about how this is done. Is the £200 fee an automatic charge, or is there some discretion available to the Pubs Code Adjudicator on how that might be levied for any inquiries? Certainly, given the lack of full understanding of how this code works, it would be extremely unwelcome if the fee stopped tenants coming forward with legitimate concerns.
Secondly, in relation to managing some of the issues around the code, obviously most tenants could not take reasonable legal advice or pay the costs of other sorts of advice. It is entirely plausible and possible that they may well add to the complication of the arbitration because they are not sufficiently skilled or sufficiently well resourced to add to the expertise that would be required to make sure that the costs can be minimised. We would hope that the Pubs Code Adjudicator would do some of those things. It would be useful, therefore, to have some sense of how these costs may act fairly rather than just as an impediment to tenants coming forward with complaints.
Finally, within six months of being established, the Pubs Code Adjudicator must issue guidance on the criteria that the adjudicator intends to adopt in deciding whether to carry out investigations and on the practices and procedures that the adjudicator intends to adopt when looking at investigations. I would be grateful if the Minister could come back to this House, either in her response or in writing, about what input the Government will or could have, or what input this House could have, in this process. If there are any issues of concern with the procedures that are developed, what checks are in place to discuss and revise them, if necessary, after the Pubs Code Adjudicator delivers them?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for his very constructive response and reiterate my thanks to all noble Lords who have engaged in this. I look forward to our further debate.
On fees, the adjudicator has a power to give advice, so that will not have a charge. Once a referral is made, a fee of £200 is due. I will look further at the detail of what the noble Lord has said, in case there is something I can add. I will also write on the point that he raised about the detail of the adjudicator, so that that is entirely clear as well.
I believe that the changes that we have made, as I think the noble Lord has said, to the SBEE Act legislation and to the draft Pubs Code regulations should mean that all concerned can support these measures as a balanced package to deliver greater fairness—a word that he used—in the relationship between tied pubs and the pub-owning businesses. I very much hope that the industry and the tenants can look forward to a prosperous future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 12 to 17.
“The Institute for Apprenticeships
Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships) establishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and makes provision about its functions.”
“The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision
(1) Subsection (2) applies to—
(a) any standard approved and published by the Secretary of State under section A2 of the 2009 Act before the appointed day;
(b) any plan which—
(i) relates to the assessment of a person’s attainment of outcomes set out in a standard mentioned in paragraph (a), and
(ii) was approved and published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that assessment before the appointed day.
(2) Such a standard or plan is to be treated on and after the appointed day as having been approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships under section A2A of the 2009 Act and published by it under section A2 of that Act (as amended by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)).
(3) A standard or plan within subsection (1) is to be treated for the purposes of section A2I of the 2009 Act (as inserted by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)) as having been approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships at the beginning of the appointed day.
(4) This section does not limit the provision that may be made under clause 37.
(5) In this section—
“the appointed day” means the day on which section A2A of the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (inserted by Schedule (The Institute for Apprenticeships)) comes into force;
“the 2009 Act” means the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.”
“Apprenticeships: information sharing
(1) After Part 1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (apprenticeships, study and training) insert—
“Part 1A
APPRENTICESHIPS: INFORMATION SHARING
England
40A Sharing of information by HMRC and the Secretary of State
(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them to the Secretary of State for the purpose of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to English statutory apprenticeships.
(2) The Secretary of State may disclose information to HMRC—
(a) for the purpose of requesting HMRC to disclose information under subsection (1), or
(b) for another purpose connected with the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to English statutory apprenticeships.
(3) In this section “English statutory apprenticeships” means—
(a) approved English apprenticeships within the meaning given in section A1;
(b) apprenticeships undertaken under apprenticeship agreements within the meaning given in section 32 that were entered into in connection with recognised English frameworks;
(c) apprenticeships in relation to which alternative English completion arrangements apply under section 1(5);
(d) apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made in relation to England under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
40B Sharing of information by HMRC and devolved authorities
(1) HMRC may disclose information held by them—
(a) to a Welsh authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Welsh apprenticeships;
(b) to a Scottish authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Scottish apprenticeships;
(c) to a Northern Irish authority for the purpose of the authority’s functions in relation to Northern Irish apprenticeships.
(2) An authority mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) may disclose information to HMRC—
(a) for the purpose of requesting HMRC to disclose information to the authority under subsection (1), or
(b) for another purpose connected with the authority’s functions mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) In this section—
“Northern Irish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made under section 1 of the Employment and Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;
“Northern Irish authority” means—
(a) a Northern Ireland department, and
(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description;
“Scottish apprenticeships” means apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made—
(a) in relation to Scotland, under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, or
(b) under section 2(3) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990,
that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;
“Scottish authority” means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description;
“Welsh apprenticeships” means—
(a) apprenticeships undertaken under apprenticeship agreements within the meaning given in section 32 that were entered into in connection with recognised Welsh frameworks;
(b) apprenticeships in relation to which alternative Welsh completion arrangements apply under section 2(5);
(c) apprenticeships undertaken under arrangements made in relation to Wales under—
(i) section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973, or
(ii) section 17B of the Jobseekers Act 1995,
that are identified by the person making them as arrangements for the provision of apprenticeships;
“Welsh authority” means—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) any body or other person that is prescribed, or of a prescribed description.
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) the reference to a Northern Ireland department includes a reference to a person providing services to a Northern Ireland department;
(b) the reference to the Scottish Ministers includes a reference to a person providing services to the Scottish Ministers;
(c) the reference to the Welsh Ministers includes a reference to a person providing services to the Welsh Ministers.
(5) Regulations under this section may amend the definition in subsection (3) of—
(a) “Northern Irish apprenticeships”,
(b) “Scottish apprenticeships”, or
(c) “Welsh apprenticeships”.
General
40C Wrongful disclosure
(1) Information disclosed by HMRC under section 40A(1) or 40B(1) may not be disclosed by the recipient of the information to any other person without the consent of HMRC (except so far as permitted by section 40A(2) or 40B(2)).
(2) If a person discloses, in contravention of subsection (1), any revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity—
(a) is specified in the disclosure, or
(b) can be deduced from it,
section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (wrongful disclosure) applies in relation to that disclosure as it applies in relation to a disclosure of such information in contravention of section 20(9) of that Act.
40D Interpretation
(1) In this Part—
“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“revenue and customs information relating to a person” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (see section 19(2) of that Act).
(2) In this Part—
(a) references to HMRC include references to a person providing services to HMRC;
(b) references to the Secretary of State include references to a person providing services to the Secretary of State.
(3) Nothing in this Part affects any power to disclose information that exists apart from this Part.”
(2) In section 262(6) of that Act (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(aaa) regulations under section 40B;”.
(3) In section 268 of that Act (extent)—
(a) in subsection (2) (provisions extending to Scotland) for “Sections 40,” substitute “Section 40, Part 1A, sections”, and
(b) in subsection (3) (provisions extending to Northern Ireland) for “Sections”, in the first place, substitute “Part 1A, sections”.”
“Apprenticeship funding
In section 100(1A) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources in connection with approved English apprenticeships)—
(a) for “approved English apprenticeships”, in both places, substitute “English statutory apprenticeships”, and
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) In this section “English statutory apprenticeship” has the same meaning as in section 40A (see subsection (3) of that section).””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Government have brought forward these amendments to establish the new Institute for Apprenticeships. We have done a lot on apprenticeships, and the results are promising. On the apprentices side, 89% of apprentices said they are satisfied with their apprenticeship, and 82% of employers said they were satisfied with their programme. To build on this, and to deliver more world-class apprenticeships, we need to support employers in maintaining the quality of their apprenticeships.
A new and independent public body, the Institute for Apprenticeships, is being established to ensure the quality of apprenticeship standards across all sectors in England. Although the focus for its activities will be recommended by government annually, the institute will be free to determine its own processes and make autonomous decisions in relation to its functions, responding to employer and apprentice needs. Employer groups will continue to develop the content of standards and assessment plans. The institute will ensure that they are fit for purpose by scrutinising the standards and the plans. Sector and assessment experts, academics and others, will help the institute to carry out these functions. In addition, the institute will carry out some wider quality assurance functions, including making arrangements for evaluating the quality of the end-point assessment for apprenticeships. Our objective is to ensure, through the Institute for Apprenticeships, that quality remains at the heart of approved English apprenticeships, whether they are with the biggest international companies or in small craft businesses.
Amendments 14 and 15 clarify the information that public sector organisations subject to apprenticeships targets should provide to the Secretary of State to ensure consistency and clarity of reporting.
On Amendments 16 and 17, as noble Lords know, the current Finance Bill introduces the apprenticeship levy, which will fund a step change in apprenticeship numbers and quality and deliver on the commitment of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. For employers to get the full benefit of the levy, we need to know what they have contributed. Data sharing between HMRC and the Secretary of State for BIS is the most effective way of doing this and the least burdensome for business. Amendment 16 will enable information held by HMRC on an employer’s levy due to be shared, so that the Government will be able to match apprenticeship funding in England to the levy payments made by each employer by creating individual employer digital accounts. Similar data-sharing powers are provided to devolved Administrations to manage their apprenticeship schemes. From April 2017, we intend to apply a 10% top-up to levy funds paid to employers’ digital accounts to spend on apprenticeship training in England. Levy-paying employers in England will therefore be able to get out more than they put in if they are committed to training apprentices—a very important principle. Amendment 17 is technical and uncontentious.
I commend these amendments to the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said when she introduced the first set of amendments that the Bill was now in better shape than when it started. We can all agree with that, in particular with reference to apprenticeships. These amendments fill a lacuna in the area of apprenticeships, which we pointed out in Committee and on Report. Indeed, we tried very hard to get some movement from the Government on this but were rebuffed robustly, as is the noble Baroness’s way, albeit in a very gentle and appropriate manner. Therefore, it is all the more of a pleasure to see these amendments come back, which, in some senses, begin to address some of the big issues about what we need to do as a country to ensure that the apprenticeship route for vocational education is acknowledged, and made attractive to parents and the young people who might wish to take them, as has sadly been lacking for too many years.
However, there are some issues with the proposals, which I do not want in any sense to use to argue against them, but although we have some movement here there are still quite a lot of questions that have to be resolved. We will watch this with interest. I suspect—although I have no knowledge of this—that it might be something that your Lordships’ House may have to deal with as we go forward. For instance, the focus is rightly on trying to ensure that apprenticeships are of a high quality, but there is very little detail on what the new institute will do on that, and what it might not, at this stage, be appropriate to do. It has a good foundation with the people on it, but perhaps in its staffing it does not reach as far as it could towards issues that might give some reassurance that they are thinking about the quality levels. There is a problem about the age at which apprenticeships are offered. There are still too many people aged between 23 and 30 and not enough aged between 18 and 24. To what extent will the IFA have the tools to deal with that?
There is an assumption throughout a lot of people’s discussions and debate about apprenticeships that the focus will be on STEM subjects. In fact, I am sure the Minister will agree that there is just as much need to ensure that we have apprenticeships across the creative and other industries which supply so much of our national growth and which are being relied on to make sure that our economy is diversified—“STEAM”, not STEM, might be a better way of putting it. In case there is any doubt about that, the “A” stands for the arts and the creative industries.
These proposals do not deal with what is going to happen to our colleges. Many FE colleges are going through periodic and differential reviews and their future does not seem at all clear. They are obviously very nervous about how this will happen. Again, we would not seek to do this through the Bill, but we need more clarity about what the infrastructure that will receive the ministrations of the IFA will be able to do.
Finally, the question of the vocational education and the sort of provision that is required to provide an interlacing approach for children leaving school and going on to higher and further education is not yet fully mapped out, although I am sure that the aspirations are there. We will need to spend more time on that—perhaps when the White Paper turns into a higher education Bill we will have that opportunity. However, at the bottom of all that there is a really difficult problem about productivity. The test will be, at the end of the day, whether the IFA has anything to offer us in terms of improving productivity in this country, which is sadly lagging behind our competitors. If it does, all power to it; if it does not, we may have to revisit it; but in the interim it is an exciting development, we wish it well and we welcome these clauses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments and for his help in filling the lacuna that he identified. I share his wish to see apprenticeships as a really attractive option for school leavers. We will be making more information available on funding and on the detail of how the new arrangements will work from next year. I hope that this will answer the noble Lord’s outstanding questions. He makes a good point about what we do for the younger apprentices and how that fits in with the older ones. I agree that while we need a focus on STEM we actually need apprenticeships right across the board and that the creative and digital industries are an incredibly important area. My friend in the other place, Ed Vaizey, slaves and steams day and night trying to ensure that that aspect is grabbed right across Whitehall.
What I like about the Bill is that it builds on earlier legislation to ensure that apprenticeships are real jobs with substantial and sustained training. The reforms are making apprenticeships more rigorous already and will ultimately help people to realise their potential. It will allow them to have a portfolio, so that they can move jobs if that is what they want to do. We are committed to ensuring that all apprenticeships are of high quality and this has been central to our reforms, as the House knows. High-quality apprenticeships are essential to support our employers and to help our economy prosper in the years to come. I believe that these additions to the Bill improve it and I trust that the House is happy to welcome these amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 to 26.
“( ) After subsection (7A) insert—
“(7B) For the purposes of subsections (4B)(b) and (5A)(d) “the appropriate fund” means—
(a) where the provision made by virtue of subsection (4A)(c) or (5) is in relation to a proposal to alter an English list, the Consolidated Fund, and
(b) where the provision made by virtue of subsection (4A)(c) or (5) is in relation to a proposal to alter a Welsh list, the Welsh Consolidated Fund.””
““Welsh list” means—
(a) a local non-domestic rating list that has to be compiled for a billing authority in Wales, or
(b) the central non-domestic rating list that has to be compiled for Wales.””
(a) where those regulations relate to a proposal to alter an English list, a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;
(b) where those regulations relate to a proposal to alter a Welsh list, a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
(a) in the case of regulations relating to England, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;
(b) in the case of regulations relating to Wales, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
“(3G) In subsection (3E), “English list” and “Welsh list” have the same meaning as in section 55.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 27.
“Sunday working
Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers), which contains amendments of employment legislation relating to the rights of shop workers to opt out of working on Sunday, has effect.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, this group of amendments introduces measures to strengthen rights for shop workers in England and Wales and in Scotland by amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002.
We are no longer pursuing the devolution of powers to extend Sunday trading hours, which these measures were designed to complement.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, when it was first introduced, this Bill was described as a Christmas tree Bill, as have a number of Bills from the Minister’s department. Therefore, it is a particular pleasure to receive a Christmas present at the end of the process in the form of a wholly unlooked for, but none the less very welcome, strengthening of the powers that now apply to people who have to work within the existing legislation on Sundays.
I am not sufficiently expert in Whitehall matters to know how long it would have been until an appropriate Bill came round and these very important issues would have been taken on their merits. Of course, as the noble Baroness said—she did not give us the gory detail—there was a bit of a circuit round Whitehall to find, first, a Bill that would take the devolution proposals and then a Minister willing to put the proposals into a Bill. Indeed, I seem to remember the noble Baroness saying at a meeting, perhaps informally, that the last thing she wanted to see in her Bill was a measure involving Sunday trading. She has had to concede a very important set of small paragraphs which will help people who currently work on Sunday, and we are delighted to have them.
This should go down as one of those case studies that appear in books describing how awful Whitehall can be sometimes, because at the meetings I went to we could never work out what the Government were trying to do. Was this about tourism or an attempt to defeat the incursion of internet shopping into our high streets? Was it to promote high streets? Was it to make sure that smaller shops in smaller towns were supported? It never really got sorted out. As one of the participants at the meetings, the right reverend Prelate pointed out that at the end of the day, unless you sorted this out in a holistic way, involving the staff from the beginning, it simply would not happen —and it did not. With that ringing in our ears, we welcome this proposal and look forward to its early implementation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, before we leave this group of amendments, I echo something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said a moment or two ago about the importance of protecting workers’ rights. I was involved in the original legislation when it was enacted and spoke in another place about protecting workers who wanted to opt out of having to work on Sundays, and I moved amendments that excluded Christmas Day and Easter Day—two of the very few amendments that were successful at that time.
To some extent, these amendments merely tinker with the protections provided previously. A lot of evidence has been gathered in the years since the enactment of the original legislation which indicates that those protections need strengthening further. I simply refer the Minister to what one of her predecessors —the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon—promised Parliament back in 2012, on 24 April, when he spoke at the Second Reading of the Sunday Trading (London Olympic and Paralympic Games) Bill. He said that Parliament would have the opportunity fully to debate the issue of Sunday trading restrictions if the issue were revisited. I simply ask the Minister why it therefore required the intervention of notable Members of Parliament such as Mr David Burrowes and the redoubtable Fiona Bruce, who worked across the divide to defeat the Government’s proposals, to prevent something being stampeded through without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Why was the promise given to the House in 2012 not honoured? Why did we not have a debate about this when it was in your Lordships’ House in the first instance, before it went to another place? Perhaps the Minister will shed light on that.
The Minister will know that there were some 7,000 responses to the consultation process the Government initiated. It would be a great breach of trust in the future—at a time when trust is not held in very high esteem by many people when looking at Parliament and politics—if we were both to ignore the responses to the consultation process and circumvent the promises Ministers have previously given. If any further changes are intended, will there be the opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny? Can we please not use such methods, which, in the end, it took members of the Minister’s own party in the House of Commons to prevent the Government from proceeding with in a very high-handed way?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I associate myself with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has said. In particular, strengthening the rights of those in the retail trade in relation to Sunday trading is very important. I am glad that, however it has come about, it has ultimately been a government proposal which I hope noble Lords will agree to very quickly.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments. I am also grateful for the welcome for these changes from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The provisions on Sunday trading were still being developed when the Bill was in the House. This is one of the reasons why I did not expect to be leading a discussion on Sunday trading. As noble Lords have said, the measures were originally intended as part of a much wider package, including measures on Sunday trading hours. The House of Commons spoke clearly; it had a debate; it has left the enhancement of shop workers’ rights in the Bill and this has been welcomed. We have not, therefore, had the chance for a full debate but it is good that we have had today’s debate.
In conclusion, some shop workers can still face pressure to work on Sundays, despite existing measures to protect them. This strengthening of shop workers’ rights makes it clear that this should not be the case. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 28 and 29.
“Market rent only option: rent assessments etc
In section 43 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (pubs code: market rent only option), in subsection (6)(b), after “in lieu of rent” insert “(whether or not it results in a proposal that the rent, or amount of money payable, should increase)”.”
“Reports on avoidance
In Part 4 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (the Pubs Code Adjudicator and the Pubs Code), after section 71 insert—
“71A Reports on avoidance
(1) The Adjudicator must report to the Secretary of State on cases of pub-owning businesses engaging in business practices which are, in the Adjudicator’s opinion, unfair business practices.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include recommendations as to—
(a) actions to be taken to prevent pub-owning businesses from engaging in the business practices reported on, and
(b) how to provide redress for tied pub tenants affected by those practices.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue a statement within three months of receiving a report under subsection (1) setting out—
(a) action which the Secretary of State intends to take to protect tied pub tenants affected by the business practices reported on, or
(b) if the Secretary of State does not intend to take such action, the reasoning for that decision.
(4) In this section “unfair business practice” means a business practice which—
(a) is engaged in by a pub-owning business at any time after the passing of this Act in order to avoid, to the detriment of tied pub tenants, the operation of provision made by or under this Part, and
(b) is unfair.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 30.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, Amendment 30 removes the provision, introduced on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, regarding the Green Investment Bank. I pause to pay tribute to the noble Lord. I am very grateful for his thoughtful and well-reasoned proposal, which requires a special share to be created to protect the green purpose of the bank when it leaves public ownership. We were all in the same place on this objective and he helped the Government find a way through.
As the noble Lord and I have discussed, there is a significant risk that mandating this structure in the legislation itself would prevent the bank moving to the private sector, so the Government needed to remove the provision from the Bill. However, there will instead be a special share held by a separate company, independent from Government, which will have the right to approve—or, equally importantly, reject—any proposed change to the bank’s green purpose as set out in its articles of association.
I can confirm that the Government have consulted with the Office for National Statistics, the body which determines whether an organisation is classified to the public or private sector, on the basis of internationally agreed rules. The ONS Economic Statistics Classifications Committee has formally opined that this special share should not prevent the bank moving to the private sector once it is sold. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has suggested an amendment to bring out the ONS decision more clearly and I look forward to hearing his views on this. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, for his leadership of the bank and, as chairman of the bank, for updating noble Lords on progress in putting this special share in place. Those letters are in the House Libraries.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government launched their sale of the Green Investment Bank last month. In launching the sale, we made very clear to the market and potential bidders that this special share model will be in place. We laid a report before Parliament on 3 March, which included details of our plans to create a special share as part of the sale process. I therefore commend Amendment 30 to the House, and I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion on Amendment 30
Lord Mendelsohn
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 30B in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill”.
“Green Investment Bank: Office for National Statistics classification
Where, prior to a sale of shares of a UK Green Investment Bank Company (as defined in section 31(2)), the Office for National Statistics ("ONS") has a duty to make an assessment of the Green Investment Bank concerning its classification as public debt for the purposes of the National Accounts, the ONS must publish a report outlining its reasoning and the steps it has taken to reach its decision.”
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, before I speak to the amendment, I would like to congratulate noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their work on this. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, made a very powerful speech in Committee. I pay extraordinary and particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has done a simply outstanding job in all the spadework that was done, and in speaking to a range of people; he has come up with a very elegant formula. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, and his colleagues at the Green Investment Bank, in moving to embrace this model. In fact, the special share provides for a much better Green Investment Bank and for the green purposes to be more extensive than they would have been with any form of government participation because of the state aid rules, so I think we are in a much better position.
The rationale behind this amendment relates, of course, to the problem we had in determining the structural issues. In June 2015, the Business Secretary announced the Government’s intention to privatise the bank to allow it to borrow more capital without adding to government debt, as reported in Business Green. However, the ONS ruled that, in order for the bank to obtain status as a private body, the Government must repeal any of their involvement in or control over the Green Investment Bank’s operation. As part of the privatisation process, the legislation in the Enterprise Bill, enshrining the Green Investment Bank’s green ethos, must be removed from the statute. This requirement has prompted fears that the bank could be hijacked by a private investor seeking to make investments not aligned to its core values.
The department’s November policy statement described the situation as follows:
“The decision on whether an organisation is classified to the public or private sector is made by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and is considered in accordance with the EU-wide regulations, set out principally in the European System of Accounts 2010, (ESA 2010) and supplemented by guidance in the accompanying ‘Manual on government deficit and debt’”.
In the light of the Government’s discussions with the ONS and HM Treasury, and the department’s assessment of the regulations, it was clear that even if the Green Investment Bank was no longer owned by the Government, current legislation on the bank was highly likely to be assessed by the owners as constituting government control over it, preventing it being reclassified to the private sector. It also said that the ONS would be in a position to take a substantive decision on the bank’s classification only once a transaction had actually taken place. Of course, that involves in part the question of contractual arrangements, but it is also about procedure.
This leads to a highly unsatisfactory process, which we faced when the Green Investment Bank provisions were first introduced into this Bill, which was something of a rush. It involved a lot of panicked conversations and an extensive repeal of existing legislation, without particular rhyme or reason being properly articulated. We have had an unseemly mess, which has only been adequately resolved by the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. That could all have been avoided if there had been a reasonable discussion and a proper statement of reasons by the Office for National Statistics.
We have to consider that there are other opinions about whether this provision would breach those rules, and whether what was being said was likely to be actually true. Many experts in this field, given the opportunity, would have liked to make the case that classification was not necessary and the ONS was not just being overly cautious, but went way beyond the mark in making such an assessment. Indeed, there are examples in other countries of similar models which statistical bodies have applied without any real difficulty.
Finally, from the discussions that have taken place I am led to believe that the provision of a special share and the new structure of the Green Investment Bank enhance its value and the possibility of the overall sale of the bank. It is sensible for us to put in not some form of government or parliamentary oversight but a broader ability for ONS decisions to be made public earlier, for experts and practitioners in this field to have the chance to review them, and for the ONS to make a much more timely assessment and make those reasons well known. This is a simple amendment, which we hope the Government will look at carefully and consider a probable enhancement to the process as we look to change the status of certain assets in the Government’s control and move them towards the private sector. This would be a helpful addition, and I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her kind words and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his great support and that of his colleagues all the way through this process. I also very much welcome the work and effort that the Minister put into persuading her ministerial colleagues to go down this route. I am sure that she was vital in that process. I hope that, because of this, as she said, all parts of the House are happy with the position we have reached and that the conditions which were put in the Bill will now be delivered in practice. As we have always said from these Benches, we were not really concerned with how it happened as long as it did happen. I am sure that we will have an institution which we in the United Kingdom, including the environmental movement and the financial community, can be proud of for many years to come, and that we will not face yet another generic financial institution with no real focus in the environmental area or anywhere else. We have avoided that happening in the longer term.
I want to speak briefly to Amendment 30B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. We have had a number of discussions about the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank. One area of discussion was the frustration—I came to be very sympathetic to the Government over this—in trying to determine whether amending legislation would mean that an institution on which we were legislating ended up in the public or private sector. I read through all the guidelines published by Europe and the ONS on classification but it seems that, despite them, a lot of these issues are not straightforward. They are quite subjective in many ways. The nub of this—the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, put this over very well—is that it gets in the way of the parliamentary process. If, because of a particular amendment or the way in which legislation is written, the Government cannot be certain at the end of that process whether a body is in the public or private sector, it means that they are forced to be conservative with a small “c” in estimating how an amendment should be phrased. That is not healthy for parliamentary debate or the way in which legislation is formed.
Although this is a limited amendment, I very much agree with its spirit. But I say to the House that this area needs to be investigated further. The amendment would not challenge in any way the independence of the ONS, which is clearly sacred; but its transparency and the way its decisions are made, pre-event as well as ex post, are extremely important. I wish the Green Investment Bank every continued success in its mission to stimulate the green economy. It has been successful in the past and I hope that, through its privatisation, it will be even more successful in the future.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the chairman of the Green Investment Bank, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, is not in his place this afternoon, but I am sure he would like it to be said on his behalf that he is grateful to the Government for agreeing to remove these three clauses from the Bill and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for all the work that he has done to bring this solution about. I think it is right to say that as far as the chairman is concerned, his main aim in detaching the bank from the public sector is to attract investment. From his point of view, investment is vital if the bank is to fulfil its ambitious plans to double the size of its business and to deliver a growing green project—I am quoting from one of the letters which, as the Minister said, have been placed in the Library. So minimising the risk of the bank being classified as part of the public sector is part of the strategy of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, to attract investment, and from his point of view, the result of the amendments the Minister has moved will be to help him to deliver what he is seeking to deliver.
I think I should mention also that steps have been taken by the bank to make progress with the overall scheme that has been devised. A new special shareholder company has been incorporated and agreement from three very well-established and reputable institutions has been secured so that they will help the bank to find individuals to serve in a personal capacity as trustees of the special share that has been set up. The structures are now being put in place and the step being taken this afternoon is really the last in the series of steps to bring about the reality that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has been seeking to achieve for some months. So, on his behalf, I repeat the thanks to various people, including the Minister, for what has been achieved.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his gracious comments. This has been a brief but constructive discussion. Let me reiterate that the Government not only support the intention of this provision but are already acting on it. I am also very grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who could not be here today. He rightly underlined the importance of the external investment that the Green Investment Bank is seeking to raise to realise its exciting green ambitions.
Working across this House, we developed a mechanism that meets our purpose. It allows the bank to move to the private sector, meaning that it can grow and increase its green impact, and it ensures that its green mission is protected. With regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, the ONS publishes its decisions routinely. Indeed, for some classification decisions, such as that of Royal Mail or Lloyds TSB, the ONS also provides detailed reasoning behind the classification decision. I can reassure the noble Lord that the ONS has confirmed that it will publish a detailed explanatory article on its decision on the classification of the GIB.
However, I must emphasise—this is the nub of the problem—that a decision on the GIB will be taken only after the sale has taken place. There is a reason for this. Until the ONS is able to look at the full facts of the matter, such as the legislation which exists at that point in time, the precise nature and number of the shareholders, their rights and so on, it cannot make a formal decision on which party is in control of the body, and hence on its classification. That is why the Government engage with ONS during the development of policy proposals, where ONS will give a formal, but provisional, classification assessment. That is what we did with the special share structure which the GIB is now putting in place. As I mentioned earlier, the ONS has given us a formal opinion that this structure should not prevent the GIB moving to the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, rightly asked why the decision could not be published earlier. As I have said, the decision will come after the sale has completed. Until the full details, which would include legislation, ownership and contractual arrangements, are known, any judgment on who controls the body could only ever be provisional—so providing an earlier decision would not enhance certainty. Unfortunately, the nature of these assessments can be complex and cases can be time-consuming, although I am glad to say that the ONS publishes its forward work plan every quarter, which sets out the classification issues that it will be considering.
So what is the way forward? I understand noble Lords’ frustration; I have to say that I shared it myself in spades on the question of public sector classification and the ONS’s role. These concerns go wider than just the issue of the Green Investment Bank, and I am happy to undertake to bring them to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury to see if anything can be done for future cases to help rightly risk-averse government Ministers.
I hope that we can all agree that we have reached a good outcome for the Green Investment Bank and wish it well, and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for their comments about the good work of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, and the good wishes that we have for the bank’s successful operation in the future.
I thank the Minister for her comments. I would just say that if you go to someone for a provisional view and they give it, you must have given them some assumptions for the basis of which they can take such a view, and you must have given them a potential range of assumptions. It is certainly true that a decision cannot be confirmed until the full facts are there, but some assumptions were given at the first stages in order to take that provisional view. All we are asking is to make sure that that view is made properly available because, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, so many of the measures are subjective. But I appreciate her comment that she will go back and look at what can be done. In light of that positive response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31 and 32.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 33 to 39.
“( ) by the Welsh Ministers, in relation to relevant Welsh exit payments;”
“( ) if made by the Welsh Ministers, may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.”
“( ) In this section “relevant Welsh exit payments” means exit payments made to holders of the following offices—
(a) member of the National Assembly for Wales;
(b) the First Minister for Wales;
(c) Welsh Minister appointed under section 48 of the Government of Wales Act 2006;
(d) Counsel General to the Welsh Government;
(e) Deputy Welsh Minister;
(f) member of a county council or a county borough council in Wales;
(g) member of a National Park Authority in Wales;
(h) member of a Fire and Rescue Authority in Wales.”
“(2A) The Welsh Ministers may relax any restriction imposed by regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 153A.”
“(6) Regulations under section 153A made by the Welsh Ministers may—
(a) make provision for the power under subsection (2A) to be exercisable on behalf of the Welsh Ministers by a person specified in the regulations;
(b) where provision is made by virtue of paragraph (a), make provision for a requirement to be relaxed only—
(i) with the consent of the Welsh Ministers, or
(ii) following compliance with any directions given by the Welsh Ministers;
(c) make provision as to the publication of information about any relaxation of a requirement granted.
(6A) Regulations made by the Treasury under section 153A(1)—
(a) must, if they make provision in relation to exit payments made by a relevant Welsh authority, provide for the power conferred on a Minister of the Crown by subsection (1) to be exercised instead by the Welsh Ministers in relation to those exit payments;
(b) may provide for the power conferred on a Minister of the Crown by subsection (1) to be exercised instead by the Welsh Ministers in relation to exit payments made by any other authority who is not a relevant Welsh authority but who wholly or mainly exercises functions in relation to Wales (but this does not limit the provision that may be made under subsection (4)(a)).”
““relevant Welsh authority” means an authority who wholly or mainly exercises functions which could be conferred by provision falling within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales (as defined in section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006).”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I think that we are now on the homeward path. These amendments relate to public sector exit pay. A number of noble Lords have spoken on this subject. However, the amendments made in the other place that we are discussing today relate only to further regulation-making powers for Welsh Ministers in devolved areas. Specifically, the amendments enable Welsh Ministers to make regulations in respect of exit payments where they have devolved legislative competence for exit payments under the Government of Wales Act 2006. The amendments have been improved by the Welsh Assembly and I hope that noble Lords will also approve them. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has just said in respect of Wales. I point out to her that that is exactly the argument that I and my noble friend Lady Morgan put forward on the Trade Union Bill when we said that these were devolved matters covering devolved public services and that it was a breach of the devolution settlement that the Trade Union Bill transgressed that. So I am very glad that she has conceded that principle in this Bill.
Lord Mendelsohn
My Lords, the Conservative manifesto introduced this issue, saying that a Conservative Government would legislate to cap redundancy compensation for public sector workers with a particular focus on larger amounts. I will make just a few comments about something that has received some consideration but falls slightly outside that, and it would be useful if the Minister could give some indication of whether the Government were thinking in some way about how to accommodate this. It relates to the nuclear decommissioning workers who entered into an agreement with their employer. To seek to undo that agreement through legislation is slightly unjust, and this is worth looking at.
The new legislation supersedes protections under previous legislation, including the statutory protections introduced under Schedule 8 to the Energy Act 2004, which currently safeguards workers’ pensions, such as those of the Magnox workers. It has been estimated that about 1,200 Magnox workers who are decommissioning the UK’s nuclear plants will be caught out by the proposed measures in the Bill, which could see them losing thousands of pounds in retirement income. The particular reason why these cases are worthy of note is of course that people took on those jobs knowing that it would change their retirement years because they were involved in a job which had an end date which was not the same as their full working life—these were expert workers who made the decision to do it because in compensation the balance of pension payments would in some way adequately reward their commitment to that work. The impact of the Bill could also be felt by many other workers, including the entire 30,000 who are working across the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s estate, who will also be affected by a cap of £95,000.
As I understand from the presentation in the manifesto and at other times, the exit cap was to be seen as putting a stop to the so-called golden handshakes or fat-cat pension payouts in the public sector. But it will impact on many long-serving low-paid workers within the nuclear industry. That is why we hope that there will be some opportunity outside the Bill for the Government to look very carefully at the arrangements they have for those who do this difficult, dangerous and very important work and to give some due consideration to that, particularly because their provisions also relate to an agreement that was present in the Energy Act 2004.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful for the response and for the support for these amendments. Similar to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government can now determine how they want to take forward arrangements in relation to devolved bodies and workforces. The devolved Administrations will be responsible for putting forward their own regulations and listing relevant bodies in scope. As I made clear in introducing the amendments, they will enable Welsh Ministers to make regulations in respect of exit payments where they have devolved legislative competence for exit payments under the Government of Wales Act 2006. Therefore, the situation is different from those issues, which we will no doubt come on to debate later this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked about the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority—a point that we have touched on before. Interestingly, as we discussed in relation to the previous amendment, the ONS is involved. It determines whether a body falls within the public sector by reference to objective criteria, based on whether the governance, funding, ownership and function of these bodies demonstrate that they are controlled by government. Organisations within the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority carry out important public work, acting as agents of and under the direction of the NDA and operating only through a licence issued by the Office for Nuclear Regulation.
The majority of funding provided to the NDA comes from the Exchequer and amounts to about £2 billion a year. Regulations, not the Bill itself, will set out who is within the scope of the cap, and I can reassure the noble Lord that the Treasury will release both the guidance and regulations in the summer in order to consult with stakeholders. We expect the regulations to come before this House later this year and to be in force from October 2016 at the earliest. NDA employees due to exit before this date will not be affected. From the point when the regulations have been made, Ministers will be able to relax the cap and may wish to consider whether exceptionally it should be relaxed for certain individuals or even organisations.
To conclude, as I said earlier, the Bill supports the UK’s position as the best place in Europe to start and grow a business. The amendments made in the other place make a series of changes to further support our aim, adding measures on apprenticeships, Sunday working, Wales, tidying up the pubs and on the Green Investment Bank, and making a number of technical changes. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debates in this House and of course in the other place.
Lord Hain
I apologise to the Minister and my own Front Bench, but I cannot accept the distinction she is making between Bills here. The Minister is saying that the principle that devolved public services should be run by the Welsh Government is accepted by Her Majesty’s Government in this House in respect of this Bill but not in respect of the Trade Union Bill. That gives rise to a major question which the Welsh Government will want to revisit.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord. My understanding is that the situation is different but we will no doubt have a debate later today—as I have already indicated. I do not think that we can spend further time in relation to this provision, which is clear cut and fully supported. I finish by thanking all those who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to facilitate the Bill’s passage through this House, including the House’s authorities, the Lord Speaker and the Bill team, who have worked so hard to get us to this place.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 40 to 54.
“( ) section (Sunday working), and Schedule (Sunday working hours: rights of shop workers) (Sunday working hours: rights of shop workers), for the purpose of enabling the exercise of any power to make regulations under any provision of the Employment Rights Act 1996 inserted by that Schedule;”
“( ) paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (things to be included in Secretary of State’s report in respect of the business impact target), and section 14 (which introduces Schedule 2) so far as relating to that paragraph;”
“(4) The following provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Treasury may by regulations appoint—
(a) section 29 (UK Government Investments Limited);
(b) section 35 and Schedule 4 (restriction on public sector exit payments).”
“( ) subsections (5) to (9) of section 14 (application of changes relating to the business impact target in relation to the relevant period in which they come into force);
( ) section (Apprenticeships: information sharing) (apprenticeships: information sharing);”
“( ) Section (The Institute for Apprenticeships: transitional provision) extends to England and Wales.”
“THE INSTITUTE FOR APPRENTICESHIPS
1 The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 is amended as follows.
2 In Part 1 (apprenticeships, study and training) before Chapter A1 insert—
“Chapter ZA1
THE INSTITUTE FOR APPRENTICESHIPS
Establishment
ZA1 The Institute for Apprenticeships
(1) A body corporate known as the Institute for Apprenticeships is established.
(2) In this Act that body is referred to as “the IfA”.
(3) Schedule A1 makes further provision about the IfA.
General duties and functions
ZA2 General duties
(1) So far as relevant, and subject to any notice given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), in performing its functions the IfA must have regard to—
(a) the reasonable requirements of industry, commerce, finance, the professions and other employers regarding education and training within the IfA’s remit;
(b) the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within the IfA’s remit;
(c) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit is of an appropriate quality;
(d) the need to ensure that education and training within the IfA’s remit represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;
(e) any information provided to it by any person designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) The Secretary of State may give a notice in writing to the IfA setting out other matters to which the IfA must have regard when performing its functions.
(3) The Secretary of State may not give a notice under subsection (2) more than once in any financial year (within the meaning given by section ZA6(6)), except as provided by subsection (4).
(4) Where in a financial year—
(a) a notice is given under subsection (2), and
(b) after the giving of the notice a new Parliament meets for the first time,
the Secretary of State may give one further notice under subsection (2) in that year.
(5) The IfA must perform its functions efficiently and effectively.
(6) For the purposes of this section, education or training is within the IfA’s remit if the education or training is or may be provided in the course of an approved English apprenticeship.
(7) Subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) do not apply in relation to functions that are—
(a) delegated by directions under section ZA4, or
(b) conferred by regulations under section ZA5,
unless the directions or regulations provide for them to apply in relation to the functions.
(8) Where directions or regulations so provide, the directions or regulations—
(a) may provide for any education or training to which the functions relate to be treated as within the IfA’s remit for the purposes of this section;
(b) may provide for subsection (1) and any notice under subsection (2) to apply in relation to the functions with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(9) The Secretary of State must—
(a) publish in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit any notice under subsection (2), and
(b) lay a copy of it before Parliament.
ZA3 Provision of advice and assistance to the Secretary of State etc
(1) The IfA may, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, provide the Secretary of State with advice and assistance in connection with the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.
(2) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.
ZA4 Delegation of functions to the IfA by Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State may by direction delegate to the IfA any of the Secretary of State’s functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England.
(2) The functions may be delegated—
(a) to any extent that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction, and
(b) subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State specifies in the direction.
(3) The Secretary of State’s functions mentioned in subsection (1) include those under section 100(1A) or otherwise relating to the funding of apprenticeships in relation to England.
ZA5 Conferral of further functions on the IfA by regulations
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on the IfA such functions relating to apprenticeships in relation to England as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) A function conferred by regulations under subsection (1) may involve the exercise of a discretion.
ZA6 Annual and other reports
(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the IfA must prepare an annual report.
(2) An annual report is a report which includes—
(a) a description of what the IfA has done during the year, including a description of what the IfA has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under section ZA2(2),
(b) the statement of accounts prepared for that year under paragraph 11 of Schedule A1, and
(c) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3) The IfA must send the report to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been prepared.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may direct the IfA to prepare, and send to the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably practicable a report on any matter relating to its functions.
(6) In this section “financial year” means—
(a) the period beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and ending with the following 31 March, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months.
Compliance
ZA7 Secretary of State directions where the IfA fails to discharge duties etc
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the IfA—
(a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it by or under this Act, or
(b) has acted or is proposing to act in an unreasonable way in exercising any function,
the Secretary of State may give the IfA such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Directions
ZA8 General provision about directions under Chapters ZA1 and A1
(1) This section applies to a direction given to the IfA by the Secretary of State under this Chapter or Chapter A1.
(2) The IfA must comply with the direction.
(3) The direction must be in writing.”
3 Before section A1 insert—
“Introductory”
4 In section A1 (meaning of “approved English apprenticeship”), in subsection (3)(a) for “the Secretary of State has published an approved apprenticeship standard under section A2” substitute “an approved apprenticeship standard has been published under section A2”.
5 For section A2 (approved apprenticeship standards) substitute—
“Publication of standards and assessment plans
A2 Apprenticeship standards and assessment plans
(1) The IfA must publish—
(a) standards for such sectors of work as the IfA considers appropriate for the purposes of this Chapter, and
(b) assessment plans in respect of published standards.
(2) Each standard must—
(a) describe the sector of work to which it relates, and
(b) if there is more than one standard for the sector, describe the kind of work within the sector to which it relates.
(3) Each standard must set out the outcomes that persons seeking to complete an approved English apprenticeship are expected to attain in order to achieve the standard.
(4) An assessment plan in respect of a standard is a plan in accordance with which a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard is to be assessed.
(5) Each assessment plan must—
(a) specify the standard to which it relates, and
(b) set out the proposed arrangements for evaluating the quality of any assessment provided for by the plan.
(6) The following provisions supplement the provision made by this section—
section A2A makes provision about the preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
sections A2B to A2D make provision related to ensuring the quality of apprenticeship assessments;
sections A2E and A2F make provision about the review, revision and withdrawal of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2G makes provision for independent examinations of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2H makes provision about the maintenance of a published list of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans;
section A2I provides for the automatic transfer to the IfA of copyright in apprenticeship standards and assessment plans.
A2A Preparation of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans
(1) Each standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been prepared by a group of persons and approved by the IfA.
(2) The group of persons that prepared a standard or assessment plan published under section A2 must have been approved by the IfA for the purposes of this section.
(3) The IfA may provide advice or assistance to a group of persons in connection with the preparation of a standard or assessment plan.
(4) The IfA must publish—
(a) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve standards or plans for the purposes of subsection (1);
(b) information about matters that it takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve groups of persons for the purposes of subsection (2).
(5) When making a decision of the kind mentioned in subsection (4)(a) or (b) in a particular case, the IfA may also take into account such other matters as it considers appropriate in the case in question.
(6) Information published under subsection (4) may be revised or replaced, and the IfA must publish under that subsection any revised or replacement information.
Quality assurance
A2B Evaluation of quality of apprenticeship assessments
(1) The IfA must secure that evaluations are carried out of the quality of apprenticeship assessments provided by persons in relation to assessment plans published under section A2.
(2) “Apprenticeship assessment” means the assessment of a person’s attainment of the outcomes set out in the standard to which the assessment plan relates.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) the IfA may approve or make arrangements for other persons to carry out evaluations.
A2C Unsatisfactory apprenticeship assessments
(1) If the IfA considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, it may carry out a review of the assessment, or make arrangements with another person for the carrying out of such a review.
(2) The IfA may, in consequence of a review, make arrangements for the purpose of improving the quality of the assessment to which the review relates.
(3) If the IfA—
(a) considers that the quality of any apprenticeship assessment provided by a person is or may become unsatisfactory, or
(b) that a person who provides an apprenticeship assessment has failed to co-operate with a review carried out under this section or with arrangements made under subsection (2),
it may report the matter to the Secretary of State or such other person as the IfA considers appropriate.
(4) A report under subsection (3) may contain recommendations as to the action to be taken by the person to whom the report is made.
(5) The IfA may publish a report under subsection (3).
A2D Committee to advise on quality evaluations etc
(1) The IfA may establish a committee with—
(a) the function of giving the IfA advice on the performance of its functions under sections A2B and A2C, and
(b) such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the IfA.
(2) A majority of the members of the committee—
(a) must be persons who appear to the IfA to have experience of the assessment of education or training, and
(b) must not be members of the IfA.
(3) Subject to that, Schedule A1 applies to a committee established under this section as it applies to committees established under paragraph 7 of that Schedule.
Review, revision and withdrawal
A2E Regular reviews of published standards and assessment plans
(1) The IfA must maintain arrangements for the review at regular intervals of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, with a view to determining whether the standard or plan ought to be revised or withdrawn.
(2) In respect of each standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, the IfA must publish information about the intervals at which those reviews are to be conducted.
A2F Revision or withdrawal of published standards and assessment plans
(1) The IfA may—
(a) publish a revised version of a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter, or
(b) withdraw a standard or assessment plan published under this Chapter (with or without publishing another in its place).
(2) Section A2A applies in relation to a revised version of a standard or plan published under this section as it applies in relation to a standard or plan published under section A2.
Other provisions about English approved apprenticeships
A2G Examinations by independent third parties
(1) Before the IfA approves a standard or assessment plan for the purposes of section A2A(1) it must make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of the standard or plan by an independent third party.
(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a revised version of a standard or assessment plan, but the IfA may, for the purposes of a review under section A2E or at any other time, make arrangements for the carrying out of an examination of a standard or assessment plan by an independent third party.
(3) Where an examination of a standard or assessment plan is carried out under this section, the IfA must take account of the finding of the examination in exercising its functions in relation to the standard or plan under this Chapter.
(4) Nothing in subsection (1) prevents the IfA deciding to reject a standard or assessment plan without first making arrangements for the carrying out of an examination by an independent third party.
A2H List of published standards and assessment plans
(1) The IfA must maintain a list of the standards and assessment plans published by it under this Chapter.
(2) In respect of each standard and plan listed (including any revised version), the list must include details of when it comes into force.
(3) Where a revised version is listed, the list must include a general description of the cases to which the revised version applies.
(4) Where a standard or plan has been withdrawn, the list must include details of when the withdrawal comes into force and a general description of the cases to which it applies.
(5) The IfA must secure that the list is available free of charge at all reasonable times.
A2I Transfer of copyright in standards and assessment plans
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a standard or assessment plan is approved by the IfA under section A2A, and
(b) a person (other than the IfA) is entitled, immediately before the time the approval is given, to any right or interest in any copyright in the standard or plan.
(2) The right or interest is, by virtue of this section, transferred from that person to the IfA at the time the approval is given.
(3) The IfA must ensure that a standard or assessment plan in relation to which a right or interest has transferred by virtue of subsection (2) is made available to the public, subject to any conditions that the IfA considers appropriate.”
6 (1) Section A3 (power to issue apprenticeship certificate) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for “to” substitute “in respect of”.
(3) In subsection (2), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the supply by the Secretary of State of apprenticeship certificates issued under that subsection, and copies of those certificates, to—
(i) persons in respect of whom they were issued;
(ii) persons for whom those persons work or have worked under approved English apprenticeship agreements to which the certificates relate.”
7 In section 122 (sharing of information for education and training purposes)—
(a) in subsection (3) (persons who may provide and receive information), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) the IfA.”;
(b) in subsection (5) (functions for the purposes of which information may be provided)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and
(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) any function of the IfA, or”.
8 In section 262(6) (orders and regulations subject to affirmative procedure) before paragraph (ab) insert—
“(aab) regulations under section ZA5;”
9 Before Schedule 1 insert—
“SCHEDULE A1
THE INSTITUTE FOR APPRENTICESHIPS
Status
1 The IfA is to perform its functions on behalf of the Crown.
Membership
2 (1) The IfA is to consist of—
(a) a member appointed by the Secretary of State to chair the IfA (“the chair”);
(b) the chief executive appointed in accordance with paragraph 5;
(c) at least 4 and no more than 10 other members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2) The chair and members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(c) are referred to in this Schedule as the “non-executive members”.
Tenure of non-executive members
3 (1) The non-executive members hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of their appointment.
(2) Those terms are to be determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.
(3) A non-executive member must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.
(4) A non-executive member may resign from office at any time by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State may remove a non-executive member from office on either of the following grounds—
(a) inability or unfitness to carry out the duties of office;
(b) absence from the IfA’s meetings for a continuous period of more than 6 months without the IfA’s permission.
(6) The previous appointment of a person as a non-executive member does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.
Remuneration of non-executive members
4 (1) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay remuneration, allowances and expenses to its non-executive members.
(2) The IfA must, if the Secretary of State requires it to do so, pay, or make provision for the payment of, a pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of a person who is or has been a non-executive member.
(3) If a person ceases to be a non-executive member of the IfA and the Secretary of State decides that the person should be compensated because of special circumstances, the IfA must pay compensation to the person.
(4) The amount of a payment under sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3) is to be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) Service as a non-executive member is one of the kinds of service to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation schemes as respects civil servants etc) can apply (see Schedule 1 to that Act).
(6) The IfA must pay to the Minister for the Civil Service, at such times as the Minister may direct, such sums as the Minister may determine in respect of any increase attributable to the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 payable to or in respect of non-executive members in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
Chief executive and other staff
5 (1) The first chief executive is to be appointed by the Secretary of State on conditions of service determined by the Secretary of State, after consulting the chair.
(2) Subsequent chief executives are to be appointed by the IfA after consulting the Secretary of State.
(3) The chief executive must not be appointed for a term of more than five years.
(4) The previous appointment of a person as chief executive does not affect the person’s eligibility for re-appointment.
(5) The chief executive holds that office as a member of staff of the IfA.
(6) The IfA may appoint other members of staff.
(7) Service as a member of staff of the IfA is employment in the civil service of the State.
(8) The following are to be determined by the IfA with the approval of the Secretary of State—
(a) the number of members of staff of the IfA (in addition to the chief executive);
(b) the conditions of service of staff of the IfA.
(9) Sub-paragraph (8)(b) is subject to sub-paragraph (1).
Arrangements with Secretary of State
6 The Secretary of State and the IfA may enter into arrangements with each other for the provision to the IfA by the Secretary of State, on such terms as may be agreed, of staff, accommodation or services.
Committees
7 (1) The IfA may establish committees, and any committee established by the IfA may establish sub-committees.
(2) The IfA may—
(a) dissolve a sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1), or
(b) alter the purposes for which such a sub-committee is established.
(3) In this Schedule a committee or sub-committee established under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to as an “IfA committee”.
(4) An IfA committee must include at least two persons who are members of the IfA or its staff.
(5) The IfA may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, arrange for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses to any person who—
(a) is a member of an IfA committee, but
(b) is not a member of the IfA or its staff.
(6) The IfA must, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, review—
(a) the structure of IfA committees, and
(b) the scope of the activities of each IfA committee.
Procedure
8 (1) The IfA may regulate—
(a) its own proceedings (including quorum), and
(b) the procedure (including quorum) of IfA committees.
(2) The validity of proceedings of the IfA, or of an IfA committee, is not affected by—
(a) a vacancy;
(b) a defective appointment.
Exercise of functions
9 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the IfA may authorise any of the following to exercise functions on its behalf—
(a) a member of the IfA;
(b) a member of the IfA’s staff;
(c) an IfA committee;
(d) any other person.
(2) The IfA may not authorise any of the functions under sections A2, A2A and A2E to A2I to be exercised on its behalf—
(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c), by a committee a majority of the members of which are not members of the IfA’s staff, or
(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d).
(3) The IfA may authorise the exercise on its behalf of functions that have been—
(a) delegated to the IfA by directions under section ZA4, or
(b) conferred on the IfA by regulations under section ZA5,
only if and to the extent that the directions or regulations so provide.
Supplementary powers
10 (1) The IfA may—
(a) provide information or advice to any person in connection with any of the IfA’s functions;
(b) co-operate or work jointly with any person where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective performance of any of the IfA’s functions;
(c) carry out research for the purposes of, or in connection with, the IfA’s functions;
(d) do anything else that the IfA considers necessary or appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1)(d) is subject to any restrictions imposed by or under any provision of any Act.
(3) The IfA may not borrow money.
(4) The IfA may not, without the consent of the Secretary of State—
(a) lend money,
(b) form, participate in forming or invest in a company, or
(c) form, participate in forming or otherwise become a member of a charitable incorporated organisation (within the meaning of section 69A of the Charities Act 1993).
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) the reference to investing in a company includes a reference to becoming a member of the company and to investing in it by the acquisition of any assets, securities or rights or otherwise.
Accounts and reports
11 (1) The IfA must—
(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to its accounts, and
(b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts.
(2) Each statement of accounts must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State as to—
(a) the information to be contained in it,
(b) the manner in which such information is to be presented, or
(c) the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
(3) The IfA must send a copy of each statement of accounts to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Comptroller and Auditor General,
before the end of the month of August following the financial year to which the statement relates.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—
(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts, and
(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of each statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (3), and
(b) a copy of each report and certified statement sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (4).
(6) “Financial year” has the meaning given by section ZA6(6) (annual and other reports).
Application of seal and proof of documents
12 (1) The application of the IfA’s seal must be authenticated by the signature of—
(a) the chief executive, or
(b) a member of the IfA who has been authorised by the IfA for that purpose (whether generally or specifically).
(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the IfA’s seal, or signed on its behalf—
(a) is to be received in evidence, and
(b) is to be treated as executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is proved.
Funding
13 (1) The Secretary of State may make grants to the IfA, or provide the IfA with any other kind of financial assistance, subject to any conditions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The conditions may, in particular—
(a) enable the Secretary of State to require full or partial repayment of sums paid by the Secretary of State if any of the conditions are not complied with;
(b) require the payment of interest in respect of any period during which a sum due to the Secretary of State in accordance with any of the conditions remains unpaid.”
10 In Schedule 1 to the Superannuation Act 1972, in the list of “Offices”, at the appropriate place insert—
“Non-executive member of the Institute for Apprenticeships.”
11 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities) at the appropriate place insert—
“The Institute for Apprenticeships.”
“SUNDAY OPENING HOURS: RIGHTS OF SHOP WORKERS
Employment Rights Act 1996
1 The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
2 In section 41 (opted-out shop workers and betting workers), for subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) In this Act “notice period”, in relation to an opted-out shop worker or an opted-out betting worker, means—
(a) in the case of an opted-out shop worker who does shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the opting-out notice concerned was given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to sections 41D(2) and 42(2).”
3 After section 41 insert—
“41A Notice of objection by shop workers to working additional hours on Sunday
(1) A shop worker may at any time give to his or her employer a written notice, signed and dated by the shop worker, to the effect that he or she objects to doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(2) In this Part—
“additional hours” means any number of hours of shop work that a shop worker is (or could be) required to work under a contract of employment on Sunday that are (or would be) in excess of the shop worker’s normal Sunday working hours;
“objection notice” means a notice given under subsection (1).
(3) The “normal Sunday working hours” of a shop worker are to be calculated in accordance with regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section may provide—
(a) for the calculation to be determined (for example) by reference to the average number of hours that the shop worker has worked on Sundays during a period specified or described in the regulations;
(b) for a calculation of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) to be varied in special cases;
(c) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable in special cases (and subsection (1) is subject to provision made by virtue of this paragraph).
(5) Provision under subsection (4)(b) or (c) may, in particular, include provision—
(a) about how the calculation of normal Sunday working hours is to be made in the case of a shop worker who has not been employed for a sufficient period of time to enable a calculation to be made as otherwise provided for in the regulations;
(b) for the right to give an objection notice not to be exercisable by such a shop worker until he or she has completed a period of employment specified or described in the regulations.
(6) But regulations under this section may not include provision preventing a shop worker who has been continuously employed under a contract of employment for a period of one year or more from giving to the employer an objection notice.
(7) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41B Explanatory statement: persons who become shop workers
(1) This section applies where a person becomes a shop worker who, under a contract of employment, is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays.
(2) The employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the following rights—
(a) the right to object to working on Sundays by giving the employer an opting-out notice (if section 40 applies to the shop worker);
(b) the right to object to doing shop work for additional hours on Sundays by giving the employer an objection notice.
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which the person becomes a shop worker as mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
41C Explanatory statement: shop workers at commencement date
(1) This section applies where—
(a) under a contract of employment a shop worker is or may be required to do shop work on Sundays, and
(b) the shop worker was employed under that contract on the day before the commencement date.
(2) The shop worker’s employer must give to the shop worker a written statement informing the shop worker of the rights mentioned in section 41B(2).
(3) The statement must be given before the end of the period of two months beginning with the commencement date.
(4) An employer does not fail to comply with subsections (2) and (3) in a case where, before the end of the period referred to in subsection (3), the shop worker has given to the employer an opting-out notice (and that notice has not been withdrawn).
(5) A statement under this section must comply with such requirements as to form and content as regulations may provide.
(6) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes.
(7) In this section “commencement date” means the date appointed by regulations under section 38 of the Enterprise Act 2016 for the coming into force of section (Sunday working) of, and Schedule (Sunday opening hours: rights of shop workers) to, that Act.
41D Failure to give explanatory statement under section 41B or 41C
(1) This section applies if an employer fails to give to a shop worker a written statement in accordance with—
(a) section 41B(2) and (3), or
(b) section 41C(2) and (3).
(2) If the shop worker gives to the employer an opting-out notice, the notice period under section 41(3) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the notice period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the notice period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.
(3) If the shop worker gives to the employer an objection notice, the relevant period under section 43ZA(2) that applies in relation to the shop worker is varied as follows—
(a) if the relevant period under that provision would have been one month, it becomes 7 days instead;
(b) if the relevant period under that provision would have been three months, it becomes one month instead.”
4 (1) Section 42 (explanatory statement) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “statement” insert “: betting workers”.
(3) In subsection (1) omit “shop worker or”.
(4) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “shop worker or”;
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “the” omit “shop worker or”;
(ii) omit “an opted-out shop worker or”;
(c) in the words after paragraph (b), omit “shop worker or.”
(5) In subsection (3) omit “shop worker or”.
(6) Omit subsection (4).
(7) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “forms” substitute “form”;
(b) for “subsections (4) and (5)” substitute “subsection (5)”.
5 In the heading of section 43, after “work” insert “: opting-out notices”.
6 After section 43 (in Part 4) insert—
“43ZA Contractual requirements relating to working additional hours on Sundays: objection notices
(1) Where a shop worker gives to his or her employer an objection notice, any agreement entered into between the shop worker and the employer becomes unenforceable to the extent that—
(a) it requires the shop worker to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of the relevant period, or
(b) it requires the employer to provide the shop worker with shop work for additional hours on Sunday after the end of that period.
(2) The “relevant period” is—
(a) in the case of a shop worker who is or may be required to do shop work in or about a large shop, the period of one month beginning with the day on which the objection notice is given;
(b) in any other case, the period of three months beginning with that day.
This subsection is subject to section 41D(3).
(3) A shop worker who has given an objection notice may revoke the notice by giving a further written notice to the employer.
(4) Where—
(a) a shop worker gives to the employer a notice under subsection (3), and
(b) after giving the notice the shop worker expressly agrees with the employer to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday (whether on Sundays generally or on a particular Sunday),
the contract of employment between the shop worker and the employer is to be taken to be varied to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
(5) The reference in subsection (1) to any agreement—
(a) includes the contract of employment under which the shop worker is employed immediately before giving the objection notice;
(b) includes an agreement of a kind mentioned in subsection (4), or a contract of employment as taken to be varied under that subsection, only if an objection notice is given in relation to the working of additional hours under that agreement or contract as varied.
43ZB Interpretation
(1) In this Part—
“additional hours” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“large shop” means a shop which has a relevant floor area exceeding 280 square metres;
“objection notice” has the meaning given in section 41A(2);
“regulations” means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) In the definition of “large shop” in subsection (1)—
(a) “shop” means any premises where there is carried on a trade or business consisting wholly or mainly of the sale of goods;
(b) “relevant floor area” means the internal floor area of so much of the large shop in question as consists of or is comprised in a building.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), any part of the shop which is not used for the serving of customers in connection with the sale or display of goods is to be disregarded.
(4) The references in subsections (2) and (3) to the sale of goods does not include—
(a) the sale of meals, refreshments or alcohol (within the meaning of the Licensing Act 2003 or, in relation to Scotland, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 16)) for consumption on the premises on which they are sold, or
(b) the sale of meals or refreshments prepared to order for immediate consumption off those premises.”
7 After section 45 insert—
“45ZA Sunday working for shop workers: additional hours
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice to his or her employer and the notice has not been withdrawn.
(2) The shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the employer done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to anything done on the ground that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his or her employer on the ground that the shop worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) Subsections (2) and (4) do not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal (within the meaning of Part 10).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a shop worker who does not do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday is not to be regarded as having been subjected to any detriment by—
(a) a failure to pay remuneration in respect of doing shop work for additional hours on Sunday which the shop worker has not done, or
(b) a failure to provide any other benefit where the failure results from the application (in relation to a Sunday on which the shop worker has not done shop work for additional hours) of a contractual term under which the extent of the benefit varies according to the number of hours worked by, or the remuneration paid to, the shop worker.
(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply where—
(a) an employer offers to pay a sum specified in the offer to a shop worker if he or she agrees to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday, and
(b) the shop worker—
(i) has given an objection notice to the employer that has not been withdrawn, or
(ii) is not obliged under a contract of employment to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday.
(8) A shop worker to whom the offer is not made is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure—
(a) to make the offer to the shop worker, or
(b) to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(9) A shop worker who does not accept the offer is not to be regarded for the purposes of this section as having been subjected to any detriment by any failure to pay the shop worker the sum specified in the offer.
(10) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
8 In section 48 (complaints to employment tribunals), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1YA) A shop worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that he or she has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 45ZA.”
9 After section 101 insert—
“101ZA Shop workers who refuse to work additional hours on Sunday
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a shop worker has given an objection notice that has not been withdrawn and he or she is dismissed.
(2) The shop worker is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or the principal reason) for the dismissal is that he or she refused, or proposed to refuse, to do shop work for additional hours on Sunday or on a particular Sunday.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the shop worker refused (or proposed to refuse) to do shop work for additional hours on any Sunday or Sundays falling before the end of the relevant period.
(4) A shop worker who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is that the worker gave (or proposed to give) an objection notice to the employer.
(5) In this section—
“additional hours” and “objection notice” have the meanings given by section 41A(2);
“relevant period” means the period determined by section 43ZA(2) (but subject to section 41D(3)).”
10 In section 108 (qualifying period of employment), in subsection (3) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) subsection (2) of section 101ZA applies (read with subsection (3) of that section) or subsection (4) of that section applies,”.
11 In section 236 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3) after “27B,” insert “41A that include provision under subsection (4)(c) of that section,”.
Employment Act 2002
12 In section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 (failure to give statement of employment particulars etc)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b), after “change)” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act (duty to give a written statement in relation to rights not to work on Sunday)”;
(b) in subsection (3)(b), after “1996” insert “or under section 41B or 41C of that Act”.”
Trade Union Bill
(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, if the House will give me leave, I wish to clarify the Government’s position on the first policy—check-off—that the House will consider this afternoon. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for a little under a year. One of the many lessons I have learned is that when Ministers stand at this Dispatch Box and face cannons to the right of them, cannons to the left of them, cannons in front of them—and maybe even behind them—it is usually best to pause and to ask the reason why. Uncomfortable though this may be, it is nothing like as uncomfortable as charging on.
I have met, as has my noble friend, a number of your Lordships to discuss the clause on check-off, and I think it only fair to say that many of your Lordships do not support the Government’s contention that the measure we are debating will modernise the relationship between a trade union member and his or her trade union. I fear that my trying to convince your Lordships of our case this afternoon may simply add grist to the mill of those who see this measure as a means of undermining the trade unions themselves. That is certainly not—and never has been—the Government’s intention. Trade unions play a crucial role in companies, organisations and communities across the country. Furthermore, arguments have been made with considerable vim and vigour that by ending check-off and moving to direct debit those on low pay—especially those who have payday loans—might have to cease being trade union members, or have to pay extra bank charges. Again, that is not our intention, and never has been.
To show that the Government mean this and to avoid further acrimony on this issue, the Government will support the principles behind the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Amendment 21 would allow check-off to remain where there is an agreement with the employer to provide check-off. It sets out how the administration of this will be paid for and allows that employees can pay by another means should they wish. This amendment ticks three boxes: cost, which will be borne by the unions, not taxpayers; consistency across all sectors; and control, as individuals would be able to choose how to pay their union. However, the Government have one misgiving. We genuinely understand the noble Lord’s wish to ensure that only the specific costs required to administer check-off are charged to the trade union. I want to ensure that we would not expect to see undue costs applied at financial detriment to the trade union.
However, the Government do not feel it appropriate for this role to be undertaken by the Certification Officer—we will debate that role in due course—and we have therefore accepted the principle of allowing check-off to continue where the union meets the costs. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Balfe not to press his amendment and to allow the Government to bring back an amendment at Third Reading for consideration by this House.
I would like briefly to touch upon one other aspect of Clause 14—its scope. We have produced a clear list of bodies, taking as our starting point the Freedom of Information Act, and we will share this list as part of draft regulations prior to the Third Reading of the Bill in this House.
As to organisations which may be in scope in the future, legitimate concerns have been raised about this clause, and Clause 12 relating to facility time, applying to organisations only partly funded by public funds. To address this, I shall not move Amendment 21A but will bring back an amendment at Third Reading that would allow only those bodies mainly—I emphasise “mainly”—funded by public funds to be added to the provisions of this Bill, and that would be via the affirmative process. This will apply to both Clause 12 and Clause 14.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised an important concern regarding the impact of the clause’s scope on charities, and the Government share her concern. Where organisations are what the general public would consider to be charities—such as Oxfam or others doing valuable charitable work funded by the public purse—it is not our intention to include them within the scope of the Bill. I am working closely with officials and with the noble Baroness to find a way in which such charities can be assured that they will not be included.
Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as well as my noble friend Lord Balfe, for their good-spirited engagement on this issue, and I hope that we have found a resting place on which we can agree.
Lord Balfe
(a) the remittance by the employer to the trade union of those deductions;(b) the making of a payment by the trade union to the employer in respect of that remittance; and(c) the option for a worker to pay their subscriptions by other means.(1A) Costs charged to a trade union under subsection (1) must be judged to be reasonable by the Certification Officer.”
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to tear up the speech that I was going to make, and I am delighted to begin by thanking the noble Lord for his statement. What we have seen in the last few weeks is this House at its best. I remember that when I was introduced here I had a briefing from a very wise lady on our side, although I will not say who. She said, “Richard, the difference between this place and the other place is that here you have to win arguments in order to win votes”. The Minister alluded to the fact that possibly the Government did not feel that they had won this argument and I fully agree with him.
I should like to mention a couple of facts. In this country we have a very odd view of the unions. They are not comprised of people who go to work every day looking for a strike; basically they have come out of the Victorian benefit societies and are some of the best examples of working-class solidarity. However, as time has progressed—particularly in the last 20 or 30 years—they have also attained a very heavy top layer of professional workers. Many people are quite surprised when I remind them that the British Medical Association is a trade union. There are many other trade unions whose members are highly paid professional workers, but at the same time there are many trade unions whose members are very low-paid workers, and those are the people who would have been hurt by this clause.
Perhaps I may just mention some figures, and I am largely using those from UNISON, although obviously other unions are affected by this provision. If you join UNISON, you not only get industrial cover, which generally does not matter because people do not go on strike, but you also get—and this matters—death and accident benefits, and legal advice, which is often very good in helping to resolve industrial disputes. We must all have met a person who has said, “I’m not putting up with this. I’m going to take them to an industrial tribunal”. Then the union representative will quietly say, “Look, calm down a bit. You haven’t quite got a case, but we can give you some good legal advice and help you deal with the problems you’ve got”.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment and in doing so declare my interests as chairman of King’s College Hospital and president of the Local Government Association. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, for moving this amendment. He has been a constant companion during the Committee stage of the Bill and I have learned a great deal of trade union history from him that I did not previously know about.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I am in the equally happy position of finding that the speech I wrote over the weekend is now entirely redundant. I think we are all agreed about the importance of the role of trade unions in this country. They are a part of British life. It was clear to anyone who looked at the detail that the Government’s proposals on check-off stood to do considerable damage both to the unions themselves and to their members and potential members. Like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I was particularly concerned about the impact on low-paid, mostly female workers who stood to lose out on the protection and benefits of trade union membership.
It is worth bearing in mind that the impact of this proposal was likely to be felt by more than 21,000 public sector organisations. Given its impact, I think many noble Lords felt that the arguments in favour of it were—to put it mildly—not convincing. Take just one example: modernisation. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has said, there are many examples of payroll deductions continuing. It appears that only the trade unions and their members were going to be route marched to modernity on this issue. It was absolutely right that the members should have the choice between payroll deduction and direct debit. In a situation where the unions had signalled clearly that they were willing to pay the costs, it felt to me that the last credible argument on this issue had fallen away.
I am delighted that Ministers have listened on this issue and changed their view. I hope that we can see equal progress on some of the other contentious issues in the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the wording at Third Reading.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, mine is the third name on this amendment and I am delighted to intervene. I am also delighted that I did not write a speech at the weekend. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what he said and for the way in which the Government have engaged in constructive dialogue and listened to the voice of the House.
The words that I have used constantly in my contributions to this debate in Committee and earlier on Report have been “choice” and “fairness”. Had we kept the Bill as it was, those principles, which are fundamental to one-nation Toryism, would have been violated. I am extremely glad that I can pay tribute to an institution of state—the trade unions—that I have always admired, which have a vital, constructive and continuing role to play in our society and in our economy. It would have been a great mistake for this House and this Parliament, in the wake of a general election and promises and pledges genuinely made, if we had we violated the principles of choice and fairness.
Personally, I have some doubt about the need for this Bill at all, but at least now we are on the way to having a Bill that is unexceptionable and can be accepted in all parts of the House. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is an example of your Lordships’ House at its best. My noble friend talked about cannon to the right of him, cannon to the left and cannon in front. A noble Lord interjected that there were also cannon behind him. Well, as one of the cannon behind him I am very glad to pay him and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe an unstinted expression of admiration for the way in which they have listened and reacted. I hope that before the Bill has gone on to the statute book we will have seen the amendments that we passed at an earlier stage accepted in another place and going through on the nod in this House. I hope that we will then have diffused all the potentially damaging aspects of the Bill. Let us hope that is how it ends.
Lord Deben (Con)
I can get extremely angry about some things in this House. One thing I get angry about is when the obvious does not seem to be obvious quickly enough, so it is a great pleasure to say to my noble friend that this did become obvious quickly enough. That is very good.
However, I hope that we will not use this word “modernise” too often. I cannot understand why it is a more modern system to give money to the banks for a direct debit than to have it so much more conveniently done on the check-off system. There is nothing non-modern about the check-off system and I never understood why that argument was used. The crucial issue about all this is to enter into the lives and ways of living of the people who are affected by the legislation that we pass. I do not think that I could let this go by without pointing out that it was this House, with all the criticisms that are made of it, that more readily and clearly saw what the effect of this would be. Not only should Ministers take considerable comfort and credit for the changes that they have made, this House ought to take credit for the fact that this is what we are best at—saying, “I am not thinking about the politics or the arguments. I am just thinking about how this affects the people who will be involved in this particular Act”.
Earlier today I had to say to one of my noble friends, rather toughly, that I am unhappy about some of the supposed restrictions on how people should use government grants. The reason for that is that I try to enter into people’s minds, and I am not at all sure that I understand how you make the sort of distinctions which the Government are seeking to make. I could not understand why people could not use this system rather than another and I am thrilled that the Government have taken that on board. They have done so very generously and I pay considerable credit to them and to my noble friend Lord Balfe; throughout these debates he has shown understanding and clarity, and we are all indebted to him.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, my speech is redundant, which is really good news, and I fully associate myself with his remarks.
The Government should not have brought this provision forward at all and I fear that it reflects the tribal nature of the historical relationship between the two main parties. Such tribalism is not edifying or appropriate today where we see the best relationships between employers and trade unions in partnerships that promote productivity, prosperity and peace. So I would like to say well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe; it cannot have been easy to achieve what she has pulled off.
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my comments in support of what has been said. I had a feeling that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, and the other Ministers associated with this Bill would be in listening mode, bearing in mind the contents of the debates hitherto.
My shock and dismay at the original text of this Bill was enormous and I think that was shared by people in all parts of the House. The Bill did not look properly constructed nor did it utilise non-extreme ideology to deal with any modernisation necessities for trade unions—some of which one doubts. In January I received a very interesting briefing from the FDA, an association of professional managers and others, which is not in any way known for extremism. In relation to the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to trade union members dreaming about causing industrial action as they go to work in the morning, the FDA says:
“Much of the portrayed justification for change relates to an utterly refutable assumption that trade unions call for industrial action on a regular basis and without cause. FDA members only embark on industrial action as a last resort. As a union with an almost 100 year history we have held national industrial action only once, yet it is a fundamental right for all working people to have the option to take industrial action and we strongly oppose moves to deny workers this right”.
In a way the same rights intrinsically belong to check-off and I sincerely ask Ministers to be in listening mode for other parts of this Bill, so that it can be improved if they insist on it carrying on—people have quite rightly indicated that there is probably no need for this Bill but since the Government are perhaps psychologically committed to seeing it progress I ask that they do that. In the mean time, my sense of shock has diminished. I did not write a speech over the weekend because I thought there might be some progress and I warmly thank the Ministers for their reaction today.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, at the risk of contributing to this lordly love-in, I want to refer to an additional reason why I very much welcome the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about the opportunity to think again between now and Third Reading. Clause 14 relies hugely on secondary legislation—on regulations—including new subsection (3), which would have been the subject of government Amendment 21A. As we all too often recognise in this House, the devil is in the detail, and that is particularly so in this Bill.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we, too, welcome the Government’s announcement today on check-off. I understand that the Minister also has some issues to report to the House on further developments on facility time. I look forward to that.
On check-off, the Government heeded warnings from across the House on the arbitrary and unfair nature of their original proposals and the dire consequences that would have resulted across the NHS, local authorities, schools and universities from a blanket ban on check-off in the public sector. I also thank Ministers for the recent constructive and conciliatory spirit of the discussions with us on today’s Report stage issues and on the facility time cap. For all the last-minute, going-to-the-wire nature of those discussions, and bearing in mind that the amendment in its original form was tabled in the Commons as long ago as November, the movement to the current position is welcome.
As the Minister would expect, we look forward to receiving the revised amendments from the Government on both check-off and facility time to be tabled at Third Reading. We of course reserve our position subject to satisfying ourselves that the revised text meets the terms of the proposed changes. My noble friend Lord Collins will respond on issues relating to the Certification Officer’s role and power under that group of amendments.
I should like to believe that, as a result of our detailed deliberations in this House, particularly on check-off, the Government’s change of heart represents one small step towards Ministers having a better understanding and appreciation of how the current check-off system works and is valued by employers, trade unions and trade union members as part of a modern industrial relations framework in today’s public services. If it also heralds a better appreciation in the future of the importance of trade union members having the same choice as staff in the voluntary and private sectors in the light of their work, personal circumstances and financial situation, so much the better. The overwhelming consensus in all sections of this House is that public sector employers should be able to continue to make local decisions on operating check-off in the light of local needs and priorities, with trade unions meeting the administrative costs. We knew even before Committee that the unions had already agreed to do this.
Perhaps most of all, it is good to see that listening mode, which the Government have said they are in during the course of the Bill, has finally led to significant movement, rather than on just a few measures that, although welcome, have not so far—until now—impacted on the core of the Bill.
There are a couple of other issues. On Amendment 21A we also welcome the clarification from the Minister on the scope of Clauses 12 to 14 of the Bill. We were deeply concerned that private or voluntary sector service companies, such as charities and residential care homes, providing outsourced public services, could fall under the scope of the Bill. The clarification that these clauses apply only to companies performing a function of a public nature and mainly funded from public funds addresses this concern, and we welcome the Minister’s announcement that he is going to withdraw Amendment 28 and come back with a revised wording.
The Minister also knows, however, having mentioned this, that we retain some questions about the application of the requirement to charities that receive funding from public services. We hope that this can all be clarified at Third Reading, as we judge that the Government do not want to meddle with the good management of independent charities. We trust that agreement can be reached: otherwise, we may need to revisit the issue.
Noble Lords will also recall, shortly before the Committee consideration of Clause 14, the so-called skeleton regulations that were published by the Government on the scope of the Bill. This was obviously a hastily cobbled together, out-of-date document that did not represent the Government’s finest legislative hour. Ministers subsequently admitted that they found it hard to define which bodies were going to be covered, given that many of the organisations contained in the skeleton had long been either culled or merged. Can the Minister confirm that these skeletons are now well and truly buried and that the Government do not intend to resurrect them in connection with any part of the Bill?
Check-off is trusted by trade union members. It helps them manage their finances. As noble Lords have stressed, thousands of low-paid members across the public sector who need the choice to opt for check-off will be greatly relieved that it is to continue and that they will not stand to lose their eligibility for workplace representation and key trade union benefits such as those detailed so fully in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, including professional indemnity insurance and legal representation for accidents at work and on employment issues. Just as important is that public sector employers will now be able to continue to operate check-off and enter into new voluntary check-off agreements with trade unions in the light of their local needs and priorities.
We on these Benches are most grateful for the support that has been received from across the House on these crucial issues and we look forward to making positive progress at Third Reading.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I apologise to those who have had to edit their speeches so quickly and spent time over the weekend to no avail. In response to the points on charities made by the noble Baroness, I completely agree, and we will seek to address this point. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about further consultation and what the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said about facility time, she is right. We have made further progress on the reserve power to cap facility time.
Obviously, we are not discussing Clause 12 today, but I will update noble Lords on where we are. Our commitment is to engage the cap only on the basis of evidence from the transparency measure. Our proposal is that the power will not be exercised at all before there are at least two years of data from the bodies subject to the reporting requirement. Following this, should a particular employer’s facility time be significantly above the levels of those of comparable organisations, the Minister will send and publish a letter to the employer drawing attention to the concerns. The employer will have the opportunity to set out the reasons for the level of facility time. The employer will always have a year to make progress in relation to their facility time levels. Nothing would be done until a third set of reporting data was published. If there is insufficient progress, the Minister will then be at liberty to exercise the reserve power and make regulations to cap facility time for that employer or those employers. Our intention is to set out the key elements of the arrangements for triggering a cap in Clause 13 when we introduce it.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on delegated powers, I absolutely hear what the noble Lord is saying. The substance of regulations will be available before Third Reading. I very much hope, therefore, that the skeletons will be well and truly buried. On that point, I would like to thank your Lordships for the comments that were made this afternoon.
Lord Balfe
This has been a very pleasant little debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, reminded me that I did not declare my interests, which are to be found in the register. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, in particular my noble friend Lord Cormack. When I was first appointed by the Prime Minister as the Conservative Party envoy to the trade union movement, I was met with much suspicion within the party. My noble friend was one of the first people to welcome me and point out the work that he has done over many years with unions, including with USDAW and on Sunday trading and other things. I appreciate the support that I have had from him and from many other noble Lords.
I also appreciate the support and briefings that I have had from UNISON, Prospect and the TUC. Several million low-paid workers depend on check-off. UNISON has more than 7,000 agreements in the public sector and a further two-and-a-bit thousand in the private sector. This is not a very small thing but a major part of low-paid workers’ security. I am pleased that we have secured this. I thank the Minister—he is not only a noble Lord but a noble Minister today—for this and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, there has been a lot of very helpful and constructive discussion with noble Lords opposite and on the government Benches. We have made a lot of progress on the Bill this week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said so truthfully. I thank in particular my noble friend Lord Bridges for his pivotal role and for setting out some of the changes that we propose to make that reflect that dialogue. We will come on to discuss others.
I turn to why the Government are strengthening the Certification Officer. The Government have a manifesto commitment to reform the role of the Certification Officer and there is a public interest in properly regulated trade unions. This group of amendments includes government and other amendments, so I shall start by addressing the government amendments. Once the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has spoken to his amendments and others have added their views to the debate I shall respond on the whole group.
Much was made in Committee about the Bill giving the Certification Officer the same powers to investigate for all breaches that he currently has for financial matters and will shortly have for the register of members. This would enable him to act without having a complaint from a member, including on matters that he might discover in the course of his duties. It would also enable him to respond to matters brought to his attention—I suppose I should say to her attention for the future—by third parties, although he is not bound to consider these. This is a wholly reasonable power for a regulator.
We have heard concerns that the Certification Officer may receive vexatious complaints and that this could increase his workload and costs. I want to provide reassurance here. The Certification Officer, as a public authority, is required to act reasonably. We would not expect him or her to spend much time looking into representations from third parties that are groundless or vexatious. The Certification Officer cannot appoint an inspector to investigate a union on a whim. He can make inquiries, but can appoint an inspector only where there are circumstances suggesting that a union has not complied with its duties.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that the Government have got it wrong on the proposals for a new role for the Certification Officer. The Government are creating legislation affecting our legal rights in inverse proportion to the need for it. Thousands of people are deprived of access to justice because of the Government’s cuts to legal aid and slamming costs on to employment tribunal applications, yet here we have no complaints, no build-up of steam, no demand whatever and the Government decide that something is up. They create a complex and expensive role for the new-look Certification Officer when there is no evidence that it is necessary.
This is supposed to be a deregulating Government; however, they are setting up this bureaucratic role for the Certification Officer and making the trade unions pay for it. This will politicise the role, and there is still much confusion of roles. Will the CO be judge, jury or executioner? How will the Government clarify this to avoid judicial review? The sheer amount of information that trade unions will be asked to give is disproportionate and will tie up resources which should be used to protect members.
The cost to the trade unions is unreasonable. If, as the Government say, there is a need to ratchet up the role, then it should be paid for from the public purse. I believe firmly that the Certification Officer should be able to initiate investigations only when a union member has made a complaint. Failing this, there must be additional safeguards to protect members’ right to privacy and the right of trade unions to organise their internal democratic affairs without unjustified interference.
The Government are putting out mixed signals to justify the proposed ban on check-off, which we thought we were facing today, on the basis that employers should not be involved in what should be a direct relationship between unions and their members. In contrast, in the same Bill employers are invited to play a direct and active role in influencing enforcement action taken by the CO on key democratic decisions within unions.
The new role could damage employment relations—for instance, if an employer attempts to interfere in the election of a general secretary, or in challenging proposed strike action, and union members will be less likely to trust the Certification Officer to handle complaints fairly. It is important that the new Certification Officer should be required to consult interested parties, including the TUC and unions, on future enforcement strategies. That would be consistent with good practice and transparency. It might even be advisable to require the CO to establish consultative committees for trade unions and employers’ associations. Their views would be sought before issuing guidance or setting enforcement strategies. Where the CO disagrees with the views of the consultative committee or committees, he should be required to provide a written response explaining and justifying the difference of opinion. This might seem to be too much detail but this is a quasi-judicial post and proposed changes should have been much more carefully thought through than this.
We have seen a succession of these Bills which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, have a skeletal element. I argue they are so naked that even the Windmill Theatre would have been embarrassed. I understand that the Select Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, was very impressed by the current Certification Officer, David Cockburn. He embodies all that is good about public service. The fact that there was no headline news does not mean that a problem was buried; it means that the role was performed in an exemplary manner. We should thank him for all he has done, not impose this Eton mess of a package.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s recognition that, as drafted, the Bill could give rise to vexatious complaints which the Certification Officer would be required to investigate. Government Amendment 23A will give greater discretion to the Certification Officer so that he or she needs to investigate only where they have reasonable grounds to suspect a breach. I hope this will not be the only concession today with regard to the Certification Officer because, notwithstanding the concessions the Minister has set out, the Bill’s clauses and schedules relating to the Certification Officer remain obnoxious. They represent an unwarranted interference in the activities of free trade unions and make trade unions pay for the privilege of having this unnecessary regulation.
It is surprising, to say the least, that a Government who purport to champion deregulation are so ready to reverse their position when it comes to trade unions. What happened to the Government’s one-in, one-out rule on regulations, which I think later became the one-in, two-out rule? I hope the Minister will tell us which regulations are being removed from trade unions to meet that commitment. However, I doubt that will happen because we have asked the Minister repeatedly for an answer to that question throughout the passage of this Bill. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that I will get no answer again today, not through any fault of the Minister but for the simple reason that there is none.
Not content with imposing yet more regulation on trade unions, the Government have also determined that the trade unions must pay for it. The imposition of the levy is just one regrettable clause in a highly regrettable and unnecessary Bill. However, it is a particularly symbolic one as it demonstrates the Government’s lack of awareness of the role of trade unions. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, rightly pointed out, trade unions are not composed of people who go to work every day plotting revolution, but rather of people who come together to protect their rights in the workforce and ensure proper representation. However, the Government do not seem to see it that way.
We have repeatedly asked the Minister to explain which comparable organisations are subject to a levy to pay for this sort of regulation by the state. The examples which we were given at earlier stages in the progress of the Bill, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, are just not comparable. The FCA regulates profit-making organisations, many of which pose systemic risks to our economy, many of which have routinely flouted the spirit—and sometimes the letter—of the law, and some of which have been bailed out by taxpayers to the tune of billions of pounds. By contrast, trade unions are representative, democratic organisations, already tightly regulated by law, which play a critical role in our democracy.
However, the Government do not seem to see trade unions in that light. They do not see them as contributors to our democracy or as defenders of the rights of people with less power than themselves; they see them simply as opponents of their party’s interest and as organisations to be regulated, levied and constrained. There is no other explanation for the decision to impose a levy in this way. No such levy exists for the only really comparable organisation, which is the Electoral Commission. The Conservative Party does not fund investigations by the Electoral Commission into the manner in which it operates, but the trade unions must pay for the partisan regulation that the Conservatives impose on them. It is unjustifiable.
Amendment 31A, which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will speak to, would at least help ameliorate the impact of the levy. It would prevent a partisan direction being given by the Secretary of State to the Certification Officer and ensure that the officer would only have to investigate complaints made by non-trade unionists if they could demonstrate that they had suffered detriment. That seems to be a very sensible change to Schedule 2. Together, those changes would help ensure that the Certification Officer, who has operated effectively as a regulator to date, is not turned into an overbearing regulator subject to political direction. I very much hope that, in her response, the Minister will be able to address the points made in that amendment and give some more concessions on the Bill.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing her amendments at this stage. They are critical, in the light of some of our debates in Committee. I repeat what my noble friend Lady Donaghy said: where is the evidence for the requirement for this change of role? I repeat what I said in Committee: the Certification Officer has played a vital role in securing and ensuring that the rights of trade union members are upheld in their union. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, it is—or should be—about the rights of those individual members. The sad fact is that the proposals in the Bill in relation to the powers of the Certification Officer are changing that role from a quasi-judicial officer who adjudicates on disputes between unions and their members to a full enforcement agency, with wide-ranging powers to intervene in the internal, democratic decisions of trade unions. This would not be at the behest of individual members but, possibly, at the behest of employers and other campaign groups, even though no union member has complained. This completely changes the role of the Certification Officer.
We have repeatedly spoken about evidence. This brings me to another point, about the sanctions or fines which the Government intend to allow the Certification Officer to impose. In my 35 years of dealing with the Certification Officer, and having read every single annual report over the past 35 years, I have not seen one case where the Certification Office has given an order that has not been complied with. Of course, that related to union rules, but what we are now seeing is this role moving into industrial relations, because it will deal with industrial action. It is moving into membership registers and the details of membership information, which, again, could be subject to complaints from others rather than just simply members querying their own records.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I shall not bang on, but I want to make one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has made a very powerful case. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Bridges have shown that they are in listening and receptive mood, for which we are all genuinely grateful. I say to the Minister who is about to reply to this debate that when she is prescribing or proscribing it is very important that we have a flexible structure in which we can have widespread confidence, that is not overcostly and that it cannot have levelled at it the charge of overregulation. From what I have heard and seen, there is a danger that the suggested amendments to the role of the Certification Officer are moving too far in the direction of proscription, prescription and overregulation. I hope that my noble friend will indicate that she would be happy to have detailed conversations between now and Third Reading with the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and others who have a lifetime of experience in these fields so that we can get a mechanism that is acceptable and adaptable as circumstances change.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank noble Lords. This has been an important follow-up to a series of debates and meetings outside the Chamber that we have had—to reply to my noble friend Lord Cormack—on the important issue of the Certification Officer and the linked issues, because the Certification Officer runs like a rainbow through the Bill. I also recognise that most trade unions work within the regulatory framework most of the time. We are a deregulatory Government—noble Lords know that, and I am unapologetic about it—but let me be clear: some trade unions break the law. Our reforms provide the Certification Officer with the right tools to ensure effective regulation. Equally, they ensure proportionate regulation, which is an important point given the concerns raised about bureaucracy by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Let me give an example: the case of Mr Dooley v the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—UCATT. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will know the case. The Certification Officer determined that the union had breached its statutory duty to ballot all its eligible members during the 2009 general secretary election. He also observed other issues relating to the union’s membership register, but he was unable to investigate further as no complaint had been received. This seems to be the wrong situation, and it is that sort of situation we are seeking to change, but we have also listened, as I promised we would when we started Committee stage in this House.
We agree that the Certification Officer, like any other regulator, is and should be independent. However, it is fair to say that noble Lords are seeking a greater assurance. I therefore intend to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment to confirm the Certification Officer’s freedom from ministerial direction. I also confirm that the Certification Officer will follow OCPA appointment procedures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, suggested that the Certification Officer might consult on his enforcement strategy. Clearly, he needs to have the ability and space to respond to the information that he receives and to decide the right way forward. He is of course independent, and it is an independent matter whether he investigates and what his approach is to an investigation. That is really a matter for him.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“( ) a federated trade union,( ) a trade union that is not a federated trade union,”
“( ) functions in relation to federated trade unions,( ) functions in relation to trade unions that are not federated trade unions,”
““federated trade union” has the same meaning as in section 118;”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Rights of appeal not limited to questions of law
In each of the following provisions of the 1992 Act, for “on any question of law arising” substitute “on any question arising”—(a) section 45D (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under section 24B, 24C, 25, 31, 32ZC or 45C); (b) section 56A (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under section 55);(c) section 95 (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under Chapter 6 of Part 1);(d) section 104 (appeal from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under section 103);(e) section 108C (appeals from Certification Officer on question arising in proceedings etc under Chapter 7A of Part 1).”
Baroness Prosser
“Codes of Practice: employee engagement
In section 203 of the 1992 Act (issue of Codes of Practice by the Secretary of State), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The Codes of Practice issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations must encourage all employers, in both the private and public sectors, to have due regard to the establishment of mechanisms via trade unions that encourage and enable effective employee engagement in industrial relations.””
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the slight but significant change of wording in this amendment. Despite my cogent and—I thought—very persuasive argument when I moved my amendment in Committee, I clearly failed to move the Government Front Bench. The Government’s argument was that currently there are a variety of ways in which employers can and do engage with the workforce. Quite so—there is no disagreement between us on that. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said:
“It is not right that we restrict how employee engagement can happen”.—[Official Report, 25/2/16; col. 462.]
Nothing in my previous amendment nor in this amendment would or could restrict ways in which employee engagement can take place. Indeed, the thinking behind the amendment is to encourage involvement, participation and voice, and for a thousand flowers to bloom. The amendment asks that employers are encouraged,
“to have due regard to … mechanisms”—
in other words, to establish systems which suit themselves and the workforce.
Back in 2009, David MacLeod and Nita Clarke, director of the Involvement and Participation Association, in which I declare an interest as a member of the board, produced a report for the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills entitled Engaging for Success. A number of subsequent events took place. In March 2011, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his backing to the newly established independent employee engagement task force during its launch at No. 10 Downing Street. In November 2012, 43 CEOs, from a wide range of organisations, signed a letter inviting UK businesses to embed employee engagement in the ways in which they work and quantified the loss to the UK from low levels of employee engagement.
Later that month, 300 practitioners gathered in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. In May 2013 the job design and engagement White Paper was published and in May 2014 the well-being and engagement White Paper was published. By August 2015 more than 600,000 visits had been made to the EFS website—around 27,000 a month—and 1.4 million hits had been made on the EFS pages. There has been lots of interest and lots of activity. Then just last month a White Paper on further evidence was published showing, via new sector case studies, the links between employee engagement and business performance.
When I spoke in Committee I mentioned the report produced by the IPA entitled Involvement and Productivity—The Missing Piece of the Puzzle?. I remind your Lordships’ House that the report examined the evidence from large surveys, behavioural experiments, academic studies and employers themselves and went on to show that, when employees have a voice in the decision-making process over their jobs and the wider organisation, productivity is higher.
We have a lot of government activity and support, right up to the level of Prime Minister. We have a large, wide-ranging and supportive group of employers involved and a report demonstrating the link between employee engagement and improved productivity. What’s not to like? The amendment calls on the Government to reiterate their support and to give this initiative—which they are on record as being supportive of—a formal boost.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, when I spoke in Committee I made reference to the Minister behaving like Stonewall Jackson. I was concerned in making that analogy because I pointed out to the Committee that he was eventually shot by his own side. I was mightily relieved today that, when all the cannons were turned on the Minister, the Government made a number of sensible suggestions in the interests of her welfare.
As we come to this debate, we can relax a little and look at how industrial relations affect industry and employment in this country. I hope that we can spend a moment away from the adversarial side of industrial relations and look at the more positive aspects. It is not that I do not respect the need for collective bargaining but I see the benefits of employee participation and working with trade unions as important elements of our democracy. It is sad that in industry generally we have often relied far too much on overseas companies and foreign management to bring in new techniques for our managers and employees and benefit from. There are some notable examples, particularly John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, but I have to say that in these days when customer service, quality and value-added products and services are so important all these aspects of employment require direct employee engagement.
I am reminded of my own experience in the 1970s in a WEA class of shop stewards from the Morris Cowley plant who I had to teach the economics of the car industry. It was not an easy task at that time, particularly as they were cynically suspicious of me and I was warning them of the coming threat to them and their jobs from Japan, which had reached America and was about to become very dominant in Europe. The Morris Marina was the car those employees made at the time and I remember using the words of Gerald Ratner to describe their product.
At that point, there was uproar in the class. The people who made the rear door panels and the electrics and those who worked in the paint shop came to an amazing defence of their product. I was quite astonished. They took real pride in their product and in what they did in that plant, despite its huge complexities and difficulties at that time. Throughout the rest of my career, I have always thought what an opportunity was missed by British management in the British motor industry at that time by failing to engage with its staff. It was only when we had the foreign management of Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota and Honda that we started to make real progress in those sectors.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Prosser on tabling this amendment and on the very elegant adjustment to the amendment, which I think addresses some of the Government’s concerns. In keeping with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I hope that on this they will be even more in listening mode and that we might be able to make some changes on this. However, we are very grateful for what they have done thus far today.
The amendment raises an issue that I have been particularly exercised about during the passage of the Bill. I am not, and never have been, a trade unionist and I have never been a member of a trade union. I am a businessman and have been involved in business for most of my life when I have not been involved in politics. One area of the Bill that has always concerned me is that there has been a complete lack of appreciation of the significance of the function and role of management. These things are tremendously important, and the amendment provides an important message that I hope the Government will be able to find ways to reinforce. The message is that engagement between management and employees is a key lever in making a difference in companies and a key mechanism of performance.
Much of the Bill addresses the problems of yesteryear, but I hope that we can start addressing the problems of the future, including how we optimise our performance in all areas, especially in business. Other places have made leaps and bounds in their public sector organisations and private sector companies through effective business process redesign, and it worries me hugely that we have not done as well here because we do not engage with employees as well as other places have shown is possible. In that area, we have a huge amount to do. That is why this sort of provision and process is important. We cannot forget the role of good management and good leadership in being able to make the sorts of changes that we want.
When we look at our public services and at the sorts of companies and adaptabilities that we want, we have to recognise that there is a massive role for management and leadership. I have never known of employees not wanting to engage with their management and leadership, and, apart from in the depths of some disputes, I have never known of trade unions not wishing to engage with management and leaders. But I have known far too many examples of when the management and leadership of companies have not taken that opportunity or not done it well enough. It would be very encouraging if the Government were to do something to ensure that people understood the importance of effective employee engagement and effective work with trade unions, which can make a huge difference to our country.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I rise very briefly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on her proposed new clause. I hope that it will be fully and enthusiastically accepted in this debate today. This is a great opportunity to try to put right some of the deficiencies and weaknesses that we see even now in modern industrial relations in Britain, despite attempts at improvement from time to time.
The tragedy of the “them” and “us” disease—the two nations in industrial relations: the bosses and the employees—is still very strong. Incidentally, although this is not part of the Bill, the very fact that the highly paid executives who run companies are paying themselves far too much in comparison with what people earn on the shop floor is a very dangerous element that contributes to the anger and resentment that is felt in the great divide between the shop floor and the director’s boardroom. It is a great tragedy that, given the modernisation that we expected, with foreign companies coming in and all that the Japanese and Koreans have done to create a new, more modern system, we have not yet made sufficient progress. However, we are beginning to.
I remember vividly that when I was a Member of Parliament for Harrow, more than 30 years ago, I visited within eight weeks the Volkswagen works in Wolfsburg in Germany and British Leyland. British Leyland was going through one of its perpetual crises, mainly because of not the unions but the failure of management to engage their employees and to liaise with them properly. As you can imagine—I am not making this up—the meeting at the Wolfsburg Volkswagen works, one of the biggest motor works in Germany and the world in those days, started at 7.30 am. There was breakfast for an hour and a half, which was black coffee and black bread, and then a tour of the factory for two and a half hours. We then had an early lunch in the canteen, with the employees, directors and bosses eating at the same tables.
Some weeks later, I went to the British Leyland meeting, which, in contrast, started at 11.30 am. It was a half-hour visit to the factory, which was not very long, and we were told that we must make progress but could ask questions later. There was an hour of gin and tonics in the boardroom with the director—a very agreeable English habit that we have—and then a sumptuous lunch in the directors’ dining room, miles away from the workers’ canteen. That was a long time ago and I think that things have improved in many enterprises, so I should not decry that. But it is still not enough. There is still a sinister division between employees and employers in this country, and the pay gap is really menacing for the future of British society and its equilibrium. It has to be tackled one way or another—but that is not, of course, part of this Bill.
I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, and thank him for them. He has experience both of the corporate world and of assisting in trade union activities. He cast a warning about these matters, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. So the Government, having been in listening mode on some specific amendments to earlier aspects of the Bill, have a great opportunity now to re-educate some of their ministerial colleagues about these matters, because the “them” and “us” doctrine is deeply embedded among many Conservative Ministers still. That is a great tragedy for this country and does impede our efforts. We helped the Germans have a much healthier system when we were there as the occupying power after the war. What a great irony that was. So now we have an opportunity for Ministers to respond to these matters. This may be a very general matter and not a specific, technical amendment, but it is a very important new clause. I hope that the Government will respond very positively.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to consider wider aspects of industrial relations in the Trade Union Bill. This conversation builds on the valuable debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, last November, which I found extremely useful. The knowledge and expertise in this House is, as usual, impressive. I always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, on the role of good management and the need to engage and inspire employees.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for joining the debate. He is right to mention the importance of appropriate executive remuneration. His tales of Germany reminded me of my time on a German board. But we need to bear in mind that the UK’s growth and dynamism have been greater than Germany’s in recent years. That matters to millions of employees and families right across our country.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for bringing her amendment back again and to my noble friend Lord Courtown for the work that he has done with her on this important matter. The Government recognise the value of good employee engagement. We know that it contributes to improved productivity and business growth. Indeed, as a personnel director many years ago in the Civil Service and more recently from my first-hand experience through links with USDAW when I was at Tesco, I have definitely seen the benefits. I am grateful for the work on employee engagement by my department and others and am pleased that businesses are now more aware of its importance. In 2015, the CBI employment trends survey highlighted that a top priority for business in the coming year was better employee engagement to foster productive workplaces.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, has already told us, there has been a lot of activity. The Prime Minister launched the employee engagement task force in 2011. One of its main achievements has been the development of an employee engagement community, which has promoted the benefits and various approaches to employee engagement. The task force comprised a wide range of businesses, including entrepreneurs and HR professionals. In addition, ACAS has produced an online productivity tool to allow employers to look at which of the seven levers of productivity are most important. There is a range of guidance on each element, one of which is a “strong employee voice”. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, would commend ACAS’s work in this area, and support the work of her successor there, Sir Brendan Barber, in this matter. These initiatives and others have shown that employers want flexibility to decide how best to engage with their employees, and while unions play an important role, they are not the only mechanism for effective engagement.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that would require all employers to establish a mechanism of employee engagement via trade unions. From my experience, I believe that a prescriptive approach would be ineffective. For small businesses and sectors that are not heavily unionised, having unions as the only mechanism for employee engagement would also be a practical challenge. While I do not believe that we should limit choice, I do agree that the role of employee engagement in positive industrial relations should be highlighted when we come to explain the changes to the industrial relations landscape brought about by the Trade Union Bill.
To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, it struck me that there have been a lot of moves forward, but those initiatives do not have the salience that they need. I would be happy to commit my department to bring together interested parties to discuss not only existing work on employee engagement but how we can raise awareness of its importance as part of the changes that we bring in with the Bill—and how that can link in to the ongoing issue of productivity, which has been a priority for my department ever since the productivity plan we published last July. I hope that I have shown that the Government value the role of employee engagement and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Prosser
I am grateful to the Minister for that response and I am heartened by it. I have just a couple of points. The new amendment does not mention a code of practice. That was removed in the change on the basis that we wanted to ensure that we did not back the Government Front Bench into too much of a corner on this but we could leave open a way for proper discussion.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I should have said that. The powers are not the problem here; it is about what we do, in intent and communication, which is why I gave the noble Baroness the response that I did.
Baroness Prosser
I thank the Minister for that.
Secondly, employee engagement, and the mechanisms to bring it about, must of course take place in workplaces, whether or not they are unionised. That is the whole point. The evidence shows, and I think the Minister agrees, that there is a lot of good will and activity taking place, but there are always employers and organisations that are reluctant to get on the front foot. That is why we are looking for a little bit more of a push from the Government. I am grateful for the Minister’s suggestion that we can continue to discuss this matter to find ways of taking it forward. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
(2) This Act does not affect public bodies in Wales.”
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, to many, it may seem that we do not need to debate the issue of the disapplication of this Bill to public services in Wales because we have gained those valuable concessions from the Government, particularly on facility time and check-off. I thank the Minster very much for listening to us and heeding our warnings and advice on that very important issue. However, it is important to stress a principle here, and that is what I want to discuss. We think that the Government have overstepped the mark on a matter of principle in that they should respect the devolution settlement of the UK. They tried to impose these measures on Wales without having the right or the powers to do so. We would just like to give a warning today not to try to overstep that mark again. We think that they were wrong to do it; it was a power grab and a mistake.
The Welsh Government, supported by a massive majority in the Senedd, have argued that public services are devolved and that their organisation should therefore be managed by Wales. By contrast, the UK Tory Government argued that employment is a reserved matter and is therefore their call. The situation in Scotland is different as it does not have a reserved model of government but a conferred one and the lines are more blurred in terms of who has the powers.
Today, the Labour Party launched its manifesto for the Assembly elections in Wales. It clearly states that,
“we will repeal sections of the UK Government’s regressive Trade Union legislation in devolved areas”.
It is there in black and white. Had these issues been pursued, the Welsh Government would have taken steps to overturn a measure which they believe is in their remit.
I am sure that noble Lords noted that I was very restrained in Committee and did not—for fear of further embarrassing the Government—refer to the leaked letter which came into our hands. In that letter—I was quite good then but the game is over now, so I can refer to it—the matter of whether the UK Government had the ability to legislate in this area in relation to Wales was discussed. I remind the Minister that the letter said that, according to advice from First Treasury Counsel, the Government have a,
“weak case in relation to Wales”.
The Government had a weak case and it is still a weak case. I hope they will respect their own policies in relation to devolution. In the draft Wales Bill, written by this Government, it is stated that,
“it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.
I hope they will heed their own words and respect the devolution settlement for Wales.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and I am glad to associate myself with almost everything the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said. I shall make an exception for the Labour manifesto, which has at long last appeared, and I contrast its rather thin guise with the 190 pages that Plaid Cymru has put forward—be that as it may. However, I welcome the progress that has been made in recent days, and particularly this afternoon, with regard to the Government’s movement on these important matters. I hope it is an indication of a more positive approach to these issues and an avoidance of the unnecessary involvement of legislation in matters that should not have legislation.
Turning to the amendment, clearly the Government of Wales have relationships with employees in Wales directly, through their own responsibilities, and indirectly, with regard to such bodies as the health authorities and the local authorities in Wales. We have a saying in Wales: you can lead the workforce through hell and high water but once you start driving them, woe betide. There is a different industrial climate and it is a climate that begs a co-operative approach, as opposed to a top-down approach. Because of that difference, it is very important that the legislature at Westminster does not involve itself unless it is really necessary—and I cannot see why it would be necessary in such matters.
It would be good if the Minister could indicate from the Dispatch Box today that the Government take this on board and are particularly sensitive to the questions that have arisen from the disputes between Westminster and the National Assembly—between the Government of Wales and the Government at Westminster—over the interpretation of legislation. The last thing we want is for that sort of dispute to lead to difficulties in working between the workforces and the Government.
In concluding, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we do not have a strike by junior doctors in Wales because there is an understanding between the employer and the doctors. It is an approach that I commend to Westminster and I urge the Minister to take note of this amendment and its implications.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I frequently disagree with the way the Welsh Government operate but I defend totally their right to do so under the devolution settlement. If anything is within their rights, it must be their relationship with their employees.
Since the Agricultural Wages (Wales) Bill judgment by the Supreme Court, which occurred when I was a Minister in the Wales Office, it has been clear that the Government would not win on the issue at stake in this part of the Bill. The Welsh devolution settlement was simply much broader than we had all assumed, and that applied to the Welsh Government as well as to the Government here in Westminster. The new Bill, which is in draft form but will be extensively rewritten and I very much hope will come back next year, will probably provide much more certainty. However, we are working with the situation we are in now, with all its uncertainties and faults.
I say to the Government today, from my party: I have added my name to the amendment because we believe that the Government were well overstepping the mark on this issue. The Government must treat devolution with respect and not grudgingly. I regret that the concessions here have been made at the last minute, when the Government have their back against the wall. They should have seen reason a long time ago. However, for all that, I am very grateful that the Government have conceded on this issue.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that on election manifestos it is quality, not quantity, of words that counts in the end. In supporting this amendment, I refer to the Members’ register, where I have declared an interest. I also remind the House, as did my noble friend Lady Morgan, that the Welsh Assembly, on a legislative consent Motion, voted against by 43 votes to 13—13 Conservatives—making very clear the Assembly’s view on the principle here. They were voting not so much on the detail of the matters that we have been discussing in this House on this Bill but on the principle of the Government’s seeking to override the devolution settlement under which devolved public services are devolved, as well as other services, such as agriculture.
That brings me to the question of the Supreme Court judgment in 2014, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred. That was very clear. Their Lordships made crystal clear their view that even though employment law was a reserved matter, nevertheless, in the operation of those services devolved to Wales—in this case, agriculture and the agricultural wages Bill that the Welsh Assembly had passed—that was a matter proper to the Welsh Assembly to legislate upon. The Supreme Court upheld that. I have seen legal opinions by an eminent QC, commissioned by the Wales TUC. I also know that the Welsh Government have had strong legal advice. Should it be necessary—it may still be—to go to the Supreme Court to challenge the UK Government’s position on the principle involved, the Welsh Government would probably win.
As I said to the Minister earlier when speaking on the Enterprise Bill, at stake here is the principle of devolution. Where services and matters are devolved, that should be a matter for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to legislate upon, not for this Parliament.
I dealt with these issues in great detail on Second Reading on 11 January and also in Committee on 8 February, so I will not detain the House further with those detailed arguments. I would just caution that the future of the United Kingdom is at stake. We know that the Scottish Government want to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. It does not do any service to those of us who believe in the importance of retaining the United Kingdom, for all the benefits that it brings us in making us stronger together rather than weaker apart, to undermine by the back door the devolution settlement in a way that, I fear and regret, the Government have been doing on this Bill.
I ask the Minister to reflect further and maybe come to an understanding with the Welsh Government and their Public Services Minister, Leighton Andrews, in particular. I know that the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, has written to the Prime Minister about the way that this will work in future. The new Wales Bill—which we understand will introduce a reserved powers model, although it has been hugely controversial—may resolve this matter, but it may not, as we saw with the Supreme Court judgment. I think that we must tread very carefully on this ground, and I regret that, on this occasion, in this Bill, the Government have not done so.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hain and other noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I urge the Ministers, who appear to be in a very gracious mood this afternoon, to extend this graciousness to this particular aspect of the Bill. Otherwise, it seems to me that what we are doing is actually legislating for future conflict between the devolved Administrations, in this case Wales, and the United Kingdom Government.
My noble friend Lord Hain has mentioned how the Agricultural Wages Board situation some years ago went to the Supreme Court. When he and I held the offices of Secretary of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland, we decided, as a Government, that the best way we could resolve disputes between the new devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government was through discussion and dialogue. We therefore had interministerial conferences, joint ministerial governance and all sorts of committees that met to iron out differences of opinion between the Governments of Wales, of Northern Ireland, of Scotland and of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, we have had a relatively lengthy discussion, both in Committee and this evening, about the territorial reach of the Bill. We have thought about Wales, the home of my grandfather—although I do not think that that is quite a declaration of interest. I hope that we have made it clear today, clause by clause, that we are listening carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the helpfulness of the changes on facility time and check-off relating to the concerns about Wales. I congratulate her on the launch of her manifesto today—a good reason for speaking.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness as we never comment on leaked letters, but we had a discussion in Committee about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and about the Supreme Court judgment in the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, which considered the competence of the Welsh Government where multiple subjects were at play. Of course, the court held that the Welsh Assembly had competence as the case concerned a situation where the devolved matter of agriculture was specifically in play. By contrast, this Bill is concerned with industrial relations, which is solely a reserved matter.
There are other cases that I will not go into at this moment, but the key point is that we cannot ignore the fundamental and well-established principle that there should be a unified system of law for certain matters. Employment and industrial relations law is one important example that has to apply consistently across Great Britain. Devolution of these matters, which is the effect of this penultimate amendment we are looking at, could lead to the differential treatment of workers and the development of a two-tier system, making it more difficult for workers to move freely within the labour market. That, of course, is why employment law is reserved in Scotland, and not conferred in Wales. The importance of having this single regime has been reconfirmed in the context of the Scotland Act which received Royal Assent recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, sought, in our earlier discussion on the Enterprise Bill to look at the devolution of exit payments and suggested that our treatment of those was inconsistent with our treatment of the Trade Union Bill, to which we have now turned our attention. This is not correct. The Government of Wales Act 2006, which I referred to earlier, gives legislative competence to the Welsh Government for pensions and compensation payments to specific employers and for specific purposes. This is why the Welsh Assembly has regulation-making powers in relation to exit payments in the Enterprise Bill. In contrast, the Trade Union Bill is about employment and industrial relations law, which is not conferred on the Welsh Government—it is a wholly reserved matter, as I have said. The benefits it will bring should apply across the whole of Great Britain.
I appreciate that not all noble Lords share my assessment—hence this amendment—but I cannot accept that the way forward is to exclude certain public bodies outside England from specific provisions of the Bill. That would extend devolution by the back door and undermine discussions in the context of the Scotland Act and the draft Wales Bill. Parliament has put in place provisions for revising the devolution settlements. It would not be appropriate for this Bill, or others unrelated to constitutional devolution matters, to determine the boundaries of devolution in isolation. We are here today not to debate and amend the devolution settlements but to deliver our manifesto commitment for industrial relations and employment law.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we do treat devolution with respect, as noble Lords can see, in many different ways, but I cannot agree with her or with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, about the way forward on this amendment. Can we just consider the hugely significant impact of the amendment on the Bill? Under the amendment, none of the Bill’s provisions would apply to any public body in Wales, regardless of whether the public body were devolved. That would mean that neither the 50% turnout threshold nor the 40% support threshold for important public services would apply to industrial action ballots in Welsh schools or Welsh hospitals. The threshold provisions in the Bill ensure that strike action only happens where there is a strong and positive mandate. That is as important, it seems to me, in Cardiff and Wrexham as it is in London or Glasgow.
This amendment would also mean that ballot papers for industrial action in the DVLA or the Border Force in Wales would not be required to contain a summary of the matters in dispute, despite the fact that both bodies are responsible for matters that are solely reserved. Not only would this amendment therefore undermine the devolution settlement with Wales, and the principle that employment matters should be reserved, but there could also be unintended consequences, as I have highlighted. Where bodies have premises in Wales, there would have to be two different sets of rules for different workers by virtue of where they were located.
If the House were to approve the amendment today, it would set a precedent that future employment and industrial relations legislation would not apply to public bodies in Wales. We could anticipate a time when individual rights, such as protections from unfair dismissal, would not affect public bodies in Wales. I am sure that that is not what anybody wants, but we have to look at the implications of making a change in an area which is clearly reserved. Of course, we will continue to talk about the delivery of devolution in the weeks and months ahead, but I hope that I have explained our position clearly this evening.
Lord Hain
The Minister has been very generous this afternoon, but I fear that her generosity is now straying into dangerous territory. I am very concerned. May I point out that when Welsh Ministers start to read the text of the Minister’s reply, they will find that she is digging herself into a deeper hole in this matter? Some of what she has said is very contentious on the interpretation of the devolution settlement for which I was largely responsible in the Government of Wales Act 2006, as Secretary of State. I am very concerned, if I may so, in the gentlest way possible, that she is reading from a civil servant’s script that is seeking to get back some of the powers and responsibilities that have already been devolved.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord. I am certainly not seeking to make any changes. I said in response to a point made by a colleague that it was important to respect the devolution settlement. I am trying to explain that this is a reserved area and that if you change that there are implications of the kind that I outlined. That is why we feel strongly that this needs to be a national measure. It fits in well with the unified system that is needed for certain matters and takes account of the fact that employment and industrial relations law is reserved. Of course, as we discussed earlier in relation to the Enterprise Bill, there are particular detailed provisions—apprenticeships are a good example—where I completely understand that the Welsh Government create their own rules. What I am trying to do on this Bill is to make sure that we do not move into constitutional areas which are not appropriate for today’s debate. I have also tried to explain that there is a risk of things being unworkable. I consider that the amendment has far-ranging implications which I cannot accept. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I simply raise the issue to which she referred in relation to employment law being reserved. This was what we thought was the case prior to the Agricultural Wages Board Supreme Court judgment. I am sure noble Lords can see that this is not as simple as it sounds, because agricultural wages were found to be an issue that was devolved to the Welsh Government. They are perilously close to employment law, are they not? I cannot see the difference between them. The truth of the matter is that the Supreme Court judgment determined that if something was not specified in the Government of Wales Act—
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to give way. She knows as well as I do that this is Report stage of the Bill, and she can question the Minister on a material part of the Bill but she cannot make another speech.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
If the noble Baroness has finished, I shall move on. I am glad the Minister said that she has listened to our concerns. However, I am a bit disappointed by what she said this afternoon. I do not want to go on for too long as I know that we want to move on. However, the fact is that the conferred model is far more complicated than she made out. It is not the same as the Scottish model. The courts have said that it is different. There is already differential treatment between the way that workers—
Lord Elton (Con)
With the leave of the House, I remind the noble Baroness that we are on Report. She is not asking a short question but rather making a speech.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
The noble Lord should have been here when we were discussing this earlier, but there we go. It is important to note that there is differential treatment at the moment between workers in Wales and workers in England. To give noble Lords an example, every worker in the Welsh health service receives a living wage. That is a differential. Things are already different. The cat is out of the bag and you cannot put it back. That is the situation and it is important that it is respected. The Minister cannot possibly have any idea how health boards are managed in Wales as they are devolved. How can you say how much time they should have—or whether they should have any time at all—to discuss trade union matters?
We are not suffering a doctors’ strike in Wales because we allow facility time to happen. The trade union movement and the managers of hospitals have made it absolutely clear that they think this would be a retrograde step that would lead to worse industrial relations.
I am disappointed that the Government have not quite understood the constitutional issues within the amendment, but this is a day to celebrate. We have won major concessions from the Government today and I do not want to end on a negative note. We will come back to fighting the devolution corner and discussing the constitution of the United Kingdom. I want to celebrate the fact that we have had major concessions today and we are very grateful for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.