House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
On the front page of today’s Order Paper, it is noted that, on 23 April 1916, Lieutenant and Adjutant the Hon. Michael Hicks-Beach, Viscount Quenington, Royal Gloucestershire Hussars Yeomanry, Member for Tewkesbury, died of wounds received in action at Quatia in Sinai, Egypt. We remember him today.
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
1. What steps he is taking through the culture White Paper, published in March 2016, to ensure that culture forms a core part of local authorities’ plans and priorities.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
May I begin by wishing Her Majesty the Queen a very happy birthday today? I know that the whole country will be celebrating.
I am delighted to have published the first culture White Paper for more than 50 years and I am also very pleased that at the core of that White Paper stands our Great Place scheme, which is exactly designed to encourage local authorities to put culture first.
Neil Carmichael
I join the Minister in wishing Her Majesty the Queen a very happy birthday.
Does the Minister agree that devolution combined with the possibility of an elected mayor, as we hope to have in Gloucestershire, would be a really good thing, providing more scope, more leadership and more resources for culture, media, music and everything else that a good community needs to have?
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister’s Government have implemented £685 million of cuts to Lancashire County Council, resulting in massive library and museum closures. When will his Government take responsibility for this attack on our heritage and culture, which amounts to treachery when we lose them forever? It is disgraceful. When will his Government take responsibility?
Mr Speaker
Order. Members should not be standing while the exchanges take place. I can perfectly well see them, and I may or may not come to them in due course.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I join the Minister in wishing Her Majesty a very happy birthday.
“Even if councils stopped…maintaining parks, closed all children’s centres, libraries, museums, leisure centres…they will not have saved enough money to plug the financial black hole they face”.
That was a quote from Lord Porter, the Tory chair of the Local Government Association. That black hole is of the Government’s making and local cultural institutions lose out doubly, because councils can no longer afford to match-fund European, Heritage Lottery or Arts Council grants. Our creative industries generate £84 billion per year. They are drivers of growth, economic regeneration as well as inspiration, hope and future jobs. Why are this Government starving their local roots?
Mr Vaizey
I certainly do not agree that we are starving local roots. We are increasing the amount of national funding that is going out of London, which is something that the last Labour Government never did at all, and I see examples of success all over the country. Hull, for example, is preparing to be the City of Culture next year. The Great Exhibition of the North the year after will celebrate our culture rather than doing it down. I ask the hon. Lady to have a word with her colleagues in Labour local authorities and ask them to stop closing their libraries.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Where is a sense of reality from the Minister? My local authority, Kirklees, is desperately fighting to keep libraries open and to keep the museums going, and it is a very tough call indeed. I know that there are problems—I am not making a cheap political point—but is it not about time that we put more resources into local government and also into universities so that they take their local communities more seriously in terms of innovation and the arts?
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
2. What progress is being made on implementation of the Leveson inquiry recommendations.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
Around half of Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations focused on press regulation and we have implemented those via the royal charter. The Government have delivered, or are in the process of delivering, the majority of the other recommendations directed at them.
Simon Danczuk
The Secretary of State must realise that press abuse victims want him to implement section 40. Indeed, even the Prime Minister personally promised victims of press abuse and this House that it would be enacted. Why is the Secretary of State breaking the Prime Minister’s promise?
Mr Whittingdale
I have considerable sympathy with the victims of press abuse and have had a number of meetings with some of them and with others who are rightly following this matter with great interest. Having had my faith tested perhaps to the utmost, I still believe that press freedom is a vital component of a free society and we should tread very carefully. Some of the recommendations of the Leveson report have been implemented and the new system is coming into effect. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the exemplary damages provisions of section 40 have now been enacted. The remainder are still under consideration and we do not yet have a recognised press regulator in place, but we will continue to consider these matters very carefully.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State believe that we have sufficient press regulation or would he like to see further regulation of the press?
Mr Whittingdale
We now have two potential press regulators, both of which are independent, running self-regulatory systems with sanctions, and certainly represent a considerable improvement on the Press Complaints Commission, which went before. It is still early days and obviously we will watch carefully to see how the new system operates and whether it is delivering the proper protection that we all want to see to ensure that the abuses that have taken place in the past do not happen again.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
We all support freedom of the press and broadcasters, but in the case of the BBC we also expect our national broadcaster to reflect the society in which we live. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have seen highlights of the House’s recent debate on BBC diversity. All sides were in complete agreement that there is a striking shortage of black senior managers, an inexplicable lack of openly gay and lesbian presenters in high-profile news and current affairs roles and a shocking absence of older women on screen anywhere. The House agreed that the time for BBC studies and targets had passed and that action was overdue. Has the Secretary of State had a chance to pass that on to the director-general?
Mr Whittingdale
I have quite a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Obviously, we are still in the process of drawing up the new BBC charter but I can assure him that this issue will feature in the White Paper when we publish it, I hope quite soon. It is something we take seriously. I do not believe in instructing the BBC or setting quotas for the number of ethnic minority faces, older female faces or, indeed, Scottish faces that appear on screen or behind the camera, but all those groups, and others that are currently underrepresented, need better representation and that is what we are working to achieve.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of his Department’s spending review settlement on funding for grassroots sport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
The Department secured a very positive spending review settlement last year. Over this Parliament we will invest more money in grassroots sport than ever before. The settlement reflects the Government’s continued support for the positive outcomes that sport can bring and will be spent in line with the new Government strategy, Sporting Future, which sets out how we will encourage more people from every background to engage in sport and physical activity.
Mims Davies
What assessment has the Minister made of councils intervening and affecting grassroots sports participation, such as Parkrun, by insisting on charging for wear and tear?
Mr Evennett
This is obviously a matter for the council and Parkrun, but the decision to charge for an event that is free in locations across the UK and around the world is one that we, as a Government, think should be reconsidered. We want to remove barriers to participation and encourage more and more people to get involved in sport. That is the key message that the Government want to get across.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
If my hon. Friend were to speak to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he would become aware that in Chelmsford there is thriving grassroots sport in the form of ice hockey. Does the result of the spending review offer any hope of benefits for ice hockey at a grassroots level?
Mr Evennett
Obviously, decisions on local authority budgets are decisions for those authorities. We welcome what is happening in Chelmsford and I know how assiduous my right hon. Friend is in speaking up for his constituency. There are many examples across the country of local authorities spending on sport. For instance, Central Bedfordshire Council continues to invest in sport and physical activity provision. We encourage that.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
4. What factors he has taken into account when deciding whether to commence section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, on reform of press regulation.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
As I indicated a moment ago, no decision has been taken regarding commencement of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The matter is under consideration and I am meeting a variety of interested parties with different views to discuss the issue.
Paul Farrelly
I thank the Secretary of State for taking us no further forward. Implementation of the costs incentives was promised by the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). They were promised as a key part of the Leveson reforms specifically by the Prime Minister, not only to Parliament but to the victims of press abuse, including the family of Madeleine McCann, so in signalling already that he has no intention of taking that step, has the Secretary of State reflected at all that he is thwarting the will of Parliament, breaching a cross-party agreement, and breaking clear, firm and unequivocal promises made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues?
Mr Whittingdale
I have not indicated that I have no intention. I simply said that I was not minded, which means that the matter is still under consideration and my mind and that of my colleagues is open on the matter, which is why we are continuing to have meetings. Only this week I had a meeting with some of the hyperlocal publishers who have signed up with the Impress regulator and they made some interesting comments, and we will continue to listen to all those with an interest. We will in due course make a decision. However, section 40 and the costs provision will not come into effect fully until there is a recognised regulator, even after the order is signed. There is not yet a recognised regulator so we are not yet in that position, and we will continue to consider the matter.
Mr Speaker
We trust that the Secretary of State’s minded state was nevertheless intentional.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
5. What steps his Department is taking to ensure the greatest possible engagement by children and young people in the commemoration of the first world war.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
The three key themes of our first world war centenary are remembrance, youth, and education. We know that to date around 1.5 million young people have taken part, including via schemes like the Battlefield Tours and Legacy 110 programmes, 14-18 Now, and protecting war memorials. We are ensuring that young people are visibly catered for and involved in all our national commemorative and cultural events.
Mark Pawsey
It is important that children and young people understand the sacrifice made by earlier generations, so will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating pupils at Newbold Riverside Academy in my constituency, who were given the opportunity to name a fantastic new recreation facility in their area and chose to call it Newbold Centenary park to reflect the commemoration of the start of the first world war?
Mr Whittingdale
We should perhaps be relieved that the name chosen was not Parky McParkface.
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating pupils of Newbold Riverside Academy on deciding to commemorate all those who gave their lives in the first world war by choosing the name of the park. As I said, there are hundreds of projects taking place and it is particularly important that young people have the opportunity to visit the first world war battlefields. It is extraordinarily encouraging that young people have shown such enthusiasm and interest in marking this very important centenary.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
These matters are obviously extremely important, but the Department is also responsible for protecting children online. This morning the Internet Watch Foundation said that child abuse images are appearing behind adult pornography sites. Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why he personally intervened to block the Tory party manifesto promise to enable internet service providers to block websites where there is not a proper age verification system—
Mr Speaker
Order. No. That is a very serious matter and could properly be raised at topical questions, but it is something of an abuse of the main thrust of this question. I let the hon. Lady finish because I did not know quite where she was headed and I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, but having given her the chance, I am afraid, if I may say so, she was hanged by her own rope. We had better move on to Mr Rob Marris.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
On Tuesday this week, Mr Speaker, I had the great pleasure of attending your State Rooms to celebrate the Sikh festival of Vaisakhi, and I thank you for your generous hospitality. You know, sir, that Sikh soldiers made huge contributions to our country in two world wars, and many people now want a permanent monument in central London to commemorate that sacrifice. Will the Minister today promise the Government’s support in principle for this project?
Mr Whittingdale
We do have memorials to a number of the different communities that contributed in the first world war, many of whose members lost their lives. A few weeks ago, on Commonwealth Day, I was privileged to attend the ceremony that took place at the Memorial Gates, which mark the contribution of the Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities in the first world war—that contribution was extremely important and perhaps does not always achieve recognition. We will of course keep an open mind. To some extent, this would also be a matter for other authorities, but if there are specific proposals, I will of course look at them.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
11. I was grateful to William Pritchard and Billy Green from The Rawlett School, who laid a wreath in memory of my great-grandfather, who was killed on the first day of the battle of the Somme in 1916. In this, its centenary year, may I ask my right hon. Friend to encourage school visits to the Somme battlefield memorials, to remember the men who made such a sacrifice all those years ago?
Mr Whittingdale
My hon. Friend illustrates what has become very clear: that almost every person in this country will have had a relative who served in the first world war, many of whom died. I am delighted to hear about the tribute that was paid to my hon. Friend’s great-grandfather. It is incredibly important that young people learn about the first world war, which is why we put in place the school battlefields tour programme, under which two pupils and one teacher from every state-funded secondary school in England can visit the first world war battlefields. More than 3,500 pupils and teachers have already been on that programme.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
6. Whether he plans to reform the UK Anti-Doping agency.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
I have no plans to reform UK Anti-Doping, but following The Sunday Times allegations, an independent review has been launched into UK Anti-Doping’s handling of the information that it received. It is important that we allow that review to conclude before considering what action must be taken.
Gavin Newlands
Last week, the Prime Minister suggested that doping in sport could be criminalised in the UK. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with other Departments about the criminalisation of doping in sport?
Mr Whittingdale
It is a matter that we are considering very actively. The allegations that were printed in The Sunday Times suggesting that doping may be taking place among UK sportsmen are very serious and something that we want to examine very carefully, but also urgently. If it becomes clear as a result of that that further action needs to be taken—possibly including the criminalisation of doping in sport—we will not hesitate to act.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that we should be leading the way on anti-doping? Does he also agree that sportsmen and sportswomen have a responsibility to be honest and clean, particularly as they inspire so many young people? What is his Department doing to work alongside the agency to promote clean sport and to inspire our young people?
Mr Whittingdale
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman: it is absolutely essential that sport is seen to be clean. That is something for which we in this country have, until now, had a very good reputation, and I hope that we will still have a good reputation. We are talking to all the UK sports bodies, and we intend to draw up proposals, which I hope all of them will adopt. Beyond that, we are taking a lead internationally. The Prime Minister is holding an anti-corruption summit next month, and this is one of the issues that will be discussed.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that his forthcoming anti-corruption summit will consider whether doping in sport should be made a criminal offence, but before anyone can be convicted, we have to have an effective testing regime in place. Despite the billions that go into sport through TV rights and sponsorship, precious little money is going to fund research into sports science, which would keep us ahead of the cheats. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on the Prime Minister to discuss research funding at his summit, with the aim of setting up a funding body that is independent of sports governing bodies, so that we can have effective testing in place and stay ahead of the cheats?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree that this is a very important matter, which is why the Government invest more than £5 million per annum in UK Anti-Doping; and by the end of this Parliament that sum will have gone up to £5.4 million. National governing bodies of sport are doing quite a lot. For instance, I visited the British Horseracing Authority recently to hear about the work it has been doing to ensure that its sport remains clean. Other sports are also investing in this area. Of course, there is more that we can do, and I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in urging the national governing bodies of all our sports to give the issue the serious attention it deserves and to invest more if required.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to support (a) restaurants, bars and live music venues and (b) other night-time industries.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I was delighted last month to work with my hon. Friend the planning Minister and the Music Venue Trust to get planning regulations changed so that we can protect our music venues. It is very important that we recognise the huge economic contribution they make to the night-time economy and that we take action where required.
Nigel Huddleston
According to figures recently released by the industry body, the Night Time Industries Association, the UK’s restaurants, bars, pubs and music venues employ 1.3 million people and serve millions of Britons and tourists every year. Will the Minister join me in recognising the important role played by this sector, which contributes £66 billion to our economy each year?
Mr Vaizey
Yes, I will. Its contribution is not only economic, but cultural. In the light of the visit of the President of Indonesia this week, I note that Indonesia counts food and restaurants as part of its creative industries. I think that that is something we should consider very seriously.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
10. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that events to commemorate the centenary of the first world war take place in all regions and constituent parts of the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
We recently launched an appeal to encourage communities, businesses, organisations and individuals across the UK to mark the centenary of the battle of the Somme on 30 June and 1 July. We will continue to find ways to encourage commemoration of this most poignant first world war event through media activity and direct approaches. Guidance is available on the Government website, and special information has been published by the Royal British Legion, which contains information on hosting a Somme remembrance event.
Byron Davies
The first world war was, of course, an enormous UK-wide effort, where millions of men and women served our nation with distinction. What additional advice can the Minister give the Welsh Government so that the people of Wales, in particular young people, can mark and honour the great sacrifices made in the first world war?
Mr Evennett
The Wales Remembers 1914-18 programme was launched in January by the First Minister. It shows details of the commemorative events taking place in Wales and further afield during 2016. There will be an overnight vigil at the Welsh national war memorial in Cardiff on 30 June to commemorate the centenary of the battle of the Somme, and Caernarfon castle will host the “poppies weeping window” from 11 October to 20 November.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
On 25 June the armed forces day national event will be held in Cleethorpes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that armed forces day is an opportunity not only to mark the continuing bravery of our armed forces, but to link it to the sacrifices of the past?
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are so grateful to those who continue to serve in the armed forces for what they do, but we must never forget those who gave sacrifice in the first world war.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
12. What steps the Government is taking to reduce the number of nuisance calls.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Since we published our action plan two years ago, we have taken a range of measures, including lowering the threshold for what constitutes a nuisance call and increasing co-operation between the two regulators, namely Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Bob Blackman
Despite Government action, nuisance calls are a real concern to residents all over the country. What further steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that we bar nuisance calls and prevent elderly people in particular from having to suffer this curse?
Mr Vaizey
This is a very important issue that annoys a great many people and frightens the elderly and vulnerable in particular. We have announced a fund to allow call-barring equipment to be given to the elderly and vulnerable, and we are about to announce the results of our consultation on calling line identification.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
There is a real danger that increasing the small claims limit in civil court cases will lead to yet more unwanted nuisance telephone calls from claims management companies. Will my hon. Friend liaise with Ministers in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that steps are taken to prevent that from happening?
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend takes a close personal interest in this issue, and he has been very supportive. He makes an extremely important point. In my view, when Government are considering the impact of changes in legislation in any Department, they should consider the potential knock-on effect on nuisance calls. I will certainly take up his point and see whether we can make progress.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
13. What his policy is on reforming governance of the BBC.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
The Clementi review reported on the governance and regulation of the BBC on 1 March 2016. Sir David’s ideas for the principles of simpler governance structures and streamlined regulatory arrangements that have public interest and market sensitivity at their heart are ones that it would be difficult for this, or indeed any, Government to overlook. The Government hope to set out plans for the future of BBC governance in a White Paper next month.
Daniel Zeichner
A recent YouGov poll commissioned by 38 Degrees, which is doubtless the Government’s favourite campaigning organisation, showed that 62% of over-60s had no confidence in the Government to protect the BBC during charter renewal, and that more than half of them felt that the BBC was the most trusted source of news. In the light of that, how can increasing the level of government control over appointments to the new board possibly increase confidence in the independence of the BBC?
Mr Whittingdale
We do take the views of 38 Degrees, and, indeed, all others who have submitted responses to our consultation, seriously. Certainly, the BBC’s reputation for integrity and impartiality is one of the key things to protect and enhance as a result of the charter renewal. In terms of governance, Sir David Clementi made very specific proposals about this. It is a matter that we are currently discussing with the BBC, and I hope that we will be able to announce agreement about that in due course.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The BBC’s 39 local radio stations face the prospect of further cuts as part of the corporation’s attempt to meet the £700 million cost of free TV licences. Regional radio is a unique and greatly valued public service that tackles issues close to the hearts of its listeners, who feel a very long way from the London-centric national news coverage. Will the Secretary of State oppose any cuts to BBC local radio, particularly in the north-east?
Mr Whittingdale
It is not my job, or the job of the Government, to tell the BBC how to allocate the resources available to it, but I completely agree with the hon. Lady that BBC local radio is one area of BBC activity that is hugely valued and that would not be delivered by any other means. I am less familiar, obviously, with BBC local radio in the north-east, but I have no doubt that she is right to praise it. I am a big fan of BBC Essex and I would be very sorry if it suffered any cuts. I do not think that is necessary within the generous funding that the BBC receives.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The BBC promised us that it was going to learn from the mistakes of the past. Has the Secretary of State had any opportunity to assess or question the logic of the BBC bosses who decided to appoint a sex offender who has recently been released from jail to front a prime-time youth talent show on the BBC? What were they thinking in that appointment?
Mr Whittingdale
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. It is, of course, a matter of editorial judgment for the BBC, but the BBC has a duty to set an example and behave responsibly. I simply say that I am sure that the senior editorial management of the BBC will have heard what he said, and I encourage him, if he has concerns, to express them directly to the BBC.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
14. What plans his Department has to increase tourism in England from domestic and foreign visitors.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr David Evennett)
The Prime Minister’s five-point plan for tourism sets out how this Government will grow the tourism industry in England and across Britain. I am pleased to say that in 2015, we saw a 10% increase in the number of domestic overnight visits in England compared with the previous year. To boost English tourism further, the Chancellor announced a new £40 million Discover England fund at the latest spending round. The fund will support visitors to discover even more of England’s hidden gems.
Mr Mak
Alongside Government action, community groups such as the Emsworth Business Association in my constituency play a key role in increasing tourism. Will the Minister join me in congratulating it, including on its work on the Great British Food festival, which attracts visitors from around the world?
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, with which I agree. Yes, the recent British food fortnight has been a tremendous success. I wholeheartedly join him in congratulating the people in his constituency on what they have done. This year is the great campaigns year for Great British Food, during which we are highlighting our really great British food and drink, and showing the world that we are a great food nation.
Mr Speaker
No, no. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that he consumed his dish with question 8 and cannot have a second helping now? He can always have a go during topical questions, but it is one question per segment of Question Time. That is a very useful lesson for new Members to learn. We are extremely grateful to him.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
Since the last oral questions, my Department has published the first cultural White Paper in 50 years.
Sadly, we have seen the passing of a number of distinguished figures, including the “voice of Cornwall” Ted Gundry, the playwright Arnold Wesker, the architect Zaha Hadid, and the national treasures Ronnie Corbett and Victoria Wood. On a happier note, we saw England reach the final of the men’s T20 cricket world cup and the semi-final of the women’s competition, and Danny Willett become the second Englishman to win the Masters in Augusta.
We warmly congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on her 90th birthday today. We look forward to commemorating the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death on Saturday, and we look forward to the London marathon on Sunday, in which I understand that eight hon. Members of this House will be participating.
Mr Speaker
And we note that Jamie Murray is now the world’s No. 1 doubles player.
Patricia Gibson
The Department has indicated that it wants the BBC to allocate £100 million of its annual budget for local news and children’s TV to outside suppliers. Which outside suppliers are meant, and what impact assessment has been made of that?
Mr Whittingdale
At the moment, the BBC is subject to the 25% independent production quota. It is not specified which particular genres that should cover, but there is a general requirement for 25%. The extent to which the BBC offers up the rest of its schedule to competition from outside independent producers is a matter we are considering very carefully. I do think there are some very good independent production companies in the sectors she mentions, and I hope that the BBC will take maximum advantage of competition to ensure that we have the best possible programmes available to the licence fee payer.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
T3. My constituents in Crawley appreciate lower prices and improved service, so will my right hon. Friend tell us what his Department is doing to improve competition in both the telephone and broadband markets?
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
While we are on anniversaries, may I congratulate Charlotte Brontë on her 200th birthday, which falls today? [Interruption.] I do not see anything wrong with congratulating her. [Laughter.] Shall I get on with it, Mr Speaker?
We have done a lot. I want to welcome Ofcom’s digital communications review and to congratulate Ofcom on it. The review is not 200 years old; in fact, it is extremely fresh—straight out of the box. It will promote competition, and we have issued a very clear statement that we will back Ofcom all the way on this.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am starting to realise why this Department is known as the Ministry for fun.
We all know that the Secretary of State has been distracted from doing his job as Culture Secretary lately by his extracurricular activities. I am talking about his moonlighting for the leave campaign. Last November, he promised the UK music industry that he would support clarifying EU law to level the playing field between online platforms and content providers, which would hugely boost the benefits to the UK of the digital single market. He reiterated that undertaking in writing earlier this year. Why has he allowed his Department to renege on that promise this month?
Mr Whittingdale
That is something to which I attach great importance. I discussed that matter with Vice-President Ansip of the European Commission not that long ago. I was reassured that he shared our concern that action should be taken to ensure the music industry receives the returns it is entitled to from intermediaries that are currently underpaying. I have to say that that is not something from which my Department has backed away. Indeed, I am determined that we will continue to press the European Commission on it.
Maria Eagle
UK Music has written to the Secretary of State about this. I have the letter here—it has fallen into my lap. After expressing surprise and concern about this turn of events, it seeks
“your explicit confirmation that the UK Government remains committed to a clarification of EU law on the liability of online intermediaries and the use of safe harbour provisions.”
Is it not true that he has spent more time running around arguing that Britain should walk away from the biggest single market in the world than he has looking after the interests of UK creative industries in these crucial negotiations?
Mr Whittingdale
The answer is no. Whether we will be subject to the regulations and directives under the digital single market, and indeed any other measures of the European Commission, is something that the British people will decide in two months’ time. In the meantime, I assure the hon. Lady that I discussed the matter on Tuesday evening with the chairman of UK Music. I reassured him that in no way had we reduced or diminished our support for the UK music industry, and that we share its determination to make sure that, if proper clarification of the rules on this point was necessary, we would be pressing for that.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
T6. In times of community crisis, challenge or indeed success, listening to the local BBC radio station and watching local TV are vital for many of our constituents. Having worked in local broadcasting, I can say that it sometimes feels like a Cinderella service. Does the Minister agree that BBC and local commercial radio play a crucial part in the life of our communities and both should be supported, promoted and funded appropriately?
Mr Whittingdale
As I indicated a little earlier, local radio plays an absolutely vital role in communities. I know that my hon. Friend has particular experience in this area and speaks with that knowledge. To give a single example, during the recent flooding crisis in the north of England, both BBC and commercial local radio played a vital part in ensuring that communities were kept aware of what was happening and were given advice as to what to do about it. That is where local radio becomes incredibly important. I of course want to see it sustained and maintained.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
T2. Like the Secretary of State, I have had my experience of the press tested, but—and this is not about politicians or celebrities—the years are rolling on, so when should victims of press abuse expect him to make his mind up on deciding to protect them?
Mr Whittingdale
We covered this a little earlier. As I said, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that people who have not chosen to enter public life but who find themselves the subject of press abuse deserve protection most. That is why the Government were extremely keen that a new, independent and tough regulator should be put in place. Two regulators are now being established, and we will see how effective they are. We have already implemented part of the provisions of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. We are keeping an open mind about when to implement the remaining provisions. I accept that we will need to reach a decision about that relatively soon, and I will ensure that the House is kept informed.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
T7. It is good to see the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) in their places, because they have turned out for the Commons and Lords rugby club, which has distinguished itself this season by actually winning a game. In addition to engaging with other Parliaments, the club has raised substantial sums of money for charity. Will the Minister join me in congratulating its members on the sums they have raised, in particular for the Rugby Football Union’s wonderful Injured Players Foundation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
I of course would like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating not only him on all the work he has done for rugby—[Interruption.] Football is my game. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) always likes to make fun from a sedentary position—
Mr Evennett
I shall be supporting Crystal Palace on Sunday, because they are my local team, unfortunately for the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on the work he has done, as well as the parliamentary rugby team on all its charitable work, and on winning a game. I hope the team has more success in future. I also offer my good wishes to all those participating in the London marathon on Sunday, particularly those who are Members of this House.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
T4. The Responsible Gambling Trust has indicated that it received £7 million from the betting industry as a voluntary donation. How much annual funding does the Department provide for research, education and treatment for gambling-related harm?
Mr Whittingdale
This is an important matter. It is already a requirement on all gambling licence holders to make an annual financial contribution to one or more organisations that perform research into the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. The vast majority choose to make that contribution to the Responsible Gambling Trust, which raised £6.5 million from the British-based gambling industry in 2014-15. I entirely agree that we need research into this matter, and we must take decisions based on the evidence.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
As always, I appreciate your patience and guidance, Mr Speaker. On the occasion of Her Majesty’s 90th birthday, will the Minister join me in acknowledging the Queen’s vital contribution to the UK tourism industry?
Mr Evennett
I would be delighted to add my congratulations to Her Majesty on her birthday, and I commend the tremendous service that she has given to the country in so many fields, including tourism.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
T5. The UK video games industry is a fantastic UK success story, thanks in no small part to access to a huge European market. If we stay in the European Union, we will influence the future digital single market, which rules over app stores, for example. What say would we have if we walked away from the table?
Mr Vaizey
What can I say? I think it would be a disaster if we left the European Union. Thanks to the fantastic support for our introduction of tax credits and putting coding in the national curriculum, and our backing for e-sports, Britain is forging ahead in the video games industry. However, we must work with our European partners.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Last night you and I, Mr Speaker, attended the 10th anniversary of Asianlite, an Asian newspaper that is online and in print. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in congratulating it on 10 years of wonderful publication, and in looking forward to at least another 10 years of its celebrated works?
Mr Whittingdale
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Asianlite. I have had several recent meetings with representatives of Asian media organisations to talk about how we can support them and work with them in tackling problems such as extremism. It is essential that those communities have thriving media, so I am very happy to hear about this latest edition and wish it every success.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Conservative manifesto pledged
“to stop children's exposure to harmful sexualised content online, by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material and age-rating for all music videos”.
Why did the Secretary of State exclude that from the consultation document on child safety online, which he published in February?
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for advance warning of her question, and she is right to say that this is a serious matter. We think that age verification should be in place for adult pornographic websites. Images of child abuse are absolutely illegal and we must take every measure to counter them, and I share the hon. Lady’s alarm about the figures today. However, there is a big distinction between those sites, and sites that are legal for adults but where we need to increase protection for children. The manifesto was clear that we will introduce measures to ensure age verification, and I hope that we will bring those forward very soon in legislation in the next Session.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
1. What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the Standing Orders of the House.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
6. What plans he has to bring forward proposals to reform the Standing Orders of the House.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government have implemented significant change to Standing Orders since the beginning of this Session. On 22 October 2015, the House voted to approve new Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws, delivering on a key Government commitment by giving England and Wales more control over decisions by which they alone are affected. Standing Orders undergo frequent revision. The Procedure Committee, the Clerks and the Government monitor their use to ensure that they reflect how business in the House is conducted in practice.
Patricia Gibson
The Procedure Committee, on which I sit, published a report this week on private Members’ Bills, calling for amendment to the Standing Orders because the present procedure has been brought into total disrepute due to the frequency with which Bills are talked out. Does the Leader of the House agree that the procedure is in total disrepute, or does he think that filibustering is democratic?
Dr Coffey
In this case, he is a she. We debated this last week in Westminster Hall, as the hon. Lady will be aware, as she participated in the debate. It would be remiss of me to answer before the Government published their response to the Procedure Committee’s report. We will publish our response in due course.
Peter Grant
The Deputy Leader of the House referred to English votes for English laws. It is clear that we will not make the Government see sense on the fundamental wrongness of that measure. The Government will not budge on what they want to achieve, but does the Minister not appreciate that the way this is being done is unworkable? It has managed to make this House’s procedures even more intractable. They made a significant change to the constitution of the House on a Wednesday afternoon as if it were a minor change to the spelling in the Standing Orders. Will she tell us when the issue of the Standing Orders will be brought back before the House, so that at least if the Government are going to do the wrong thing, they do it right?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House referred to the excellent report on private Members’ Bills by the Procedure Committee, on which I sit. When will the Government bring forward a response, and when can Members have a debate and take a decision on reforming private Members’ Bills?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Government will, in retrospect, look at private Members’ Bills in a dispassionate way. In 1987, the late Enoch Powell wanted to introduce a Bill—and nearly got it through—to ban all stem cell research. I discovered on the morning that I could move the writ for Brecon and Radnor, and I spoke for nearly the whole day. Every time I hear on the BBC about stem cell research saving people’s lives, I know that that filibuster was not a bad thing at all.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman talks about filibusters, but I am sure that if he really had been filibustering, the Speaker of the day would have brought him to order. He nevertheless found a way at that time to use a device so that business that he felt was inappropriate did not make its way through the House.
Mr Speaker
Pete Wishart. No? I thought the hon. Gentleman wished to intercede on this matter, but apparently not. No doubt we will hear him speak with force and eloquence at the appropriate time.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made clear this week, we welcome and support the Procedure Committee’s recommendations for changes to the private Members’ Bills procedures. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has said, the majority of Members of this House, as well as interested members of the public, will be disappointed to hear that the Government have not yet committed to providing time to debate these proposals, because Bills on far too many issues that people care about, such as hospital parking charges for carers or cheaper cancer drugs, have been talked out by the filibusterers. Will the Government follow the Procedure Committee recommendations and allow us to debate this matter on the Floor of the House?
Dr Coffey
As I have just said, the Government will respond in due course, within the expected time. I argued in the debate last week that private Members’ Bills can provide an important means of raising issues. They used to be the only way a Back Bencher could get a debate on any particular matter. We now have many more ways to raise these issues. Important pieces of legislation have both gone through this House as private Members’ Bills, and have, as private Members’ Bills, been stopped in highly appropriate ways that are allowed by the procedures of the House.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
2. What progress the Commission has made on making Parliament more family-friendly.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
3. What progress the Commission has made on making Parliament more family-friendly.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
8. What progress the Commission has made on making Parliament more family-friendly.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Commission is committed to making the House family-friendly to the extent to which that rests within its remit. It is for the House itself to decide on, for instance, sitting hours and the annual parliamentary calendar, which I understand the Procedure Committee is to address shortly. The Commission’s diversity and inclusion strategy builds on earlier initiatives such as the opening of the House of Commons nursery in 2010. The recently introduced formalisation of flexitime for staff offers one example of family-friendly policies in action.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
The staff of this place are often asked to work very long hours at extremely short notice; moreover, the Government have taken to, on occasion, releasing recess dates at extremely short notice. Has the Commission received any representations on how that might affect the family lives of the staff of the House?
Gavin Newlands
Given that a number of Members are parents of young children and are often called on to work unpredictable and long hours, a crèche facility might be more suitable than a nursery. Will the Commission consider following the example of the Scottish Parliament in that regard? Will it also consider providing assistance for Members with school-age children whose school holidays fall almost entirely within parliamentary Sessions?
Tom Brake
As I said earlier, the nursery was opened in 2010 following consultation with Members and other stakeholders. It was decided to set up a nursery rather than a crèche because of the difficulties that arise as a result of the short notice that is given when children need to use the crèche. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are passed on, and I am sure that the nursery governance committee will want to consider them.
Carol Monaghan
Many workplaces are taking steps to ensure that employees on maternity or paternity leave are able to keep up to date with their work. Is the Commission taking any steps to ensure that Members on maternity or paternity leave can continue to serve their constituents, such as allowing remote electronic voting?
Tom Brake
That, I think, is another matter that is as much for the House as for the Commission. Clearly the House can ensure that this place is as accessible to Members who are away as to those who are present by means of, for instance, the IT provision, but I think that issues such as e-voting need to be considered by a much wider range of organisations than just the Commission.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What steps the Commission is taking to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for training and retraining of House employees.
Tom Brake
The Commission takes the learning and development needs of staff seriously. The House of Commons Service is an investor in people, and it invests significantly in training to ensure that all staff have the skills that they need to do their jobs and develop their careers. House staff should agree a development plan with their managers each year, and they are able to select from a wide range of learning opportunities including online and face-to-face training, coaching and mentoring.
Mr Sheerman
As my right hon. Friend knows, we benefit from fantastic and dedicated staff. Over the years, I have observed our capacity for enabling people to start on quite a lowly grade and then progress to senior management, but I am afraid that I now look around and see very talented people who are unable to follow that track. Can we ensure that if there is talent, we give it a chance to grow?
Tom Brake
I echo what the hon. Gentleman has said about the dedication of House of Commons staff. I am sure that he will be aware of the training opportunities that are regularly publicised through the “Learning News and Activities” brochure. Staff have plenty of opportunities for promotion and, for instance, retraining, if that is something that they wish to undertake.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to put on record my support and gratitude for the amazing work that the House employees do for us all. We are grateful to them, and we should do all we can to support them in any ventures in which they want to take part. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should be a priority to provide further training opportunities for employees who want to progress, both in the House and outside it?
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of procedures for dealing with private Members' bills.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
I have now received a copy of the Procedure Committee report, which I shall study carefully. I obviously want to respond constructively to it, and I think the House would expect me to take a little bit of time to consider what it says.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his reply. Some of the recommendations in the report are more controversial than others. As my observant right hon. Friend will have noticed, there are 67 private Members’ Bills listed in the future business section of today’s Order Paper that stand no chance at all of being given further time for consideration. As one of the proposals in the report relates to private Members’ Bills, may I urge him to introduce measures to deal at least with the uncontroversial parts of the report as soon as possible?
Chris Grayling
I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Members of the public looking at that list of private Members’ Bills will believe that those measures could still make progress, but we know that, given where we are in the Session, that is not now possible. There is a lot that is good in the report, and I can give him an assurance that we will respond carefully and thoughtfully to it. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who chairs the Procedure Committee, for the excellent work that he and his team have done on the report. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that it will get a proper response.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
7. If he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of departmental Question Times in holding the Government to account.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Departmental Question Times are a valuable opportunity for Members to scrutinise the Government. Topical questions add an opportunity for pressing events of the day to be covered, and of course the Prime Minister is here weekly to answer questions from any Member of the House.
Mr Allen
I want to try yet again to stem the growing blight of planted questions from Members on both Front Benches, which has now reached oppressive levels. Back Benchers are treated as though they are in bazaar in Marrakesh, having questions thrust at them—this operates on both sides of the House—and then getting emails to remind them to ask those questions. Parliamentary questions are meant to enable Back Benchers of all parties to hold the Government to account, not to enable games to be played between the two Front-Bench teams. This practice is now extending to planted Adjournment debates and planted Westminster Hall debates and, if we are not careful, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) will be seeing planted Back-Bench debates very soon. Will the Leader of the House meet the Speaker and the Chair of the Procedure Committee and have another look at this, so that what should be Back-Bench time can once again be as much about Back Benchers as about Front Benchers, as it was when I first started in this House?
Dr Coffey
I can honestly say that I have never been handed a question by a Whip. Dare I say that, on today’s Order Paper, the Scottish National party has tabled two sets of the same question? Members will want to work together in this way to pursue a particular theme. I do not think it is right for the Government to try to tell Back Benchers what questions they can or cannot submit.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Perhaps the most dysfunctional departmental question session is Scottish questions. We have English votes for English laws, but Scottish Question Time is still very much dominated by English Members of Parliament. I have written to the Leader of the House with a few modest reforms that we could perhaps work on, given that we now have English votes for English laws, including the proposal that a little part of that session be devoted exclusively to Scottish Members, to enable us to ask our departmental questions. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider these modest reforms, and is he in a position to respond to them?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman opposed the proposals for English votes for English laws. The Government strongly believe in the United Kingdom, and therefore it is absolutely appropriate for any Member to ask a question on matters that are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. That also applies to Welsh and Northern Ireland matters—and, indeed, any matter for which this United Kingdom Government are responsible.
Business of the House
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 25 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration Bill, followed by debate on a motion relating to education funding in London. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 26 April—Remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill (day 1).
Wednesday 27 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Trade Union Bill.
Thursday 28 April—Debate on a motion relating to world autism awareness week, followed by debate on a motion on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ “Building our Future” plan. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 29 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 May will include:
Monday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 3 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill.
I remind the House that on Tuesday 3 May we will be sitting according to the normal Monday timetable.
Chris Bryant
Today is the birthday of a towering figure in British public life who has served the country for decades and is a pillar of the constitution, so may I wish the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee a very happy birthday? May I also pay warm tribute to Victoria Wood? I do not know what your favourite line was, Mr Speaker, but mine was her definition of middle age, which is when you walk past a Dr Scholl’s shop and think, “Ooh, those look comfy.” Perhaps it was her sitting at the piano belting out,
“Let’s do it,
Let’s do it...
Not bleakly,
Not meekly,
Beat me on the bottom with a Woman’s Weekly”,
which sounds like a good time had by all at last week’s Tory party away day.
I had expected that the Leader of the House would have had some kind of musical accompaniment when he arrived today. After all, when he bounced up on the stage at the leave rally in Stoke on Tuesday, the theme tune from a Hollywood western was being pumped out. I must confess that I thought it was “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, which is a bit unfair on the Leader of the House, but it turns out that it was “The Magnificent Seven”. I presume that Nigel Farage thinks of himself as Vin, played by Steve McQueen, and that the Leader of the House sees himself as Chris Adams, played by Yul Brynner—he has the head for it. I can just imagine the two of them—the only ones alive at the end—sitting on their horses on 24 June, the day after the EU referendum, acting out the final scene. Chris gets the final words:
“We lost. We always lose.”
I hope that that will be the case.
Incidentally, did you hear the sound of silence that evening, Mr Speaker? It was the great silence that descends on the leave campaign when it is asked what Brexit would look like. The Lord Chancellor spluttered on Wednesday about the great free trade area that apparently runs from Iceland to Turkey. His solution is that we be like Bosnia, Serbia, Ukraine and Albania—Albania! The Lord Chancellor seems to think we can have free trade with the EU without free movement. Let me point out that in the 500 years since the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, published “Utopia”, no one has ever actually found it.
As we have heard, the Procedure Committee has published its report on private Members’ Bills. Its Chair is quite right when he says that the system is completely bust and that the Government are in the last-chance saloon. I note that the Deputy Leader of the House seems hesitant about reform, while the Leader of the House seems a bit more inclined towards it, so will the Leader of the House guarantee that the House will get a proper chance to debate changes to the Standing Orders? I do not mean just some insubstantial debate, but a proper one that can lead to change.
The Leader just announced that we shall be considering Lords amendments to the Trade Union Bill on Wednesday. The Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee, a cross-party Lords Committee, has made some important suggestions and I urge the Government to act on them. Otherwise, fair-minded people might conclude that that Government are engaged in a nasty, partisan attempt to hobble anyone who disagrees with them.
Will the Leader of the House clarify the Government’s position on genocide and the Yazidi Christians? The deliberate massacre of thousands upon thousands solely because of their religion and their ethnic origin is an evident barbarity. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) put her case admirably yesterday and carried the Division unanimously, with 278 votes, but surely the Government should act upon it. Mysteriously, the Government sat on their hands last night, and they have a habit of ignoring such unanimous motions. Will the Leader of the House pledge that just this once the Government will take the voice of the House of Commons seriously and act?
Do the Government have any plans at all to reform the House of Lords? The bizarre Lib Dem hereditary by-election on Tuesday brought back Viscount Thurso, a man who is clearly a master of the parliamentary hokey-cokey. He was a hereditary Member of the House of Lords and then an elected Member of this House. Then he was thrown out, and he will now be an elected hereditary peer for life. We have now had 29 hereditary peerage by-elections. My favourite was last September’s, when the ninth Duke of Wellington won, meaning that there are four times as many dukes in Parliament today under Elizabeth II as there were 450 years ago under Elizabeth I. Wellington defeated, among others, the seventh Earl of Limerick, who might well have written:
“There was a hereditary peer.
Whose attitude was very queer.
He stood for election.
Considered defection.
And ended up sitting in here.”
I am particularly disappointed in the Leader of the House because this Saturday is the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death and, apart from a production of Richard II in the Members’ Dining Room on Saturday evening, this House will barely acknowledge it—or, for that matter, St George’s day. That is profoundly unpatriotic and the Leader of the House should hang his head in shame.
Let me use the words of the bard to couch my message to those “strange bedfellows” Boris and Nigel on the EU. This is not “a foregone conclusion” and I do not want to “lay it on with a trowel”, but if we leave the EU, we will be “in a pickle” and all their talk of freedom will be “cold comfort” to those who lose their jobs when companies leave the UK, “bag and baggage”. I say this “more in sorrow than in anger”, but their “pomp and circumstance” offers “a fool’s paradise”, because “that way madness lies”. “More fool you”. Nobody wants the UK to leave the EU more than President Putin of Russia, so it is Brexit, “pursued by a bear”.
Chris Grayling
Shakespearean words from the Bottom of the Labour party.
The Prime Minister will be in the Chamber shortly to speak on behalf of the Government on this occasion of the Queen’s 90th birthday, but what I wish to say today is that as the Lord President of the Council—the person who presides over the Privy Council—and previously the Lord Chancellor, I have had extensive dealings with Her Majesty over the past few years and she is a fantastic lady. She is an example to us all. She has done amazing service for our country, and I am sure I will be joined by the whole House in wishing her a very happy birthday.
May I also echo the happy birthday wishes to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and wish everybody a happy St George’s day this weekend? It would also be appropriate for me to wish all the very best to the eight Members across this House who are running the London marathon this weekend. It is a feat of endurance, to say the least. They are raising good money for charity and we should be proud of all of them, on both sides of the House.
Chris Grayling
I am not sure that the shadow Leader of the House is running either.
Let me deal with the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised. On private Members’ Bills, the report is thoughtful, as I said earlier, and welcome. It gives us a lot of food for thought and we will respond in due course. I want to read it carefully and decide how best to respond. I have already indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that I am very sympathetic to many of its proposals, particularly if we can do things such as cleaning up the Order Paper so that we do not raise false expectations for the public. I will respond properly in due course, as the shadow Leader of the House would expect.
On the Trade Union Bill, it is worth reminding the House that it does two things. The first is protecting workers who find their lives disrupted when strikes are organised by a minority of transport workers. It is right and proper that we should not allow our citizens’ lives to be disrupted by inappropriate strike action. It is also about choice when making contributions to political parties. The people who donate to the Conservative party choose to do so, but many of those who donate to Labour do not, which is wrong and something that should change.
On the point about genocide, everyone in the House would recognise that the events in northern Iraq have been horrendous. We have seen scenes of brutality that are inexplicable and indefensible, and which should be unreservedly condemned. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will consider carefully what was said yesterday and take account of the views of the House.
On Lords reform, as I said last week to the former First Minister of Scotland, we have to defend endangered minorities, including the Liberal Democrats, but I remind the shadow Leader of the House that it was the Labour party that put in place this system of elected peers back in the late 1990s, when it reformed the House of Lords. Labour was in government—with a majority of about 250, if I recall rightly—and it was Labour that put in place the reformed system.
On Europe, I will never take seriously the views of a man who, a few years ago, was expressing such dismay at Britain not joining the euro. I will never take his views seriously, having listened to what he said then.
The shadow Leader of the House gave an interview a few days ago in which he accused me of telling the same joke five weeks in a row. I can only say that when I kept asking why he was still on the Labour Front Bench, I was not joking. He represents a party that wants nothing to do with Britain’s largest provider of apprenticeships; a so-called democratic party that apparently supports direct action to bring down the Government; a party that wants to dismantle our nation’s defences; a party led by a man who believes we have not had enough immigration into this country already; and a party that, despite his own wise words, for which I pay tribute to him, is clearly riddled with anti-Semitism. The people of principle in his party now sit on its Back Benches; the fact that he is still on the Front Bench speaks volumes.
Mr Speaker, there is perhaps good news for those people of principle on the Labour Back Benches. You might not have seen the advert that appeared yesterday for the position of media spokesperson in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, but regarding the duration of the post, it said:
“Fixed-term contract for the period only that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party, or until 31st December 2016, whichever is sooner.”
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the status of foreign politicians visiting this country? I am not referring to Barack Obama. The Maldivian high commissioner has told me that members of the Maldivian Democratic party who are visiting this country face very serious criminal charges at home. I simply do not understand what they are doing here.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will make sure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the Home Office and the Foreign Office. When we admit people to this country, it is obviously right and proper that we understand the context of their arrival, who they are and what they are doing.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business and join him in acknowledging the Queen’s 90th birthday. I know we spend the opening parts of business questions looking for significant events from history, but there can be nothing more significant. I know we are having the formal debate later, but may I wish her now a very happy birthday and recognise her lifetime of duty and service?
It is good to see the Leader of the House back as a solo act following his laugh-a-minute duo with Nigel Farage—not so much “The Two Ronnies” as “The Two Groanies”. I am pretty certain that following the referendum, when the day of reckoning comes, it will be good night from him. The debate around the EU referendum has been utterly appalling. For most people in Scotland, it seems like two bald Tories fighting over a comb. As we go forward, can we drop “Project Fear” and the UKIP-ification of the leave agenda, and instead have a rational, sensible debate so that we can do justice to something that is critical to this nation?
I welcome our newest parliamentarian, the noble Lord, Viscount Thurso, who won a stunning victory when he secured all three votes among the massed ranks of the Liberal aristocracy. Labour Members drone on about the House of Lords, but may I gently ask them what they are doing about their Labour peers? Labour has the second biggest group down there, and there are Labour aristocrats, too—do not let us forget that. The minute Labour joins us in trying to address this, we will start to make progress. Viscount Thurso is practically politically indestructible. Booted out of that place and booted out of this place, he is still here, as an unelected parliamentarian. Is there no way to get rid of these people? I now appeal to the Tories: join us in ridding this place of these aristocrats, Church of England bishops, donors, cronies and unelected Liberals. Let us get rid of the whole embarrassing circus and bring democracy to this country. Let us deal with this place, and let us hope the Labour party can join us, too.
Lastly, can we have a little debate about political ambition in this country? Two weeks from today, the Scottish people go to the polls to elect a new Scottish Parliament, and there is a fight to the death among the UK parties not to win, but to see who can be the best-placed loser, such is their ambition in that election and such is their acknowledgement of the impressive record of the SNP Government. They have more or less flung in the towel when it comes to trying to win and are battling it out over who can be the Opposition. I appeal to the Blairites, the Corbynites and the Tories to perhaps come to Scotland, add a little fortification to their colleagues up there, and do something to encourage them to at least take this contest seriously.
Chris Grayling
May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Queen? Notwithstanding the fact that we have very different views about the future of the United Kingdom, one view we definitely share is about the importance of the devotion to her duty that Her Majesty has shown over 90 years. All of us celebrate today’s happy occasion.
The hon. Gentleman talked about me sharing a platform earlier in the week. It is worth saying that I also shared a platform on Monday night in Stoke-on-Trent with somebody whom the Labour party would regard as a dangerous right-wing extremist: the hon. Member—Labour Member—for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who stood alongside me and made an impassioned speech.
On the election in the House of Lords, I think that we have to be kind. We have two Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Chamber, who are sitting in rather diminished numbers, and we should not be unduly unkind to them about the election in the House of Lords. The reality is that the House of Lords is overwhelmingly made up of people who have either made a significant contribution to the public life of this country, or developed great expertise in their fields. I am afraid that I am a defender of the House of Lords—I think it adds something to our democratic process—even though I know the hon. Gentleman does not agree—[Interruption.] Clearly the shadow Leader of the House does not agree either.
On Scotland, may I say that we have clear political ambition there? My view is that Ruth Davidson would be the best First Minister for Scotland. If the SNP is successful in May, it will be interesting to see how it adapts to having the powers that it will have to wield and the decisions it will have to take, including tax decisions. So far the SNP has studiously avoided taking tough decisions in Scotland. It has demanded more powers, which it seldom uses, and tried to convince us that somehow it can rise above the practicalities of government, but being in government means having to do tough things. If the party is successful in May, we will see whether it is really up to governing; I suspect we may find it wanting.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
This week E.ON signed up to support my constituent Jackie Woodcock’s Dying to Work campaign, an initiative that would change the law to stop employers from extending the criteria for dismissal on the grounds of capability to terminally ill workers. May we have a debate on what more can be done to encourage businesses to sign up to this much needed law change?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I know she has raised before. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be in the House in 10 days’ time. I will alert him to the fact that she has raised the issue today and she might want to bring it up with him, as it is a matter for that Department.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the junior doctors contract? On Monday, the Secretary of State for Health said that he was defending two legal cases against him. Now would be a good time to suspend the imposition of the contract. After all, the Secretary of State is not above the law.
Chris Grayling
This matter was debated and discussed in the House on Monday.
Chris Grayling
It was, but the Secretary of State for Health was here and he did take questions, and I have no doubt that he will be back in the House to address the issue in due course. It is simply my hope that a resolution can be reached. He and his colleagues in the Department of Health have put in extensive efforts and have held something like 75 meetings with junior doctors’ representatives. None of us wants to see a strike, particularly not one that involves emergency services. I would call on all doctors not to take industrial action next week and I hope a resolution can be reached quickly.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Just weeks after the co-chairman of the Oxford University Labour club stepped down, saying that a large proportion of both the OULC and the student left in Oxford
“have some kind of problem with Jews”,
I am sure my right hon. Friend will be incredulous to hear that students who attended the National Union of Students conference in Brighton yesterday debated boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day and then went on to elect as its president someone who described the University of Birmingham as
“something of a Zionist outpost”
in British higher education. May we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to set out measures that the Government will take to counter the rise in anti-Semitism that is being fomented on university campuses?
Chris Grayling
That is simply unacceptable in our society. The views expressed yesterday are not acceptable. The shadow Leader of the House was absolutely right when he talked about anti-Semitism in his own party. All of us from all political parties should work to stamp it out across our society, as it is simply unacceptable.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate in which we can hear the views of those who have decided to support our membership of the EU, such as President Obama, and indeed the views of those who have recently decided to support the campaign to come out, such as Marie Le Pen from the Front National, the far-right party in France? We could also use it as an opportunity to hear the views of the members of the Scottish National party, who, as far as I can tell, want Scotland, but not the United Kingdom, to stay in the European Union.
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman and I will have the opportunity to debate these matters in my constituency shortly, and I am grateful to him for taking part in that debate. It is of course a lively discussion across our society, and one on which, no doubt, the people will reach their decision on 23 June.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Local parish councils are invaluable for bringing together communities, and for representing communities at that very local level. May we have a debate on the rare but concerning occasions when one person sits on multiple parish councils as well as on district or borough councils, thereby reducing broad and effective participation on those local parish councils?
Chris Grayling
As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I am aware of the situation in her constituency. I pay tribute to her for the work that she is doing in Eastleigh. She is right to say that those who enter public life should take their responsibilities seriously, commit to the organisation of which they are part, and be active in the community according to their responsibilities, particularly on a parish council where it is very much the smallest local matters—they are often essential matters to small communities—that are the focus of its work.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their birthday wishes. I am in the fortunate position of sharing a birthday with Her Majesty every year. I am afraid to say, though, that we are getting to the state of play where the candles are costing more than the cake. May I just point out to the Leader of the House that, on occasion, Members from across the House ask him for a debate in Government time, and he almost always refers them to the Backbench Business Committee, but some of those requests come from Members who are not Back Benchers, and that makes it rather difficult for us to deal with those requests. Will he bear that in mind for future business? On a personal note, I represent the constituency of Gateshead, and I live in the heart of the community of Gateshead where there is a very orthodox and learned Haredi Jewish community, which I am very proud to represent.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point, and I support him in making it. On the allocation of time, the challenge for the Government is that we have now allocated to the Opposition and to the Backbench Business Committee around half the time in a particular week, but it is about ensuring that the Government can also pursue their business. Opposition Front Benchers will typically have a substantial block of time each year, and the Backbench Business Committee has time each year for Back Benchers, so we do attempt to achieve the right balance according to the Standing Orders agreed by this House.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange a statement about the efficiency and speed with which visas are granted to business people from African countries? We are trying to expand exports in that area and often find that its business people are delayed for weeks in coming here, when often their own embassies in this country issue visas to business people from the UK within a matter of days.
Chris Grayling
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have heard my hon. Friend’s words. There are exciting economic developments happening across the Commonwealth and it is really important that we are able to maximise those opportunities to trade, to do business and to invest. I will certainly ensure that she is aware of the concerns that he has raised.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the importance of the teaching of science, technology, engineering and maths in school? Porthcawl Primary School has a team called the Porthcawl Power Formula 1 team, made up of five girls and one boy who have designed and constructed a Formula 1 racing car using their skills in STEM subjects. They got second place in south Wales and are going forward to the UK-wide competition in Coventry. Does not such creative work make possible the creation of the scientists, mathematicians and technicians of the future that this country so desperately needs?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and what a great project. I congratulate the young people involved, who will no doubt go on to great things and to make some great innovations in the future, as well as competing in the near future. I absolutely agree on STEM subjects, which are of paramount importance to us. I am proud of the work that the Government have done to encourage the teaching of STEM subjects and that is something that we all, on both sides of the House, should encourage for the future.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
On Tuesday, I will be co-hosting an event with my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), along with Brian May from Queen, to promote the Amazing Grace hedgehog challenge. This, along with my petition to save the hedgehog, will go a long way to raise the profile and plight of Mr and Mrs Tiggy-Winkle. May I urge you, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and other Members to join us at 10 o’clock in the Attlee suite on Tuesday?
Chris Grayling
You might be able to, Mr Speaker, but unfortunately I will be in Cabinet at the time. I send all my best wishes for the event. The work that my hon. Friend has done is tremendous and I see that the petition is now past 30,000 signatures. My one slight concern is that he might remind Brian May that occasionally badgers kill hedgehogs.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Government have recently opened a consultation on aims to reform the civil service compensation scheme. The proposed changes would see the average compensation payment for voluntary redundancy drop by more than £16,000 and for compulsory redundancy by nearly £7,000. It will affect every single civil servant and is yet to be subjected to an equality impact assessment. Will the Leader of the House encourage Ministers from the Treasury and Cabinet Office to conduct these assessments and allow time for a debate on these worrying reforms?
Chris Grayling
The situation we inherited in 2010 with civil servants’ severance agreements was a million miles away from what would be the norm in the private sector. What we inherited from Labour was enormous pay-offs, and sometimes people taking enormous pay-offs and coming back as consultants soon afterwards. We have tried to put in place a system that is realistic for the taxpayer and that is consistent with what would happen in the private sector. I think that that is right for the job we do in stewarding the money of the taxpayers of this country.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
In view of the anticipated intervention by the American President into the EU referendum, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by our Government, setting out their preferred candidate for the American presidency and who they would like to win the election in November?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend tempts me, but it is my view that this country should and will work with whoever becomes President of the United States. They are our closest and longest-standing allies and are a beacon of liberty in the world. I am absolutely certain that we will work with them regardless of who is their President, and that they will work with us regardless of whether we are inside or outside the European Union.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The civil servants at the Cabinet Office took a very unusual decision last year when they publicly published their advice saying that Ministers should not give a grant to Kids Company, run by Ms Batmanghelidjh, the poster girl of the big society. Ministers defied that advice, gave £3 million to Kids Company and the charity collapsed three days later. As that money has been lost, presumably irretrievably, should not this matter be reported to the adviser on Ministers’ interests, who is responsible for dealing with such egregious breaches of ministerial conduct?
Chris Grayling
The matter has been investigated in detail by the appropriate Select Committee, and any Member of this House and any member of the public is free to lodge any complaint they wish to lodge.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we please have a full day’s debate in Government time on the Treasury’s analysis of the effect of the UK leaving the European Union? That will give all Members the opportunity to explore the various forecasts made in that document—the opportunity, for example, to explore the likely accuracy of a prediction as to how well the UK economy will be doing in 15 years’ time.
Chris Grayling
As my hon. Friend will know, there is a debate in Westminster Hall on Government communications about the referendum on 9 May, and I am sure the Chair of that debate will be happy to allow him to debate those matters as well.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
May we have a statement or a debate on the availability of life-changing drugs to members of the public? I have constituents who are having great difficulties in getting those drugs because of a lack of funding.
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Gentleman knows, through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, we provide access to new drugs. Through the cancer drugs fund, we provide specific funding centrally for new drugs, but it is right and proper that the health service considers the merits of each new drug as it comes on to the market and forms a view as to whether it can make the difference that its originators claim.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the United States would rightly never cede its sovereignty to a supranational body, so may we have a debate on the protocol that international leaders should not involve themselves in commenting on domestic elections?
Chris Grayling
I suspect that President Obama will have picked up the different sides of the current debate before he arrives. We will all wait with interest to see what he has to say.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Before Christmas, this House debated and agreed a nuclear agreement with Iran. One of the conditions was that human rights, including religious freedom, would be preserved and protected. In January 2016 a revolutionary court in Golestan province in Iran reportedly sentenced 24 Baha’is to a total of 183 years in prison in connection with the peaceful exercise of their faith. Another 80 Baha’is were reportedly detained on 31 December 2015. The Government said that followers of the Baha’i cult enjoy citizens’ rights pursuant to the country’s laws, and that allegations presented to the contrary in the report were baseless. Clearly, that is not the case. May we have a statement or a debate on the subject?
Chris Grayling
It was the view of the Government that it would be better for us to engage with Iran to try and address the nuclear issue, but by engaging we can also try and influence Iran on human rights matters. Of course there are human rights concerns, and of course the Foreign Office and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would always raise concerns on human rights matters with countries where such concerns existed, but I think the Government are right to say that we are better to engage than stand away from Iran, in the hope that we can influence improvement there.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), it is ironic that the Holocaust Educational Trust was holding a reception and information session in this place at the same time as the National Union of Students was debating a motion to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, and that speakers in favour of that were applauded for saying that Holocaust Memorial Day was not inclusive enough. Clearly, there is a great deal of work to be done on education to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism, so may we have a debate in Government time on what action we are going to take to root that out once and for all among all political parties and among all sections of society?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right. We are seeing that happen time and again—statements about the Jewish population in this country, statements about Israel, that are unacceptable in a democratic society. Of course, there are legitimate debates to be had about the future of Israel and Palestine and the peace process, but some of the anti-Semitic views that are appearing in our society are simple unacceptable. [Interruption.] Labour Members mention Islamophobia. I have stood at the Dispatch Box time and again and condemned Islamophobia in this country, but that is not a reason for not paying attention to the issue of anti-Semitism, which is becoming more and more of a problem and must be addressed head-on now by all those in public life, including the Labour party.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My constituent Munir Butt arrived in the UK as an eight-year-old child with his parents and siblings 48 years ago, in 1968. He has lived his whole life in the UK: he has been educated here, and he has married and has two grown-up children. When applying for a new job last year, he was asked to produce a passport—something he never had before—and he was then told that he is here illegally. I have written to the Home Secretary about the issue, and I have yet to receive a response. The Home Office approach seems to centre on my constituent’s parents’ marriage certificate from rural Kenya in the late ’50s. All his siblings have passports. My constituent has no income now and cannot apply for benefits because he is believed to be here illegally.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say very gently to the hon. Lady that I recognise this is an extremely serious matter, but—this is by way of a tip to her and other Members—it is always a good idea, whatever the matter at hand, to get in the request for a debate or a statement early in one’s inquiry. In any case, I feel modestly optimistic that the question mark is on its way.
Carol Monaghan
Thank you for your tip, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the residential status of historical immigrants?
Chris Grayling
I clearly cannot give details now about the case concerned, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me with more details about her constituent, I will make sure they are passed directly to the Home Secretary. I understand the concern she raises, and I am sure this is a matter we would all want to resolve quickly.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I associate myself, on my behalf and that of my constituents, with the birthday congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen? I was going to ask for a regular debate in the House about manufacturing after the silly remarks on the “Today” programme saying that manufacturing in our country is finished. However, after the unfortunate remarks by the Leader of the House about the Labour party being riddled with anti-Semitism, may I ask, as someone who has fought anti-Semitism in the Labour party and in this country all his life, whether we can have an early debate about that issue? That is so important on a day when the people who want to take us out of Europe have invited Marine Le Pen to come here and speak.
Chris Grayling
On the issue of anti-Semitism and the Labour party, I would encourage Labour Members to have a debate. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right to have written the article he did, saying that anti-Semitism is not acceptable, but, of course, his words have to be turned into action by the Labour party.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
One of my constituents, Ewan Gurr, would be delighted to become unemployed. Why? Well, he is Scotland’s network manager for the Trussell Trust. The latest figures he has published show that over 133,000 people depend on food banks—they would twice fill Murrayfield stadium—and we have seen a 20% increase in my constituency in the last year alone, due to the recent benefit cuts and sanctions. One constituent has just been sanctioned for an appalling three years—three whole years—and is depending on £36 a week. May we have an urgent debate in the House to discuss that Dickensian situation and to make food banks a thing of the past so that Ewan Gurr can move on to new employment?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent can have been sanctioned for three years only if he has turned down three reasonable job offers and so has basically refused to work. In a society that is compassionate but believes that people should get back to work, that is simply unacceptable. On food banks, there are some fantastic projects around the country linked to churches, where people are doing really good work in our community. It is worth saying that the use of food banks in this country is much lower than in other countries, such as Germany. However, I pay tribute to those who work on behalf of people going through hiccups in their lives, and it is right and proper that we have a strong voluntary sector that does that.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
May we have a debate about the time it is taking the Department for Work and Pensions to determine whether to include Dupuytren’s contracture on the list of prescribed diseases covered by industrial injuries disablement benefit? The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council gave the Department its recommendation on 14 May 2014—nearly two years ago—and a Minister said in correspondence that a decision would be forthcoming within a year. It is now April 2016. Will the Leader of the House advise that Minister that there are only 12 months in a year, and can he see whether he can speed up the decision to give the necessary support to the former miners in my constituency?
Chris Grayling
I will happily give a nudge to the new Secretary of State on that subject. I am sure he will not want to miss a promise made. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members have got to determine their own priorities in these matters. I say to the House that somebody who wants to contribute to the next series of exchanges, which are rather important, is apparently supposed to be serving on some Statutory Instrument Committee. Well, I know what I would do if I wanted to speak in the debate: the SI Committee can wait till another time, another century.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
There is huge excitement in Yorkshire that local hero and world champion Lizzie Armitstead is lining up in the women’s Tour de Yorkshire a week on Saturday. Just as significantly, it will be the most lucrative women’s cycling race in the calendar, and the whole event will be televised. May we have a debate on how we can do more to support women’s sport, to give it parity of coverage and financial reward with men’s sport?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We congratulate Lizzie Armitstead on her extraordinary success in the sport. She is a pride of our nation and of Yorkshire, and I hope she will go on to achieve success at this summer’s Olympics.
Cycling has made an extraordinary impact across society over the past few years. I represent the constituency next door to the Olympic cycling course, which is full of cyclists every weekend, following the same route as Olympic cyclists. The sport has contributed to fitness in, and is bringing money into, this country. We should all be proud of that.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure what is wrong with the microphones, but I could not hear the right hon. Gentleman as well as I would have wanted. I know he was banging on about cycling and it sounded very interesting, but I wish I could have heard it properly.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituents in Neston have to pay more than £13 for a return fare to Southport, but if they leave from just a few miles down the road at Hooton station they pay less than half of that for a far superior service, so may we please have a debate on what can be done to create a more equitable system of rail fares in this country?
Chris Grayling
I have tapped the microphone and it is working, Mr Speaker.
The Transport Secretary will be here next Thursday. I know that he is very concerned to make sure that we have a transparent system of fares on our railways, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will raise that important point with him.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
In January I asked the Leader of the House why the Government had allowed disability discrimination to take hold in the civil service. Recent analysis by Keele University has found that in all Departments disabled staff were less likely to receive “exceed” performance ratings than their non-disabled colleagues. That means that, on average, disabled workers are 74% more likely to be in the bottom performance management category, which puts their jobs at risk. Will the Leader of the House please now push for a statement to explain why his Government are content to allow disability discrimination to continue?
Chris Grayling
Whatever the research may say, I simply do not accept that. I have been a Secretary of State in one Department and a lead Minister in another, and my experience of the way in which we work with people with disabilities and of the role they play in our Departments is nothing but positive. We have some fine disabled civil servants who are role models to others with disabilities and who make a real difference to this Government, and I hope they will continue to do so in the years ahead.
90th Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to offer the heartfelt good wishes of the House on the occasion of Her Majesty’s ninetieth birthday, expressing its deep gratitude for Her Majesty’s lifelong commitment to the service of the country and the Commonwealth, and praying that Her Majesty may long continue in health and happiness.
That Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, Chris Grayling, Jeremy Corbyn, Chris Bryant, Angus Robertson, Mr Nigel Dodds, Tim Farron, Hywel Williams, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Danny Kinahan, Caroline Lucas and Mr Douglas Carswell do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.
The motion stands in my name and those of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party.
Today we celebrate the 90th birthday of our country’s longest reigning monarch. Her Majesty the Queen—our Queen—has lived a life of service that began long before her accession to the throne. In 1940, at just 14 years old, the then Princess Elizabeth made her first BBC radio broadcast, to bring comfort and hope to children who had been evacuated from Britain’s cities during the war. At 18, she became the first female member of the royal family to join the armed forces, joining the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. At just 21, she made the exquisite and defining broadcast from Cape Town in which she uttered the famous words
“my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service”.
Never has such an extraordinary promise been so profoundly fulfilled.
As I said when we gathered in September to mark Her Majesty becoming our longest reigning monarch, for all of us in this Chamber who seek to play our part in public service, it is truly humbling to comprehend the scale of service that Her Majesty has given to our country over so many years. If we think of the vital landmark in completing our journey to democracy when everyone over 21 was finally given the vote in 1928, it means that Her Majesty has presided over two thirds of our history as a full democracy. In that time, she has met a quarter of all the American Presidents since independence. She has provided counsel to no fewer than 12 Prime Ministers, and that is just in Britain. She has worked with well over 150 Prime Ministers in her other realms. If anyone can come up with a collective noun for a group of Prime Ministers, it is probably Her Majesty. I think I will leave it her to make some suggestions.
I know that, like me, every Prime Minister has found Her Majesty’s counsel an incredibly valuable part of the job. Her perspective and length of experience are unique and utterly invaluable. Her first Prime Minister, in 1952, was Winston Churchill. Like him and all those who have followed, I can testify that she is quite simply one of the best audiences in the world. There is no one else in public life to whom any Prime Minister can really speak in total confidence, and no other country has a Head of State with such wisdom and such patience. There are some who suspect that, at times, I may have put her patience to the test. In the play “The Audience”, the character who portrays me goes on and on about Europe so long that she falls asleep, but I can guarantee that that has never happened. I may not have kept my promise not to bang on about Europe in every forum, but this is certainly the one where I try the hardest.
As some have pointed out, Her Majesty is now entering her 10th decade and starting to take things a little easier, which is why in the last year alone she has only undertaken 177 public engagements. In 90 years, Her Majesty has lived through some extraordinary times in our world, from the second world war, when her parents, the King and Queen, were nearly killed as bombs were dropped on Buckingham Palace, to the rations with which she bought the material for her wedding dress; from presenting the World cup to England at Wembley in 1966, to man landing on the moon three years later; and from the end of the cold war to peace in Northern Ireland.
Throughout it all, as the sands of culture shift and the tides of politics ebb and flow, Her Majesty has been steadfast—a rock of strength for our nation, for our Commonwealth and, on many occasions, for the whole world. As her grandson, Prince William, has said:
“Time and again, quietly and modestly, the Queen has shown us all that we can confidently embrace the future without compromising the things that are important.”
As Her Majesty said in her first televised Christmas broadcast in 1957, it is necessary to hold fast to “ageless ideals” and “fundamental principles”, and that requires a
“special kind of courage…which makes us stand up for everything we know is right, everything that is true and honest.”
In this modern Elizabethan era, Her Majesty has led a gentle evolution of our monarchy. From the first televised Christmas Day message, more than three decades before cameras were allowed into this House, to the opening up of the royal palaces and the invention of the royal walkabout, she has brought the monarchy closer to the people while retaining its dignity.
Her Majesty’s role as supreme governor of the Church of England has also been incredibly important to her. She has often said that her life is inspired not only by her love of this great country but by her faith in God. As she has said,
“I know that the only way to live my life is to try to do what is right, to take the long view, to give of my best in all that the day brings, and to put my trust in God.”
In standing up for Christianity, she has been clear that the Church of England has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in our country.
Her Majesty always performs her constitutional duty as Head of State impeccably, but as head of our nation she is held in even higher regard for the way in which she represents the United Kingdom. It has rightly been said by some constitutional experts that Her Majesty the Queen is the only person born in the United Kingdom who is not English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish; she is all and none of those things and can represent all the nations of the United Kingdom on an equal basis in a way that no President ever could.
The Queen has also constantly represented the nation when abroad. Foreign leaders from President Truman to Nelson Mandela and Ronald Reagan have all testified to her extraordinary ability both to represent this country and to understand the world. On her hugely important and healing state visit to Ireland in 2011, Her Majesty began her remarks in Irish and spoke about the history of the troubled relationship between the UK and Ireland. She did so with a kindness as well as an authority that went far beyond anything that would be possible for an elected politician.
As a diplomat and ambassador for the United Kingdom, the Queen has represented our country on 266 official visits to 116 different countries. As I saw again at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta last year, she has made an extraordinary contribution to the future of our Commonwealth, growing it from eight Members in 1952 to 53 today. In doing so, she has helped to build a unique family of nations that spans every continent, all the main religions, a quarter of the members of the United Nations and nearly a third of the world’s population. The reach of Her Majesty’s diplomacy is without parallel—so much so that, as a result of a visit to Balmoral, she can claim to be the only woman ever to have driven the King of Saudi Arabia around in a car. I have that story sourced from both the participants.
Through it all, Her Majesty has carried herself with the most extraordinary grace and humility. When people meet the Queen, they talk about it for the rest of their lives. She understands that, and she shows a genuine interest in all she meets. They can really see that she cares. As the constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor has said, Her Majesty understands what might be called
“the soul of the British people.”
Her Majesty has done so much throughout her life that when it comes to her 90th birthday, there cannot be much that is new for her to try, but I am pleased to hear that she will be sampling the orange drizzle birthday cake baked by the winner of “The Great British Bake Off”, Nadiya Hussain.
As she lights the first in a chain of 1,000 beacons, Her Majesty will be joined, as ever, by her family, including her son the Prince of Wales and her husband the Duke of Edinburgh, who has stood by her side throughout her extraordinary reign. They have both served this country with an unshakeable sense of duty, and their work, including the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme and the Prince’s Trust, has inspired millions of young people around the world. As we see in those delightful birthday portraits released this week, family has always been at the heart of Her Majesty’s long life.
Mr Speaker, we are uniquely blessed in our country. Her Majesty’s service is extraordinary, and it is a joy for us all to celebrate, to cherish and to honour it. In June, the whole country will share in this special milestone, with a service of thanksgiving in St Paul’s cathedral and a wonderful royal street party. But today, I know the whole House and the whole country will want to join me in wishing Her Majesty the Queen health, happiness and, above all, a very special 90th birthday.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to second the Humble Address. Many people across the country today will be wishing Her Majesty a very happy 90th birthday, and we on the Labour Benches send our warmest greetings to add to them. May I say, as a relatively young whippersnapper, that I am fully in favour of our country having leaders of a finer vintage?
Today, we are talking about a highly respected individual who is 90. Whatever differing views people across this country have about the institution, the vast majority share an opinion that Her Majesty has served this country, and has overwhelming support in doing so, with a clear sense of public service and public duty, as the Prime Minister has indicated.
Her Majesty has carried out that duty with great warmth. My dear friend Mildred Gordon, the former Member for Bow and Poplar, who recently died aged 92 and whose funeral is tomorrow, met the Queen at the opening of the docklands light railway. The Queen asked Mildred how she was getting on as a newly elected MP, and Mildred replied, with the devastating honesty with which she replied to everything, by saying that she felt she had very little power to help her constituents. The Queen took her on one side and said, with her customary wit:
“Once they find out you lot can’t help them, they all write to me”.
Her Majesty was born less than a month before the general strike. A first daughter, who would later unexpectedly become heir to the throne, she was born two years before all women in Britain got the vote, as the Prime Minister pointed out. Her childhood was during the mass poverty of the long slump of the 1930s and she had her teenage years during the brutal carnage of the second world war. At war’s end, she experienced people’s joy first hand, as the young princess walked through the streets of London; I am pleased that this morning Radio 4 replayed that very moving oral history of our time and lives—indeed, of before the time of most of us in the House.
Her Majesty became Queen at just 25, following the death of her father, and has reigned for nearly 64 years. She is the longest reigning monarch in our history. In that time, our country has become a better and more civilised place. We have enacted equality legislation, ended colonialism and created the national health service, the welfare state and the Open University. As Head of the Commonwealth, she has been a defender of that incredible multicultural global institution. We are all very grateful for the way in which she has stood up for the Commonwealth; she has visited every Commonwealth country, I think. The Prime Minister was quite right to draw attention to her historic visit to Ireland in 2011, and her speaking in the Irish language at the reception held for her in Dublin during that visit.
Today I am welcoming two nonagenarians from my constituency to Parliament. Both have a link with the celebrations that we are conducting today. They are Iris Monaghan and George Durack. Iris was born in what is now the Republic of Ireland, but was then part of Britain. She came to London in 1951, before the coronation, and was a Crown civil servant in the Inland Revenue. She has helped to collect taxes since 1951, keeping us all in the state to which we are accustomed.
George fought in the second world war, serving in the 1st Battalion of the Rifle Brigade, attached to the 7th Armoured Division. He had a daily close affinity with Her Majesty throughout his working life, as he worked for the Royal Mail, delivering Her Majesty’s head through letterboxes all over north London.
Yesterday, I was present at the graduation of a 91-year-old constituent who has just completed her third degree—a master’s no less—at Birkbeck, University of London. That proves that it is never too late to take up a new career and learn something else.
It is their generation—that of the Queen and of my parents—that defeated the horrors of fascism in Europe, endured the privations of the post-war era and built a more civilised and equal Britain. We have much to be grateful to them for.
On the day of her coronation in 1953, Her Majesty was driven through Upper Street in my borough. But her crowning achievement in Islington was to come some years later—you will enjoy this, Mr Speaker. In 2006, she was due to open the new Emirates Stadium in my constituency, but had to pull out due to an injury. Unfortunately, that is a fate that has afflicted far too many of Arsenal’s squad in subsequent years, so we must congratulate her on her prescience. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was then leader of Islington Council. As the Queen could not attend the opening, the whole squad was invited to Buckingham Palace to meet her, and my hon. Friend accompanied them. We know that the Queen is absolutely above politics. She may be above football, too, but many locals harbour a quiet, secret view that she is actually privately a gooner.
In her reign, the Queen has seen off 12 Prime Ministers. I recently attended my first state dinner; she has received over 100 state visits, and, as the Prime Minister indicated, visited well over 100 countries on our behalf. I admire her energy and wish her well in her continuing and outstanding commitment to public life. I wish her a very happy 90th birthday.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I associate myself with the excellent tribute paid by the Prime Minister to the Queen, and on behalf of myself and my constituents, may I congratulate the Queen on this great milestone in a life of service and punctilious duty, dedicated entirely to her people in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and as the most formidable ambassador to the rest of the world that this country has ever had? It has been a life of devotion, fortitude, good judgment, selfless duty, great good humour and uncomplaining hard work. In all that, she has been supported by a loving family, and blessed with a happy marriage to a remarkable consort who has done so much for her and for our country. The Queen was crowned in the same abbey church as William the Conqueror, and at the age of 26—the same age as Queen Elizabeth I had been 400 years earlier. She embodies all the best qualities that are most important to our country, and lends such distinction to our nation.
The Queen brings to our national life an experience and knowledge of government and events, and of men and women all over the world, which is truly unrivalled by any other person in the land. Throughout her long reign, she has displayed judgment of the first order, great tolerance, and absolute neutrality at all times. When she ascended to the throne, her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was of an age to have charged with the 21st Lancers at the battle of Omdurman in 1898, armed with a sword and a pistol, yet her current Prime Minister was not even born in 1952. Such is the scale and breadth of the life that she has so triumphantly lived through. During those extraordinary 90 years of some of the most tumultuous social, economic and technological change that Britain has ever seen, she has provided a very firm hand on the tiller.
The Queen is a source of powerful influence for this country throughout the world. She is the Queen of 16 countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the Head of the Commonwealth—a greatly undervalued organisation that includes more than a quarter of the world’s population. She thus brings a vital and often unrecognised addition to our efforts and influence overseas, and the House should pay great tribute to her work down the years in that remarkable organisation since 1949.
Every country needs someone who can represent the whole nation. That may seem primitive—and indeed it is—but if nationhood is to mean anything, it must have a focus. In our case, for many years that focus has been and remains the Queen. Nations have values, and they should be proud of them and willing to express that pride. That is what we are able to do with our monarchy and our Queen.
It is my firmly held belief that the Queen is the single most important, respected, admired and loved public figure in the world today, and if I may, I will conclude with a vignette that I have told in the House before but that bears repeating. On the night of 4 April 1955, on the eve of his resignation as Prime Minister, Churchill gave a dinner at No. 10 in honour of the Queen. It was agreed between the private offices that there would be no speeches, but the Queen, greatly moved by the impending retirement of her first Prime Minister, whom she had known since she was a very small child, rose in her place and lifted her glass with a toast to “My Prime Minister”. And Churchill, a very old man in the full-dress evening uniform of a Knight of the Garter, completely unprepared, pulled himself to his feet, and this is what he said to the Queen:
“Madam, I propose a toast to your Majesty which I used to enjoy drinking as a subaltern officer in the 4th Hussars at Bangalore in India in the reign of your Majesty’s great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria. I drink to the wise and kindly way of life, of which your Majesty is the young and gleaming champion.”
For 90 years of her life and 64 years of her reign, she has always been the same. God save the Queen!
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
It is an honour to co-sponsor today’s motion with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) who spoke so eloquently.
I would like to take the opportunity to put on record the appreciation of Her Majesty by the people of Scotland, with whom she has had a lifetime connection and a commitment to the country. While she has managed to serve as Head of State to a remarkable 32 independent countries during her unprecedented and successful reign, her association with Scotland is enduring and it is special.
Just last year, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh marked the day she became the UK’s longest-reigning monarch with a steam-train ride from Edinburgh to the opening of the new Borders Railway. When the Queen was born, she was delivered by a Scottish nurse, Nurse Barrie, and since then she has made regular visits north of the border. Her youngest days were spent at Glamis in Angus, where her mother and grandparents were from, and much of her childhood was spent at Balmoral, while part of her honeymoon was at nearby Birkhall.
On becoming Queen after the death of her father King George VI, one of her first official tasks was to plant a cherry tree at the Canongate Kirk in Edinburgh, the parish church for the Palace of Holyroodhouse. After her coronation, crowds lined the streets of the Scottish capital as the Queen received the honours of Scotland: the Scottish crown, the sceptre and the sword of state. Notwithstanding concerns from some in the 1950s about how Her Majesty could be Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland when we have never had a Queen Elizabeth I, an elegant solution was found on postboxes north of the border, where there is a Scottish crown rather than the ERII royal cypher.
Throughout the decades of her reign, the Queen has been a regular visitor across Scotland. For me, the most remarkable events have been in recent years, including the 1999 re-opening of the Scottish Parliament after a recess of nearly 300 years. Who could forget the entire chamber, all MSPs of all parties, the public gallery, Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh all singing “A Man’s a Man for A’ That” by Robert Burns?
As Head of the Commonwealth, the Queen attended the Glasgow 2014 games opening ceremony and, always good at keeping up with the times, Her Majesty went viral on Twitter following a trip to the Glasgow national hockey centre after appearing to “photobomb” a selfie by an Australian player by smiling in the background.
While the Queen’s official visits and functions in Scotland are well received, there is an appreciation that it is at Balmoral that she likes to be most. Queen Victoria described Balmoral as her “heaven on earth”, while the current Queen is said to be “never happier” than when spending her summer break at the north-east estate, her private home which was handed down through generations of royals. The usual two-month stay in August and September traditionally includes a visit to the nearby Braemar Gathering where the Queen is Chieftain of the Highland games event and attends Crathie Kirk as a member of the Church of Scotland.
Her Majesty also has a love of the Hebrides and cruising around the islands and coastline. One story I particularly recall is from 2006 when the royal party was moored by the island of Gigha off the west coast of Kintyre. The Queen wanted to see the famous Achamore Gardens. However, no advance arrangements had been made, so Princess Anne apparently cycled to the local newsagents to see if there was a way for her mother to be transported around. That duly happened in the newsagent’s people carrier by the newsagent—now that must have been a sight to behold.
There is a legion of stories of tourists and visitors encountering a lady bearing a striking resemblance to Her Majesty walking her dogs alone on Arthur’s Seat in Edinburgh by the Palace of Holyroodhouse, or being offered a lift as she drove her Land Rover on Royal Deeside. I am sure that, if he is able to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson), whose constituency includes Balmoral, will have more stories of that kind to recount. Her Majesty’s connections with Balmoral and the north-east of Scotland are abiding. She is a reader of the Aberdeen Press and Journal, and we have learned in recent days, from an interview with her cousin, that she is an accomplished speaker of the Doric, which is no mean feat. The Queen’s connections with the north of Scotland are also highly prized by leading small and large companies and businesses, including Speyside firms Walkers of Abelour, Baxters of Fochabers and Johnstons of Elgin. More than 80 Scottish companies hold royal warrants, and no doubt many others would like to be warrant-holders as well.
A 90th birthday is a remarkable milestone for all who reach it, but particularly for our Head of State and her ongoing lifetime of public service. We wish her, the Duke of Edinburgh, and all her family well, and look forward to many further years of outstanding public service.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me, on what I think is a momentous day, to celebrate the birthday of our longest-serving monarch. I have to say that it is also today that I celebrate my birthday, although I am a little younger than Her Majesty. I feel that a Beatles song would be most appropriate if I find it among my birthday presents.
I have always been tremendously proud to share the date of my birth with our monarch. When I was very little, in Cardiff, my father always used to kid me that the 24-gun salute in Sophia Gardens was, in fact, for me, but I found out fairly soon that it was for a much more important lady.
Like many who are here today, I am a modern Elizabethan. We have never known any other monarch, and we are staunchly proud to live in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. She is truly a beacon and an exemplar of dedication to the people of the United Kingdom, and an exemplar of devotion to duty. She is also a wonderful role model for women not just in this country but around the world, particularly as women try to take their place in public life and to have a voice in the Governments of their countries.
In this House and in Parliament, we know about public service, but none of us will ever equal what our Queen does as a matter of course in caring for all the people of this kingdom and across the globe, in the countries of the Commonwealth. The Queen’s achievement in drawing all those countries together for their mutual support and benefit is truly magnificent. It is a notable achievement in this day and age, and one that is a testament to her gentle guardianship and powerful advocacy.
The poet John Milton lived for a while in Chalfont St Giles, in my constituency, and his cottage is still there, preserved as a monument to his work. He was a parliamentarian and a person who argued against the restoration of the monarchy—a servant of the then Commonwealth—but I would like to think that had John Milton known our monarch, he would have altered his view. As it is, I turn to the words that he wrote about Shakespeare, whose 400th anniversary we celebrate in two days’ time. He wrote that the poet and playwright needed no monument, because
“Thou in our wonder and astonishment
Hast built thyself a live-long monument.”
Throughout the ceaseless work of a long life, with the welfare of her people always at the heart and centre of her being, Her Majesty the Queen has created such a monument.
This place is often described as “the mother of Parliaments”, but Her Majesty is truly the mother of our parliamentary democracy, and easily commands our love and respect. Long may the Queen rule over us, and, your Majesty, a very happy birthday too.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
This morning, when I was buying my muffin in Portcullis House, I noticed Elizabeth II on the coin with which I paid. However, today is not about the Elizabeth on our coins; it is about the Elizabeth in our hearts. She is of course Her Majesty the Queen, but today is not a royal occasion, even though it is an occasion about a royal. Turning 90 is a marvellous signpost in life, as I hope to experience myself before long. Not long ago, one of my sisters turned 90 and we had a huge family celebration. Today, the national family is celebrating, and that very much includes those in this House.
I remember the celebrations of King George V’s silver jubilee. I was five years old at the time, and I was in hospital recovering from having my tonsils out. I remember the ceremony of the jubilee being broadcast on the wireless throughout the ward. It was very impressive, even to someone of my age. It was respected, but it was remote. Over the generations, Her Majesty the Queen’s family has had its share of vicissitudes, some of which have been handled with greater adroitness than others. However, over the years, Her Majesty the Queen has sustained and increased the potency of the monarchy. That emerges from her own personality and from the fact that she has been brought up to serve and that it is her instinct to serve and to associate.
The basis of these celebrations today is that Her Majesty the Queen has turned the nation into a united family in a way that has never been achieved, or even attempted, by any previous monarch. We are all together, and that is why people feel so strongly about the celebrations and so happy about them. As shown in the photographs of a recent visit by Her Majesty to my constituency, which I have in my house, people are not only honoured to meet the Queen but delighted to do so. They are honoured by the position, but they are delighted by the person, and that is the reason that we celebrate so gladly today. It is not just “Congratulations, your Majesty”; it is “Happy birthday, Elizabeth.”
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Two of my best memories of seeing the Queen are at schools and academies. In 1999, she came to the Durrington High School in Worthing, and it was a delight to see the young people and all the staff—academic staff and support staff—so pleased by her recognition of what they were doing together.
On 26 October 2012, she came to the Drapers Academy in Harold Hill, and I do not think I have ever seen young people chatting so amiably during their school lunch as they did with her when they got her talking about her experiences during the war.
I look on the Queen as someone who provides a focus for voluntary service, the civil service and the military service. One of my best friends was very proud to have held her warrant as a police constable. That is something he had in common with chief constables; they are all equal in serving their country through the Queen. My father held her appointment as an ambassador and, previously, a royal warrant as a second lieutenant in the Army.
To be in a country where we can change our Prime Minister during a war without everything falling to pieces, as we did during the great war and the second world war, shows the value of having a monarchy that is accepted by people on all sides.
There are many other things that one could say, but I shall be brief in adding my congratulations to those offered by Members who have spoken already. They have set a tone that will be welcomed by the Queen. If we can live up to her example, we will be doing pretty well for the country. She has helped to lead this country through difficult times and good times. Most of all, she has given a great deal of pleasure to those who are trying to do their duty to others.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
We gather today not only to rejoice in the Queen having lived a long and glorious life, but to celebrate the reign that encompasses so much of it as well as the lives of almost everyone over whom she rules today.
We must remember that the Queen was not born to this role. She was not an heir and not expected to ascend the throne. Instead, with her mother, father and sister, she was part of a loving and contented family, growing up in devoted respect for her grandfather, King George V, and in the shade of her glamorous uncle, the Prince of Wales. That peaceful life came to an end for the Duke of York and his family with the trauma of the abdication. With the support of Elizabeth, later the Queen Mother, and their loyal daughters, His Majesty King George VI ensured that the Crown remained at the heart of its people’s affections. Together, they embodied our will to defeat the supreme evil of living memory and win the war that ensured that civilisation, decency and democracy prospered, rather than perished, in Europe and across the world. Her Majesty, iconic and perpetual as she sometimes seems, is not a symbol; she is a reminder to us all of the generation who did great things and stopped terrible things being done to us. The great history of our nation, of which we can be truly proud, is not something that our Queen merely symbolises; it is something that she and her generation lived for us. Thank God that she and they did.
In deserved and romantic fashion, the Queen saw a dashing young hero enter her life after the war. In her choice of husband, Her Majesty has kept us all alert, invigorated and—more than once—amused. Their life together, rising to some 70 years, is a tribute to the character of both our Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. Only yesterday, we saw the wonderful picture of Her Majesty, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and the young Prince George all together—continuity and change in one loving and beloved image. The gift of the Queen’s long life includes seeing the future that assuredly lies in store. We in the Commonwealth that she has done so much to sustain see that the Crown rests securely on a sure line of succession.
In a country such as ours and in the other realms over which she reigns, the crown worn by the Queen embodies our unity. In my corner of this kingdom, Northern Ireland, it will never be forgotten how steadfast the Queen was in her support for and affection towards our afflicted Province. From my time as Lord Mayor of the great city of Belfast, I can personally attest to her compassion and concern for those affected by the violence. Those dark days are, we pray, now over, but Her Majesty’s enduring interest and contribution towards peace in Northern Ireland continues. Her frequent visits and those of other members of the royal family are always warmly received right across the community. For that and so much more, we from Northern Ireland are immensely grateful.
Like most, I have known no other sovereign. We have been blessed through the generations to have one so dedicated to the service of our country and the Commonwealth. The nations of the Commonwealth are joining with us today in our tributes to the Queen. As we have been reminded, the Commonwealth is a powerful expression of the unifying and inspirational spirit of its great Head. It is but one of Her Majesty’s enduring legacies. She has been the rock upon which this country has continued to flourish and built a modern democracy so envied across the world. Her shining faith has been a constant and unwavering inspiration through times of national celebration and national occasion. In times of personal sadness, Her Majesty has exhibited the great grace that comes with great faith.
We are thankful for the wonderful life that God has given us in His servant Queen Elizabeth, and may He in his great wisdom and His great mercy be pleased to grant Her Majesty and we her people the continued blessing of having her reign over us for many, many more years to come. We wish her a very, very happy birthday. God save the Queen.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Mr Speaker, thank you very much indeed for calling me, and I hope that in the event that the Whip on duty on the delegated legislation Committee that I am supposed now to be attending chastises me, you may come to my aid. I am delighted to join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in, once again, saluting Her Majesty’s extraordinary, dedicated service to the nation and to the Commonwealth, and in wishing her many happy returns on her 90th birthday.
I do so as the Member privileged to represent Aldershot, home of the British Army, and I am authorised by the most senior officer in Aldershot, Lieutenant General James Bashall, to associate the garrison most warmly with today’s tributes. Her Majesty is head of her armed forces, Colonel-in-Chief of 17 British Army regiments and of 24 Commonwealth regiments. Soldiers, sailors and airmen, like Members of Parliament, swear an oath of allegiance to the sovereign. It is she they serve, and that bond between the sovereign and the men and women of the armed forces is a very special one, not least because in her is personified the ideal of service and duty. Although King George II was the last sovereign to lead his forces into battle—in the battle of Dettingen, in 1743—Elizabeth II has led from the front by example, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, not least in upholding her commitment to defend the faith, our Christian faith. My own modest commission in the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve hangs prominently on my study wall, to remind me of the duty I owe to my sovereign.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows how important the support of a spouse is as he discharges his duties, and I am sure that he obtains advice, welcome and sometimes perhaps unwelcome, from his spouse—I certainly do. It is therefore right today that we should reflect also on the support that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has given the Queen throughout her life. Although we have not been privileged to know the nature of any advice he may have had the temerity to proffer to Her Majesty, we can be sure that his immense reservoir of common sense and capacity for candid, plain speaking, which has so endeared him to the British people, will have been an added blessing to her.
As others have said, not least the Leader of the Opposition, Her Majesty does have a wonderful sense of humour. I recall the story, as many others may do, of the Privy Council meeting where, unfortunately, a Cabinet Minister’s telephone had not been switched off. When it rang, the Cabinet Minister took the phone out of her handbag and duly moved away to answer it. When she had finished the call, Her Majesty turned to her and said, “Somebody important, was it?” [Laughter.]
Finally, Mr Speaker, I conclude with the admirable editorial in this week’s Country Life, which has just relocated to Farnborough in my constituency: It said:
“Often accused in the past of being too traditional, it is now her old-fashioned values and steadfastness that have made her someone to be admired and emulated the world over. Her long reign and vast accumulated wisdom have helped to stabilise relations across the world, especially within the Commonwealth.”
We owe Her Majesty a great debt of gratitude. God save the Queen.
Mr Speaker
In the extremely unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman is chastised, he can always advise the Whip to sample the joys of riparian entertainments—it is something I often did myself in years past.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), and I am grateful to be able to contribute to this collective greeting. I just wish to relate three experiences from my period as the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household between 2003 and 2005. I see that another former Vice-Chamberlain, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), is in the Chamber. As colleagues will know, the Vice-Chamberlain, who traditionally is a senior Government Whip, has a variety of duties to fulfil, three of which are: to design a daily message to send to Her Majesty outlining what is happening here; to act as hostage during state openings of Parliament; and to take to Her Majesty treaties to be signed and presented to the House of Commons.
I was first presented to Her Majesty in 2003. When I asked her what she would like to see in the message—the same question, I am sure, that all my predecessors and successors have asked—she answered, “That which generally does not make the papers will be of interest.” In other words: “Just give us the gossip—that which is not fit to print.” Given how we are reported in today’s media, that was a pretty high bar, but I managed to achieve it at least once.
The second duty is to act as hostage. Since our predecessors executed Charles I in 1649, every time the monarch comes to visit us, we have to send a senior MP to act as a hostage, which I did on two occasions. I felt like Patrick McGoohan in “The Prisoner” and that I was not allowed to leave, although I never actually tried. The Buckingham Palace officials were very generous and hospitable. They said that I could watch television, read the paper, have a coffee or a gin and tonic, or walk about, but I was not leaving. When I expressed my anxiety at this experience a short time later to the then head of our armed forces, Sir Mike Jackson, he said, “Jim, you shouldn’t have worried.” I said, “Shouldn’t I, Mike?” and he said, “No, if anything had happened to Her Majesty, we would just have shot you.” He was not kidding, as I am sure that Members know.
One Easter, when we needed a document to be signed and then presented to the House, the civil servants in the Whips Office contacted Buckingham Palace, which responded that Her Majesty was not at Buckingham Palace, but at Windsor. Our officials said, “Well, Fitzpatrick will go to Windsor to get the document signed.” The message came back from Her Majesty, and the officials looked at me and said, “Her Majesty said, ‘If Mr Fitzpatrick is coming all the way to Windsor, ask him if he would like to stay to lunch’”. My civil servants said, “Do you want to stay?” I said, “Bite her royal hand off”—except I do not think that I used the word “royal”.
When I was being driven down in the Government car to Windsor castle, on a beautiful, sunny Easter Monday, I wondered, “How many people does Her Majesty entertain to lunch on an Easter Monday?” There were six of us: her private secretary, three equerries, me and Her Majesty. I was totally unprepared. It was a measure of the dear lady’s humanness that for an hour and a half she commanded the conversation around the table and included everybody. Not having known her before, I saw her charm, generosity and regality.
I am grateful for the experience of being Vice-Chamberlain for two years and am pleased to add my and my constituents’ greetings to Her Majesty on this auspicious day.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Her Majesty the Queen came to the throne in the year I was born, so she is the only monarch I have ever known, and because of the way she has fulfilled her duties, I am a staunch royalist. In my time in this place, we had one Prime Minister who increasingly behaved as if he was a president, and that certainly confirmed me in my view of how blessed we are to have a monarch rather than a president.
I have seen at first hand the joy that the Queen brings to people’s lives. I will never forget her visits in 1999 to the two constituencies I have represented. Residents were spontaneously thrilled with her visits, which is something that we politicians struggle to achieve. I represent the highest number of centenarians in the country, and I am constantly attending centenarian birthday parties. My own mother, who is 14 years older than the Queen, was thrilled to receive her telegram, and I have told her that the good Lord needs to spare her for another year if she is to receive her second telegram. When I had the good fortune of being invested at Windsor castle last year, I was in awe of how a woman of nearly 90 could stand for over an hour and, with her conversation and manner, make the occasion so special and memorable for each of the recipients.
I should say that Her Majesty has made only one mistake in her life, and that was when she observed that I had been a Member of Parliament for a long time and asked me whether I had seen many changes. Her eyes glazed over as I went on and on about all the changes I had seen. You and I know only too well, Mr Speaker, what a challenge it can be to be nice to people morning, noon and night. Well, Her Majesty certainly succeeds in that regard, unlike myself.
This wonderful and gracious lady has served our country with integrity, charm and dignity all her life, through the upheavals and tribulations our nation has faced. Her personal life, with all its tragedies and sorrows, has never been allowed to come between her and her subjects. She has been a constant example to us all, rising above party politics, and the ebb and flow of public opinion. She has been faultlessly impartial and loyal to her people. The natural warmth and empathy that she has shown throughout her long reign have endeared her to even the most hardened republican, and she is now more loved than she has ever been. So yes, long may she reign over us. God save the Queen. And, Mr Speaker, can we please all have a piece of this birthday cake we keep hearing about?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
As a hardened republican, I think I have been introduced by the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for which I am grateful.
I believe that possibly the most momentous moment of the Queen’s reign, and certainly of her visit to Ireland, was when she stood dressed in green in Croke Park and bowed her head in penitence because of the terrible massacre that took place there. It was an act of humility and majesty that had, and will continue to have, an enormous symbolic effect on relations between the nations of these islands.
I want to say a special word of thanks to Her Majesty on behalf of those—a quarter of the country—who regard themselves as proud republicans. My affection for her goes back a very long time, although I did know another monarch in this country, and until today she was a fellow octogenarian. She teaches us a great lesson—an example that this House should take. We have done well on diversity as far as ethnic minorities and women are concerned—we have done nothing like enough, but we are improving—but we are still dreadfully under-represented by octogenarians in this House. She has led with a splendid example of continuing service. The speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded me of Mildred Gordon who, when she became an MP, followed Ian Mikardo. He stood down because he felt he was too old, but then the wise people of the Poplar Labour party chose Mildred Gordon, who was older than Ian Mikardo. She served with distinction in this institution.
There is a distinction between respect for Her Majesty and criticism of the institution of monarchy. She has continued the institution, giving it new life and meaning, because of her personality and her decision not to be embroiled in any way in affairs that are political. The late Member for Cambridge, Robert Rhodes James, wrote an article describing what might have been a crisis in his party when Mrs Thatcher was about to leave office. She was more popular in the country than she was in the House or her party at the time. The fear that Robert Rhodes James expressed was that if she had decided to call a general election, the Conservative party could not have stopped her, and neither could Parliament, the Cabinet or anyone else; but the Queen could. I believe that was an example of where, because of her personality, the Queen would have acted in the interests of the country, rather than in the interests of a Prime Minister, and that is the supreme job of any monarch in this country.
As a republican, I am happy to speak for a city where the last attempted revolution to set up a republic took place, in 1839. It was interesting that last week Mr Mark Reckless, who is known to us in this place, came to Newport to launch his campaign and paid tribute to the attractions of Chartism as a forerunner of UKIP-ism. People have suggested that that was opportunist, but I do not think it was, because I believe that if he had stood in Coventry, he probably would have arrived in the constituency naked on a horse.
It is a great privilege to have been called in this debate. I share 81 years of life with Her Majesty and I have watched her with great interest all that time. Those of us who wish to have a new system for our Head of State can say with deep sincerity, “Happy birthday, ma’am.”
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Having caught your eye, Mr Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Her Majesty as one of her five Members of Parliament, representing Sandringham, alongside those who represent Buckingham Palace, Windsor, Holyrood and Balmoral. However, first I want to endorse what the Prime Minister said. From the moment Her Majesty stepped off that flight back from Kenya on 7 February 1952 to return to a nation in mourning, her life has been one of relentless, selfless and dedicated duty to our nation and also Britain’s dependencies, our overseas territories and our realms.
I am very glad that the Prime Minister and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) mentioned the Commonwealth, because that ceaseless service also applies to the Commonwealth. As has been pointed out, it started off as a loose association of a small number of countries, but has grown into an incredibly important organisation that includes 2 billion-plus people—30% of the world’s population. The Commonwealth is a truly global organisation that I believe has led to countries within it co-operating and collaborating as never before. Her Majesty can be proud of the way the organisation has moved forward.
This extraordinary length of ongoing service to our nation stands in stark contrast to the cult of youth that seems to have taken over so many democracies, including our own—although obviously the Leader of the Opposition is an honourable exception to that, and has given my generation a lot of hope in the process.
I want to say something about Sandringham. Her Majesty could easily be excused from coming to her beloved Sandringham to get away from London and the pressures of work and to relax with her family, her horses on the two studs and her dogs, but every year without fail she carries out numerous local visits. Many are to the same organisations, but every year she will go and visit new organisations—for example, opening new village halls or a new ward at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, or some of our local museums or local businesses. What I have noticed on those visits is that once she has met the dignitaries—the mayor, the lord lieutenant and the MP—she always makes it clear that she wants to go and meet real people. She shows to those people unfailing courtesy, good humour and a deep knowledge of west Norfolk. Time and again, she has brought untold joy and happiness to my constituents on so many different occasions.
Her Majesty personifies the dignity and civic spirit that are the very best of Norfolk and also the very best of British. As has been pointed out, very often beside her is her consort the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, who has been an indefatigable rock of support. We celebrate the birthday of a remarkable person, but we also celebrate something else. We celebrate the covenant between the monarch and the people, which under her stewardship has made the monarchy stronger than ever. Long may she reign over us.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak, especially as I managed to make it into the Chamber only when the Prime Minister was concluding his remarks—my apologies to him. On this occasion I am convinced that, not having heard one of his remarks, I would have agreed with them all.
It is a massive honour to give praise and to acknowledge the service of Her Majesty on her 90th birthday. Unlike many people in this place, I have spoken to Her Majesty on only a limited number of occasions. It was on one occasion really, as a very new Member of Parliament. She was asking me how I was getting on as a new MP and how I was coping with the correspondence. I did confide that, on occasions, people would come up to me in the street and say thank you, or acknowledge a letter that I had written to them, and I would sometimes just go blank. I am sure that colleagues share that sensation and think, “Right, what are they talking about? I can’t quite remember the detail.” Her Majesty said, “Yes, that happens to me all the time. I always say that it is the least I could do”. Perhaps we should all cling on to that as a good get-out-of-jail card.
Her Majesty has had occasion to visit formally my part of the world—Westmorland—on two occasions in her reign. The first was in 1956, which was 14 years before I was born. It was the year of the Suez crisis; the year of the Clean Air Act; and the year that the United Kingdom turned on its first nuclear power station. The second occasion was three years ago, when I was privileged to meet her in Kendal as the Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale. In the 57 years between those two visits, and indeed since she assumed the throne, so much has changed for all of us. Much, much more has changed for Britain and the world in which we live. The Elizabethan age will be reviewed by history as a vast, transformational and tumultuous era, during which our Queen has provided immeasurable constancy, which will be looked back on as the thread that runs through all of it, and that has made change possible without the uncertainty and instability that could have come about otherwise.
In Her Majesty’s time, Governments have indeed come and gone. She has seen them lead Britain into the European Common Market, and then seen her people vote to remain—that was when I was five years of age. She has seen Britain lead the world by becoming the first G7 country to commit 0.7% of GDP to international development aid. She has seen Britain become a world leader in renewable energy and make great strides in tackling climate change. She has seen technological advances race ahead from when a telegram or a radio programme was a thing of great excitement to the prevalence of satellite television, the iPhone, letters being supplanted by email and playground conversations by tweets and Facebook status updates.
Through all those years of change and upheaval, Her Majesty’s selfless service to Britain has remained a constant. She is admired at home and around the world for her constant and consistent advocacy of Britain at its best. I am bound to say—others have reflected on this—that she embodies the value of a constitutional monarchy. She is a neutral person who is above politics and who is the foundation of our constitution. She is someone to whom all of us, whatever our political views, can look, and with whom we can share an allegiance. That is an immeasurably valuable thing.
Even as we contemplate the monumental things that have occurred during Her Majesty’s reign, it is worth remembering that birthdays are very personal occasions. They are opportunities to celebrate the lives we lead and give thanks with friends and families. Hers has been an extraordinary life and she is an extraordinary example to all of us in public life of the meaning of public service. As we and others pay tribute to her example, I hope that she, who has so many friends, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren and a loving husband, experiences the same joy and pleasure that we all do when we get together to celebrate with those whom we love. On this wonderful and historic day, on behalf of my party and my constituents in Westmorland and Lonsdale, I pay tribute to Her Majesty, to her dedication, to a lifetime of public service and to her faith, and wish her a very happy birthday and many more to come. I thank God for her service. Long live the Queen.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am honoured and humbled to be able to follow right hon. and hon. Members and the Prime Minister in congratulating Her Majesty the Queen on her 90th birthday, and indeed on 90 years of tremendous service to her country and the Commonwealth.
How fortunate we are in this complex modern age to be British, and to have a Head of State who is admired and respected throughout the world. The contribution Her Majesty has made to the standing of the United Kingdom in the world is hard to overestimate. From my own view, the Queen’s greatest contribution has been as a steadying influence in British life through good times and bad. She is the one guaranteed constant in all our lives. In many ways, she has become the nation’s grandmother.
At the age of 45, I am precisely half the age of the Queen. Yet when I was born she had already been Queen for 18 years and she had been a public figure for many years before that. Indeed, like so many members of the royal family, the Queen has led her entire life in the public gaze. She sat for pictures almost from birth, and she made her first solo public appearance when she was a mere 16. Indeed, she has been a lady of so many firsts. She was the first British monarch to visit China, Australia and New Zealand, the first to address the US Congress and the first Head of State to have opened not one but two Olympic games. She made the first televised Christmas broadcast in 1957, and was the first monarch—and one of the first people in the world—to send an email in 1976.
It is to Her Majesty’s credit that, while being a figure of great stability, she has also moved with the times. As we entered the digital age, the royal email address was launched in 2007, as was the royal channel on YouTube. The royal Twitter account went live in 2009 and the royal Facebook page in 2010.
Today, the British monarchy has 2.2 million followers on Twitter—and growing—and 2.7 million likes on Facebook. That is a number of which many of us in this place will be rather jealous. A Google search for “Queen Elizabeth II” returns more than 21 million results, and “the Queen” returns 214 million results—and while many others, both past and present, can claim that rather generic title, the Queen, one has to go to page 6 of the search results before one comes to any topic other than Her Majesty—incidentally, and not surprisingly, that is indeed a public house.
The Queen is probably the most recognisable figure in the world and yet, as we have heard, one of her former protection officers, Richard Griffin, has shared a most endearing story this week. I recognise that the Member who represents Balmoral is here today, so I will not share the punchline or the details of that story, but it shows how gracious Her Majesty is. So many people have personal stories of their own interactions with Her Majesty. She has met hundreds of thousands of her subjects; and millions have seen her face to face at one of the many great festivals and events that she attends each year. In 2012, during jubilee year, many residents of Worcestershire met Her Majesty when she opened the Hive library and history centre in Worcester and when she attended a reception at the Guildhall.
Such personal interactions are one of the main reasons why the Queen is so incredibly and enduringly popular. Opinion polls show that, despite considerable competition, Britons consider Queen Elizabeth II to be our greatest ever monarch. She has reigned over a new Elizabethan age, and we are fortunate to have shared that age with her. On behalf of my constituents, the loyal people of the faithful city of Worcester and all the people of Worcestershire, I wish Her Majesty a very happy 90th birthday.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to join in the celebration today. I am looking forward to returning home this evening to my husband and four children for our own celebration, because today is the birthday of not only Her Majesty, but my daughter, Shansée. I remember 21 April very well. It was a particularly long day a number of years ago. My daughter has prepared her own birthday wish list. I do not know whether Her Majesty has done the same, but perhaps they may share some of the same aspirations for the future. I am delighted to wish them both a very happy birthday.
For the benefit of the House, I should add that I have just returned from the Council of Europe where I was a member of the UK delegation. I can assure Members that they will be celebrating Her Majesty’s birthday in the normal manner just about now.
For the past 64 years, Scotland has enjoyed Her Majesty’s leadership. Indeed, in 1999, she said that our country has
“a special place in my own and my family’s affections.”
I know that Scotland feels the same in return. We very much look forward to her opening the new Scottish Parliament after the elections next month.
The people of Strathearn in my constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire are very proud of their royal connections, especially our association with the Queen’s grandson, the Earl of Strathearn and his wife, the Countess.
Few 26-year-olds would have been equipped to cope with the daunting role Her Majesty inherited in 1952, but it has been clear to all that she has provided exemplary leadership over the past 64 years and, hopefully, for many to come. Over and above that, to have been seen to conduct herself in such a decorous and dignified manner in an era of unprecedented public scrutiny has been an example to all of us in public life.
I am proud to have been honoured for my work in business and in Scotland’s Asian community by receiving an OBE. One of my deepest regrets is that my dad passed away just two weeks before I received that award in Holyrood palace. He believed that the honour was not just a personal one but, in part, a commitment to the whole of the Asian community, reinforcing our valuable place in its fabric. How lovely it is that the lady preparing the birthday cake for Her Majesty is also a member of the Asian community; I have no doubt that Nadiya Hussain’s cake will be a masterpiece.
The recognition I received from Her Majesty symbolised for me and my father the fact that those of us with Pakistani heritage had all been accepted into the heart of this country. That is a gift that could only have been bestowed by someone who conducts themselves in an arena above politics and who acts overall in the national interest. I was fortunate enough to be presented with the OBE by Her Majesty herself, and what I remember most about the conversation I had with her was that she spoke so knowledgeably about the work in which I had been involved and the achievements of the organisations that I had supported. I remember thinking at the time that carrying out those duties for every single recipient she met that day with such skill and insight must have taken considerable personal commitment and preparation on her part.
By committing herself so diligently to her public duties at home and abroad and by carrying them out with such dedication, Her Majesty has shown herself to be a model and modern constitutional monarch. She has not only acted as our Head of State but has been a great servant to our democracy. I am glad to have had this opportunity to thank her once again for her public service and to wish her a very happy 90th birthday today.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I am delighted to support this Humble Address on this splendid day, celebrating the landmark 90th birthday of our beloved Queen Elizabeth. It is also an historic day on which we celebrate the life, achievements, service and dedication of our Queen, who is both Britain’s oldest and longest reigning monarch, two records that she continues to extend with each passing day, which I, for one, hope that she continues to do for many days and years to come.
On the subject of ages, Mr Speaker, I observe that when I entered Parliament last year I was a similar age to Her Majesty when she ascended to the throne. It was a great honour to swear allegiance to her on taking my seat on these Green Benches and in so doing I hope that I reflected the highest regard in which Her Majesty is held across the generations of our country, both old and young.
As we remember the Queen’s popularity here at home, we should also remember her role throughout the world and as the head of the Commonwealth, an organisation of 53 countries, while remaining the sovereign Head of State of 15 realms in addition to the United Kingdom. Her Majesty’s sense of duty is never stronger than when it comes to her dealings with the Commonwealth and now, as ever, is a fitting time to remember just how much Britain owes to the Commonwealth and how much its members and citizens have supported us in times of difficulty.
Apart from such far-flung travels around the Commonwealth, some of Her Majesty‘s duties have involved visits to my constituency of Hazel Grove. The Queen last visited the constituency in 1977, as part of the national celebrations for her silver jubilee. She opened Hazel Grove railway station, a fine example of Britain’s 1970s urban design, which is still there today. It was also my great pleasure as a councillor on Stockport Council to propose that the road currently under construction between Hazel Grove and Manchester airport be named the Queen Elizabeth II Way in her honour. If Her Majesty were keen to come and open the road on its completion, I am sure that she would be warmly welcomed by me and my constituents.
I regret to remind the House, however, that my constituency has not always enjoyed such a happy relationship with the monarchy. The town of Marple was the home of John Bradshaw, the lead judge at the trial of Charles I, who later became an MP for Cheshire. Charles I was the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great—that is eight greats, for the benefit of the Hansard stenographer—grand-uncle of the current Queen. The assessment of my predecessor was that the then monarch was a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy, but let me reassure the House that no such republican tendencies arise in me. Nor have I detected them among my constituents.
Indeed, the country has truly taken our current monarch to our collective hearts and she is much loved. I was interested to read some polling figures in the Evening Standard last week that found that 67% of respondents held the Queen in high favour. The Queen, of course, is above all this, and I understand that she is a much bigger fan of the Racing Post than the Standard. We can be sure that there are hon. and right hon. Members, including even some of my right hon. Friends, who would yearn for such popularity. In addition, her grandchildren the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry were reported to receive similar high favourability ratings, suggesting that the monarchy is in good shape for generations to come. That is great news and having a monarchy in the form we do, we are also spared the prospect of a presidential Head of State. The Queen is above politics. She is steadfast in her beliefs and resolute and she executes her duties faithfully, as she promised that she would, and she will continue to do so. In my opinion, the secret of the Queen’s success over the past 60 years and more is that she believes in what she is doing and is dedicated to the service of Britain and our place in the world. Long may she reign, God save the Queen and happy birthday, Ma’am.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
All over loyal Ulster today, Her Majesty will be receiving the best birthday wishes. It is a huge and humbling treat to join my constituents in expressing those wishes. At prayers this morning, Mr Speaker, your chaplain prayed for Her Majesty the Queen with the words, “May she have long life and everlasting felicity.” That prayer asking for a long and joyous life is answered daily for Her Majesty the Queen and we thank God for his mercy to her as she enters her 91st year and for her faithfulness to not just this nation, but her religion.
It is with great joy that we extend to our gracious sovereign many happy returns and wish her many, many more in the future. Indeed, I would like to see the constitutional dilemma arise of how the Queen gets over the hurdle of sending herself a birthday card when she reaches her century, God willing. I look forward to the many celebrations in churches and civic locations across County Antrim this year. Just this week, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county invited me to a service of thanksgiving for the Queen, which I will, of course, most certainly attend.
The people of Northern Ireland are always abuzz when they learn of a royal visit. During her time as Princess Elizabeth she visited Northern Ireland on three occasions, and has made a further 20 official visits as Queen. These many visits throughout her reign have always been successful in their outreach and engagement, despite the at times very real personal threat to herself and to the royal family. On one occasion, the IRA made the very sinister threat that they would give her a visit to remember. The same IRA, of course, murdered Lord Mountbatten in Ireland. Today, she is witness to a remarkable change in which she has played no small part, including a change in attitude. Indeed, the very man who was second-in-command of the IRA at the time of that murder and that threat is now the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and in law accepts the Queen as his Queen, so much so that every piece of legislation he signs commences with the words, “Be it enacted by her gracious Majesty the Queen.” What remarkable change the Queen has reigned over, and that is no small success on her part.
Today, the Prime Minister referred to the Queen’s landmark visit to the Republic of Ireland, and what a success that was. Who knows, perhaps Her Majesty will see the 55th nation join the Commonwealth and we will see Ireland play a considerable part in trade and in the relationships within that wonderful organisation. Anyone who has met Her Majesty the Queen remembers every aspect of that meeting—the conversation and the circumstance, and the happy memories that flow from it. Indeed, tonight the Queen will light the first beacon to mark her birthday in Windsor Great Park. I am delighted that 17-year-old Army Cadet Emma-Lee Wray from Carnlough in County Antrim will be at her side representing Northern Ireland. That will be an inspiring moment for Emma-Lee that she will cherish for the rest of her life.
The release today of the stamps of Her Majesty the Queen, her son, her grandson and her great-grandson is a real inspiration to us all and emphasises the sure line of succession and the ever-increasing popularity in which the monarch is held. Long may she reign over us. Many happy returns, Ma’am, on behalf of the people of North Antrim.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
As other hon. Members have said, it is a great honour to be able to pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen today on the occasion of her 90th birthday and, as others have said, what an amazing and inspirational 90 years those have been. Her Majesty’s commitment and dedication to our nation and to public duty throughout her life, through the good times and the bad, are the envy of the world.
There are two businesses in my constituency that have been inspired as a result of receiving awards from Her Majesty. Ilkeston-based technical textiles company Baltex received the Queen’s Award for International Trade in 2009, and Long Eaton-based Douglas Gill International, renowned for its sailing clothes, received the Queen’s Award for Enterprise as a result of increasing export sales to 75% of its total revenue in 2011. Those awards are treasured and displayed with immense pride in those businesses.
Sadly, my constituents have never had the honour of a visit from the great lady. The last time a monarch visited Erewash was more than 100 years ago in June 1914, when Her Majesty’s grandfather, King George V, opened Ilkeston County Secondary School. Standing in the marketplace, the King pressed a button which opened the school gates a good half a mile away and well out of sight. The story goes that an explosive charge relayed the success of the operation back to the assembled crowds in the town centre. It is reported that the King passed by the school in his car on his way out of town and had a few words with the headmaster.
I would like to add to the list of invites that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) has given and take the opportunity to invite Her Majesty to Erewash during this celebratory year to officially open the new Ilkeston train station. She will be able to alight at the station and not be half a mile away when she opens it. Despite her great years, hon. Members will know that Her Majesty is a very modern lady. As she probably will not have time today to listen to the tributes being paid in this House, I am sure she will catch up on YouTube later, so I hope that in that way she will get the invitation to open Ilkeston station.
On behalf of Erewash constituents, may I wish Her Majesty a very happy birthday and may she enjoy birthday celebrations for many years to come.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate today. I was on these Benches 10 years ago, when I participated on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru in the Humble Address on the Queen’s 80th birthday, as did only five other speakers, one of whom has spoken already today, having advanced, as is often the case, from being Leader of the Opposition then to being Prime Minister today. I, meanwhile, am on the same Bench as I was on 10 years ago. The Humble Address then had, as I said, six speakers and took about 15 minutes in total. Given the advance in time today, I look forward to the length of the Humble Address in 10 years’ time, if we are all spared.
The Queen is six years older than the SNP. That is not her only SNP connection. Her private secretary’s first cousin is an SNP councillor in Stornoway, and a very good councillor indeed is Rae MacKenzie.
Mentioning Stornoway gives me the opportunity seamlessly to mention one of the Queen’s great passions—islands, particularly the Outer Hebrides. Looking back on my speech 10 years ago in this place, I praised her good sense in her choice of holiday that year—sailing round the Hebrides—to mark her 80th birthday. As was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), she visited Lewis, Harris, North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist, Barra and Vatersay, where she has come many times, mostly informally. Since then I have met the Queen and asked her about the trip, and I can report happily to the House that she found it to be a very splendid occasion indeed.
In the intervening period many others have followed her example and visited the islands and have had a right royal time in other ways, I am sure. I encourage many others to follow the Queen’s example and I welcome those who come back for a revisit. I certainly hope Her Majesty has the chance to return to the islands that she has visited so often. I clearly remember seeing the royal yacht Britannia with its three masts from behind Vatersay as a youngster from my grandmother’s house in Castlebay. Clearly, the Queen’s enjoyment of the Hebrides is more than formal—it is very personal.
People in the Gaelic-speaking Hebrides were very pleased when the Queen, in Ireland, spoke in Irish Gaelic, which was a great gesture on so many levels. Therefore, as I did in the debate 10 years ago, I will end in Scottish Gaelic, the language of Eden, and say, “Co larna breith dhan Bhanrighinn Ealasaid”.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I should like to associate myself with the congratulations offered by the Prime Minister and others to Her Majesty. Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) when he said that, perhaps, Her Majesty the Queen is the nation’s grandmother, I might add that with her commitment not only to serving our nation, but to serving God, she is the nation’s godmother too. I am delighted to add the heartfelt good wishes of the people of North East Hampshire.
We have heard from all corners of the United Kingdom, so there is not much for me to add in respect of our country. I shall therefore focus my contribution on Her Majesty’s lifelong commitment to the Commonwealth. Many countries around the world share a common history, and a shared history leads to a shared language, shared values and, I hope, a shared future. To harness this shared history, Her Majesty has overseen the creation of the Commonwealth in its current form as a force for good—a force for good for the future, given that the Commonwealth is home to 2.2 billion people, of which more than 60% are under the age of 30.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka, I would like to observe that, as Head of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty’s reign has overlapped with the tenures of all 14 Prime Ministers of Ceylon and, now, Sri Lanka, since the country’s independence. Her Majesty and I have at least—perhaps only—one thing in common: we have both visited Sri Lanka only twice. A former British High Commissioner said following Her Majesty’s second visit:
“Her Majesty has fond memories of her first visit to Sri Lanka in 1954…As part of official engagements during the visit, Her Majesty also addressed the nation from the historic studios of Radio Ceylon, now known as the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation.”
He continued:
“Her Majesty came back to Sri Lanka in 1981 as Head of the Commonwealth and people I have met travelling around the country fondly recall memories of her second visit.”
Not only do those excerpts highlight the mutual delight in each other’s involvement in the Commonwealth, but they demonstrate the strength afforded by the changes that have occurred. Her Majesty has helped make sure that Britain and Sri Lanka have continued to enjoy a long association, which has remained cordial throughout the various constitutional changes of recent decades.
That is true of the wider world. The United Kingdom’s relationship with Australia, Canada, India and other Commonwealth countries has changed, and is stronger for it. Thousands of Commonwealth students study in the United Kingdom each year at our world-class universities. The prestigious Foreign and Commonwealth Office-supported Chevening scholarship provides post-graduate study at Britain’s top universities to outstanding individuals who demonstrate leadership qualities. This provides real hope for the future. Tomorrow’s leaders across the world are being provided with the tools to create and sustain a Commonwealth that is mutually respectful, resilient, peaceful and prosperous; a Commonwealth that cherishes quality, diversity and our shared values; a Commonwealth that Her Majesty has created, is committed to and, if I may be so bold, is rightly proud of. God save the Queen.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be called to wish Her Majesty a happy 90th birthday. As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I have the privilege to represent the royal residence of Balmoral. That royal connection, begun under Queen Victoria, gives the area I grew up in the name Royal Deeside. It also gives the local whisky the name Royal Lochnagar, and it means that Ballater, near Balmoral, has one of the highest concentrations of royal warrant holders anywhere in the UK. Ballater has had a tough year, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the royal family for their support and to remind everyone that Ballater is open for business.
It is fair to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) mentioned, the royal family and Her Majesty are most at home in Royal Deeside—something I am proud to say I have in common with her. Residents of Royal Deeside, and indeed many visitors, often recount stories of encountering a kindly lady who is often wearing a headscarf and often driving a Land Rover, and they talk of engaging in light-hearted conversation or of being offered a lift. Who is to say who that kindly lady is? However, it is nice to think that it is Her Majesty.
Perhaps I could finish my brief remarks with a story, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) for not recounting it. While walking near Balmoral castle, Her Majesty encountered a group of American tourists. They asked whether she was local, to which she replied that she had a house nearby. They then asked whether she had met the Queen. “No,” she replied, and gesturing to her protection officer, she said, “But he has.” I wish Her Majesty a very happy 90th birthday and many happy returns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Thank you for that enthusiastic endorsement, Mr Speaker.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson). It is a great honour to be in the House, and it is particular honour to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. Her Majesty is someone we can all look up to as an exemplar of duty and public service. I wish her a happy 90th birthday and many happy returns. I hope, and confidently expect, that she will reach her 100th birthday, and more birthdays after that. It is widely acknowledged around the world that Her Majesty has shown the most extraordinary and selfless devotion to duty and public service—for 64 years now.
The Houses of Parliament marked Her Majesty’s silver jubilee in 1977 by placing a rather special fountain in New Palace Yard, in the shadow of Big Ben. It is still working today and it gives great pleasure to many visitors and those of us here. The Houses also recognised Her Majesty’s golden jubilee in 2002, when they placed a sundial in the ground in Old Palace Yard, outside the House of Lords. More recently, in 2012, Members of both Houses of Parliament—on both sides of the political divide and both sides of the aisle, I am pleased to say—recognised Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee by placing a very special stained glass window in the north end of Westminster Hall, and it is hoped that that window will be there for many hundreds of years to come. That window shows Her Majesty’s coat of arms, and it is almost directly opposite the world war two window, which was put in in around 1950—the original Victorian window was blown out by enemy action during the war. That means that the coat of arms of Her Majesty’s late father, King George, is directly opposite her coat of arms across Westminster Hall—that ancient edifice, which is nearly 1,000 years old. It is a suitable honour for this House and the country that they have been served so well by Her Majesty and Her Majesty’s late father.
We are only five and half years from the platinum jubilee, and we need to keep that in mind. I have no doubt that both Houses of Parliament will mark it in an equally special way—and, I might add, without recourse to public funds, as also happened with the diamond jubilee, when the work was funded entirely from private donations from these Houses.
It is interesting to note that during the preparations for the window, sketches were made of the design to be used. There was some to-ing and fro-ing, and some precision work was needed, as Members can no doubt imagine. The heralds wanted to look at the exact intricacies to make sure that everything was in order. We got to the very last drawing, which was going to be signed off and sent to the glaziers for manufacture in the ancient way—the way stained glass has been made for 800 years. The drawing had been seen by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and everyone who needed to see it. However, it was noticed just in time—not by me, I hasten to add, but by one of the experts in heraldry—that the chain on the unicorn was the wrong way round, so the design was changed.
Later, when Her Majesty came to Parliament and saw the window in situ, I mentioned to her that the unicorn’s chain had nearly been the wrong way round, and Her Majesty smiled broadly. I will not indicate the conversation that we had, but perhaps I can say that somebody later remarked that it was always important to ensure that a unicorn’s chain is the right way round. I dread to think what might have happened if it had been the wrong way round—the story would no doubt have been told for a long time to come.
Michael Ellis
In fact, even though things did not go wrong, I still tell the story.
One other point I would like to make before closing is that His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, who has been Her Majesty’s consort for nearly 70 years, has been a steadfast support to Her Majesty, as is clear to everyone. By being such a steadfast support to our sovereign—his wife—he has been a steadfast support to this country, for which I thank him. I wish Her Majesty a very happy birthday and many happy returns. God save the Queen!
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak briefly in this really special debate.
On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Queen on reaching her 90th birthday. I remember the last time the Queen and Prince Philip were in North Tyneside, when she officially opened Tyne tunnel 2—it was 45 years after she opened the first Tyne tunnel—and she was welcomed on that beautiful day by many schoolchildren and our air cadets from Longbenton, who played music for her. It was a wonderful occasion.
That took me back to the day in 1967 when the Queen came to Tyneside to open the first tunnel. It was a school day for me—I was at St Cuthbert’s Primary School in North Shields. We knew the Queen was coming, and we were all excited because one boy in our class, David Bell, who happened to live near the Tyne tunnel, was going to join the crowds and see the Queen. We were all in awe because we were stuck in school. I never dreamed on that day that, in 2012, I would be at the Tyne tunnel to meet the Queen as the local MP.
I was brought up in a royalist household. My parents were very proud of the Queen, as were many of their generation who were contemporaries of that part of the royal family. Over many years, our family enjoyed watching all the royal events on TV, including the royal weddings and the annual trooping the colour. We always got into the spirit of the occasion and felt very patriotic, alongside many others who are so proud of everything our Queen has achieved. I know that, were my late mother alive today, she would be both thrilled and particularly humbled to see me standing here, on behalf of North Tyneside, wishing our Queen not only a very happy birthday, but very many happy returns.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
In the Windsor constituency, the history of the monarchy runs deep and wide—from Royal Ascot to the Great Park, the barracks, the charities, good causes, hospitals, schools and way beyond. The magnificent Windsor castle is at the heart of local activities and can be seen by people nationwide. In many ways, Her Majesty runs an open home and an open life. Very few people have not paid a visit to Windsor castle, and it would be unusual not to see her and her family out and about around the constituency.
The great affection shown to the Queen is not undeserved. She has been a consistent force for social cohesion in her entire 90 years. She has been a beacon for civilised people both at home and abroad. Few features of our national life have brought such consistency, stability, happiness, joy and celebration over such a long period of our history. As the Head of State, her role is more than symbolic. She is more than a figurehead. She has been a warm and consistent presence in an often harsh and changing world.
On behalf of myself, the country, my constituents, the Commonwealth and the world, I send my heartfelt congratulations on her 90th birthday. Long may she reign, and long may she rein in the forces that seek to divide us.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to wish Queen Elizabeth a very happy birthday, and to do so on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). I also add the good wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who regrets that she cannot be here today for this very happy occasion.
As has been said, the Queen has a remarkable record of service, throughout which she has shown model devotion to her duty and to dignity in public life. That is particularly instructive these days, when so many feel a compulsion to reveal all. It also, of course, acts as a caution in respect of our activities here, as she has outlasted and probably outgunned so many “here today and gone tomorrow” Prime Ministers—and Leaders of the Opposition, for that matter.
Professor Dewi Seaborne Davies was once my parents’ MP. He was a Liberal MP for the very short period between Lloyd George moving to the other place as the Earl of Dwyfor, and the post-war Dissolution and the landslide that swept him and the Liberals away. Many years later, he and some other gentlemen of a similar vintage were standing on the square of my hometown in Pwllheli. They were approached by a younger man, who said, “You three, standing there: Duw, you’re looking good. You’re looking good.” Seaborne Davies replied, “There are four ages to man: when you’re young, when you’re middle aged, when you’re older, and when, Duw, you’re looking good!” The Queen is looking good. That is not only a statement of fact, but symbolic of the personal respect and affection that she enjoys so widely. Today is a public celebration but, more importantly, it is also a joyous family occasion. I will close by saying, “Penblwydd hapus iawn i chi ac, ar eich penblwydd yn ddeg a phedwar ugain, dymuniadau gorau at y dyfodol.” I wish her a very happy birthday and, on her 90th birthday, best wishes for the future.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your indulgence. As promised, I rise momentarily to wish Her Majesty the Queen many happy returns on behalf of my constituents in St Helens North, one of whom, Norah Collins, also celebrates her 90th birthday today. She is originally from County Galway and I thought it was appropriate that I spoke to her this morning, because Her Majesty the Queen has done so much to further good relations between Britain and Ireland. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Irish in Britain, I know that the community here felt special pride at her state visit to Ireland and the reciprocal visit here by the President of Ireland. On behalf of the all-party group and the community here I say, “Breithlá sona duit a Banríon.” Happy birthday to Her Majesty the Queen.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Of course, as you know, Mr Speaker, it will be you who properly summarises this debate, because it is for you to choose the appropriate words from it when you go to the Palace with 12 of us. This is not really a summing-up speech, but more a contribution of my own, and I am grateful for that opportunity, not least because I think I am the only Member of this House who has ever sworn the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty and her successors both as a Member of Parliament and as a clerk in holy orders. I would therefore like to thank her enormously for the faithfulness she has shown to the Church of England and, for that matter, the Church of Scotland. She manages to be ambidextrous in that, as in so many other things.
I am delighted to be here. It reminds me of the time when Norman St John-Stevas, who was simultaneously Leader of the House and Arts Minister, greeted Queen Elizabeth, the then Queen Mother, at the foot of the stairs of the Royal Opera House. As they climbed the stairs, the large crowd burst into a spontaneous round of applause, at which Her Majesty was distinctly heard to say, “Lucky things: two queens for the price of one.”
I cannot pretend to know Her Majesty well—or, indeed, at all—but I once canvassed the staff at Balmoral in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election. We did not get very many supporters—in fact, I think we came fourth in the by-election.
My father Rees, however, played an important part in the coronation in 1953. He was serving in the RAF in Lytham at the time, but when 31 Group, which was based in Hawarden in north Wales, decided to send 40 male and female RAF officers to march in the coronation, it was decided that somebody had to brush up their marching skills, so my 19-year-old father was sent for. He was flown up to Hawarden in a tiny aeroplane and spent a few days with the officers. Apparently my father was so good at shouting at people that he was not needed for the coronation itself.
I make that point simply to underline quite how many people’s lives Her Majesty has touched. She has visited the Rhondda many times. Indeed, a photo of her at Plas Horeb in Treherbert in 1989 was used for the 24p stamp to celebrate her 40th anniversary in 1992.
When Her Majesty came to the Rhondda in June 2002, I was asked to walk with her past the great number of people who had lined the streets of Treorchy, all of whom were singing, “She’ll be stopping in Treorchy when she comes”. I knew that my office manager, Kevin Morgan, was going to be there with his two young sons, Sam and Owen, so when I saw them waving their little Union flags, I gently steered Her Majesty towards them. The two boys were very young at the time and rather shy, so as we approached I said, “Go on, then—say hello.” Unfortunately, Her Majesty thought I was talking to her: “All right, young man!” she barked back at me, so she will probably not read this speech later.
The truth is that Her Majesty has had to put up with an awful lot in her time. She has had to suffer a phenomenal stream of politicians—she will be getting another 13 in a few days’ time—and 160 Prime Ministers in all her dominions.
Living with change is one of the most difficult things in the world, especially when you are almost powerless yourself to affect it. Yet that is exactly what she has done, in admirable style. Technology has changed faster than in any other generation, including television, computers, mobile phones, Twitter and so on. Social attitudes have changed dramatically, too. It is strange to think that in 1952 there were just 17 women in Parliament—18, I suppose, if we include her—but today there are 191 women MPs and 201 women peers. That is still not enough, but it is better than it was.
It seems incredible today, but in 1952 parents of children with cerebral palsy found it impossible to find anyone to educate their children, which is why three parents set up the Spastics Society, which became Scope. Since then, we have made enormous strides: the first Minister for Disabled People, the Disability Discrimination Acts, the Disability Rights Commission and so on. Quite often, the royal family have played a dramatic role in changing those attitudes by the way in which they have reached out. Likewise, when the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” was first published in 1952, it classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, yet very few today would hold that view, and one can even get married in Parliament in a same-sex ceremony.
When we think about what the Queen has lived through—the second world war, the cold war, the Falklands, the end of empire, the troubles and then the peace in Northern Ireland—it is difficult not to feel, in Shakespeare’s words from the end of “King Lear”:
“The oldest hath borne most: we that are young
Shall never see so much, nor live so long.”
For all the pomp and circumstance, regalia and deference, the reason why our constituents—republicans and monarchists alike—admire and respect the Queen is because of her fundamental decency, her manifest commitment to doing her duty and her ability to keep her counsel. At the end of Thomas Hardy’s novel “The Woodlanders”, the courageous peasant girl Marty South pays tribute to Giles Winterborne in very simple terms as “a good man” who “did good things”. I think we can all agree that we could surely say the same of Her Majesty: a good woman who does good things.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is my privilege and honour to conclude this debate and commend the motion to the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister singled out the importance of faith to Her Majesty. Earlier, Mr Speaker, your Chaplain led us in extra special prayers, to which I will add one that used to be sung weekly in Catholic churches, “Domine, salvam fac reginam nostram Elisabeth, et exaudi nos in die, qua invocaverimus te.” Almighty God, we pray that Thy servant our Queen Elizabeth, who by Thy mercy has undertaken the government of this realm, may receive increase of all the virtues; so fittingly adorned, may she be enabled to avoid all foul temptations, overcome her enemies, and with her Prince Consort and the royal family, may she at the last be welcomed by Thee, who art the way, the truth and the life.
We have heard from many hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom, speaking in all languages: Gaelic, Welsh, Irish—
Dr Coffey
Yes, Latin—as well as the Queen’s language. Hon. and right hon Members paid tribute to Her Majesty, citing individual stories and stories from their constituencies, and reflected widely on her service to the nation and to the Commonwealth.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, the influence of our Queen started long before she was crowned. We have heard of her special children’s broadcast during the war, and her service in the ATS. I understand that as a young girl, she reminded her father of the poem “God Knows”, also known as “The Gate of the Year”, part of which he recited in the 1939 Christmas broadcast:
“And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year:
‘Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.’
And he replied:
‘Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.’”
This world is uncertain, but Her Majesty brings to it a constant, calming presence, full of good counsel for all the Prime Ministers and, indeed, for our Parliament, the nation and the Commonwealth. She has especially shown that in her leadership as Head of the Commonwealth, which has brought her and the country many challenges but also many joys.
As has been pointed out, the Queen has seen much change in her 90 years. I have always thought of her as timeless and as a steady hand, but also as keeping up with the times. Technology is being used to commend her today. The hashtag #HappyBirthdayYourMajesty is trending on Twitter, and the Google icon is “Happy 90th Birthday, Ma’am”.
As the Father of the House pointed out, many people are excited and overjoyed to meet the Queen. I recall a few years ago, when the Queen opened the new Broadcasting House at the BBC, she memorably and deliberately walked into shot during the live broadcasting of the news. Even the cool kids of the BBC newsroom were running and climbing on desks simply to catch a glimpse of their very special visitor. She really does touch all hearts.
Up and down the country tonight, people will join in a traditional form of celebration, the lighting of beacons, and I will make it back to celebrate one of those events in Suffolk Coastal. We have already heard about further celebrations that will continue later this year. I, for one, hope that the Queen will enjoy time with her family as well as with the wider nation. For now, I conclude with part of the national anthem:
“Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign!
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to offer the heartfelt good wishes of the House on the occasion of Her Majesty’s ninetieth birthday, expressing its deep gratitude for Her Majesty’s lifelong commitment to the service of the country and the Commonwealth, and praying that Her Majesty may long continue in health and happiness.
That Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, Chris Grayling, Jeremy Corbyn, Chris Bryant, Angus Robertson, Mr Nigel Dodds, Tim Farron, Hywel Williams, Dr Alasdair McDonnell, Danny Kinahan, Caroline Lucas and Mr Douglas Carswell do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.
Common Fisheries Policy (Article 17)
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate, because it provides the opportunity to examine how the Government are getting on in implementing article 17 of the reformed common fisheries policy, which came into operation on 1 January 2014. Article 17 presents the opportunity to regenerate the fishing industry in ports such as Lowestoft in my constituency, and it has the potential to bring significant economic and social benefits to coastal communities all around the UK. It will help the Government to achieve their objective of rebalancing the economy away from London and the south-east and facilitating the much-needed regeneration of coastal areas, where communities feel that they have been neglected for far too long. There is a concern that, although the Government have introduced some initiatives in order to comply with article 17, they do not have a coherent, long-term strategy in place to ensure that its important objectives are met.
Put simply, the way the common fisheries policy works—perhaps I should say should work—is that an overarching policy framework is laid down centrally in Brussels, and it is up to individual states to pursue their own initiatives to ensure that the mutual objectives in the framework are met. Under the previous regime from 2002, member states were given very wide discretion, and the equivalent policy framework was loosely worded. Article 20(3) from 2002 stated:
“Each Member State shall decide, for vessels flying its flag, on the method of allocating the fishing opportunities assigned to that Member State in accordance with Community law. It shall inform the Commission of the allocation method.”
Member states were given wide discretion to do what they wanted, but they had to tell the Commission what they were doing. That article has been replaced by article 17, which is more far specific:
“When allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to in Article 16, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to them, Member States shall endeavour to provide incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact, such as reduced energy consumption or habitat damage.”
I should highlight some of the important requirements of this more targeted policy strategy. First, there is the need for transparency, which is particularly welcome. For too long, domestic and, indeed, European fishing has been unnecessarily complicated and opaque. A good example of that was the difficulty of finding out who held fishing quota. That was shrouded in mystery until my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), the former Minister, introduced the register that had to be published. Before that register existed, all manner of urban myths developed about who held fishing quota. Was it car companies, or even football clubs?
Secondly, in allocating fishing opportunities, the Government are required to consider the three criteria—environmental, social and economic factors. That means maximising the economic and social benefits to UK coastal communities, but at the same time minimising the environmental impact of fishing, which is the activity that has the greatest ecological impact on the UK’s precious and vital marine ecosystem. It is crucial that the allocation of fishing opportunities is based on the targeting of these multiple and diverse objectives. If it is not, as history has shown time and again down the ages, fish stocks will decline, market forces will push inextricably towards industry concentration—fishermen will be muscled out as small businesses—and coastal communities will be weakened and undermined, with their economies often taking decades to recover.
Thirdly, article 17 encourages member states to pursue a variety of methods of allocating fishing opportunities. No longer should they be one-trick ponies relying just on catch history; they should consider a whole package of measures and issues, such as the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy, the incentivising of fishing vessels to deploy selective fishing gear, the promotion of fishing techniques with reduced environment impacts and the reduction of energy consumption and of habitat damage.
The Government have signed up to a policy that can help to bring back prosperity to our coastal communities, and they have been provided with a number of tools in the box to do so. I have two questions: first, are they using all reasonable endeavours in pursuit of this policy; and secondly, are they using all the tools in the box? It is vital that the Government do so, as fishing communities all around our coast are in urgent need of support.
In the past, those communities—the fishermen and the people working in the industry—have delivered so much to this country not just by putting good, wholesome food on our plates, but by providing jobs in the supply chain, which stretches far and wide inland. What has happened in Lowestoft in my constituency in the past 40 years is a vivid illustration of how the policy makers have got it terribly wrong. Now, as a matter of urgency, we need to do things to right the mistakes of the past.
Lowestoft was built on fishing. It was the fishing capital of the southern North sea. In years gone by, one could cross the water from one side of the Hamilton dock in Lowestoft to the other by walking from boat to boat. Today, the dock is virtually empty of fishing boats. In the past four decades, Lowestoft has been hit hard by overfishing, wrong decisions by politicians and the vulnerability of the very make-up of the industry, whereby the large trawlers used to help to sustain the smaller boats.
The way the quota is allocated has been a major factor in Lowestoft’s decline, as it has taken away the trawlers that were the cornerstone of the industry. The six affiliated vessels in the Lowestoft producer organisation have a fixed quota allocation of 80,419 units this year. This is a significant amount of fish, but none of it is landed in Lowestoft: 68% of it goes to the Netherlands and 32% to Scotland. Those boats—Wilhelmina, Ansgar, Margriet, Hendrik Brands, Sola Fide and Soli Deo Gloria—bring very little, if any, economic and social benefit to Lowestoft.
Today, the Lowestoft fleet is made up of small boats, known as the under-10s—the under-10 metre fleet—which get a raw deal in terms of quota. Nationally, the under-10s comprise 77% of the UK fleet and employ 65% of the workforce; yet they receive only 4% of the total quota available. As from 1 April many of these boats in Lowestoft are able to catch only 100 kg of skate and 2 tonnes of cod per month. That is not enough for skippers to sustain a business, let alone to earn a living. This story is not unique to Lowestoft; it is the tale all around our coast. It is being repeated all around the UK, and it is the reason why we cannot delay in properly and fully implementing article 17.
It is fair to say that, from a legal perspective, the Government are complying with the requirements of article 17. That was the conclusion that Mrs Justice Andrews reached in determining Greenpeace’s judicial review this January. The Government have carried out some welcome initiatives, such as the permanent transfer of underused quota to the under-10s. That was worth an extra 678 tonnes in 2015. The inshore fleet will also benefit from an extra 1,000 tonnes this year.
However, one can argue that although these initiatives are very welcome, they are piecemeal allocations. A clearly articulated and overarching framework for the full implementation of article 17 is still lacking. We need—dare I say it—not just a long-term economic plan, but a long-term economic, social and environmental plan. The Government can be criticised for adhering to a system that is too restricted, relying excessively on catch history and not making full use of the other initiatives that article 17 positively endorses and promotes. As I have already said, there is a need to use other tools in the box.
Other Governments are doing so and are pursuing a course that I suggest the UK Government should seriously consider following. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden are all moving away from systems for the allocation of fishing opportunities based exclusively on historical catch levels. In Belgium, there is a requirement to contribute to the local economy. In Denmark, there is an objective of aiming at best economic performance and investing in energy consumption reduction measures. In France, market orientation and socioeconomic equilibrium are considered alongside historical catch records. In Germany, historical catch levels likewise remain important, but measures have been introduced to reduce the impact of fishing on the marine environment and to reduce discards and bycatch. The contribution to society and local communities is also taken very seriously there. In Sweden, economic criteria are of importance in pelagic and industrial fisheries, while environmental criteria are pursued in demersal fisheries.
The policies being pursued in Ireland are particularly innovative. I urge the Minster to look at them very closely to see how they can be applied in the UK, as the fishing industries and fishing communities in our two countries have a great deal in common. In Ireland, quota is assigned to vessels, and if it is not used, it is returned to the state for reallocation. Inshore fisheries operate under a community quota system. There is a monthly catch allocation for stocks under pressure. A specific Irish measure that we should seriously consider adopting is that of consultation with those actively involved in local fishing communities—the people in Ireland, as in the UK, who ultimately know their industry and their waters best. There was a consultation in Ireland when the allocation policy framework was set up, and when amendments are made to the framework, they are always consulted on.
It is also appropriate to look outside the EU. In Canada, British Columbia now has one of the most comprehensive, integrated and successful catch share programmes in the world, which takes full account of economic, social and environmental consideration. The starting point for setting up the system there was likewise a public consultation, with an independent arbitrator submitting recommendations to the Government, who then adopted them.
In conclusion, we need a clear and well articulated framework in which the UK’s fishermen and allied industries can work, invest in their businesses and make a fair living. That will lead to a healthier industry and benefit coastal communities all around the UK. With the allocation of fishing opportunities coming up in 2017, there is now a real chance to put such a system in place. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will look at doing so with his colleagues and officials?
Last May, Geoffrey Melton, skipper of the Serene Dawn from Lowestoft, lost his leg aboard his boat. He has been given a prosthetic limb and is about to return to sea. We owe it to people like Geoffrey to do all we can to ensure that he has every chance of earning a decent living and bringing some prosperity back to the community in which he lives.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for the opportunity of speaking on this subject, and pay tribute to him not only for bringing this matter to the House but for his long commitment to the fishing industry in Lowestoft and beyond. I got to know him well before the election at which he joined us in this House. The fact is, if he was simply doing things for political purposes, there are probably more newsagents in his constituency than there are active fishermen. His commitment to those fishermen is a credit to him and his love of his town and community.
I will take the opportunity to add a little to what my hon. Friend has said. Although it may not seem like it for some members of the fishing industry, there is at last some good news, with rising stocks in our seas. The iconic species that people use as a measure of the health of our seas is cod, and the biomass of cod in the North sea is rising quite substantially. There is still more to do, but it is a credit to the fishermen, scientists and those in organisations such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others, who are not always the fishermen’s best friends. They have relentlessly tried to find new methods of conservation of stocks, and are starting to see those work.
The sea is a very complex ecosystem, and what might assist one stock could damage another; we do not have the time to go into that today. However, the element of my hon. Friend’s speech to which I really want to pay tribute is that he talked about people. When these matters are discussed in Government, among policymakers, in non-governmental organisations, and in the chancelleries of Europe, if that is all that happens, we fail, because we have to engage those whose livelihoods depend upon the health of fish stocks. That does not mean simply the—sadly few—fishermen left in my hon. Friend’s constituency. This is about the very heartbeat of coastal communities. It runs very deep in the psyche of the British people, whether they live in coastal regions such as his, or about as far from the coast as is possible, in constituencies such as mine.
Combining the three legs of the stool of sustainability—economy, environment and social factors—is very important. I well remember the negotiations on article 17, some of which took place through the night. Indeed, I remember being prevented from getting in to make the case for sustainability by a blockade by Greenpeace, which was a rather strange irony.
Looking forward, the Minister needs to take this important point away with him. One of the great wins in reform of the common fisheries policy was not that on the headline issue that concerned most people, the absurd necessity for fishermen at that time to throw away perfectly edible fish, although we were all, quite rightly, affronted by that and its reform was welcome. The ending of discards is starting now, although we are not yet there. For me, however, the great win was a legally binding commitment to fish to maximum sustainable yield.
We have recently discovered that 50% of stocks in British waters are still not fished sustainably. If we want to see the glass as half full, we could say that half are, which is certainly a big improvement on the situation just a few years ago. However, there is still so much more to do. The political effort of the next few years is needed in the Council of Ministers. The resolve remains in the European Parliament, in this Parliament, in the devolved Administrations and Parliaments, and in the Commission, but to carry through the bold ambitions for reform of the common fisheries policy that were agreed unanimously will require continued great leadership by our excellent Fisheries Minister and others, to try to drive through reforms and make them effective.
I have been as rude about the common fisheries policy, and its folly and failures, as anyone—I bow to no one in that—and reforming it was something I enjoyed doing. I felt that we as a Parliament were united in achieving that. But we should not kid ourselves that the common fisheries policy is the only problem. In fact, if we look at Professor Callum Roberts’s very interesting graph of the decline of fish stocks since the late 19th century, there are two peaks in North sea cod stocks, one between 1914 and 1918, and one between 1939 and 1945; I will let hon. Members work out what was going on at those times. In the early 1970s, there is not even a blip.
As a society, we have gained ever more technological advantages in harvesting wild fish. Parliament and regulatory authorities have always been behind the curve. Now, perhaps, we have more regional control and the understanding that we have to involve catchers as well as scientists and others in achieving our aims. It is vital. I applaud the way in which my hon. Friend looked abroad for good practice. The catch share schemes in north America and elsewhere offer great opportunities for fishermen to buy into a rise in biomass and have something of value. By helping to increase the harvestable surplus of a stock, fishermen increase the value of their right to fish it. That gives them something to hand on to their children or else to sell to another fishermen when they want to retire.
There is cause for optimism. It is not easy, and there is much more to do in complex sea environments such as those around our shores. It requires political will and resolve, and needs people such as my hon. Friend, who represent the places around our coastline, to continue to be great champions for the health of our seas and those whose livelihoods depend upon them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
The Minister of State responsible for fisheries unfortunately cannot be here, but it is a great privilege for me to be here to hear those speeches, which revealed just how much care, affection and thought my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Newbury (Richard Benyon) have put into the issues of complex fisheries. I will reply quite briefly, as this is the Minister of State’s subject rather than mine, but I will make a couple of observations on DEFRA’s behalf.
First, we absolutely accept the importance of the inshore fleet. Its economic value is not just the amount of fish it catches but its contribution to ports and to fleets in general. The selective fishing done by inshore fleets—the under-10 metre vessels—is often more environmentally friendly and sustainable. It is less likely to have by-catch or disrupt spawning stocks. It is also much less likely to have issues with carbon emissions. Generally, it ticks almost every box for a sustainable fishery.
As my hon. Friends both pointed out very well, it is also true that this is not simply an issue of economics or the environment. Fishing is the lifeblood of the ports. We love to go to coastal communities and see fishing boats. Those boats simply will not be there if we do not protect the under-10 metre fleet. There is also a connection with our maritime heritage as a nation. It inspires us as a country to know that those vessels can continue to operate. It connects to tourism, the wider economy and the environment. For all those reasons, we need to pay attention to those fleets.
We must balance that, of course, with the interests of the offshore fleets. They catch far more of the fish we eat—about 666,000 tonnes are caught by the offshore fleets compared with about 42,000 tonnes caught by the inshore fleets. Of the 42,000 tonnes caught by inshore fleets, only about 5,000 are within the quota stock range.
About 5,500 people are supported by the offshore fleets. We know more and more about the benefit and fantastic nutrition that we get from fish, and about how good it is for our health and what a fantastically delicious and healthy food it is, and that depends on the offshore fleet as well as the inshore fleet. We need to consider how to get the balance right and swing the pendulum back.
The Government’s gut instinct is probably that the pendulum has swung too far in favour of offshore fleets, and we have now begun to push it back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney acknowledged, we have recently allocated another 1,000 tonnes to inshore fleets. We have begun to use the opportunities provided by getting rid of discards to allocate more, and 10% of that quota goes to inshore fleets.
The challenge is to have a good strategic study to consider the 25 or 30-year future. Rather than my pontificating from the Dispatch Box on a subject about which I do not know a great deal, I would like my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Newbury to sit down with our officials and talk in great detail through the issues that have been raised, and particularly the fantastic work that the hon. Member for Waveney has done on comparative studies, such as Swedish fishing methods, and the French, German and Canadian approaches.
Our current process is fantastic, and it is not only processing people but retailers, the industry, fish salesman, and coastal communities who are discussing what more we can do for the inshore fleet. To do that, we need from my hon. Friends details of how much more of the quota it makes sense to give that fleet, how much more it feels that it can catch, and how that will deliver economic benefit.
I have two small pieces of reassurance. First, it is true that we are already incentivising more sustainable ways of catching fish, and European Union grants are available to upgrade the type of nets that are used to get more sustainable catches. Secondly, we are already emphasising the economic links with people who possess those quotas in terms of providing jobs for coastal communities.
In conclusion, let me pay tribute to what was a serious and impressive piece of research that contained stimulating ideas. We must take up the challenge of thinking forward over a 25-year environment plan, and we must consider how to integrate fish and coastal communities into that. In addition to protecting this precious piece of maritime heritage, we must think about the fish themselves, because they are a finite and precious resource.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) order 2016
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2016.
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and I welcome other Committee members. The Leader of the Opposition is currently making his contribution to the debate on the 90th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen in the main Chamber. I shall endeavour to keep my remarks as brief as possible so that right hon. and hon. Members might also be able to enjoy his comments.
The UK welcomes record numbers of visitors who come to see our historic sights, sample our vibrant culture and attend business conferences and events. In the year to June 2015, 9 million non-European economic area visitors came to the UK—an increase of half a million compared with 2014. Some 1.9 million visit visas were issued in 2015, which was a 2% increase on the previous year. The Government are keen that the UK continues to attract business and leisure travellers who will help our economy to grow further.
In April 2015, we simplified the immigration system for people visiting the UK. We streamlined the routes by reducing their number from 15 to four, and created more flexibilities so that visitors could undertake a wider range of activities. For example, a visitor with a standard visit visa is now allowed to come to the UK for a holiday, take part in a sporting event, attend meetings and visit family, without having to apply for separate visas. The UK’s visa service is one of the most flexible and comprehensive on offer, but remains one of the safest and most secure in the world, reassuring customers of the value that the Government place on security in the UK.
The order’s provisions are of a technical nature and have two basic purposes. First, they will update provisions in the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 that relate to the extent to which entry clearance will have effect as leave to enter, to the categories of persons who may be granted leave to enter automatically, and to who can be granted or refused leave orally. Secondly, the order makes provision for leave not to lapse.
The order extends the period for which entry clearance takes effect as leave to enter for certain categories of visitor who may exceptionally be granted a visa for a period longer than the usual six months. For example, private medical treatment visitors may be granted a visa for up to 11 months and academic visitors may be granted a visa for up to 12 months. With the simplification of the visitor routes of entry, two routes—those for visitors coming to study for a short period and for parents coming to stay with their children at school in the UK—are no longer treated as visitors. That was done to make their purpose clearer.
The order makes a change to ensure that short-term students and parents of tier 4 child students are included in the categories of persons to whom leave may be given or refused orally. It also makes changes to update the categories of person who may, provided they are a registered traveller, be granted leave to enter automatically if they enter via an e-gate. A registered traveller is a low-risk frequent traveller of a specified nationality who can benefit from quicker processing at the border by entering via an e-passport gate. Such gates are available at most UK airports.
Finally, the order makes a change to ensure that leave granted to partners and children of certain British or settled Crown servants and British Council employees does not lapse after two years when they are accompanying their partner or parents on an overseas posting. The change also means that those granted leave under the family provisions of the immigration rules can complete their probationary period outside the UK before they apply for indefinite leave.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I am very proud to be speaking here about orders and visas on the day of the Queen’s 90th birthday, because she does a phenomenal amount for this country, helps tourism and promotes our interests overseas.
I agree with the Minister that these are technical updates. We will therefore not be opposing them, but I want to ask a few probing questions, mainly on borders and security. Will the Minister update us on the roll-out and impact of the e-gate scheme, addressed in article 8A —specifically, the impact on delays and processing times at borders, as well as the wider impact on security? In the light of new and emerging terrorist and security threats, what further steps are the Government taking or considering to improve border security? Does the Minister share our concerns, raised yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), that the reported cuts to the Border Force could compromise the speed and security of our borders? We do not oppose the measures in this order, but we are concerned about whether the Border Force officers and immigration staff who have to action this legislation have the support they need from the Government and the reassurance that we respect and value their services.
Richard Harrington
Unfortunately, we have missed our window of opportunity to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak in the Chamber today—I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) is already on his feet.
I will endeavour to answer the hon. Lady’s questions, although they are not specifically relevant, before I return to the order itself. The e-gate scheme has spread quite a lot since it started. We now have a second variety of e-gate, which is a lot more linked up with different database systems than the first. I understand that, since 2010, 141 e-gates have been installed at 18 airport terminals. Without doubt, they improve the detection of forgery and imposters and free up Border Force officers for other security and intelligence work. I hope that those hon. Members—including you, Mr Bailey —whose onerous duties allow them time for the occasional trip overseas will agree that it seems a very efficient system, both logistically, for people trying to get through, and electronically. The links to the necessary security information have hugely increased, which means that passengers aged 12 to 17 who have electronically chipped passports and are accompanied by an adult can use the e-gates. Quite a lot of things have improved since the system started; the Government believe strongly that convenience and extra security are hugely enhanced under it.
On the hon. Lady’s second question, I am afraid I cannot assist her directly, but I will write to her on that issue, if I may. Her final question was to do with issues raised by the shadow Home Secretary in his urgent question on the Border Force budget yesterday. I was present for that, as were all other Home Office Ministers, because we take these things very seriously. The Home Secretary’s announcement included the Border Force budget for the years to come. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government believe strongly that the Border Force has improved dramatically over the last few years since its inception and will be an important part of our security.
When I opened the debate, I said that the order had two purposes. First, following changes made to the routes of entry for visitors, it updates provisions in the 2000 order relating to the extent to which entry clearance will have effect as leave to enter, provisions setting out the category of person who may be granted leave to enter automatically via an e-gate and who can be granted or refused leave orally. Secondly, it ensures that partners and children of Crown servants and others, when accompanying their partner or parent on an overseas posting, can complete their probationary period before they apply for settlement in the UK. The order means that they will not have to return here to do that; it ensures their leave will not lapse.
This is an administrative measure. I thank the hon. Lady for her very sensible support for it. We judge that the provisions in this order that are technical in nature will not deter visitors who make a valuable contribution to UK’s growth from coming to the UK. Indeed, in the year to September 2015, after the visa routes were simplified to give more flexibility, 2% more visitor visas were issued.
I reiterate that the security of the UK’s border is a key priority for this Government. It is the role of Border Force to ensure that the UK is protected from potential threats while facilitating the smooth passage of legitimate travellers. As we have heard, the changes in the order do nothing to detract from that approach. We will still check 100% of scheduled passengers arriving at the border—we could do so automatically for those using e-gates—and exit checks will remain in place across almost all scheduled commercial services departing from the UK and from international railway stations. Exit check data already provide the police and security services with information to help track the movements of known criminals and terrorists. Border Force also checks and risk-assesses all unscheduled flights and maritime arrivals in advance and physically examines the majority of flights and vessels and their passengers and goods.
The Government have completely reformed the immigration system, cutting abuse and focusing on attracting the brightest and best. As I have explained, the order deals with a small and administrative part of the system, and is a significant but non-controversial measure. I hope that the Committee will be minded to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Limited Liability Partnerships, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and audit) regulations 2016
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Limited Liability Partnerships, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Audit) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am standing in for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, who is on urgent business in Brussels in relation to the steel sector, so if the Committee finds that I am being probed to the limits of my knowledge, I will rapidly agree to write to the Committee to supply it with any information that I am unable to give now.
The Government and business agree that we should act when there are opportunities to deregulate and lighten the load of legislation. Today we have the opportunity to do just that. These regulations will introduce largely deregulatory changes to the financial reporting requirements for limited liability partnerships. They will also introduce a lighter-touch, “micro-entities” financial reporting regime for the smallest LLPs and qualifying partnerships.
Last year, implementation of the accounting directive provided an opportunity to reduce burdens imposed by the financial reporting regime for companies, especially small companies. We have now turned our attention to other types of business entity, and it is clear that similar burden reductions could be applied to LLPs. Following our consultation on proposed changes for companies, a number of stakeholders in the accountancy sector asked whether the same requirements would be extended to LLPs. For accountancy firms and other businesses, the LLP structure has the advantages of a partnership—the relative simplicity of internal governance—with the legal protections of a limited company. High-profile businesses registered as LLPs include PwC Legal and KPMG.
We believe that the financial reporting regimes for LLPs and companies should as far as possible be aligned. That avoids the unnecessary complexity of having regimes for LLPs and companies with similar structures but differences in content. Our consultation on aligning the LLP financial reporting regime with that for companies received unanimous support from stakeholders, and we were encouraged to introduce the revised regime as soon as possible. I am particularly grateful for the contributions of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Financial Reporting Council and firms such as EY and Deloitte, to name but a few.
The regulations will amend legislation that applies much of the financial reporting regime for companies to LLPs. That includes application of provisions of the Companies Act 2006, as well as the supporting regulations that set out the form and content of accounts. The outcomes for business should be straightforward and easily understood, coming as they do on the back of changes to the financial reporting regime for companies.
What do the regulations actually do? I will now explain some of the detail of the proposed changes. The regulations will raise the thresholds for defining the size of LLPs, for the first time since 2008. That will enable about 400 medium-sized LLPs and 40 large LLPs to be re-categorised as small and medium-sized respectively. That means they will be able to access regimes that are more appropriate to their size.
The regulations will also introduce a micro-entities regime for the smallest LLPs and qualifying partnerships, thereby enabling about 3,500 of the smallest LLPs to access a much less burdensome financial reporting regime. Among other things, the micro-entities regime will permit greatly simplified accounts and exemption from the obligation to draw up notes to accounts. Other deregulatory changes include permitting small LLPs to prepare and publish abridged accounts if that decision has been unanimously supported by the members of an LLP. Those abridged accounts omit information required by the general formats in the regulations and will reduce the administrative burden on small LLPs.
It was announced in January that the Government had concluded that the audit exemption thresholds for companies should be allowed to rise in line with the accounting thresholds for small companies. The regulations will apply those increased company thresholds to LLPs, too. That will offer savings of approximately £2 million a year to LLPs. Increasing the threshold for audit will ensure that smaller LLPs are not constrained by a financial assurance regime that is more suited to larger businesses. However, this change will not remove the option for external audit if members, investors or creditors feel that is useful. Importantly, that exemption does not apply to LLPs involved in activities where users of accounts need a higher level of transparency, including where an LLP trades on a regulated market in a European Economic Area state or is involved in banking or insurance. The Government will monitor and gather evidence of the impact of the change to ensure that deregulation is not introduced at the expense of integrity. There will also be a full review by 2021 of the provisions amended by the regulations. We will respond if evidence indicates that action is required to address any shortcomings.
The regulations will not substantially change the way in which an LLP’s accounts are prepared and used, but they will achieve consistency across the UK’s financial reporting regimes for companies and LLPs and avoid unnecessary complexity for the users and preparers of accounts. The regulations potentially provide genuine deregulatory opportunities for LLPs. The vast majority—some 98%—of the UK’s 58,000 LLPs are small. They will be able to benefit the most from these deregulatory changes if they choose to do so, and the savings will support them in running their businesses and, I hope, finding new opportunities for growth. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, I think for the first time. I thank the Minister for stepping in at the last moment as super-sub for the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. At least he acknowledges his ignorance at the outset rather than revelling in it, as the Minister he has replaced so often does when we are discussing detailed regulation. I welcome his offer to write to the Committee should he be unable to answer any of my questions, although I have great confidence in his ability to do so.
We do not intend to divide the Committee on the regulations, which are welcome and sensible measures to tidy up accounting arrangements, but I have a few questions that were raised, in particular by the ICAEW, during the consultation on the regulations. The ICAEW agrees that the Government should amend the accounting and audit regulatory framework to mirror the recent changes to the framework for limited companies, and we share that view. That seems sensible. It is also sensible to take steps in relation to the introduction of the micro-entities regime and amendments arising from the implementation of the new EU accounting directive. Having different rules for limited liability partnerships and companies is a burden on business that the Government are right to tidy up. We support the general thrust of what the Minister and the Government are trying to achieve.
Nevertheless, the ICAEW continues to have concerns about the long-term implications of the micro-entities regime and the revised regime for small companies. In particular, it is concerned about the impact that the reduced information in micro-entity accounts and abridged accounts under the revised small companies regime may have on the ability of businesses to access finance. I will come to my questions in a moment, but they will relate to what I am saying.
The ICAEW is also concerned about the limited disclosure requirements under the revised small companies regime in the context of the responsibility of directors to ensure that accounts show a true and fair view. On that basis, although the ICAEW believes that there are important benefits to aligning the framework for limited liability partnerships with the recent changes for limited companies, it continues to urge the Department to monitor the effects of the revised regime over time, particularly on the quality of financial statements produced by small and micro-entities. I think that the Minister said that the Department intends to do that and that he can give a commitment that it will do that. If I heard him correctly, he said that the intention was that the Department would monitor that over the next five years, with a full review in 2021. If he can confirm that my understanding is correct, that would be helpful.
Any findings will be important when the impact of the accounting directive is reviewed in due course by the European Commission. How will the changes be monitored by the Department? In particular, how will the effects on the quality of financial statements produced by micro-entities be monitored? I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed that the intention is to undertake a full review by 2021. Does he have any information for the Committee about when the European Commission will review the impact of the directive and the changes associated with it?
Has the Minister any comment to make about the impact of a decision—this is relevant to what we are discussing—in the referendum in June to leave the European Union? What impact will that have on the statutory instrument we are discussing today? After all, it relates to, and is a consequence of, a European directive. If he can give us any feel for whether we will have to return to this issue in the near future should there be a vote to leave the EU, I would be grateful. Obviously, I would resist that vote to leave, but if it happens—we have to entertain that prospect—what are the implications for the regulations? If there are any unintended consequences, will he commit that the Department will come back to the House as quickly as possible to try to rectify them?
The ICAEW also expressed concerns about the time it has taken for the change to be brought about. It said that it is unfortunate that the process has been subject to “significant delay”. Can the Minister explain why that is? The ICAEW said:
“This has made it difficult for LLPs to plan ahead, resulting in costs and uncertainty for business that could…have been avoided.”
Are any of those costs reflected in the impact assessment that I have read, which the Department published alongside the regulations? Are any of the costs of the delays in bringing about the changes, as mentioned by the ICAEW, reflected in the impact assessment? Why has there been a “significant delay” in bringing the changes about? The ICAEW urges that the Department updates the regulations
“without any further undue delay in order to avoid uncertainty and costs for business.”
I hope the Minister can answer those questions, although I appreciate he is standing in at the last minute. If he is unable to answer all the questions I have asked, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and other members of the Committee with any answers.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am hesitant to rise and delay the Committee, because I realise that I will probably not be called to sit on one of these Committees again, but I have a short question for the Minister about which I am happy for him to write to me. I welcome the thrust of the proposal, although before I continue, I should declare that I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
I am getting a little confused, as, I think, are a lot of small businesses, about the interaction between the EU-adopted international financial reporting standards, financial reporting standards 101 and the new FRS 102. As I understand it, small companies can choose which of those three they wish to participate in and therefore what disclosure requirements they have to make in their annual accounts. Will that apply to the new limited liability partnerships coming into the regime?
Does the Minister recognise that although the Government are taking away regulation with one hand, FRS 102, particularly in its small-entities regime, is adding significant regulation to small businesses? They will have to make significant extra disclosures and do things that directors of very small businesses have not had to do, such as making estimates that they have not had to make before, and that will necessarily put a greater burden on them at year end.
My final question is about the Government’s much-heralded plan to require small businesses to produce quarterly tax returns—the Government say they are quarterly updates, but most small businesses are interpreting them as quarterly tax returns. Will the complicated accounting requirements of the small-entities regime—financial reporting standards 101 and 102, or EU-adopted IFRS—apply on a quarterly basis to small businesses for corporation tax reporting? That would fulfil the fear of the Federation of Small Businesses and other groups that the quarterly regime being brought in by the Treasury may be more complicated than it first appears.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I do not intend to divide the Committee or oppose the regulations either; they are heading in the right direction.
In a former life, I worked in financial management and audit in the public sector and am still a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Although it is not traditionally involved in the regulation of financial services in the private sector—its base is in local authorities, public sector bodies, health boards and so on—the interface between those bodies and small and medium-sized companies becomes closer every day. With my background in public sector finance, I understand how essential it is that a local authority thinking of entering into a contractual arrangement with a small business needs to know that that business is sound and well run; at the same time, it does not want to put such a burden of administration on the small business that it goes under.
Many of the businesses that became limited liability partnerships in the early days were small firms of solicitors and accountants—the people who provide professional services to all the other small businesses. If we can help those professional services firms become more efficient and effective, the knock-on effect on the small business sector could be quite significant, even though on the face of it the definition of a micro-entity is almost vanishingly small. Twenty years ago, I worked in a small neighbourhood shop run by my in-laws. At that time, its turnover was almost at the maximum for it to qualify as a micro-entity. In terms of turnover, we are talking about quite small businesses, but if that business—rather than buying and selling foodstuffs—provides professional services and advice to 50, 100 or 200 other small businesses, and anything goes wrong with that LLP, the impact on the local economy can be many times greater than the partnership’s turnover would suggest. In assessing the size and importance of an LLP, we have to make sure that we are not simply looking at the balance sheet or at the profit and loss account. The impact of the failure of a firm of solicitors in a small town, for example, could be that many other businesses in that town start to struggle.
I have two questions for the Minister. The first is about the transition phase, when a business starts to grow, becomes medium sized and finds that it will no longer qualify as a micro-entity or a small business. How will we make sure that we are not building in incentives to businesses not to grow? A good comparison is with one of the earlier drafts of the regulations for credit unions, which would have meant that at a certain stage in its development, a credit union would have been under a perverse incentive to turn away savers because the additional bureaucracy it would have incurred through having another £5,000 or £10,000 of deposits was simply disproportionate. I am pleased to say that those draft regulations have been amended to remove that danger, but I would appreciate if the Minister could clarify what steps are being built in to make sure that, as a company grows, it is not dragged down by the additional bureaucracy it is subject to, simply as a result of being more successful.
My second question is about how we make sure that we always keep ahead of the game. There is always a danger in anything that is seen to be lifting the burden of regulation, particularly on professional services businesses. The results of doing that with the big, big, big businesses 10 years ago were utterly catastrophic and we are still paying the cost. The difficulty is that when things go wrong with regulation, particularly of professional services businesses, often we do not see the warning signs until it is too late. By the time we are doing anything about it, the horse is not only out the door, it has usually disappeared to Panama or the Cayman Islands. If it turns out the regulations are creating loopholes and opportunities for misuse or abuse that were not supposed to be there, what are the Government able to do to ensure that those loopholes are closed before they are exploited to the potential detriment of a lot of businesses, residents and all of our nations?
I can understand why partners in small partnerships are concerned that the mistake, the negligence or the wrongdoing of one partner could lead to all the partners losing everything. That is the initial idea behind a partnership. It may not be appropriate in this context, but the fact is that a lot of my constituents, and a lot of constituents represented by all members of the Committee, lost everything because of the misconduct and negligence of a fairly small number of very senior people in the big accounting partnerships and in the big banking organisations. It would be wrong if we gave the impression that fellow partners in those organisations are somehow getting more protection than the small business owners that I know, who lost their businesses because a big firm of accountants were simply not looking after their interests properly. Is the Minister satisfied that, although we are protecting partners in limited liability partnerships from a disproportionate impact in cases where one of the partners gets it wrong, we are not creating a situation where the partners in a business are somehow better protected against mishaps than the shareholders, customers, service users and other small businesses that rely on their financial advisers for their own success?
I would be grateful for answers to those questions either now or later. We all wish the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, every success in the discussions that she is having on the future of our steel industry. I am happy to wait for replies to my questions if the Minister is not in a position to reply this morning.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the Committee again for its understanding. I will do my best to answer the questions and if I fall short, I will happily supplement my oral answers with written ones.
In terms of the impact of reduced disclosure requirements on the ability of the smallest firms to raise finance, we will ensure that the abridged accounts none the less provide users with important and relevant information about the financial position of LLPs. If a lender wants more information before providing credit, they are always able to request it.
I certainly can confirm the Government’s commitment to review the arrangements. We will ensure that they are properly reviewed and monitored; post-implementation reviews are planned for 2020 for companies, and for 2021 for LLPs. We intend to use our work to inform the Commission’s reviews.
On the question from the hon. Member for Cardiff West about true and fair, the duty of the members of a LLP to approve only those accounts that are true and fair will remain unchanged. However, in the case of micro-LLPs, the accounting items included in their accounts will be presumed to give the true and fair view that is required. Although the regulations will allow some simplification of accounts prepared and published by LLPs, that will not affect the overriding duty to prepare true and fair accounts. The hon. Gentleman queried the time it has taken to bring these measures forward, but it has been necessary for the Government to meet EU obligations for companies to meet the transposition deadline. We are now mirroring that implementation for LLPs. On his linked question about 23 June and the referendum, LLPs are not directly subject to EU legislation, so we would not need to review the regulations unless we chose to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire asked about EU-adopted IFRS and FRS 102 rules. UK companies and LLPs have a choice about which regime to adopt. They will choose the regime that best meets their business needs. We have ensured that no company will need to make repeated changes to their arrangements by making this reduced regime available for financial years commencing on or after 1 January 2015 on a voluntary basis.
To answer my hon. Friend’s question on tax and quarterly updates or quarterly tax returns, the issue of quarterly updates for tax purposes is still under discussion. This is not about looking to change company reporting arrangements for annual accounts, but about looking to ensure that change does not increase burdens for business.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes spoke about the danger of lifting burdens for professional services. We will continue to work closely with business and professional bodies to monitor the impact of company law on the quality of financial information and take action to address issues identified as appropriate. The deregulation only relates to smaller-sized businesses.
With your permission, Mr Stringer, I will offer to provide written answers to the rest of the questions. The answers I need to give are detailed and I am not sure I will be able to communicate them effectively right here and now, but I will write to hon. Members later with your permission.
Lastly, I shall wrap up by saying that these regulations will not substantially change the way in which an LLP’s accounts are prepared and used, but they will achieve consistency across the UK’s financial reporting regime for companies and LLPs. The regulations are a positive step that has the support of stakeholders. They offer additional flexibility for LLPs and qualifying partnerships while ensuring that necessary protections are still in place. They will also meet the understandable desire of business for consistency in financial frameworks. Effective financial management underpins the success of every business. The Government remain committed to the good name of the UK’s accounting regime while maintaining reporting requirements that are proportionate and flexible. The regulations will support that objective.
Question put and agreed to.
Investigatory Powers Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 21st April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 April 2016 - (21 Apr 2016)
The Chair
Good morning and welcome to the Committee. We all have a good reason not to be in the Chamber this morning but I am sure you will all join me in wishing Her Majesty a happy 90th birthday.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Clause 91
Power to issue warrants to intelligence services: the Secretary of State
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 405, in clause 91, page 70, line 8, after “crime”, insert
“where there is reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 406, in clause 91, page 70, line 9, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 436, in clause 96, page 74, line 16, leave out subsections (12) and (13).
Amendment 464, in clause 91, page 70, line 25, at end insert—
‘(10) A warrant may only authorise targeted equipment interference or targeted examination as far as the conduct authorised relates—
(a) to the offence as specified under subsection (5)(b), or
(b) to some other indictable offence which is connected with or similar to the offence as specified under subsection (5)(b)”.
Joanna Cherry
The amendments, which were tabled by the Scottish National party and the Labour party, are part of the broad objective of altering clause 91 so that authorisation of warrants is carried out by judicial commissioners rather than the Secretary of State. There has already been quite lengthy argument about the general principle so I will not go into that in great detail. The amendments also deal with the grounds and circumstances in which warrants may be issued and attempt to tighten the safeguards in the clause.
Amendment 405 would amend the grounds on which warrants may be issued, adding at the end of subsection (5)(b) a reference to reasonable suspicion of serious crime taking place. That pertains to an argument I made in relation to part 2 of the Bill, which is that the grounds for issuance of a warrant should require reasonable suspicion. It will also be recalled that I argued that the economic wellbeing grounds should be removed from the Bill in relation to part 2, and I renew that argument in relation to this clause for the same reasons. There seems to be some tautology. As either the Joint Committee on the draft Bill or the Intelligence and Security Committee commented, it is difficult to see how
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”
can really mean anything above and beyond the interests of national security. Amendment 406 would therefore remove subsection (5)(c).
Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6), while amendment 465 would include a requirement of proportionality and a technical assessment in the consideration that is given to the issuance of a warrant. Amendment 465 would require that less intrusive methods have been used or considered and a technical assessment of proportionality accounting for the risks of the conduct proposed. Those requirements would apply when applications from the intelligence service, the Chief of Defence Intelligence and law enforcement are considered. In order to consider whether a warrant is necessary and proportionate, not only the intrusion but the methods will need to be assessed. The amendment would require the judicial commissioner, supported by independent technical expertise, to assess the proportionality of the conduct proposed in targeted equipment interference applications.
There is good reason behind the amendment. Again, I hark back to some of the more general concerns that were expressed by myself and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. When malware is deployed there is often a risk of contagion, at home as well as overseas. We have had a recent and dramatic demonstration of that: the Stuxnet virus was believed to be an American-Israeli cyber-weapon intended to hack a single Iranian uranium enrichment facility. What happened instead was that it infected Chevron, the energy giant, and many other companies, as well as Microsoft PCs around the world.
That is a good illustration of how hacks intended for what we might call “good purposes”—to protect the public—can have unintended consequences. I believe that the phrase used by those in the know is the risk of hacks spreading into the wild. Technical experts have explained to me that the risk of hacks spreading into the wild cannot be overstated. In fact, a professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, Ross Anderson, wrote to the Science and Technology Committee about this very issue, saying—he did not mince his words— that
“It is only a matter of time before interference with a safety-critical system kills someone”.
The amendment would address these serious issues by making sure that we do not take the potentially dangerous and counterproductive step of hacking where other less intrusive and safer methods have been used, and that a technical assessment of proportionality accounting for the risks of the hack being proposed is carried out in advance.
The practice of equipment interference leads to the stockpiling of software vulnerabilities, which in turn puts millions of users of software at risk, and those millions of users of software are our constituents, the citizens of the United Kingdom, people who use these sorts of devices day in and day out for all sorts of aspects of their personal and professional lives. These hacks, if not used only where strictly necessary, and if there is not a proper technical assessment in advance, risk opening up the equipment of ordinary members of the public to criminals and fraudsters rather than just the intelligence agencies. Underlying the amendment is the idea that it is vital that when deciding whether to grant a warrant, the judicial commissioner should understand and account for the proportionality of the proposed interference methods before authorising them.
There is also the risk that hacks can malfunction, with severe consequences for critical infrastructures and even international relations. Whatever one thinks of Edward Snowden’s revelations and the propriety of them, the fact is that he put a lot of material into the public domain and we would be remiss if we did not consider that. He has revealed that malfunctions of hacking by the National Security Agency in America were responsible for the outage of the entire internet in Syria in 2012, which may have caused simultaneous flight-tracking issues and led Government and opposition forces erroneously to blame each other for the incident. That sort of thing could be a danger to our forces.
I went to a fascinating briefing yesterday morning about photonics. Before I went into the briefing, I did not really know what photonics was, because I am not a scientist by background, but I went along because there is a lot of research into photonics development going on in Scotland, particularly at Heriot-Watt University, which is in my constituency. One of the fascinating things that I learned at this briefing on photonics from a speaker from BAE Systems was how photonics—in layperson’s terms, laser technology—can now “zap” on to the visor of fighter pilots the information they need vis-à-vis radar and the like, so that they do not have to look down at a screen when they are looking for a target. If hacking goes wrong, those sophisticated technologies, which are needed for the defence of this country, may themselves go wrong and that may lead to the deaths of innocent civilians, which we all, regardless of which side we took in the vote last December, want to avoid in any bombing in Syria.
There is a high degree of public interest in the proportionality of hacking methods, and the security of data and the safety of citizens both at home and abroad are very real issues. The debate surrounding the Apple against the FBI case in America centred on whether the methods required to hack one particular device were proportionate, given the security consequences for all owners of iPhones. In the United States, the decision in that case was rightly entrusted to an independent judge.
Amendment 465 is crucial because of the potential damage to computer security and the corresponding vulnerability to criminal elements that results from hacking, as well as the potential dangers for our forces fighting abroad and for civilians. The use of various hacking technologies poses clear risks to those they are used against and to the wider public, which requires the addition of a technical proportionality test. I hope the Government are prepared to consider the amendment seriously.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I echo your sentiments in relation to Her Majesty the Queen. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I have little to add to the hon. and learned Lady’s comments in support of the amendments, other then to outline why they were tabled. Clause 91(1) sets out the power to issue warrants, and paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the familiar necessity and proportionality tests, which bite on the very wide provisions of subsection (5). The Secretary of State therefore has to consider whether issuing a warrant is necessary for one of those broad purposes—
“national security…preventing or detecting serious crime, or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
That is obviously a broad necessity test, and proportionality is assessed by reference to the same grounds. The provision is over-broad, which matters because the double lock works only if a judicial commissioner has scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s decision. If the Secretary of State’s decision is so wide, the judicial commissioner’s scrutiny will be correspondingly wide. That matters particularly in relation to the targeted examination warrants, which will be used where a wider bulk power has been exercised in the first place. The amendments would tighten the necessity and proportionality tests, giving them real practicality and effect.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Owen, particularly on the auspicious occasion of Her Majesty’s birthday. The Solicitor General and I are members of a diminishing group who still hold to the spirit, and perhaps even the actuality, of the divine right of kings.
Chivalry forbids me from paying but scant attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West spoke to amendments not in this group. I will not spend too much time responding to what she said, but I might be able to respond to her a little when we come to the next group.
Joanna Cherry
I realised that I had done that inadvertently, for which I apologise. I will not add insult to injury by repeating my submission when we get to the next group. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Chair
There will be a lot of that today, because we have addressed many of these issues in greater detail previously and we will be moving on. Hopefully that will help, rather than hinder, proceedings.
Mr Hayes
That brings me to the amendments before the Committee. It is important at the outset to re-emphasise that these powers are essential to protect against cyber-attacks by serious criminals and hostile states, and it is because GCHQ and others have such powers that our data and cyber-security is safer. That is not merely my estimation; it is the estimation of a number of major businesses that are susceptible to such attacks. In the past two years, the security and intelligence agencies have disclosed vulnerabilities in every major mobile and desktop platform, including in some of the biggest businesses and organisations in this country.
It is sometimes said that although crime is declining, it is also changing—I think that has been said by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. That is certainly true, and the additional vulnerabilities as a result of technological change are something that Government must be conscious of and respond to with appropriate flexibility.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister is generous in giving way. I fully accept his good faith in saying that that is not the intention or purpose, but he cannot bind future Governments. In saying that it is not the intention or purpose, he clearly recognises that there is a weakness and that the provision could be interpreted in the way that has been suggested. That is our concern: we are putting on the statute book a measure that might be exploited by a less scrupulous Government.
Mr Hayes
I am happy to draw to the attention of any future Investigatory Powers Commissioner the fact that that is not the case and will not be under the Bill. Of course the hon. and learned Lady is right: whether this is a good or a bad thing I leave it to others to judge, but I cannot bind future Governments. However, we can certainly consider and reconsider ways in which the message can be reinforced during the passage of the Bill. I do not want to go too much further, but I think that the signal I am sending will have been seen by people on this Committee and elsewhere.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record, because there is concern. If the intention or purpose is not as has been suggested, will he give consideration to how that fact can find form in the Bill and be clear for all to see, just as the record will be clear?
Mr Hayes
Yes. It would absolutely not be permitted under the Bill. I do not want to go over it exhaustively, but that reinforces a series of pieces of legislation that deal with the question, many of which have been passed since the talisman case of the Shrewsbury 24, which has been raised in the House a number of times in different ways. However, I take the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point that there is a compelling case to be made for further consideration and assure him that we are engaged in that. I will not say more at this stage, but a signal has been broadcast to this Committee and elsewhere. My prejudices on these matters as a trade unionist are well known, although it is not my prejudices that shape legislation—heaven forbid.
To return to the amendment, it would restrict equipment interference warrants under clause 91 in circumstances
“where there is reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed”.
Again, I do not want to go over this exhaustively, but the problem with that is the character of investigations, which are by their nature dynamic; it is not always possible to anticipate the direction they might take or the material they might uncover. Not every individual involved in an investigation would themselves be suspected of committing a serious criminal offence, but their relationship with wider associates and potential facilitators of a crime might be crucial to identifying the extent of the organised crime gang and its international links and bringing the ringleaders to justice.
Restricting equipment interference warrants to where there is a serious criminal offence would be a significant reduction in the security and intelligence agencies’ current powers. I repeat: current powers. They are not new. We know how they are used and the effect of their use, but the amendment would restrict their ability to protect the national interest. Do not forget—not that you would, Mr Owen—the necessity and proportionality tests in the Bill that limit the circumstances in which the powers can be used, alongside the double lock.
My straightforward case is this: the powers are vital, to curtail them would damage our interests, and they are not here for any of the unintended consequences that people are understandably concerned about. I am prepared to look at how we can reinforce that. I invite the hon. and learned Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Joanna Cherry
Before I make my position on the amendments clear, it was remiss of me not to add the sincere good wishes of the Scottish National party to Her Majesty the Queen on the auspicious occasion of her 90th birthday.
When we looked at similar issues under part 2, we did not push the matter to a vote, and that is the course of action I wish to follow at this stage. I will withdraw the amendment now, but no doubt the whole issue of judicial warrantry will be revisited on the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 465, in clause 91, page 70, line 18, leave out from “include” to end of line 19 and insert—
“(a) the requirement that other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(b) the requirement that a risk assessment has been conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s technical advisors with regard to the specific equipment interference proposed, accounting for—
(i) the risk of collateral interference and intrusion, and
(ii) the risk to the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the risk to public cybersecurity.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 415, in clause 93, page 71, line 35, leave out from “include” to end of line 36 and insert—
“(a) the requirement that other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(b) the requirement that a risk assessment has been conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s technical advisors with regard to the specific equipment interference proposed, accounting for—
(i) the risk of collateral interference and intrusion, and
(ii) the risk to the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the risk to public cybersecurity.”
Amendment 435, in clause 96, page 74, line 13, leave out
“whether what is sought to be achieved by the warrant could reasonably be achieved by other means”
and insert—
“(a) the requirement that other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(b) the requirement that a risk assessment has been conducted by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s technical advisors with regard to the specific equipment interference proposed, accounting for—
(i) the risk of collateral interference and intrusion, and
(ii) the risk to the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the risk to public cybersecurity.”
Keir Starmer
One of the advantages of us all—me included—straying beyond the strict limits of the previous set of amendments is that there is nothing I can meaningfully or helpfully add on amendment 465, which would tighten the necessity and proportionality test for the reasons already articulated. I will say no more other than to indicate that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Hayes
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, we have covered the ground pretty exhaustively. Essentially, the amendments would change the language of the safeguard, requiring that alternatives must either be tried or be discounted because they were “bound to fail”. In the end, “bound to fail” is clearly too high a hurdle. Investigating agencies would have to waste time and resources, and interfere unnecessarily with people’s equipment trying out alternative ways to gather intelligence that they thought were likely to be successful and not bound to fail.
The amendments would require that in deciding to issue an order the Secretary of State or law enforcement chief must take into account the technical cyber risk assessment by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Given GCHQ’s track record of dealing with cyber-vulnerabilities of the kind that I described earlier—I will not go into further detail about that—and given that the code of practice requires that
“Any application for an equipment interference warrant should contain an assessment of any risk to the security or integrity of systems or networks that the proposed activity may involve including the steps taken to appropriately minimise such risk”,
and that
“The issuing authority should consider any such assessment when considering whether the proposed activity is proportionate”,
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary. Accordingly, I invite the hon. and leaned Gentleman to withdraw them.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 408, in clause 91, page 70, line 25, at end insert—
‘(10) Targeted equipment interference is only lawful if authorised under this Act.”
The amendment would require that targeted equipment interference cease to be conducted under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Police Act 1997 or indeed any other prior legislation, and instead be conducted under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is a consolidated piece of legislation, and we tabled this amendment in the spirit of the Government’s laudable attempt to consolidate the legislation in this area. The amendment would ensure that equipment interference always benefits from the safeguards and oversight in the Bill. As we just set out, the Opposition parties want the safeguards to go further, but even if they remain as they are we would like them to apply to all targeted equipment interference. That would improve public accountability and clarify the state’s powers.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on the draft Bill expressed concern about the fact that agencies conduct several forms of equipment interference that are not provided for in the Bill, so it is not just Opposition Members who are concerned. The ISC said that
“certain IT operations will require a different standard of authorisation…than Computer Network Exploitation and that similar activities undertaken by the Agencies will be authorised under different pieces of legislation.”
It concluded that, if that remains the case, the Bill will have failed to achieve transparency; operations will remain secret and thus not be subject to clear safeguards. It recommended that
“all IT operations are brought under the provisions of the new legislation…with the same authorisation process and the same safeguards.”
The amendment reflects the Intelligence and Security Committee’s recommendation that all types of equipment interference should be governed under one clear piece of legislation. I will be grateful if the Government take it on board in the spirit in which it is intended.
Mr Hayes
I will deal with this very briefly. The hon. and learned Lady is right that the amendment is neither invidious nor unhelpful; however, it is unnecessary because there is already a broad prohibition of unlawful interference with equipment in the Computer Misuse Act 1990. That means that any activity that fits within the definition of equipment interference provided in the Bill may constitute an offence unless it is lawfully authorised under part 6 of the Bill, where that authorisation is detailed, or under other relevant legislation.
On the hon. and learned Lady’s point about activities outside the United Kingdom—a prevailing theme of her concerns, understandably—the Bill sets out the circumstances in which it is mandatory for the agencies to obtain a warrant. That does not include cases in which the conduct takes place wholly overseas. The reality of operating outside our jurisdiction, as she knows, is quite different from operations conducted within or from the British islands. It is not our intention to introduce clauses that inhibit the agencies’ ability to act with agility or flexibility. I think that the amendment certainly does not assist in that regard, and is unnecessary. I hope she will withdraw it on that basis.
Joanna Cherry
Like the ISC, I am not wholly convinced by the Minister’s argument, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
New clause 8—Equipment interference: risk assessment—
“A person making an application for a warrant involving equipment interference must make a detailed assessment of—
(a) the risk to the security or integrity of systems or networks that the proposed activity may involve;
(b) the risk to the privacy of those not being specifically targeted;
(c) the steps they propose to take to minimise the risks in subsection (a) and (b).
New clause 9—Critical national infrastructure: risk assessment—
“The person making an application for a warrant under this part must make a detailed assessment of the risks of the proposed activity to any critical national infrastructure.”
Joanna Cherry
The new clauses were tabled by the Scottish National party and reflect the arguments I made in support of amendment 465 on the necessity of carrying out risk assessments in advance of issuing a warrant. They are very much a corollary of that, and as that amendment has been withdrawn, I will not press the new clauses for the time being.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93
Power to issue warrants to the Chief of Defence Intelligence
Keir Starmer
Clause 93 is similar in many respects to clause 91, but obviously relates to the Chief of Defence Intelligence and is therefore shorter. It follows that the concerns that have been expressed by the Labour party, which I suspect the Scottish National party share, apply equally to the relevant parts of clause 93. I make that clear for the record, but it will not assist anyone to repeat them under the guise of clause 93.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 11—Confidential and privileged material—
‘(1) Where any conduct under this Part will cover or is likely to cover special procedure material, or relates to individuals handling special procedure material, the application must contain—
(a) a statement that the conduct will cover or is likely to cover special procedure material, or relates to individuals handling special procedure material, and
(b) an assessment of how likely it is that the material is likely to cover special procedure material.
(2) Where any conduct under this Part is likely to cover excluded procedure material, or relates to individuals handling excluded procedure material, the application must contain—
(a) a statement that the conduct will cover or is likely to cover excluded procedure material, or relates to individuals handling excluded procedure material, and
(b) an assessment of how likely it is that the material is likely to cover excluded procedure material.
(3) Where a warrant issued under this Part will cover or is likely to cover special procedure material, or relates to individuals handling special procedure material, the procedure set out at section 5 below must be followed.
(4) Where a warrant issued under this Part will cover or is likely to cover excluded procedure material, or relates to individuals handling excluded procedure material, the procedure set out at section 6 below must be followed.
(5) Further to the requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant if—
(a) there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence has been committed, and
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection to the offence at (a), and
(c) other proportionate methods of obtaining the material have been tried without success or have not been tried because they were assessed to be bound to fail, and
(d) it is in the public interest having regard to—
(i) the public interest in the protection of privacy and the integrity of personal data, and
(ii) the public interest in the integrity of communications systems and computer networks, and
(iii) the democratic importance of freedom of expression under article 10 ECHR to grant the warrant; or
(iv) the democratic interest in the confidentiality of correspondence with members of a relevant legislature; or
(v) the importance of maintaining public confidence in the confidentiality of material subject to legal professional privilege.
(6) Further to the requirements set out elsewhere in this part, the Judicial Commissioner may only issue a warrant in accordance with provisions made in Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Schedule 5 of the Terrorism Act.
(7) An application for a warrant under this Part must not be granted where the information could be sought using a warrant under schedule 1 PACE, unless seeking this information under PACE would defeat the purpose of the investigation.
(8) Special procedure material means—
(a) special material as defined in section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;
(b) correspondence sent by or intended for a member of the relevant legislature.
(9) Excluded material procedure has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
(10) A warrant under this Part may not authorise any conduct undertaken for the purpose of accessing any material relating to matters subject to legal privilege.
(11) For the purposes of subsection (10), “legal privilege” means—
(a) communications between a professional legal adviser and their client or any person representing their client made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client;
(b) communications between a professional legal adviser and their client or any person representing their 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.
(12) Where the purpose of the warrant is to conduct interference to obtain material that would normally be subject to legal privilege but that falls within subsection (11)(d), the interference and examination conduct authorised must relate—
(a) to the offence as specified under subsection (5)(a), or
(b) to some other indictable offence which is connected with or similar to the offence as specified under subsection (5)(a).”
Keir Starmer
I want to make some observations about this clause. I know that the Minister is looking at the way Members of Parliament are dealt with, but I want to put on the record what I see as the major limitations. The clause is intended to be additional protection when the purpose of a warrant for equipment interference is to obtain a communication sent by or intended for a member of a relevant legislature—so all our communication.
The first concern is that a warrant for equipment interference permits the obtaining of communications equipment data and other information, so the first observation about the clause is that there is no special provision for a warrant to interfere with an MP’s laptop to get secondary data or any other information. That applies to all of us. If a warrant were issued that touched on my equipment, as long as it dealt with equipment data and other information, there would be no need to consult the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether colleagues have appreciated that they could effectively be hacked without additional safeguard.
The second concern is that the added safeguard is when the purpose of the warrant is to obtain a communication. That is because communications are especially protected, but I remind colleagues that secondary data and equipment data may include the details of who has contacted whom, so if someone contacts an MP, the fact that they made that contact and who did so would not be protected. Here, the purpose is just to get a communication.
If the purpose was to achieve some other objective, but it was inevitable that communications between an MP and a constituent would be affected, clause 94 would not apply. I just wonder whether that needs a little further consideration because the protection for MPs’ communications ought to cover deliberate attempts to intercept a communication and also when it is likely to happen although the purpose is perhaps to intercept the communication of someone else. Those are real issues that I want to put on the record.
The other issue, which may be straightforward, is that clause 94 comes after the two powers we have seen in clauses 91 and 93, which deal with the Secretary of State’s warrants. It makes sense in that context, because it is the Secretary of State who consults the Prime Minister before acting. We will come on to equipment interference warrants that can be authorised by law enforcement officers. Those warrants will not go through the Secretary of State. It may be that clause 94 applies equally to those, and I suspect that it is intended to, because otherwise there would be another type of warrant that could touch on an MP’s unprotected correspondence; I cannot see that that is the intention.
If there is an easy an answer to this, I am happy to sit down and be corrected, but it seems that there are a number of ways in which the clause could be toughened up to achieve its desired objective.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman does a service to the Committee by raising this, because it is a matter of continuing discussion. I think the Committee recognises that there are particular groups of people—lawyers, journalists, Members—who, because of the character, particularity and importance of the work that they do, need to be dealt with in an appropriate and sensitive way. We are talking not only about those people but about the people who are in contact with them. In a journalist’s case it would be sources; in a Member’s case it would be constituents and others. He is right, too, to suggest that we need to ensure that we have a consistent approach across the Bill.
It is true that there is a level of intrusion associated with content that is not shared in other areas. Equipment data are less intrusive than content, and we have already considered why they are necessarily subject to less stringent safeguards. Nevertheless, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that close examination of consistency in the Bill, in terms of how we deal with Members, is important. To that end, I hear what he says and will look at this again.
The conversation on this, in the Committee and more widely, needs to take full account of the proper assumption on the part of those who contact their Member of Parliament that any material they provide will be handled with appropriate confidentiality and sensitivity. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes that point well. It is a point that I have heard and will consider further.
Keir Starmer
I intervene to make sure that I have been clear enough on the second point, which is when law enforcement officers are issuing targeted equipment interference warrants. On my reading, the safeguard is the judicial commissioner, which is understandable. Clause 94 makes it clear that:
“Before deciding whether to issue the warrant, the Secretary of State must consult the Prime Minister.”
It is the consultation of the Prime Minister that is the added safeguard; I understand that. The problem with a clause 96 warrant is that it is not required to go to the Secretary of State. In other words, it goes from the law enforcement officer to the judicial commissioner, not via the Secretary of State.
One reading of clause 94 may be that it applies only to a clause 91 or clause 93 warrant. If that is right, there is no provision for consulting the Prime Minister if a clause 96 warrant is intended to obtain the communications of a Member of Parliament. There may be a simple explanation, but on the face of it that is a warrant that does not go via the Secretary of State, so clause 94 cannot operate in its intended way.
Mr Hayes
One of the most important things about the function of a Committee such as this is that we deal with minutiae, and rightly so. A bonus for this Committee is that, as its members know, I never feel entirely constrained by my notes. To that end, I want to emphasise that the Wilson doctrine of course applies to warrants issued by the Secretary of State. The hon. and learned Gentleman may well come back to me and say that greater clarity about the application of the Wilson doctrine in relation to the Bill is an important part of his argument, so for the record, and to make progress, I repeat that these are matters of ongoing consideration. I want to make absolutely sure that we get consistency, because the important thing about delivering certainty—I have argued throughout our proceedings that the Bill is about clarity and certainty—is that it is underpinned by consistency. In terms of the Wilson doctrine and the role of the Prime Minister in all these matters, I want to be absolutely confident that the measure can be and is applied to all the provisions we are considering.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Decision to issue warrants under sections 91 to 93 to be taken personally by Ministers
Amendment made: 257, in clause 95, page 72, line 33, leave out “the Scottish Ministers have” and insert
“a member of the Scottish Government has”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
Clause 95(2) provides that a decision to issue a warrant under Clause 92 must be taken personally by a member of the Scottish Government. This amendment corrects Clause 95(5)(b) so that it also refers to a member of the Scottish Government.
Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Power to issue warrants to law enforcement officers
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 419, in clause 96, page 72, line 36, leave out
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 or 2 of the table in Schedule 6”
and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 420, in clause 96, page 72, line 37, leave out
“person who is an appropriate law enforcement officer in relation to the chief”
and insert
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 of the table in Schedule 6”.
Amendment 421, in clause 96, page 72, line 40, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 422, in clause 96, page 72, line 42, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 423, in clause 96, page 73, line 1, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 424, in clause 96, page 73, line 4, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 425, in clause 96, page 73, line 7, leave out
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 of the table in Schedule 6”
and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 426, in clause 96, page 73, line 8, leave out
“person who is an appropriate law enforcement officer in relation to the chief”
and insert
“law enforcement chief described in Part 1 of the table in Schedule 6”.
Amendment 427, in clause 96, page 73, line 10, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 428, in clause 96, page 73, line 14, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 429, in clause 96, page 73, line 17, leave out “law enforcement chief” and insert “Judicial Commissioner”.
Amendment 430, in clause 96, page 73, line 20, leave out paragraph (d).
Amendment 431, in clause 96, page 73, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 432, in clause 96, page 73, line 29, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Amendment 433, in clause 96, page 73, line 35, after “Where”, insert
“an application for an equipment interference warrant is made by a law enforcement chief and”.
Amendment 434, in clause 96, page 73, line 39, leave out subsections (6) to (10).
Amendment 436, in clause 96, page 74, line 16, leave out subsections (12) and (13).
Amendment 437, in schedule 6, page 213, line 15, leave out Part 2.
Amendment 460, in clause 101, page 78, line 2, after “service”, insert
“or to a law enforcement chief”.
Amendment 461, in clause 101, page 78, line 6, leave out subsection (2)(c)
Keir Starmer
The clause contains a power for law enforcement officers to authorise equipment interference warrants. That would be a significant power for the law enforcement chief and those officers to exercise. I have two observations to start with. First, the law enforcement chief authorises the warrant on an application from a person
“who is an appropriate law enforcement officer in relation to the chief”.
That is all set out in schedule 6, to which we will come shortly.
There is a big distinction between clause 96(1) and (2). Subsection (1) states:
“A law enforcement chief described in Part 1 or 2 of the table in Schedule 6 may…issue a targeted equipment interference warrant”
in the circumstances set out in the subsection relating to a serious crime. Subsection (2) applies to a law enforcement chief described in part 1 of the table in schedule 6, and provides for a targeted equipment interference warrant to be authorised if it is
“necessary for the purpose of preventing death or any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health”.
We have rehearsed some of this before, in the sense of whether there should be a threshold higher than simply “any” injury or damage, because that is on the face of it a very low threshold, given, on this occasion, to law enforcement officers. That is a real cause for concern.
Joanna Cherry
The bulk of the amendments in this group are SNP-only amendments. I think I am right in saying that the Labour party probably supports them, but I will leave it to the Labour party to confirm that.
Put simply, the set of amendments proposed by the Scottish National party would remove the power to issue equipment interference warrants from law enforcement chiefs, immigration officers, officers of Revenue and Customs, customs officials, the chair of the Competition and Markets Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, and instead judicial commissioners would be responsible for issuing warrants on application from law enforcement chiefs. It is a disturbing anomaly that the Bill proposes that authorisation for the most intrusive form of surveillance—hacking—should be self-issued by a range of public bodies. Could the Government clarify the reason for that anomaly?
This process would put a range of actors, from chief constables to immigration officers, in charge of issuing hacking warrants. The proposal would give these individuals greater powers of intrusion than the security services have under later parts of the legislation—they are at least required to seek the authorisation of the Secretary of State for hacking activities. It is in my argument self-evident that the process should be for law enforcement officials to make an application for a judicial commissioner to decide the application.
I mentioned immigration officers. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has produced a briefing for members of the Committee, and it has drawn to our attention the fact that under clause 96 persons appointed as immigration officers under paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 are among those who can apply for these warrants for a serious crime that is
“an immigration or nationality offence”
as defined, or where the warrant is considered
“necessary for the purpose of preventing death or any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health”.
The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has a long history of briefing, with some distinction, hon. Members on immigration matters. The issue that it identifies is that the wording of the clause does not identify which immigration offences are considered to be serious crimes or, indeed, whether they are all considered to be serious crimes, so there is a lack of transparency in the legislation.
I should address one other amendment, which is on a slightly different point. SNP amendment 435 is an attempt to import into clause 96 the proportionality and technical assessment requirements that I addressed in some detail in my argument in support of amendment 465 to clause 91. I will not rehearse that again.
Mr Hayes
Thank you, Mr Owen. A number of points have been raised. Clearly, law enforcement agencies use equipment interference to stop serious crime, but it is important to add that they also use it to help people at risk of serious harm. That might include locating missing people or helping vulnerable children; there is a whole range of preventive measures that anticipate harm. The Bill brings into a single place the powers that are already used in those ways; there are no additional powers here.
It is also important to point out that these matters were looked at, as were all matters, during the extensive scrutiny that the Bill enjoyed before it came to the Committee. None of the reports of the three Committees of the House, for example, recommended changing the current arrangements for the way in which these kinds of warrants are authorised and used. We have modelled the arrangements in the Bill on the current system under the Police Act 1997, which authorises property interference. That is how this activity is currently dealt with.
Joanna Cherry
I hear what the Minister is saying, but does he not accept the force of the argument that it is anomalous that the security services at least have to go to the Secretary of State, whereas law enforcement chiefs will be able to issue such warrants themselves?
Mr Hayes
I was coming to that argument, which was also made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I simply say that the character of the warrants we are speaking about, which law enforcement chiefs apply for, is central to much of what happens now in the investigatory process. It is based on those chiefs’ special understanding of such investigations. They are clearly answerable for the effective policing of their area, and they certainly have the experience and expertise to make the right decisions on what equipment interference is necessary in an investigation of a serious crime. The status quo suggests that the system works and the powers that we are describing have real value in dealing with crime and in anticipating the other kinds of harm that I have described.
In drawing up a Bill, as I have argued previously, one looks to cement existing powers, but of course one also scrutinises what is not working. If we had thought that the current system was not working, we would certainly have looked to change it. The Bill is consistent with other powers in the 1997 Act, as I have described, such as property interference. It would arguably be anomalous to separate what the police do in respect of property from what they do in respect of technology. It might well, in the hon. and learned Lady’s eyes, deal with one anomaly only to create another.
Joanna Cherry
Does the Minister agree that there is another anomaly? To search someone’s house, north and south of the border, one has to have a warrant issued by a judge. The clause will allow people to hack into equipment, with all the information that it contains in this modern world, without a judge-issued warrant.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Lady is right that these things need to be consistent, as I said in the previous discussion, but we have been arguing in favour of the double-lock throughout this consideration. I am not sure it would be sensible for us to use the Bill to change existing legislation that is doing its job. That was not the view of law enforcement itself; of David Anderson, when he looked at these matters; or of the Joint Committee when it considered them. It would be curious—I put it no more strongly than that—if we were suddenly to focus on this and make a considerable change to existing practice.
The use of covert human intelligence sources under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is also well established. The current practice is subject to the chief surveillance commissioner, who has publicly affirmed that law enforcement chiefs apply themselves with due care and attention to ensure they are compliant with the law and acting in good faith. Not only has the scrutiny of the Committees I have described not made the point that the hon. and learned Lady makes, but it seems that my defence of the status quo is supported by the evidence of the commissioner.
Equipment interference warrants must be approved by the judicial commissioner, so the hon. and learned Lady’s argument that a judge deals with the search of a property, and my argument that a judicial commissioner will approve the kinds of warrant we are debating now, seem to be equivalent. Perhaps she thinks a judicial commissioner is not the best person to do that.
Joanna Cherry
The position that has consistently been put forward by the Scottish National party is that the judicial commissioner should not be in a double-lock system. He or she should be looking from the outset at the merits of necessity and proportionality. That has been our consistent position in relation to all provisions related to warrantry in the Bill.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Lady, with due respect, is shifting the ground. On the one hand, she says that she compares the arrangements for searching a house, the warrant for which is approved by a judge, with this system, on the grounds that there should be judicial involvement in both. On the other, when I said that there will be judicial involvement in both, she returned to the argument that the Secretary of State should be involved. I think she needs to know what she wants.
Joanna Cherry
With all due respect, I have been crystal clear about this from the beginning. “Judicial involvement” is a very loose term. Judicial involvement, in which the judge is bound by the rules of judicial review, is a considerably lesser involvement than if he or she is able to look at matters purely on their merits, as in a system of pure judicial warrantry, advocated by the Scottish National party.
Mr Hayes
There were many other opportunities to consider the judicial review point that the hon. and learned Lady makes. In fairness, she has been consistent in having doubts about whether those are the appropriate terms on which a judicial commissioner should consider these matters. There has been much discussion about that, including in some of the Committees that I referred to earlier. Regardless of the terms—you will not allow us to explore those in any great detail, Mr Owen, because they are not strictly pertinent to the clause or the amendment—the process whereby a law enforcement chief, supported by a judicial commissioner, obtains a warrant is, in my judgment, sufficient to guarantee proper practice. It is certainly in line with what we know currently works. I would have to be pretty convinced at this juncture to make such a radical change to the Bill, and frankly, I am not.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister. I do not intend to vote against the clause, but I have a nagging concern, which I will try to articulate. A communication in the course of its transmission is highly protected—the Secretary of State must sign off a warrant. The Secretary of State individually considers those warrants and we know the numbers. That is an understandably high level of protection for a communication in the course of its transmission.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Gentleman has offered an interesting observation. My counter-observation—perhaps it is a little more than that; it is more of a considered assertion—is that the kind of investigation I have described needs to happen with speed, and certainly with expertise. I think we agree that that is supported by the evidence I have provided and the evidence that has been made available to the commissioner. There needs to be flexibility in the system, and I think that is provided for. He is right that there should also be a legal test and a legal check on that test, which we have also provided for in the Bill. My assertion is that the amendments would provide a single lock, but we are providing a double lock. What’s not to like? On that basis, I ask the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West not to press her amendment.
Joanna Cherry
As the Minister will no doubt have gathered from the last few days in Committee, it is my opinion that there is a lot not to like in this Bill, but I am prepared to withdraw my amendment at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 97
Approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 258, in clause 97, page 75, line 4, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
This amendment, and amendments 259 to 262, each make a minor drafting change to take account of the fact that clause 97 may also apply in a case where a warrant has already been issued (see Clause 98).
Mr Hayes
These are fairly straightforward amendments. Like all the Government amendments so far considered, they are minor and technical. They do not serve to change the scope of the warrant approval process, but make clear that judicial commissioner approval will apply to all equipment interference warrants—in that sense, they are relevant to the debate we have just been having. They replace the phrase “warrant to be issued” in subsection (3) with “decision to issue a warrant”, to reflect more clearly that in urgent cases the warrant would already have been issued by the Secretary of State or a law enforcement chief.
Amendment 258 agreed to.
Amendments made: 259, in clause 97, page 75, line 6, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
See the note to amendment 258.
Amendment 260, in clause 97, page 75, line 8, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
See the note to amendment 258.
Amendment 261, in clause 97, page 75, line 10, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.
See the note to amendment 258.
Amendment 262, in clause 97, page 75, line 12, leave out from “a” to “under” and insert
“decision to issue a warrant”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
See the note to amendment 258.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
We have been over the territory of the judicial test, and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments again, other than to say that in circumstances where an equipment interference warrant has been issued by a law enforcement chief—it has not gone through the Secretary of State—it is particularly important for the review by the judicial commissioner to be tight. All the arguments made earlier about the test are reinforced in cases that do not go to the level of the Secretary of State. Any arguments about deference are unpersuasive. There is a particularly powerful argument for tightening up the judicial test throughout the Bill, and I have raised that topic on a number of occasions. There is a particular need for that where a warrant has come about by a different route, without receiving the scrutiny that a warrant signed by the Secretary of State would have.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We need not rehearse the arguments that we looked at in some detail a few days ago, but I will say what I said then: although the Bill covers those points, there is merit in considering the matter carefully, and I shall continue to give it anxious consideration.
The sliding scale approach, to coin a phrase, is clearly relevant. We must remember that the absence of the Secretary of State in the case of the other agencies is not a problem, because we want them to have integrity and operational independence. We must always remember that underlying principle. I am not criticising anyone, but that sometimes gets a bit lost in the debate.
Having said that, the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point is well made about the different considerations that would present themselves to the mind of a commissioner, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State and national security and all those factors are not involved. I need not, perhaps, add more to the debate on that; I simply commend yet another clause that covers the double-lock authorisation process and applies it for the first time to the area of warrantry in question.
Joanna Cherry
I have very little to say, other than that I support the thrust of the argument made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras; but I also note what the Solicitor General said about giving the matter anxious consideration. I am grateful to him for that, because it is a central concern.
The Solicitor General
I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98
Approval of warrants issued in urgent cases
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 439, in clause 98, page 75, line 25, leave out “considered” and insert
“had reasonable grounds for believing there was an emergency situation posing immediate danger of death or serious physical injury or that the physical security or integrity of the nation was endangered”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 440, in clause 98, page 75, line 27, after “must”, insert “immediately”
Joanna Cherry
Amendment 439 pertains to the approval of warrants issued in urgent cases. Simply, the amendment would provide that an urgent warrant can be issued only where there is a reasonable belief that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting life or preventing serious injury. That is a recurrent theme, which I have addressed previously, and I will not repeat the arguments.
Keir Starmer
Our amendment 440 is modest and would insert the word “immediately”. I need say no more than that.
The Solicitor General
May I deal with the amendments in reverse order? On amendment 440, I am happy to consider amending the relevant draft codes to make it clear that the notification of judicial commissioners should happen as soon as is reasonably practical. That wording is more appropriate than “immediately”, given that it may take some small period of time to draw together the materials that the commissioner would want to review when considering whether to approve the issue of a warrant. On the basis that we might return to this issue at a future date, I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his amendment.
The amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, to which she spoke with admirable brevity, is well understood by the Government, and the arguments remain as they did in our debate on clause 22. We want to create a workable framework, and if we limit the grounds, my concern is that the scenarios and case studies I set out in that debate—the drugs case and the Daesh case—would not be caught. We have a clear definition of “urgency” in paragraphs 41 to 44 of the draft code. The draft code also has a helpful flowchart that clearly sets out the parameters within which those seeking such warrants should operate. For those reasons, I respectfully urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Failure to approve warrant issued in urgent case
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 441, in clause 99, page 76, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 442, in clause 99, page 76, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4A) Where the judicial commissioner refuses to approve an urgent warrant, they must direct that all of the material obtained under the warrant is destroyed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.”.
Keir Starmer
The amendment is minor, in keeping with the amendments that we have already debated on material obtained under warrants that are later cancelled or not authorised. The amendment would tighten the requirements in cases where a judicial commissioner refuses to approve a warrant; the reason for that is self-evident. We have rehearsed this territory to some extent.
The Solicitor General
I resist the amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that we have considered similar amendments in relation to clause 23 in part 2 of the Bill. With respect, it is not right to fetter the discretion of the judicial commissioners, who are experienced and senior members of the judiciary. They should be allowed to decide such matters on a case-by-case basis. The amendment prompts the questions of what might be meant by “exceptional circumstances” and of who would determine whether the threshold had been met in a given instance. I worry that that would just complicate the process. We are all agreed that commissioners will give each case proper consideration, and the commissioners will seek to serve the clear public interest in ensuring that material that should not be retained is destroyed. Well intentioned though this amendment is, it would add undue complication, and we oppose it for that reason.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Items subject to legal privilege
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 499, in clause 100, page 77, line 3, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 500, in clause 100, page 77, line 8, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
Amendment 501, in clause 100, page 77, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) that compelling evidence indicates that the items in question consist of, or relate to, communications made for a criminal purpose such that it is necessary to authorise or require interference with equipment for the purpose of obtaining or (in the case of a targeted examination warrant) the selection for examination of those items, and”.
Keir Starmer
We again return to familiar territory. The amendment would provide an additional safeguard in relation to items subject to legal privilege. The structure of clause 100 is precisely the same as the structure of similar clauses addressing legal privilege that we have debated at some length. As I indicated last time we spoke on this subject, amendments 499 to 501 are those that the Bar Council suggests are appropriate to align the safeguard with its understanding of legal professional privilege. We have gone over this ground already. The clause and amendments have the same structure as earlier ones, and I do not think I will assist by repeating what I have said. I stand by the remarks that I made earlier.
The Solicitor General
Again, I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is right to say that this is a repeat of arguments we had on another part of the Bill. As he has laid out his arguments by adopting his previous submissions, I do likewise on behalf of the Government. Recalling those briefly, my concerns about the dangers of over-definition remain. However, I do not want material that should not be caught by the Bill to be caught by it in any inadvertent way. We are talking about cases where the purpose of a targeted equipment interference or examination warrant is to acquire or examine items that are subject to legal professional privilege. We have additional protections that are a sufficient safeguard and strike that essential balance. For all the reasons I advanced previously, I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101
Requirements which must be met by warrants
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 275, in clause 101, page 79, line 19, leave out “describe” and insert “specify”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 452, in clause 101, page 79, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) precisely and explicitly the method and extent of the proposed intrusion and the measures taken to minimise access to irrelevant and immaterial information”.
Amendment 453, in clause 101, page 79, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) the basis for the suspicion that the target is connected to a serious crime or a specific threat to national security;
(d) in a declaration with supporting evidence—
(i) the high probability that evidence of the serious crime or specific threat to national security will be obtained by the operation authorised, and
(ii) how all less intrusive methods of obtaining the information sought have been exhausted or would be futile, and
(e) in a separate “Cyber-Security Impact Assessment” all potential risks and damage to the security of the device targeted and communications systems more generally and how those risks and/or damage will be eliminated or corrected.”.
Joanna Cherry
Amendment 275 is a simple amendment to subsection (4), which sets out the matters that a targeted equipment interference warrant must “describe”. The amendment would change that word and require more specificity.
The Solicitor General
I am not sure whether that will make any practical difference, but I am happy to consider the hon. and learned Lady’s amendment.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to the Solicitor General. I leave the other two amendments to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
Keir Starmer
Amendments 452 and 453 speak for themselves. Concern has already been expressed about the general nature of the requirements that must be met by warrants; this is a further example under the head of equipment interference warrants. Clause 101(3) sets out in some detail what is required, and the amendments would tighten that up by requiring more precision and more matters to be explicitly stated. They are a version of other amendments tabled to corresponding provisions for other warrants.
The Solicitor General
To deal with the thrust of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, we would say that the amendments are unnecessary because the draft statutory code of practice already requires an application for a targeted warrant to set out what the conduct is and how collateral intrusion is being managed, which is the really important public interest here. That should rightly be in the warrant application itself, and the detailed requirements should be in the statutory code; that was recommendation 5 in the report by David Anderson QC, so we are faithfully following his recommendation.
On the code of practice, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find the requirements under the heading “Necessity and proportionality”, particularly in paragraphs 3.26, 3.27 and 4.10, which deals with collateral intrusion.
I note that amendment 453 is part of this group, so I will speak briefly to that. We have concerns that I have expressed before in other contexts about the problem of the police being asked to exhaust alternative methods even where there is unlikely to be any effect. That is not only wasteful and costly, but could unintentionally lead to further undue intrusion into people’s privacy. For those reasons, I have grave concerns about that amendment.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Will the Solicitor General accept our plea—I speak as someone who has operated this in a practical situation—that what is being asked in this amendment is completely impossible?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with many years of operational experience in the Metropolitan police. When he was a senior officer in that force, he had responsibility for investigations and took his responsibilities extremely seriously. I am grateful to him for his contribution. We have to balance any concerns about a jump to these powers with real-world responsibilities. I want clarity, but also an element of flexibility for those who investigate crime, so that they can get on with the job in an effective way and catch criminals. That is what we all want. I am worried that the amendment, well intentioned though it is, would complicate the process. For those reasons, I urge the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras not to press the amendment to a vote.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Duration of warrants
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 635, in clause 102, page 80, line 21, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 48 hours after”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 636, in clause 102, page 80, line 21, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Amendment 281, in clause 102, page 80, line 21, leave out “fifth working day” and insert “twenty four hours”.
Amendment 282, in clause 102, page 80, line 23, leave out “6” and insert “1”.
Keir Starmer
The clause deals with the duration of warrants, and amendment 635 deals with subsection (2), which is concerned with urgent equipment interference warrants that, because they are urgent, have not been through a judicial commissioner. Under the subsection, warrants cease to have effect at the end of five working days after the day on which they are issued. I have a number of observations on that. We touched on the urgent provision. Up until now in the Bill, the provision has been for urgent warrants to remain valid for three working days. For equipment interference, we leap to five. I would certainly like an explanation why. A warrant that allows interference with computers and laptops for obtaining communications and other information suddenly moves from three days to five—not just five days, but five working days. That means that on occasion it could be seven days, and with a bank holiday it could be eight days, so we are moving well beyond the realms of an urgent warrant.
This amendment is similar to one relating to other urgent provisions that aimed to bring the duration down to 24 hours. There is a real concern about urgent warrants and how long they last. Very strong justification is required for allowing an urgent warrant that has not gone through the double lock to continue for between five and eight days. If the Minister is not about to provide that, I hope he will accept the amendment.
Mr Hayes
Let me make a general point about something that has punctuated our discussions; it may to some degree satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman. The codes of practice are, of course, vitally important. They have metamorphosed over time and continue to do so, partly as a result of the scrutiny the Bill went through before it came to the House. The codes of practice are extremely detailed in respect of interference, as he will know, and on page 21 they deal with the relationship between equipment interference and privacy:
“Equipment interference agencies must not intrude into privacy any more than is necessary to carry out their functions or enable others to do so.”
The process by which an equipment interference warrant is authorised, and the subsequent use of that warrant, are properly constrained by those necessary requirements around intrusion and privacy. Notwithstanding that general point, the purpose of the amendments is twofold. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the first deals with the time before the judicial commissioner examines an urgent warrant. The second deals with the length of a warrant per se. Let me, for the sake of excitement, deal with them in reverse order.
The length of time that the initial warrant pertains was not challenged by any of the Committees that looked at the Bill, and there has been no great clamour or call about it, not least because of an understanding that these investigations or cases, as I said in an earlier debate, are often complex and dynamic; as they change rapidly, they require powers to pertain and continue over time. I will deal fairly dismissively—I do not mean that with undue contumely—with the second part of this short discussion.
Joanna Cherry
The Joint Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee did deal with interception warrants and recommended 24 hours and 48 hours respectively. Given that hacking is potentially more significant and intrusive, would it not be logical to have a similar reduction in relation to hacking?
Mr Hayes
I think the hon. and learned Lady is probably considering a different matter from the one I am talking about. I may have been insufficiently clear, so let me briefly make my case again. I am speaking about the second aspect of the amendments, which is to change the length of time for which a warrant lasts. She will know that, on that issue of duration, David Anderson argued that a serious crime warrant should be extended to last for six months rather than three months, bringing it into line with national security warrants. He explained that, when a warrant lasts only three months, it is often necessary to start preparing a renewal application without a full understanding of the impact of the original warrant. It is important to point out in that respect that equipment interference is not necessarily more intrusive than other techniques. The amendment is out of line with David Anderson’s view in that it seeks to curtail duration of a warrant.
That brings me to the first part. I think I may have confused the hon. and learned Lady by dealing with the points in reverse order, but I come now to the first part of what the amendments will do, which is the matter to which she refers—the five days or three. She will know that there was considerable discussion about that in the earlier stages of scrutiny in the Joint Committee.
Keir Starmer
I am curious. I understand that material has to be got together and the application made, but for other warrants it is three working days and for these warrants it is five working days. What is it about these warrants that requires the additional two days, which are not needed for other warrants where there is an urgent procedure? I am genuinely curious, because somebody drafted this deliberately.
Mr Hayes
Clause 102, on the duration of the equipment interference warrants, is the same as clause 28, on the duration of interception warrants. Urgent warrants must be approved by the judicial commissioner after three working days. The urgent warrant lasts for five working days, at which point it must be renewed or it will expire. My point is that is about practicality, rather than there being anything philosophical about it. It is purely an operational matter.
David Anderson, in his report, to which I drew attention and which am now struggling to find, although the Solicitor General is as ever at my service—[Interruption.] That comes as good news to him. In his report, David Anderson deals particularly with these matters on page 275, paragraph 14.69. Earlier I mentioned recommendation 37, that
“to the effect that serious crime warrants should have the same 6-month duration as national security warrants, responds to the recent comment of the IOCC that ‘there remains a strong practical case for increasing the validity period for serious crime warrants to six months’”.
That is the second of the two points that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West wanted me to address.
My view is that on duration we are in line with both sensible practice and the recommendations of the independent reviewer. On the time between the application and the engagement, we are simply dealing with practicalities.
Keir Starmer
I wish to help the Minister. One of the points I was making does not withstand scrutiny and I will not pursue it or press the amendment. I accept what is being said.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Modification of warrants issued by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 638, in clause 104, page 83, line 17, at end insert—
“(8A) Section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies in relation to a decision to make a modification of a warrant issued under section 96 as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant, but as if—
(a) the references in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of that section to the warrant were references to the warrant as modified, and
(b) any reference to the person who decided to issue the warrant were a reference to the person who decided to make the modification.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 639, in clause 104, page 83, line 18, leave out “Sections 94” and insert
“Section [NC11 Confidential and privileged material]”.
Amendment 502, in clause 104, page 83, line 22, at end insert—
“( ) Where section 100 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to a decision to make a modification of a warrant as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (c) or (d), other than a decision to which subsection (7) applies, section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to the decision as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to renew it).”
Amendment 640, in clause 104, page 83, line 23, leave out “Section 100” and insert
“Section [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege]”.
Amendment 641, in clause 104, page 83, line 35, at end insert—
“(14) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 97.”
Amendment 642, in clause 105, page 84, line 4, leave out from “period” to “which” in line 5 and insert “48 hours after”.
Amendment 643, in clause 105, page 84, line 4, leave out from “period” to “which” in line 5 and insert “24 hours after”.
Amendment 644, in clause 105, page 84, line 26, at end insert—
“(8A) Section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies in relation to a decision to make a modification of a warrant issued under section 96 as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant, but as if—
(a) the references in subsection (1)(a) and (b) of that section to the warrant were references to the warrant as modified, and
(b) any reference to the person who decided to issue the warrant were a reference to the person who decided to make the modification.”
Amendment 503, in clause 105, page 84, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) Where, by virtue of section 104(10), section 100 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to the making of a modification of a warrant pursuant to section 104(7), this section applies as if each reference in subsections (2) and (5) to (8) to a designated senior official were a reference to a Judicial Commissioner.”
Keir Starmer
The amendment relates to modification provisions similar to those in clause 30, which we discussed at some length last week. I will not go over the territory again, but all the arguments I made in relation to modifications under clause 30 apply equally to modifications under clause 105 and I will not take time by going through all the similar points. It is worth observing, however, that clause 104(2) lists in paragraph (a) to (f),
‘“The only modifications which may be made under this section”,
which cover practically all the matters that appear on the requirements of warrants, so it is an interesting use of the word “only”.
There is a substantive issue on which I would like an answer. When we were debating clause 30, I made the point that the test for a modification set out in clause 30(9) is a test of necessity and proportionality that only applies to major modifications, not minor ones. We have dealt with that and I will not go over it again, but it seems to me that the test for a major modification is, quite sensibly, whether it is necessary and whether the conduct authorised by it is proportionate. I was expecting to see in clause 104(4) a version of clause 30(9) and I did not. Perhaps the Solicitor General will explain why.
The Solicitor General
In this context, all modifications are considered major; that is the difference. I hope that helps.
Keir Starmer
Well, no. [Laughter.] I do not mean that disrespectfully, but the test in clause 30(9), which is in relation to major modifications, is whether the modification is necessary and whether it is proportionate. That is a sensible test. I accept that the test in clause 104(4) is in relation to all modifications, but one would expect to see the words “that the modification is necessary”, not
“that the warrant as modified continues to be necessary”.
The Solicitor General
In the context of EI, we are not making the distinction between major and minor, so the effect is that all modifications will be major. If there is a discrepancy, I am happy to look at the language again to make it absolutely clear. I hope that assists the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that indication. Otherwise, in relation to modifications, my points are essentially the same as I made on clause 30. I know the Solicitor General has agreed to look at and deal with at least some of the points I made last time; I ask him to take this modifications clause under the same umbrella when he looks at the modification provisions.
The Solicitor General
I will try to deal with this in short order. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the way in which he advanced his argument. It is in that spirit that I adopt the arguments I made previously. I simply make the point that under this clause we are dealing with safeguards that in my view do not undermine the important double lock standard.
I have some concerns about the amendments that relate to the judicial commissioner having to approve the decision to make modifications to EI warrants. The decision will already have been subject to the safeguard, so to require the judicial commissioner to authorise tactical operation day by day—indeed, minute by minute—is not necessary; in fact, it could be operationally damaging. The Government believe that the code makes clear, on the basis of the arguments we had before, the way in which the scope of the warrant needs to be addressed. Reading across, I would say that the safeguards in the code are helpful and clear.
Keir Starmer
One concern is that under subsections (9) and (10) as they stand there is no requirement for modification that touches on MPs or legal privilege to go to a judicial commissioner, which is at variance with the point that the Solicitor General just made.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates the point that I was about to make. I am happy to consider whether subsections (9) and (10) need to be strengthened to put it beyond doubt that the double lock will apply in those contexts. I hope that that helps him. I have already made similar points on the thrust of these amendments and there is nothing more that I need to add at this stage other than to respectfully invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 105 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Simon Kirby)
Investigatory Powers Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 21st April 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 April 2016 - (21 Apr 2016)
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: 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: 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: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Order. I have an announcement to make before we continue with the line-by-line scrutiny. The hon. Member for North Dorset will be discharged from the Committee this afternoon. It is his final session and we wish him well. I am sure you would like to show him your appreciation for the work that he has done.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
On a point of order, Mr Owen. May I add my remarks to yours? We wish my hon. Friend well and hope that he has a swift recovery from his operation.
Clause 109
Implementation of warrants
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 293, in clause 109, page 87, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove the provision which allows a targeted equipment interference warrant to be served on a person outside the UK for the purpose of requiring that person to take action outside the UK.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 645, in clause 109, page 87, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office where it is established for the provision of services in a country or territory with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This excludes the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction while enabling the government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
Amendment 679, in clause 110, page 88, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Where such a warrant is to be served upon a person outside the United Kingdom the warrant shall be served at that person’s principal office outside the United Kingdom, where it is established, for the provision of services.”
Amendment 694, in clause 110, page 88, line 10, at beginning insert—
“Where service of a warrant in the manner envisaged in subsection (1A) is considered unfeasible or inappropriate in the circumstances,”
Amendment 647, in clause 110, page 88, line 10, after “Kingdom”, insert—
“the warrant 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 Home Secretary confirmed at second reading that a UK agency would only serve a notice on an overseas entity that is capable of providing assistance under the warrant. UK agencies today routinely use secure means of communication to transmit notices directly to the main office of overseas CSPs. This would make government’s commitment clear on the face of the Bill (as it is in the relevant code of practice) and address contradictory provisions that remain in the Bill.
Amendment 648, in clause 111, page 89, line 19, after “take”, insert—
“which for a relevant operator outside the United Kingdom shall include—
(a) any steps which 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) where a warrant could be served pursuant to an international mutual assistance agreement or subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment clarifies the reasonableness test for overseas CSPs.
Gavin Newlands
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. May I add to your comments that I will miss the exchanges with the hon. Member for North Dorset? I wish his replacement well.
Clauses 109 and 110 deal with issues about compelling a third party to provide assistance in the execution of a warrant and extraterritoriality, which is the subject of amendment 293. In speaking to the amendment, and to the clause more generally, I will unavoidably stray into matters relating to clause 110, as the two are inextricably linked.
Clause 109 provides the UK Government with the power to issue warrants that in turn force third-party organisations or individuals outside the UK to assist in acquiring information for the means of equipment interference. The clause states that
“any person whom the implementing authority considers may be able to provide such assistance”
can be served with a warrant to assist in carrying out a targeted hacking warrant. Under clause 110(2), this warrant may be served at a person’s principal office or specified address in the UK, or by making it available for inspection in the UK after appropriate steps have been taken to bring the contents of the warrant, and its very existence, to the attention of the person.
First, the problem here is the lack of judicial authorisation in this part of the process. Privacy International rightly points out that this compelled assistance will not be subject to judicial authorisation. Although law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies will have to seek a warrant to gain access to people’s devices and computers, it is correct that those authorities are not required to seek judicial approval to compel technology companies to assist in their investigations.
Secondly, we should be mindful of the difficulty that this places on any individuals or organisations who are forced to comply with the Government’s demands. These issues were heard by the Science and Technology Committee, where serious concerns were raised about the security implications of forcing companies to, for example, upload and install malware, as well as the fear that equipment interference could jeopardise their business model. The Science and Technology Committee took note of these issues and concluded that
“the industry case regarding public fear about ‘equipment interference’ is well founded.”
Amnesty International UK is deeply concerned about the dangerous precedent that this broad, aggressive power will set in forcing third-party companies to engage in hacking without any independent provision or scrutiny, and to do so in secret.
Thirdly, the extraterritorial measures in clauses 109 and 110 may cause more problems than they solve. That is why amendment 293, which stands in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, seeks to delete subsection (3) entirely, thereby removing the extraterritorial aspect. If we serve hacking warrants on those outside the UK, what sort of message does that send to other countries? We need to be mindful that introducing this type of clause could open the floodgates for other countries to follow suit, which will ultimately have an impact on companies based in the UK. That point was articulated by Yahoo!, which said:
“Extraterritoriality encroaches on the sovereign rights of other governments and risks retaliatory action, including against UK CSPs operating overseas.”
On that point, the Government’s independent reviewer’s report suggests that, when countries seek to extend their legislation extraterritorially, those powers may come into conflict with legal requirements in the country in which companies being asked to comply with a legal request are based. Companies explained to the reviewer that they did not consider it was their role to arbitrate between conflicting legal systems. The protection of vital human rights should not be left to the goodwill and judgment of a company. The concerns of the industry were articulated in this perfect quote. The industry
“expressed concerns 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.”
I shall finish with this comment from Yahoo! It states:
“The current legal framework comprises the law in the requesting country, law in the receiving country and the international agreements that connect the two.”
It is additionally possible that the requesting and receiving countries’ laws may be in conflict. For example, the receiving country’s law may outlaw the provision of content data outside their own legal process. It continues:
“Taken as a whole, this framework is fragmented, with gaps and conflicts which have gone unaddressed for many years. In this more global communications environment, this fragmentation has become more and more obvious and creates a patchwork of overlapping and conflicting laws which overseas and domestic UK CSPs must navigate in order to discharge their legal obligations to safeguard users’ privacy and to respond appropriately to valid requests for access to data… It also creates a complex environment for users to navigate and establish their privacy rights.”
This issue is global, and national laws cannot resolve global issues.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I will be brief. Members will have observed that the amendments in my name are in keeping with my previous amendments about implementation, service and extraterritoriality in relation to other warrants. I will not repeat the points I made then. The only one that is different is amendment 646, a simple proposed change to clause 109 that would add the provision:
“A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
I think that may be implicit. If the Minister could indicate that that is his understanding, that might allay concerns and the amendment would not need to be pressed.
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, we have been down this road before. I well recall discussing similar amendments to the targeted interception provisions in part 2. The Bill maintains the existing position in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction and those obligations that apply to overseas companies. I am unhesitating in my view that overseas companies, because of their important role in communications, must do their bit to do the right thing, as I said previously and memorably. As a result, I will not tire the Committee by going into that argument in great detail.
Amendment 293 to clause 109 seeks to remove the ability to serve a warrant on an overseas provider and amendment 645 seeks to remove the ability to serve a warrant on an overseas provider when a mutual legal assistance agreement is in place. I draw the Committee’s attention once again to David Anderson’s comments in his report, in paragraph 11.26:
“There is little dispute that the MLAT route is currently ineffective.”
I will not quote it at length but he goes on to say that it is because it is too slow and so on. I do not think that those amendments are in line with either his view or mine.
The effect of accepting the first amendment is evident. It would mean we could serve an equipment interference warrant only on a provider based in the UK. The second amendment seeks to assert mutual legal assistance arrangements as the only route. For the reasons I have already given, that is not appropriate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, in the context of his amendment, whether that matter was implicit. Yes, it is implicit and I can confirm what he thought might be the case.
The arguments have already been made and, on careful reconsideration, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North will realise that his amendment and argument are pseudodox and will withdraw on that basis.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for that response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I do apologise, Mr Owen; I strayed on to amendment 646 thinking it was part of the last batch, so I have dealt with it and intend to withdraw it. My apologies.
The Chair
The amendment has not been moved.
Question put, That clause 109 stand part of the Bill.
Gavin Newlands
I can deal with this in fairly short order. The Scottish National party tabled an amendment to leave out the clause, which places a duty on telecoms operators to assist with the implementation of equipment interference warrants. We agree with those in the industry who are rightly concerned about being forced by the state to engage in the legal hacking of customers and other individuals and groups.
The Bill defines a telecoms operator as
“a person who…offers or provides a telecommunications service to persons in the United Kingdom, or…controls or provides a telecommunication system which is (wholly or partly)…in the United Kingdom, or…controlled from the United Kingdom.”
That flexible and all-encompassing definition means that not only online companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox and Yahoo!, but private offices, businesses, law firms, the networks of Departments such as the NHS and institutional networks such as those of universities would be forced to comply with the Government’s instructions to interfere with or hack the communications of an individual or group. That was confirmed by the Home Secretary in her evidence to the Joint Committee that scrutinised the draft Bill. That power will place those companies, whose services most, if not all, of our constituents use, in a deeply unsettling and invidious position.
I am not convinced that any of our constituents would be pleased to hear that we were passing legislation that would allow their email accounts or Facebook pages to engage in illegal hacking on behalf of the state. The extraordinarily expansive power that the clause gives the Government will force companies to engage in highly controversial work on their behalf, which will no doubt be in conflict with the interests of cybersecurity and product security that the companies work hard to innovate in, protect and extend. Forcing these companies to engage in legal hacking could seriously harm their business and operations. It will also lead to some of their customers and users losing trust in their businesses. I am not surprised that companies have long expressed deep concern about the powers laid out in the clause, as it is in direct conflict with their business interests. For those reasons, the SNP would like to see the clause deleted from the Bill.
Gavin Newlands
I shall do my best impression of her, Mr Owen, but I fear it will be inadequate.
I beg to move amendment 296, in clause 113, page 91, line 22, at end insert—
“(A1) Material obtained via a warrant under this Part may only be shared with overseas authorities in accordance with the terms of an international information sharing treaty.”
This amendment would require that information obtained via an equipment interference warrant is only shared with overseas authorities where a mutual legal assistance treaty has been put in place for the purpose of doing so.
Clause 113 deals in part with the overriding issue of information obtained through equipment interference being shared with overseas authorities. We should take note of the oral and written evidence submitted by Amnesty International on this point about the lack of any proper controls over intelligence sharing with foreign authorities. The human rights implications may be very serious indeed. For example, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent data being shared with an overseas authority when that might lead to the abuse, or possibly torture, of an individual or group. Surely we should set an example by ensuring that data gathering does not lead to torture; that should be the minimum standard expected of a civilised country such as ours.
However, if the SNP and Amnesty International are a little left-wing for hon. Members’ tastes, I give them the Intelligence and Security Committee, which also criticised the lack of clarity on this point when it noted that the Bill
“does not…meet the recommendations made in the Committee’s Privacy and Security Report that future legislation must set out these arrangements more explicitly, defining the powers and constraints governing such exchanges.”
The written evidence submitted by Yahoo! and others expressed concern that the Government’s apparently unilateral assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction
“will create conflicting legal obligations for overseas providers who are subject to legal obligations elsewhere.”
David Anderson has also noted the lack of detail in this section of the Bill. He called for information sharing with foreign countries to be subject to strict, clearly defined and published safeguards. His report states:
“The new law should make it clear that neither receipt nor transfer as referred to in Recommendations 76-77…should ever be permitted or practised for the purpose of circumventing safeguards on the use of such material in the UK.”
However, such safeguards and guarantees are notably absent from the Bill. Furthermore, the independent reviewer’s report described the international trade in intelligence between the “Five Eyes” partners—the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In so far as material gathered by the British services is shared with other countries, the report explained that the security services take the view that, under their founding statutes, information should be shared only if it
“is necessary for the purpose of the proper discharge of the security and intelligence agencies’ functions.”
When it is considered that the test is met, certain safeguards apply under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. However, the report concluded that
“in practical terms, the safeguards applying to the use of such data are entirely subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State.”
The 2000 Act and the codes of practice are silent on British services receiving or accessing information from foreign services, with security services limited only by the general constraints placed on their actions by various statutes. It was only during Liberty’s legal action against the security services in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that limited information was revealed about the way in which the security services approach such situations. In its first finding against the agencies, the IPT held that, prior to these disclosures, the framework for information sharing was not sufficiently foreseeable and was not therefore in accordance with law. The tribunal held that, because the litigation had resulted in disclosures of information, the security services were no longer acting unlawfully when accessing information from the US. Based on the concerns that Amnesty International, Liberty and others have raised, the SNP has tabled amendment 296, which would insert a new subsection into clause 113. The language of the amendment is plain.
Keir Starmer
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. On the sharing of information with authorities that may engage in torture or other serious ill-treatment, can the Minister confirm the long-standing practice that our security and intelligence services do not share information where there is a risk of torture, because of their obligations under other international treaties, and that this provision sits within that framework of assurances?
Mr Hayes
I can confirm that, and I can say a little more. My residual generosity is such that I take the view that these amendments are well intentioned, but they are unnecessary. Let me say why.
Clause 113 already provides that the Secretary of State must ensure that satisfactory and equivalent handling arrangements are in place before sharing UK equipment interference material with an overseas authority. The Secretary of State must determine that they provide corresponding satisfactory protections. Furthermore, those obligations sit alongside those in, for example, the consolidated guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel on the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas, and on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees, as well as the gateway provisions that allow for intelligence sharing in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Security Service Act 1989.
In addition, the overseas security and justice assistance guidance provides an overarching mechanism that sets out which human rights and international humanitarian law risks should be considered prior to providing justice or security sector assistance. This is supplemented by the draft code of practice on equipment interference, which is clear about the safeguards on the handling of information. It seems to me that the protections, absolutely necessary though they are, are comprehensively dealt with by that variety of means, rendering the amendment unnecessary. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I am somewhat reassured, but I still do not understand the Government’s reticence about putting this in the Bill; it is only a sentence that is required. Nevertheless, we are minded to withdraw the amendment at this time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Duty not to make unauthorised disclosures
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 649, in clause 114, page 91, line 42, after “not”, insert “without reasonable excuse”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 650, in clause 114, page 91, line 42, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is in particular a reasonable excuse if the disclosure is made with the permission of the person issuing the warrant or the person to whom it is issued.”.
This amendment adds a “reasonable excuse” defence to the unauthorised disclosure offence in relation to equipment interference warrants.
Keir Starmer
I will deal with these amendments swiftly. They deal with the reasonable excuse defence and are similar to previous amendments. I foreshadow the amendments to clause 116, which essentially relates to the same issue as clause 114. Those amendments are about a public interest defence, which we have also debated already.
My two points remain. The first is the consistency of the reasonable excuse defence. In some clauses it is there and in others it is not, and I cannot see the logic of when it is in and when it is out. Secondly, the Minister has already agreed that there must be a route for those who want to expose wrongdoing, so that disclosures can be made in the public interest where necessary. I have been pursuing those two points, and they are the same for this provision. I do not need to elaborate further.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to refer to arguments previously made. For the record, this morning I omitted to pay my own tribute to our sovereign lady on her 90th birthday, and I wish to add it here. I am sure that colleagues will indulge that observation, and hopefully this next observation too. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I agree that the world is divided between cavaliers and roundheads. We know what side we are on: our hearts lie broken on the battlefield of Naseby—but that is perhaps for another day.
We contend that amendment 650 is unnecessary. Clause 115(2)(b) provides that a disclosure is permitted if it is
“authorised by the person to whom the warrant is…addressed”.
Disclosure can also be authorised by virtue of this clause within the terms of the warrant, which will have been agreed by the person issuing the warrant and by a judicial commissioner. It is much better for an impartial senior judge to take a view on what is reasonable than it is for, say, a junior official or an employee of a telecommunications operator, no matter how diligent they might be; none the less, it is important that such people can raise concerns without fear of prosecution. That is why clause 203, in part 8, provides for an information gateway so that whistleblowers can take their concerns directly to the commissioner without fear of sanction under the Bill.
It is right that the Bill’s provisions reflect the sensitive techniques of the equipment interference agencies and maintain that it will be an offence to disclose the existence of a warrant. It is a well known and well rehearsed argument that the techniques and details of EI capabilities must be protected. The amendments in the round seek to achieve something that I submit is already well catered for in the Bill, and on that basis I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Offence of making unauthorised disclosure
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 496, in clause 116, page 93, line 39, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it is a defence for the person to show that the disclosure was in the public interest.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 297, in clause 116, page 93, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section in respect of any disclosure, it is a defence for the person to show that the disclosure was in the public interest.”
This amendment would provide a defence to the criminal offence of unauthorised disclosure in relation to a warrant issued under this Part. The offence includes disclosure of the existence and content of a warrant and disclosure of the steps taken to implement a warrant.
Keir Starmer
I have said all that I need to say on the amendment. Members of the Committee will appreciate that the amendment has been tabled for each of the offence provisions for the reasons I set out the first time we encountered it. That was dealt with by the Solicitor General, so I shall say no more about it at this stage.
Gavin Newlands
I will not detain the Committee long. I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says and broadly agree with it. I rise merely to point out the differences between the two amendments before us. The SNP’s amendment would insert an additional subsection that adds the additional defence and leaves subsection (3) in, whereas the Labour amendment removes that.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We are familiar with the arguments and our response is that the information gateway, which allows people to take concerns directly to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, caters for the public interest. For that reason I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 117 and 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Bulk interception warrants
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to consider new clause 16—Review of Bulk Powers—
“Saving this section, Part 6 shall not come into force until—
(a) the Secretary of State has established an independent review of the operational case for bulk powers contained in sections 119 to 173; and
(b) the review has been published and a copy laid before each House of Parliament.”
Keir Starmer
New clause 16 is in my name and those of my colleagues. We come now to part 6 of the Bill; we are examining bulk warrants for the first time, and it is important that we take some time. Different types of bulk warrant are provided for in the Bill, and chapter 1 of part 6 deals with bulk interception warrants. We need to take time with these, because they are intentionally breathtakingly wide.
I remind members of the Committee that, as is set out in the code of practice, in contrast to targeted interception warrants issued under part 2, a bulk interception warrant instrument
“need not name or describe the interception subject or a set of premises in relation to which the interception is to take place”.
Chapter 1 also does not impose a limit on the number of communications that may be intercepted. For example, if the requirements of the chapter are met
“then the interception of all communications transmitted on a particular route or cable, or carried by a particular CSP, could, in principle, be lawfully authorised.”
That is directly from paragraph 6.2 of the code of practice. It gives a sense of how wide these bulk powers in the Bill are. When one has powers of such breathtaking width, there is a requirement for a high level of justification for their use, and I will come back after making some further preliminary points.
First, despite suggestions over the years that no enormous database would come into existence through the use of what, in truth, were bulk intercept warrants, it is now pretty clear that there is an enormous database, which is growing daily. Secondly, although it is right to say that bulk interception warrants are only authorised for overseas-related communications, the comfort we get from that is much more limited than might first appear. That is because, as the Joint Committee observed,
“given the global nature of the internet, the limitation of the bulk powers to “overseas-related” communications may make little difference in practice to the data that could be gathered under these powers.”
The ISC has confirmed that the Government considers that an “external communication” occurs
“every time a UK based person accesses a website located overseas, posts on a social media site overseas such as Facebook, uses overseas cloud storage or uses an overseas email provider such as Hotmail or Gmail—”
or searches on Google. Any communication that involves those external communications comes within the provisions of a bulk interception warrant. I accept that it cannot be targeted at somebody in this jurisdiction, but as I have said, the comfort that that gives is much more limited than might at first appear when one reads the legislation.
Thirdly, the sheer breadth of these warrants, if they are not carefully constrained, is capable of frustrating any meaningful review of necessity and proportionality. Those tests need to bite on something meaningful when one has a warrant as wide as these bulk warrants are potentially and in practice.
It is right to acknowledge that David Anderson, the ISC and the Royal United Services Institute panel all recommended that bulk powers should be set out in legislation, and they now are. They are avowed. The Bill sets them out and puts a framework of safeguards around them. That is welcome; it is as it should be and in accordance with those recommendations. If the Bill passes, it will increase accountability in relation to the exercise of these warrants, which until now have been exercised under implied powers without the safeguards in the Bill. But—and it is a big “but”—this is the first time that Parliament has had the chance to scrutinise those bulk powers. The argument that they already exist and are already in use is no answer to the need for close scrutiny, because until now the House has not had the chance to scrutinise them.
The first step in scrutiny is to consider the operational case, which sets out the overall need for bulk powers. An operational case was published by the Government alongside the Bill, which is welcome, but it is inadequate. It is a 47-page document and much of it is purely introductory. On average, only five pages are allocated to addressing the capabilities for each bulk power. There are four pages for bulk interception, seven pages for bulk equipment interference, six pages for bulk communications data acquisition, and five pages for bulk personal datasets. Each power is supported by a handful of one-paragraph case studies. We understand that further material has been provided to the ISC, but no formal assessment of that material and no report of the ISC has been made available to the Committee, although of course we heard the comments of the Chair of the ISC on Second Reading. Incidentally, we will be writing to him to ask him to outline the general nature of that material and what formal assessment the ISC made.
The operational case that has been published is inadequate, for the reasons that I have set out, and lacking any independent evaluation, which was a recommendation of the Joint Committee. The Labour party has been pushing for that evaluation from the start of the scrutiny of the Bill; it is why we tabled new clause 16. We say to the Government that it is not too late to carry out the evaluation that has been called for for some time. New clause 16 is not intended to delete clause 119 or to suggest that there could be no justification for bulk intercept warrants, particularly since they have been used. The intention is to put down a marker in saying that part 6 will not come into force until the Secretary of State has established an independent review of the operational case for the powers in clauses119 to 173—that is all the bulk powers, which is why it is a new clause rather than an amendment to clause 119—and the review has been published and before each House.
I want to pick up on some of the specifics of the clause. In clause 119(4)(c) and (d) it is clear that a bulk intercept warrant authorises not just interception but examination within the interception. That is extremely important, because one of the arguments that I have sought to make consistently is that the wider the power to gather, harvest or hoover up communications or data, the greater the need for thresholds and careful safeguards when that material is accessed. Under subsection (4)(c) and (d) the bulk intercept warrant provides not only for the interception of communications but for selection for examination—in other words, it deals with part 2 at the same stage as part 1, so it is important to pay careful regard to the safeguards in place. I will make the argument about safeguards when I get to clause 121, which sets out the necessity of the proportionality test; at this stage I am merely flagging up that we are talking about both the wider power and the access power and reminding the Committee that although there are some protections for the communications of those in the British islands, the protection does not extend to secondary data.
The only other point that I wanted to make at this stage relates to the code of practice, paragraph 6.12:
“Where a bulk interception warrant results in the acquisition of large volumes of communications, the intercepting agency will usually apply a filtering process to discard automatically communications that are unlikely to be of intelligence value.”
We saw last week express provisions for filtering arrangements in other parts of the Bill. As far as I can ascertain, there are no express filtering provisions in relation to bulk intercept warrants. For the record, what does the Minister say the power is for that middle exercise of filtering between the acquisition of the information and accessing it?
To be clear about how I think it is intended that that should work, the code of practice suggests later that what will happen in general, accepting that a huge volume of communications is likely to be affected by a bulk warrant, is that automated systems will be in place. On the scope of what we are talking about, paragraph 6.57 of the code of practice makes it clear:
“More than one operational purpose may be specified on a single bulk warrant; this may, where the necessity and proportionality test is satisfied, include all operational purposes currently in use. In the case of bulk interception, overseas-related communications relevant to multiple operational purposes will necessarily be transmitted and intercepted together under the authority of a bulk interception warrant. In the majority of cases, it will therefore be necessary for bulk interception warrants to specify the full range of operational purposes.”
That makes it clear that under one warrant, there are likely to be numerous operational purposes and a huge amount of data gathered. The idea that there will be one warrant for each operational purpose would be a misunderstanding of how the powers have been and undoubtedly will be used if the Bill is passed. It appears, from paragraph 6.59, that what will then happen is that
“automated systems must, where technically possible, be used to effect the selection in accordance with section 134 of the Act.”
There will be an automated filtering process.
These are very wide powers requiring close scrutiny and high levels of justification. Until there is independent evaluation of an operational case, the clauses should not come into force.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Scottish National party has tabled leave-out amendments to the entirety of part 6. I sought the assistance of the Committee Clerks, to whom I wish to record my sincere and grateful thanks for their help over the last couple of weeks, on how to approach the amendments. It was suggested that I might press the question on stand part for the first clause of an objectionable part. For example, in chapter 1 of part 6, I could press the question on clause 119 and make my position abundantly clear, which might be a proxy for my objections to the whole part. Are you content for me to proceed in that way, Mr Owen?
Joanna Cherry
To deal with clause 119, I must outline why the Scottish National party wishes the entirety of part 6 to be removed from the Bill until such time as a convincing case has been made for the use of bulk powers and the legality of bulk powers has been determined. In our view, it is important not to pre-empt the terms of court judgments in cases currently considering bulk powers, as they will have a significant impact on the lawfulness of the approach set out in the Bill, which at present must, at the very least, be open to question.
The Government have produced an operational case in response to remarks made by a number of witnesses before the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, who were concerned about the lack of such a case, and to the Joint Committee’s recommendation 23. The Home Office published a 47-page operational case for bulk powers alongside the Bill. That document was produced within three weeks, and the first half of it is introductory, covering topics such as how the internet works and what the dark net is. Only the second half of the document, characterised as an operational case, addresses the capabilities with which we are concerned.
Going goes through the operational case, we can see that each power—bulk interception, bulk equipment interference, bulk communications data acquisition and bulk personal datasets—has an average of about five pages devoted to it. Bulk interception has only about four. Most of the material dealt with is already public in other explanatory documents. It seems that, despite the opportunity to provide concrete, solid examples of how bulk powers bring unique value, most of the material in each section is kept at a high and general level.
For example, the first three pages of the four-page case justifying bulk interception cover an introduction to the power, the current legal position and new safeguards in the Bill. The fourth and final page provides three one-paragraph case studies, which members of the Committee will all have had the opportunity to read. One in particular deals with counter-terrorism, giving an example of where the security and intelligence agencies’ analysis of bulk data uncovered a previously unknown individual in 2014 who was in contact with a Daesh-affiliated extremist in Syria suspected of involvement in attack planning against the west.
The case study says:
“As this individual was based overseas, it is very unlikely that any other intelligence capabilities would have discovered him. Despite his attempts to conceal his activities, the agencies were able to use bulk data to identify that he had recently travelled to a European country. Meanwhile, separate intelligence”—
that is, separated from the bulk-generated intelligence—
“suggested he was progressing with attack planning. The information was then passed by the agencies to the relevant national authorities. They disrupted the terrorists’ plans and several improvised explosive devices were seized.”
Undoubtedly, every hon. Member on the Committee and in the House would wish such activities to be intercepted and prevented by the security services. I applaud the security services for the work that they do, but what concerns me is that analysing this case study in any meaningful way is challenging, because there is inadequate information to begin to test the accuracy of the case study or to challenge its conclusions. Nevertheless, I have had some initial analysis of it carried out, which suggests that perhaps the ends could just as easily have been achieved by the use of targeted interception. I will give a couple of examples to show why.
The case study refers to a previously unknown individual who was in contact with a Daesh-affiliated individual, who presumably was known. It is possible, therefore, that targeted interception may have uncovered this previously unknown individual. Although the Daesh-affiliated individual was already being monitored, there is no clear explanation in the case study of why bulk interception was necessary. It seems likely that intercepting the Daesh-affiliated individual’s contacts in a targeted manner might have identified the previously unknown individual.
That is just one of a number of issues raised about this case study by the analysis that I have had carried out. I will not take up the Committee’s time with them all, but that is one example.
The value that this case study has is that in this case a previously unknown individual was identified. Questions as to why targeted interception would not have worked are not addressed, nor are questions as to why other targeted capabilities were not used. The case study suggests that the initial identification is the only aspect in which bulk interception played a role, with the rest of the case study a result of other capabilities and separate intelligence. No information is provided about the scale of collateral intrusion undertaken when intercepting in bulk and there is no assessment of the proportionality of bulk interception. Also, given that the attack was not in the UK, there is no explanation of the necessity of UK agencies playing a role, although that is perhaps a slightly lesser consideration.
There is no information outside this case study as to the frequency of events of this kind or whether in similar cases different methods produced different results. As such, it is impossible to analyse it and make any kind of independent assessment of the necessity or proportionality of bulk power.
This is not nit-picking. These are very wide-ranging powers. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who speaks for the Opposition, described them as breathtakingly wide powers. They have never before been debated or voted on in this Parliament, and it is crucial that we get them right. We are debating and voting on them, at a time and in a climate whereby there is quite a lot of independent evidence available from the United States of America that suggests that bulk powers are not as efficacious as is suggested in the operational case produced by the Government.
I will say a little about what happened in the States, because it is important to loop to that to understand what the Scottish National party says would be the appropriate way to approach the production of an operational case to justify bulk powers.
In the USA, the Snowden revelations revealed that the National Security Agency was running a bulk domestic telephone records programme. The US intelligence community put forward strong arguments for keeping that programme going, and to bolster its position it compiled a list of 54 counter-terrorism events in which it said that section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which underlined that bulk collection, contributed to a success story.
In America, two independent bodies undertook reviews related to those powers to determine whether the case studies put forward by the intelligence agencies were credible and accurate. They determined that only 12 of the 54 counter-terrorism events cited by the security services had any relevance to the exercise of bulk powers under section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. With access to classified material, one of the independent groups— the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which is a very high-powered body set up under the auspices of President Obama—concluded:
“Our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of section 215 telephony metadata was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional section 215 orders”.
The other body, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, concluded very similarly that the programme of bulk collection under section 215 had
“shown minimal value in safeguarding the nation from terrorism. Based on the information provided to the Board, including classified briefings and documentation, we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”
I quote those two bodies because they are independent.
I am aware that Mr William Binney, who previously worked for the National Security Agency, gave evidence to the Joint Committee. His evidence could be summarised as “bulk powers cost lives”. He is concerned about the “needle in a haystack” argument. I am aware from previous discussions that certain members of the Committee have concerns about the evidence of Mr Binney. Even if we set his evidence to one side, we cannot set to one side the evidence of those two very high-level, independent American committees that looked at bulk collection in the USA. Their conclusions seriously question the information they were given by the security services that the bulk powers were necessary to prevent terrorist outrages. They also made suggestions on existing targeted capabilities.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
We have the analysis by David Anderson of the efficiency and efficacy of bulk powers, and he talks from paragraph 7.22 onwards about the importance of bulk powers. For example, he states:
“GCHQ explained that its bulk access capabilities are the critical enabler for the cyber defence of the UK, providing the vast majority of all reporting on cyber threats and the basis for counter-activity.”
Joanna Cherry
I cannot gainsay that. I am well aware that David Anderson would not go as far as I am going in these submissions. He has reached the conclusion that some bulk powers are necessary, but the passage in his report that the hon. and learned Lady quotes basically starts with a phrase along the lines of “GCHQ has assured me”. My point in drawing Members’ attention to what happened in the USA is that, although the US security services compiled a list of 54 counter-terrorism events in which they said bulk powers had contributed to a success story, one of the two committees I have quoted reached the view that it could not identify a single instance where bulk powers had contributed to a counter-terrorism success story. There is a debate to be had here.
Lucy Frazer
David Anderson goes on, in the same section of his report, to acknowledge that it is difficult for the public to take examples on trust. He recognises the limitations of what was shown to him, but states:
“The six outline examples at Annex 9 to this Report go a little way towards remedying that defect. They illustrate the utility of bulk data capabilities more generally”.
He recognises the limitations, but still acknowledges the efficacy of the powers.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. and learned Lady makes a good point. David Anderson acknowledges the efficacy of the powers and has been privy to certain information as he has a high security clearance. Not all of us can be privy to that information. I am suggesting that there should be an independent evidence base for the bulk powers. That would involve independent assessors with high security clearance undertaking forensic examination of the necessity and effectiveness of the bulk programmes.
We know, because the Home Secretary has told us—there was an interesting article about this in The Guardian today—that the bulk powers have been running for a long time. The headline of the article is, “UK spy agencies have collected bulk personal data since 1990s, files show”.
I will come back to that article in a moment, but we know that the bulk powers are operational. Given that they have been running for a while, a full list of cases where they have been required should be easy to provide. That should not be to this Committee, but to an independent review staffed by high-level individuals with the highest security clearance—the sort that David Anderson has. I have in mind such people as retired judges and retired professionals with an interest in the area.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I do not want to paint this too simplistically—the purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is to pull together a lot of existing things under one statute—but we all have fire insurance policies on our homes. We do not want to claim on those policies, but it is important to know that they are there in case we need them in an emergency. That is exactly what all these powers are there for. We need to ensure that the kit is there for our agents to use to keep us safe.
Joanna Cherry
These powers are not being used only in emergencies. That is the point. We are told that the powers are being used daily and that those data are being sucked up and collected daily, and the Bill seeks to put that on a legal footing. I am saying that there is not sufficient independently assessed evidence to justify the continuation of such powers and that we need a proper independent review.
I am suggesting that there should be independent, security cleared assessors to consider whether such powers pass the legal tests of necessity and proportionality. They would need to conclude that the powers were strictly necessary and that the same results could not be achieved using more proportionate and less intrusive means. The two American committees I mentioned concluded that the same information could be achieved using more proportionate and less intrusive means, so we in the United Kingdom should not legislate gung-ho for the continuation of such breathtakingly intrusive surveillance powers without being certain that they are necessary and proportionate. We do not have sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.
Lucy Frazer
What does the hon. and learned Lady think the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is for, other than to review these powers? He reviewed the powers in his report.
Joanna Cherry
I do not accept that the independent reviewer has carried out the exercise that I am suggesting. He fulfils a particular function, and we are talking about setting up a panel of individuals to consider the necessity and proportionality of these powers. They could consider in detail certain information that we, as hon. Members, would not be able to see. David Anderson is one individual who fulfils an important function and whose work has greatly assisted everyone on the Committee, and all hon. Members, in trying to understand what underlies the Bill.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The hon. and learned Lady is asking the Committee to attach less weight to David Anderson’s review, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire said, and inviting us to prefer the evidence of Mr Binney, a whistleblower whose evidence was clearly out of date, because the last time he was security cleared was 2001.
Joanna Cherry
Forgive me, but the hon. Lady was out of the room when I said that I am not asking the Committee to look at Mr Binney’s evidence. I am asking the Committee to look at the evidence of the US President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies and of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which led to the repeal of section 215 and its replacement with the USA Freedom Act. I am not asking the Committee to look at Mr Binney’s evidence; I am asking the Committee to consider and take into account the background of two high-level independent US reports—the USA is our closest ally—that found that similar bulk powers are not necessary or proportionate.
I will not be side tracked by a suggestion that I am criticising David Anderson, because I am not—I make that absolutely clear. His review, “A Question of Trust”, was published prior to the Joint Committee of these Houses saying that a sufficient case has not been produced for bulk powers. David Anderson’s report was taken into account by the Joint Committee. I know that some members of this Committee, including the hon. Member for Fareham, sat on the Joint Committee, and one of its conclusions, recommendation 23, was:
“We recommend that the Government should publish a fuller justification for each of the bulk powers alongside the Bill. We further recommend that the examples of the value of the bulk powers provided should be assessed by an independent body, such as the Intelligence and Security Committee or the Interception of Communications Commissioner.”
The Joint Committee said that in the full knowledge of David Anderson’s report, having read and considered it. My point is that such operational case as has been produced by the Government does not live up to the Joint Committee’s recommendation 23, and does not adequately provide an operational case for the powers.
Mr Hayes
I know that this will disappoint the Committee, but I shall try to reduce the length of my peroration by making two things clear by way of an intervention. First, David Anderson was clear in evidence to this Committee that further review was not necessary. Actually, I am not unpersuaded by the argument for some process, although the hon. and learned Lady is doing a good job of changing my mind. Secondly, the Joint Committee was extremely clear that we would benefit from the ISC’s conclusions, and the ISC said that the powers are necessary, so I do not understand on which journey the hon. Lady is travelling, or to which destination.
Joanna Cherry
David Anderson said the following in paragraph 1.12 of his report, “A Question of Trust”:
“Though I seek to place the debate in a legal context, it is not part of my role to offer a legal opinion (for example, as to whether the bulk collection of data as practised by GCHQ is proportionate). A number of such questions are currently before the courts, which have the benefit of structured and opposing legal submissions and (in the case of the IPT) the facility to examine highly secret evidence, and which are the only bodies that can authoritatively determine them.”
There we have the words of the man himself. Although David Anderson seeks to place the debate in a legal context, he does not see it as part of his role to offer a legal opinion on the proportionality of GCHQ’s bulk collection of data. At least two cases now before the courts will result in judgments on whether the powers are proportionate.
Lucy Frazer
If the hon. and learned Lady reads the next paragraph, she will see that David Anderson is simply making a broad statement about the fact that he is not giving legal advice generally. He is putting forward recommendations for Parliament to consider.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed; he is putting forward recommendations. I am advocating an independent review looking at the operational case for bulk powers. It would look at whether the powers are necessary and proportionate, and it would provide an opinion that could then be laid before both Houses, for us to see if the Government’s case has been made. I am concerned that the case is not sufficient at the moment. I say that against the background not of Mr Binney’s evidence, but of the findings of high-level USA investigatory bodies.
Mr Hayes
I hesitate to advise an advocate on the construction of her argument, but the hon. and learned Lady would do better not to cite David Anderson and pray him in aid, because he told this Committee on 24 March that he was
“not persuaded of the case for”
an additional independent review of bulk powers, as
“it would be very difficult to say that the ISC had not had an independent look at these issues.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2016; c. 6, Q2.]
The quote from David Anderson that she is using comes from the very beginning of his report, in which he sets out his general approach to his work. In an effort to make her an even more accomplished advocate than she already is, my advice would be to drop Anderson from her argument.
Joanna Cherry
With all due respect, hon. Members sitting behind the Minister brought up David Anderson; I made it clear that I accepted that David Anderson had reached a different view from mine on bulk powers, but I read from his report to make the point that at an early stage in it, he says that it is not his objective to give a legal opinion on the legality of the bulk collection of data.
Those of us who sat through David Anderson’s evidence in Committee on 24 March might also remember that he discussed the different views held about the legality of bulk powers. He said that, ultimately, that will be determined by the courts. The thrust of my argument is that given the serious concerns expressed by two independent United States committees, and the serious concerns about the legality of the powers, we should not be gung-ho about putting them in legislation until we have a proper operational case and have seen the outcome of the litigation. That is a thoroughly respectable approach to part 6, and one that is in accordance with the rule of law.
Simon Hoare
I am not persuaded by the argument that the United Kingdom Parliament should make United Kingdom law based on what some Americans whom we have never met or spoken to have said. The first duty of Her Majesty’s Government and of parliamentarians is surely to help keep our citizens and constituents safe. If we take that as our first point of principle and duty, and if the powers that are to be enshrined in the Act can fulfil that need, either now or in future, I fail to see why the proposals would cause such offence.
Joanna Cherry
I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not want the Americans to tell the British how to run their affairs. In very much the same way, I do not want the British establishment to tell Scotland how to run its affairs. We can have that argument another day—
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
We have already had that argument.
Joanna Cherry
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the argument is alive and kicking north of the border, but we digress.
I can reassure the hon. Member for North Dorset that I have no intention of following the United States of America’s security policy. We should devise our own policy in the United Kingdom, so long as it remains the United Kingdom. I am saying that we should set up an independent review body, made up of people from the United Kingdom—not the Americans or French; let us not panic about the French or the Americans telling us what to do. I am suggesting that our own people, if I may use that phrase, should be on the body. I mentioned the American experience to show that our key ally in such matters has, as a result of two very high-level congressional committees, reached the view that bulk powers are not justified. That is my point; it is not that we should do what the Americans tell us to do. I can assure the Committee that that is far from being the position of the Scottish National party. My point is that we should look to the experience in other countries to inform our decision making.
Simon Hoare
The hon. and learned Lady is being customarily generous with her time, and robust in her argument. I do not envy her her position one jot or tittle. If she were saying—without saying it—that she had a fear that spooks out there were doing nasty and horrible things, and that it was our job to try to constrain them, I could understand some of the line of her argument, but I do not think she is saying that. I am therefore not entirely sure, in practical politics, what would be added by the creation of the body she advocates. I am confident that we have security services and others who act within the rule of the law.
Joanna Cherry
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s confidence is somewhat misplaced, given the revelations today in a collection of more than 100 memorandums, forms and policy papers obtained in the course of a legal challenge on the lawfulness of surveillance. An article in The Guardian today says that the papers demonstrate that the collection of bulk data in the United Kingdom
“has been going on for longer than previously disclosed while public knowledge of the process was suppressed for more than 15 years.”
According to the article, The Guardian has surveyed the paperwork, which shows that the
“frequency of warnings to intelligence agency staff about the dangers of trespassing on private records is at odds with ministers’ repeated public reassurances that only terrorists and serious criminals are having their personal details compromised…For example, a newsletter circulated in September 2011 by the Secret Intelligence Agency (SIS), better known as MI6, cautioned against staff misuse.”
That internal newsletter said:
“We’ve seen a few instances recently of individuals crossing the line with their database use…looking up addresses in order to send birthday cards, checking passport details to organise personal travel, checking details of family members for personal convenience”.
The internal memo goes on to say:
“Another area of concern is the use of the database as a ‘convenient way’ to check the personal details of colleagues when filling out service forms on their behalf. Please remember that every search has the potential to invade the privacy of individuals, including individuals who are not the main subject of your search, so please make sure you always have a business need to conduct that search and that the search is proportionate to the level of intrusion involved.”
It adds that, where possible, it is better to use “less intrusive” means.
The papers also reveal that there has been disciplinary action. The article states:
“Between 2014 and 2016, two MI5 and three MI6 officers were disciplined for mishandling bulk personal data. Last year, it was reported that a member of GCHQ’s staff had been sacked for making unauthorised searches…The papers show that data handling errors remain a problem. Government lawyers have admitted in responses to Privacy International that between 1 June 2014 and 9 February this year, ‘47 instances of non-compliance either with the MI5 closed section 94 handling arrangements or internal guidance or the communications data code of practice were detected.’ Four errors involved ‘necessity and proportionality’ issues; 43 related to mistransposed digits and material that did not relate to the subject of investigation, or duplicated requests…Another MI5 file notes that datasets ‘contain personal data about individuals, the majority of whom are unlikely to be of intelligence or security interest’.”
Simon Hoare
I fear that the hon. and learned Lady may be slightly over-egging this particular pudding. I read the article this morning in The Guardian. She has cited, perfectly properly, the two operatives who were found to be in breach, disciplined and then dismissed. I politely suggest to her that probably quite a lot of the figures that she quoted refer to the fact that agent X could not remember Auntie Doris’s postcode and checked it because he wanted to send her a get well card. It is hardly “Enemy of the State”.
Joanna Cherry
It may not be, but it is an indication of how easy it is for people to abuse the rules, and an indication that the rules are abused. I am not seeking to impugn the security services. I am seeking to draw the attention of members of the Committee and the public to the fact that the rules are sometimes abused. If we are to afford the security services generous and intrusive powers, we have to be sure that they are proportionate and necessary. My point is that we do not have sufficient evidence that they are.
I am conscious that I have taken up quite a bit of time with that submission. I will not take it any further. I have alluded to the fact that there are outstanding legal challenges, and I will make one or two more comments on clause 119. I have already made the point that the clause seeks to put bulk interception programmes that are already in operation on a statutory footing. They were disclosed for the first time by Edward Snowden in June 2013, and their existence has now been avowed by the Government. They have never before been debated or voted on by this Parliament. That is why I am taking my time with this point.
The approach that has been held to date is maintained in the clause. The bulk interception proposed by the clause will result in billions of communications being intercepted each day, without any requirement of suspicion, or even a discernible link to a particular operation or threat. I have information from Liberty that the agencies currently handle 50 billion communications per day. To put that in context, there are only 7 billion people in the world, and only 3 billion of them have access to the internet.
The Intelligence and Security Committee reported at the end of 2014 that there were just 20 warrants in place under section 8(4) of RIPA authorising this vast volume of interception. It is clear from the wording of the clause that although it purports to collect overseas-related communications, it will, for the reasons the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras gave, collect the communications of persons who are resident in the United Kingdom. Internet-based communications have eradicated the distinction between external and internal communications. He told us that posts on social media sites overseas, such as Facebook, use overseas cloud storage, so the material there would be covered by clause 119.
Searches on Google are counted as an external communication. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I must do at least a dozen searches on Google per day. Those are external communications, even though I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. Be in no doubt: the handful of warrants that will be issued under this clause will be scooping up billions of communications by the United Kingdom’s citizens. Those communications will then sit somewhere and certain people in the security service will have unwarranted access to them. There are some people who do not respect the rules, as we know from the disclosures in The Guardian today, so there is that concern, as well as the concern about the security of the data. The vast majority of those communications that will be scooped up will be the communications of innocent people.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Does the hon. and learned Lady not accept that the primary object of the security services is to prevent crime—serious crime—and that is exactly what this measure is doing?
Joanna Cherry
Of course I do, but to give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished career in law enforcement behind him, I worked for many years as a senior prosecutor with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland, so I am fully aware of the public duty of the security services and law enforcement agencies to prevent serious crime. However, I am also aware of the duty of parliamentarians to protect their constituents and to ensure that surveillance powers are proportionate and necessary. My point is that the Committee and this House do not have sufficient evidence at present to justify these breathtakingly wide powers, and that is why the Scottish National party wishes that part 6—
Joanna Cherry
I am coming to a conclusion now, so I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
Byron Davies
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for taking a further intervention. This is about proactivity and preventing crime. I am afraid I am not persuaded, so far, by what she is saying.
Joanna Cherry
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is not persuaded, but I think others outside this room will be. It is important that somebody voices these very serious considerations while the Government attempt to railroad this legislation through the House. This is not right, and my party will not hesitate to hold the Government to account for it, not because we are troublemakers, but because we are a constructive Opposition. Having the responsibilities of a constructive Opposition, we have looked at what is happening in other countries and at their experience, and we do not consider that this degree of surveillance of our constituents’ and British citizens’ personal communications has been justified as proportionate and necessary.
We are not saying that the security services should not have any powers. We have a nuanced approach to the Bill. Members of the Scottish National party did not sit on their hands and do nothing on Second Reading; we made a constructive contribution to the debate. However, I will not be dissuaded from holding these very serious concerns. They are not just my concerns; they are widely held, and there is strong evidence from one of our closest allies that they are well founded.
Simon Hoare
Nor should the hon. and learned Lady be doing anything other than what she is. She is fulfilling her role in an exemplary fashion, and I mean that in a sincere and heartfelt way. The one thing I would challenge her on—or ask her to substantiate—is this. We have had Joint Committees and all the other organisations having a look; we had a very thorough debate on Second Reading; we had a full day’s debate on the Anderson report back in July last year; and now we have detailed, line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, and I think we will have two days on Report. I ask whether she used the word “railroad” in haste, and whether I could invite her to reflect on its use and perhaps recast her comment.
Joanna Cherry
I will not recast it. I gave very detailed reasons on Second Reading as to why I felt that the Bill was not being given sufficient time. I am aware that hon. Members may feel that I have held the floor for too long; I have spoken at some length, but this is hugely important. Many people across these islands are very concerned about this part of the Bill—ordinary citizens, corporate entities—and we are not giving it enough time. There is not enough time to discuss its detail. I have taken up about 40 minutes giving just an overview of why I oppose part 6. I could have a go at every clause, but I will not do that, because we would be here forever and we have limited time, so I will draw my comments to a conclusion. The Scottish National party’s position is that each and every clause of part 6 should come out of the Bill until such time as there has been a proper independent review and a proper operational case has been made for these powers.
Mr Hayes
The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who speaks for the official Opposition, spoke, not untypically, with welcome brevity and a palpable understanding of these issues, but the hon. and leaned Lady took us on a seemingly interminable journey to a place that is somewhere between intuitive hostility to these powers and confusion—a murky place that I do not want to spent too much time in. Some of the things she said warrant a response, because it seems to me that they were founded on a misunderstanding— I put that as generously as I can—of the use of the powers, their purpose and the safeguards that pertain in that regard.
Let me be clear: a Google search by a person in the UK is not overseas-related. Clause 119 deals with overseas-related communications. Warrants must be targeted at overseas communications. That will provide strong protections for people on these islands.
The ISC privacy and security report concluded that it is unlawful for GCHQ to conduct indiscriminate interception. It is also impractical for it to do so. The hon. and leaned Lady must understand, as most members of this Committee do, that it would be impossible, undesirable and unnecessary for GCHQ to deal with all but a fraction of internet communications. The peculiar view that somehow those missioned to keep us safe are interested in a whole range of communications that bear no relation whatever to their task is—again, I am trying to measure my words carefully—unusual. I say that because it is certainly not the view of the vast majority of people in this country, who want those so missioned to have the powers necessary to guard us against very real threats.
The hon. and leaned Lady spoke, quoting the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, of breathtaking powers. I shall come to that in a moment. She needs to understand that the threats we face are equally—actually, I would say far more—breathtaking. Unless we equip those in the security and intelligence services and the law enforcement agencies with what they need to do their job, we will pay a very dear price indeed. That is what bulk powers are about.
The collection of large volumes of information through bulk powers and the use of those data are essential. Of course they have to be filtered, and search criteria must be applied, so that fragments of intelligence can be gathered and pieced together during the course of an investigation. This is, in essence, about establishing patterns of behaviour and confirming networks. That is what GCHQ is about. Unless we collect those large volumes of information, we cannot move to the targeted regime that the hon. and leaned Lady seeks. Through a mix of misunderstanding and misjudgment, she is making an unhelpful case to those of us who want the safeguards to be as sure and certain as they need to be; I entirely take the point about “need”.
Joanna Cherry
It has been a while since I have been so extensively and excessively patronised. The right hon. Gentleman says I tested his abilities to the limit—to such a limit that he has not made any effort whatever to engage with any of my points about the American experience. Will he or perhaps the Solicitor General deign to do that on a later occasion?
Mr Hayes
I will say this. The Bill has been through an exhaustive process of consideration. The draft Bill was preceded by three reports on the basis of which—the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras drew attention to this—the Government have gone further than originally set out, in the terms I described with publication of more information, explanation of the operational case and amendments to the codes of practice. The Bill was considered by three Committees of this House and I have referred to the Joint Committee’s views on bulk powers.
This Committee is now considering the Bill following publication in its final form on Second Reading. In the Second Reading debate the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a senior Member of this House who chairs a very important Committee, said that he was convinced that these powers were necessary. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has argued for perhaps going further on the operational case.
Mr Hayes
I will just finish my sentence. I do not think anyone can say there has not been adequate debate about bulk powers. Before I give way to my hon. Friend and then the hon. Lady—I do not wish to put a further spoke in her wheel, or perhaps I do—I want to say that the US National Academy of Sciences could not identify any alternative that is appropriate to bulk powers.
Simon Hoare
I just want to put it on the record that I am sure my right hon. Friend shares my view that if the former Attorney General, our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who chairs the Committee to which the Minister referred, had not been convinced, he would have had no problem whatever in telling the Government and anyone who wanted to listen that he was not convinced. Our right hon. Friend is not a patsy in this matter or a yea-sayer. If he disagreed, he would have told us.
Mr Hayes
Let me quote our right hon. and learned Friend. He said:
“The present Committee and its predecessor are satisfied that the Government are justified in coming to Parliament to seek in broad terms the powers that the Bill contains. None of the categories of powers in the Bill—including the principle of having powers of bulk collection of data, which has given rise to controversy in recent years—is unnecessary or disproportionate to what we need to protect ourselves.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 836.]
He said that on the basis of the information provided to him, but in the knowledge that robust safeguards will govern the examination of data that have been collected in bulk and that it will be possible to select such data for examination only when it is necessary and proportionate for a specific operational purpose. What is happening in other places is, of course, of interest to us and of course we consider other jurisdictions, but my job is to listen to those who have examined the Bill with considerable diligence and in considerable detail, and to be guided by their conclusions.
In that spirit and with that purpose, I hope that we can move on to the next clause, having been persuaded, I hope, that what the Government are doing is perfectly reasonable.
Joanna Cherry
That Minister said a little while ago that Google searches were not external to the UK. I think that is what he said. I am looking at a report of what Charles Farr told the Government in June 2014, which is in a report that we can all access on the BBC website. He said:
“UK intelligence service GCHQ can legally snoop on British use of Google, Facebook and web-based email without specific warrants because the firms are based abroad, the government has said. Classed as ‘external communications’, such activity can be covered by a broad warrant and intercepted without extra clearance, spy boss Charles Farr said.”
Forgive me, but “spy boss” is BBC language. Charles Farr’s correct title was director general of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism. He told Privacy International that
“Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and web searches on Google—“
The Chair
Order. This is an intervention. We have noted the source. I call the Minister to respond.
Mr Hayes
I see now my mission; it has come to me in a flash. Part of my job is to clear the murk surrounding the hon. and learned Lady and guide her to the light. To that end, she needs to understand that there is a distinction between the position under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the definition of overseas-related warrants relating to bulk powers in the Bill. To quote what Charles Farr, with whom I worked at the Home Office, said about one does not really relate to the other. I hope we can move forward on our journey to the light.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 651, in clause 121, page 98, line 9, leave out subsection (2)(b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 652, in clause 121, page 98, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 653, in clause 121, page 98, line 26, at end insert—
‘(7) Where an application made by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State includes the activities set out in section 119(4)(c) or (d), a bulk interception warrant can only be issued if the Secretary of State considers that selection for examination or disclosure is necessary—
(a) for a purpose under subsection (8), and
(b) it is necessary to obtain the data—
(i) for a specific investigation or a specific operation, or
(ii) for the purposes of testing, maintaining or developing equipment, systems or other capabilities relating to the availability or obtaining of data.
(8) The paragraph 7(a) purposes are—
(a) the interests of national security,
(b) preventing or detecting serious crime or preventing serious disorder,
(c) the interests of public safety,
(d) protecting public health,
(e) preventing death or serious injury or any serious damage to one or more person’s physical or mental health,
(f) assisting investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice,
(g) where a person (“P”) has died or is unable to identify themselves because of a physical or mental condition—
(i) to assist in identifying P, or
(ii) to obtain information about P’s next of kin or other persons connected with P or about the reason for P’s death or condition, or
(h) exercising functions relating to—
(i) the regulation of financial services and markets, or
(ii) financial stability.’.
Amendment 674, in clause 138, page 110, line 1, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment 675, in clause 138, page 110, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 676, in clause 138, page 110, line 46, at end insert—
‘(11) Where an application made by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State includes the activities set out in section 138(7)(b) or (c), a bulk acquisition warrant can only be issued if the Secretary of State considers that selection for examination or disclosure is—
(a) necessary for a purpose within subsection (12), or
(b) that it is necessary to obtain the data—
(i) for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation, or
(ii) for the purposes of testing, maintaining or developing equipment, systems or other capabilities relating to the availability or obtaining of data.
(12) A paragraph 11(a) purpose is—
(a) the interests of national security,
(b) preventing or detecting serious crime or of preventing serious disorder,
(c) the interests of public safety,
(d) protecting public health,
(e) preventing death or serious injury or any serious damage to one or more person’s physical or mental health,
(f) assisting investigations into alleged miscarriages of justice,
(g) where a person (“P”) has died or is unable to identify themselves because of a physical or mental condition—
(i) to assist in identifying P, or
(ii) to obtain information about P’s next of kin or other persons connected with P or about the reason for P’s death or condition, or
(h) exercising functions relating to—
(i) the regulation of financial services and markets, or
(ii) financial stability.’.
Keir Starmer
We spent some time on clause 119, but it was right to take time on that important provision. We now move to the safeguards. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said a moment ago and to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. As we move forward, there needs to be some clarity on the basis.
In essence, our position is not to seek to reduce the capabilities of the security and intelligence services, which of course currently operate the powers in question under other authorisations. We seek to ensure that there is proper justification for bulk powers—hence new clause 16, which we will vote on at the end, which would delay the provisions from coming into force until an independent evaluation has taken place. I speak only for my party in saying that there is no intention to reduce the capabilities of the security and intelligence services. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any intention to do that on anybody else’s behalf, but I am simply making my position clear. I am not speaking for anybody else, because I should not.
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the SNP proposal to put the powers to one side while an operational case is produced would not reduce the security services’ powers for the time being, pending the outcome of the court cases? They are already operating them, as we have heard, under section 8(4) of RIPA.
Keir Starmer
The hon. and learned Lady should not read into my observations any criticism of the approach that she has taken, or any suggestion that she or her party are seeking to reduce the capabilities of the security and intelligence services. I know her background and the work that she has done, and I know that would not be her position. I do not intend to impute that it is. I am keen to speak only for myself and my party.
The Bill brings a legal framework and definition to the powers, and a set of safeguards to go with the exercise of those powers. I think that is important. If the powers are to be exercised, I would rather they were exercised within a proper legal framework, with more effective safeguards than under the current framework. I think that is the only real difference of approach between us.
What we all have to bear in mind is not whether we personally have been persuaded by the case that the powers are justified, because we all have different experiences and backgrounds—I worked with the security and intelligence services for five years on very serious terrorist cases—but whether members of the public can have confidence that they are. That is why we have been pressing for further consideration and independent assessment of the operational case.
Clause 121 deals with the first part of the safeguards on the exercise of the bulk powers—the test of necessity and proportionality. The clause is in familiar form. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State has to consider
“that the main purpose of the warrant is one or more of the following…the interception of overseas-related communications, and…the obtaining of secondary data”
and then that
“the warrant is necessary…in the interests of national security,”
or on
“grounds falling within subsection (2)”
Subsection (2) adds that the warrant can be
“for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
I will not test the Committee’s patience by going over the same ground about the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom being relevant to the interests of national security. The point that I have made consistently on that applies just as much to clause 121, but I will not repeat it.
It is important to appreciate that the necessity of proportionality test set out in subsections (1)(b) and (2) has very broad criteria. When the Secretary of State is considering a warrant, clause 121(1)(d) requires him or her to consider that
“each of the specified operational purposes…is a purpose for which the examination of intercepted content or secondary data obtained under the warrant is or may be necessary”.
On the face of it, that provides some comfort. That is the examination part of the exercise, and it is important because it recognises the distinction that I have made between collating or bringing together data and accessing it. It relates to accessing, because it involves
“a purpose for which…examination…under the warrant is or may be necessary”,
which brings us into the territory of what the test is for examining the data that has been collected. As I said, the Bill states that the Secretary of State will consider
“each of the specified operational purposes”.
However, in clause 125(4), we get into a circular argument. It states:
“In specifying any operational purposes, it is not sufficient simply to use the descriptions contained in section 121(1)(b) or (2)”,
the two provisions to which I have just referred. It is not enough to say, “It is necessary for the operational purposes of national security or preventing serious crime,” or, “It is in our economic interests.” That is not enough,
“but the purposes may still be general purposes.”
That is all there is on the subject in the Bill. At the vital stage when we move from hoovering up or collecting communications to accessing them, the test of necessity and proportionality bites on something that is not quite as general as national security, which would not be much of a test at all, but could be not much more than that—“general purposes”. That is a cause for concern, which has prompted our amendments to tighten it up.
In crafting the amendments, we have had one eye on the code. I refer to paragraph 6.19, which suggests that some detail should be put in the application, stating:
“Each application, a copy of which must be retained by the applicant, should contain the following information:
Background to the operation in question:
Description of the communications to be intercepted and/or from which secondary data will be obtained, details of any CSP(s) and an assessment of the feasibility of the operation…
Description of the conduct to be authorised, which must be restricted to the interception of overseas-related communications…
The operational purposes for which the content and secondary data may be selected”.
What is envisaged in the code includes:
“An explanation of why the interception is considered to be necessary…A consideration of why the conduct to be authorised by the warrant is proportionate…An assurance that intercepted content and secondary data will be selected for examination only so far as it is necessary”
under section 134. Paragraph 6.26 of the code adds further guidance on necessity and suggests, at the bottom of page 43:
“For example, if a bulk interception warrant is issued in the interests of national security and for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime, every specified operational purpose on that warrant must be necessary for one…of these two broader purposes.”
So the code operates on the basis that the detail will be provided in the application, even though it is not necessary under the Bill. I would therefore have thought it would be hard for the Minister and the Government to resist the amendments, which would simply lift the requirement to include the detail in the application from the code and put it into the Bill, so that we and the public could be assured that the test would be stricter than the combined effect of clauses 121 and 125(4).
The Solicitor General
I have been considering the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about clause 125. Let me reassure him that the purpose of subsection (4) is to create, in the modern phrase, a greater granularity of approach when it comes to the basis of the application. That provision is in the Bill to prevent the authorities from just relying on generalities; the point is for them to go into greater specificity. I hope that gives the hon. and learned Gentleman some reassurance.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that indication, but I suppose it invites the comment that if that is the intention, it would surely be better to amend clause 125(4) to make it clear that the application must be specific, as set out in amendment 653, which would require the specific operation to be referred to. The amendment would take the spirit of the requirement in the code to set out the specific operational purposes and put it into the Bill so that everyone can see it.
Perhaps I am not making my point clearly enough. If in the end the necessity and proportionality requirements in the Bill for the bulk power and for access are no different, then no real distinction is being made between the two. I think a real distinction should be made in the Bill, to make it clear to everyone that at the point when material is to be accessed or examined, there is a higher threshold and a higher requirement to be specific. That would reflect what is in the code, and that is the spirit in which we tabled the amendments.
Mr Hayes
The spirit that the hon. and learned Gentleman describes is right. It is important that we specify the reasons for the use of these powers, as well as looking at specific operational cases in the way he set out in an earlier debate. The difference between us boils down to this: should that requirement be in the Bill or in the codes of practice? He has drawn attention to codes of practice, which are clear. He might also want to take a look at the operational case for bulk powers, paragraph 6.13 of which gives examples of operational purposes. They might include counter-terrorism operations to detect and disrupt threats to the UK, counter-terrorism operations to detect and disrupt threats overseas, cyber-defence operations, serious crime, security of agencies’ and allies’ operational capability, or security assurance to provide security awareness to the Government, members of the armed forces, Departments and so on. Therefore, there is more detail about what the purposes might be and why these powers are necessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there is more coverage of that in the draft codes of practice, so the discussion we are having is not about the spirit—I think he is right about that, as I said—but about where the details should be specified.
Keir Starmer
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. In the end, this comes back to a debate we have touched on a number of times in this Committee. I hope we have been clear and consistent in the view that safeguards should be set out in the Bill. The code of practice is the proper place for the detailed implementation and guidance on those safeguards. Therefore, for the same reason as in our previous debate, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Hayes
Before the hon. and learned Gentleman does so, I might be able to dissuade him. I am not against what he said as a principle. Of course, it has to be gauged on a part-by-part basis, but the principle he has just outlined seems pretty persuasive to me. I will talk about it with my colleagues and my officials. He makes an interesting distinction between safeguards and other technical matters of the kind Anderson describes, and I am not unpersuaded by that.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention, which was persuasive. Rather than pressing the amendment to a vote that I am not confident we would carry, I would rather continue dialogue that may lead to a changed approach, in whatever form, to how safeguards are dealt with in the Bill and the codes. I will say no more than that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 661, in clause 122, page 98, line 44, at end insert—
‘(4) Material obtained via a warrant under this Part may only be shared with overseas authorities in accordance with the terms of an information sharing treaty”.
I am sure it will be to the relief of many Committee members if I indicate that I anticipate that we will now move at greater speed, because each of the bulk powers sits within a framework of safeguards that is similar throughout the Bill. The amendment deals with warrants affecting overseas operators. We have rehearsed the arguments either way on more than one occasion, so I do not intend to repeat them.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 662, in clause 123, page 99, line 3, leave out
“review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters”
and insert “determine”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 663, in clause 123, page 99, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 531, in clause 123, page 99, line 19, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Amendment 677, in clause 139, page 111, line 3, leave out
“review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters”
and insert “determine”.
Amendment 678, in clause 139, page 111, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 532, in clause 139, page 111, line 16, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Amendment 533, in clause 157, page 123, line 16, at end insert
“but a Judicial Commissioner may not approve a warrant unless he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is both necessary and proportionate to do so”.
This amendment would clarify the judicial review process by ensuring that both the process and underlying facts of an interception of communications warrant are considered by a Judicial Commissioner.
Keir Starmer
The amendments are in a familiar form as they are the same as the amendments I have tabled for all the clauses that deal with the approval of warrants by judicial commissioners. The arguments are the same so I shall not rehearse them, save to say that we are moving to a different kind of warrant—a bulk warrant—and where the power is now avowed and the safeguards are being put in place, it is particularly important that the judicial commissioners’ scrutiny is tight. The amendments would provide that tight scrutiny.
Nevertheless, I am not going to persuade anybody who is yet unpersuaded by repeating the arguments. They are essentially the same and they have been consistent throughout the Bill. If there is to be any change on the judicial test, it needs to be consistent throughout the Bill, one way or another.
Mr Hayes
We have had this debate before. It is essentially about the authorisation process, the role of the judicial commissioner and the basis on which the judicial commissioner exercises judgment. Should we make further progress on reaching a synthesis on that matter, it will apply across the Bill, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. On that basis, I have nothing more to add.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 664, in clause 125, page 99, line 42, leave out
“but the purposes may still be general purposes”
and insert
“and any specification must be described in as much detail as is reasonably practicable”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 665, in clause 125, page 100, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Keir Starmer
Amendment 664 is very simple and straightforward. In the light of our exchange, I would simply like to put it on the table, as it were, to show the spirit in which it has been introduced. I will not press it to a vote, because this is a matter that we may be able to discuss further.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Gentleman remembers the intervention I made earlier to help short-circuit it. We think it conveys that granularity, but we are prepared to engage in ongoing dialogue on that issue. I am grateful to him.
Amendment 665 would require that bulk interception warrants “must” specify all operational purposes. In the Government’s drafting, the word is “may”. I am sympathetic to the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. The purpose of the clause is simply to clarify that a bulk interception warrant may include multiple operational purposes. That is necessary because overseas-related communications, which are relevant to multiple operational purposes, will necessarily be transmitted and intercepted together under the authority of a bulk interception warrant. In the majority of cases, it will therefore be necessary for bulk interception warrants to specify the full range of operational purposes in use at a particular time. I submit that the Bill is sufficiently clear on that point without the amendment. On that basis, I invite the hon. and leaned Gentleman to withdraw it.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 666, in clause 126, page 100, line 11, leave out “6” and insert “1”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 684, in clause 142, page 112, line 7, leave out “6” and insert “1”.
Keir Starmer
I will not take time with this amendment. We have been round the block with durational warrants on more than one occasion. It is the same issue of whether the warrants should run for six months or a shorter period. I have made my position clear, as, in fairness, have the Government. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 610, in clause 128, page 101, line 24, after “requires” insert “(to the extent that it did so previously)”.
This amendment makes a minor drafting clarification (to address the case where, before its modification by virtue of clause 128(2)(b), a bulk interception warrant authorised or required only one of the activities mentioned in that provision).
This is a technical amendment; it is self-explanatory. Obviously, if any colleague wants me to explain it, I will, but I think that for the sake of brevity I will leave it at that.
Amendment 610 agreed to.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 667, in clause 128, page 101, line 39, at end insert—
“(c) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the operational purposes specified in the warrant.”
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 668, in clause 128, page 102, line 5, at end insert—
‘(7A) A minor modification—
(a) may be made only if the Secretary of State or a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary on any of the grounds on which they consider the warrant to be necessary (see section 121(1)(b)).
(b) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the operational purposes specified in the warrant.
(7B) Except where the Secretary of State considers that there is an urgent need to make the modification, a minor modification has effect only if the decision to make the modification is approved by a Judicial Commissioner.”
Amendment 669, in clause 128, page 102, line 5, at end insert—
‘(7C) In a case where any modification is sought under this section to which section [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege] or section [NC11 Confidential and privileged material] applies, section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to a decision to modify a warrant as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to modify it)”.
Amendment 670, in clause 128, page 102, line 29, at end insert—
‘(14) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying of any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 123.”
Amendment 685, in clause 144, page 113, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) may only be made if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the purposes specified in the warrant.”
Amendment 686, in clause 144, page 114, line 1, at beginning insert—
‘(8A) A minor modification may only be made—
(a) if the Secretary of State or a senior official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary on any of the grounds on which they consider the warrant to be necessary (see section 121(1)(b)).
(b) if the Secretary of State considers that it is proportionate to the purposes specified in the warrant.
(8B) Except where the Secretary of State considers that there is an urgent need to make the modification, a minor modification has effect only if the decision to make the modification is approved by a Judicial Commissioner.
(8C) In a case where any modification is sought under this section to which section [NC2 Items subject to legal privilege] or section [NC11 Confidential and privileged material] applies, section 97 (approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners) applies to a decision to modify a warrant as it applies in relation to a decision to issue such a warrant (and accordingly any reference in that section to the person who decided to issue the warrant is to be read as a reference to the person who decided to modify it).”
Amendment 525, in clause 144, page 114, line 19, at end insert—
‘(13) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 139.”
This amendment adds the requirement to obtain approval from a Judicial Commissioner for any modification which constitutes the adding or varying (but not removing) any matter for each type of warrant.
Amendment 526, in clause 164, page 128, line 10, at end insert—
‘(14) Any modification which constitutes the adding or varying any matter must be approved by a Judicial Commissioner in accordance with section 157.”
This amendment adds the requirement to obtain approval from a Judicial Commissioner for any modification which constitutes the adding or varying (but not removing) any matter for each type of warrant.
Keir Starmer
These are familiar amendments to the familiar modification clause, which is similar to the other modification clauses. They are intended to serve the same purpose, which is to clarify, tighten, better define and regulate the modification process.
In light of the ongoing discussions about modifications in general, I take it that all the modification provisions come within the same further consideration that I know the Government are giving to modifications, and I will not say anything more about it. However, I cannot resist saying that subsection (6) perhaps gives an example of how one could achieve approval by judicial commissioners of all major modifications.
It is interesting that subsection (6) is markedly different to the provision in clause 30. In other words, some thought has been given by whoever drafted clause 128 to how one gets major modifications back through the judicial commissioner, but that was not a technique deployed in clause 30. I simply point that out because it perhaps gives further strength to my argument that that is the correct way of dealing with these modifications, not only in this clause but in all clauses, and to similar effect. However, as I have said, we have rehearsed these discussions and I will not add to them on modification.
The Solicitor General
I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s last point with interest. He is right about our general approach to this area. What I would say in response to his proper analysis is that I think there are some technical deficiencies in the wording of amendments 667 and 685. I am just concerned that there is a lack of clarity, but that is part of what is ongoing. On that basis, I hear what he says and I am grateful to him.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Government amendments 612, 617, 618, 622 and 623.
Mr Hayes
The amendments relate to major modifications to bulk interception, acquisition and equipment interference warrants, to add or vary operational purposes. In essence, they provide clarity, enabling an instrument making a major modification to a bulk warrant to be signed by a senior official where it is not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to sign it. For example, the Secretary of State might be out of the country, working elsewhere or otherwise unavailable. Such a modification, however, must be personally and expressly authorised by the Secretary of State before the senior official may sign the instrument. We are talking about a practicality, rather than a difference of emphasis or authority. The amendment replicates accepted and understood language used in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Hon. Members will understand that there may be occasions when the Secretary of State cannot actually sign the warrant and will delegate that to a senior official.
Keir Starmer
I do not stand in the way of the amendment, which I fully understand. To be clear, I think that the Minister said that the provision only applies when the Secretary of State has authorised the modification, but for whatever reason cannot actually sign it—being out of the country is an obvious example. Since the modification clauses may receive further attention, this may be dealt with anyway, but in the amendment I cannot see the provision that makes it clear that the Secretary of State will have authorised it, but that is probably my shortcoming rather than anything else. I understand the scheme and how it is supposed to work.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful. It is simply because I think we are in the territory where a senior official can make the modification, and therefore—
Keir Starmer
That answers the point and I will say no more about it.
Amendment 611 agreed to.
Amendment made: 612, in clause 128, page 102, line 17, leave out from beginning to “the” in line 22 and insert—
“( ) If it is not reasonably practicable for an instrument making a major modification to be signed by the Secretary of State, the instrument may be signed by a senior official designated by the Secretary of State for that purpose.
( ) In such a case, the instrument making the modification must contain a statement that—
(a) it is not reasonably practicable for the instrument to be signed by the Secretary of State, and
(b) ”.—(Mr John Hayes.)
This amendment enables an instrument making a major modification of a bulk interception warrant to be signed by a senior official in any case where it is not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to sign it.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 671, in clause 129, page 102, line 41, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 48 hours after”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 672, in clause 129, page 102, line 41, leave out
“ending with the fifth working day after the day on which”
and insert “of 24 hours after”.
Keir Starmer
Again, this is familiar territory. The clause deals with the approval of major modifications in urgent cases and we quarrel over the time that should be allowed for the steps to be taken. We advanced the same arguments earlier today and they have not changed— nor, I think, will the outcome. We advance the principle that five days is too long and it should be a shorter period. The Government do not accept that principle. We advance the same argument about this safeguard as we do throughout about the basket of safeguards.
The Solicitor General
As the hon. and learned Gentleman’s arguments are the same, my arguments, as he anticipates, are the same. Bearing in mind the sensitive nature of these matters, we do not want decisions to be rushed and, accordingly, we resist the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 520, in clause 131, page 104, line 9, at end insert—
“(3B) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment would exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 521, in clause 147, page 115, line 39, at end insert—
“(3B) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment would exclude the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
Amendment 524, in clause 167, page 129, line 39, at end insert—
“(3b) Subsection (3) shall not be applicable where the person outside the United Kingdom has its principal office in a country or territory where it is established, for the provision of services with which the United Kingdom has entered in to an international mutual assistance agreement or is subject to an EU mutual assistance instrument.”
This amendment excludes the extraterritorial provision in cases where any mutual assistance arrangement exists between the UK and the provider’s jurisdiction. This amendment would continue to enable government to seek voluntary assistance from CSPs in non-MLA countries.
Keir Starmer
These amendments deal with the implementation of warrants. The implementation scheme is similar to that for other warrants. The amendments, as with previous similar amendments, have been tabled to restrict the arrangements because of concerns raised by those who may be required to assist in the implementation of warrants. As the Committee will have observed, the amendments are of same type and species as those previously discussed in relation to implementation of warrants and, again, I will not repeat the arguments about them.
Mr Hayes
The Bill maintains the existing position in relation to extraterritorial jurisdiction and the obligations that apply to overseas companies. I have said before and I happily repeat that it is right that companies providing communications services to customers in the UK should comply with UK law. That remains our position. On that basis, I resist the amendments and invite their withdrawal.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 528, in clause 131, page 104, line 23, at end insert—
“(7) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 529, in clause 147, page 116, line 6, at end insert—
“(6) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.
Amendment 530, in clause 167, page 130, line 12, at end insert—
“(7) A warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued.”
This amendment would bring the implementation of warrants into line with section 16(8) of PACE 1984.
Keir Starmer
These amendments are of the same type and advanced for the same reason.
The Solicitor General
Again, we note that the amendments are similar to previous amendments. We still say that they are unnecessary. The clauses already provide safeguards so that any bulk warrant may be implemented only to the extent required for the purpose for which the warrant was issued. For example, in relation to bulk interception in clause 119(4) and (5), a warrant may only authorise conduct that is described in the warrant or conduct that
“it is necessary to undertake in order to do what is expressly authorised or required by the warrant”.
That clearly sets out the scope of the authorised conduct. Well intentioned though the amendments are, we submit that they are unnecessary.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Hayes
I beg to move amendment 613, in clause 134, page 106, line 31, leave out “any selection” and insert “the selection of any”
This amendment makes a minor drafting correction.
This is a minor drafting correction to the clause. It is self-explanatory.
Amendment 613 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 135, page 108, line 12, after “items”, insert “presumptively”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 505, in clause 135, page 108, line 14, at end insert “and
(c) where paragraph (b)(i) applies, 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 or require the selection for examination of those items.”
Amendment 509, in clause 135, page 108, line 22, leave out from “privilege” to end of line 25
Amendment 510, in clause 135, page 108, line 26, after “item”, insert “presumptively”.
Amendment 511, in clause 136, page 108, line 40, at end insert—
‘(3) Section 25 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to an application for a bulk interception warrant as it applies in relation to an application for a targeted interception warrant.”
Amendment 512, in clause 171, page 133, line 38, after “items”, insert “presumptively”
Amendment 513, in clause 171, page 133, line 40, at end insert “and
(c) where paragraph (b)(i) applies, 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 or require the selection for examination of those items.”
Amendment 517, in clause 171, page 134, line 2, leave out from “privilege” to end of line 5
Amendment 518, in clause 171, page 134, line 6, after “item”, insert “presumptively”
Amendment 519, in clause 172, page 134, line 17, at end insert—
‘(2) Section 100 (items subject to legal privilege) applies in relation to an application for a bulk equipment interference warrant as it applies in relation to an application for a targeted equipment interference.”
Keir Starmer
These provisions deal with legal privilege, which we have dealt with on a number of occasions. I will not repeat the points I have made, but one concern I had about the previous clauses that dealt with legal privilege, among others, was that they distinguished between a situation in which the purpose was to obtain the legally privileged material and a situation in which the relevant communication likely to be included was subject to legal privilege. In other words, there was a situation in which the legally privileged material was deliberately targeted and a situation in which there was no intention deliberately to target legally privileged material, but it was accepted that what was targeted was likely to include such material.
In clause 25, the first time we looked at the matter, the distinction was important because the higher test in the Bill—exceptional and compelling circumstances—applied only to the situation in which legally privileged material was purposely targeted, and that test did not apply where it was not being targeted, but it might none the less be picked up because the items targeted would be likely to include material subject to legal privilege. I was uncomfortable with that distinction and I made my submissions at the time.
Curiously—this is understandable; it is not a criticism of different drafting hands in different parts of the Bill—when we get to clause 135, we have a version of the legal privilege provision that sets out in subsection (1)(b)(i) and (ii) both the purpose being to intercept or to obtain legally privileged material and the situation in which the use of the relevant criteria is likely to identify such items, so it sweeps up the targeted and the incidental, and then subjects both to the higher test.
For all the reasons I have set out, I do not think even that is enough, but when the Solicitor General looks again at all the provisions on legal privilege, I ask him to note that there is not even consistency through the statute, perhaps because it was differently drafted at different times. I cannot work out why under clause 25 incidental legally privileged material is not subject to the special test, but under clause 135 it is. I want to put that on the table and invite the Solicitor General to bear it in mind if he gives further consideration to how legally privileged material will be dealt with consistently through the Bill.
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks. First, we have the exceptional and compelling circumstances test in subsection (3)(b), which is consistent. Also, I think there is a slight misunderstanding about what we are dealing with, because the amendments seem to be predicated on the basis that targeted interception and equipment interference and then their bulk equivalents can be directly equated, but they cannot.
We have safeguards in place that we would say are strong. We are having a debate about that; I entirely concede that point. We are having a debate about items subject to legal profession privileges in circumstances where content collected under a bulk interception or equipment interference warrant is being selected for examination. That is the key stage. Before that, we are dealing with the stage of acquisition, not examination.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure that the Solicitor General is right; if he is, I apologise. This is a safeguard for a bulk warrant that allows for both gathering and access. In other words, the whole point—I go back to the beginning of part 6 of the Bill—is for a scheme that provides for the obtaining of interceptions on a bulk basis and their examination. They are dealt with in part 6. The warrants that are referred to would include an examination warrant.
The Solicitor General
May I correct myself? The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I think I used the word “acquisition”. What I meant is that we are talking about when content collected under the terms of part 6, through an interception or equipment interference warrant, is being selected. The stage point about selection for examination is still important.
When content is being selected for examination for the purpose of identifying items subject to legal privilege, or selections such as under the distinction that we have discussed, clause 135, relating to the bulk interception provisions, is the relevant clause, together with clause 171, which deals with equipment interference provisions. That action requires approval from a senior official in the warrant granting department, only on the basis that they are satisfied that there are specific safeguards in place for the handling, retention, use and destruction of items that are subject to legal privilege. In addition, in circumstances when selection for examination is taking place for the purpose of identifying items subject to legal privilege, the senior official must be satisfied that the exceptional and compelling circumstances test that we have discussed is applicable. Furthermore, when an item that is subject to legal privilege is intercepted under a bulk interception warrant and is then retained following its examination, the investigatory powers commissioner must be informed of course.
My point about collection, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman gets it, is that meaningful safeguards must be applied at that key point, because one does not know what one is getting. That is the wording, and that is why there is that difference in clause 135.
Keir Starmer
I intervene only to say that I accept that it is a necessary evil of bulk powers that otherwise protected information will come within the bulk power at the point of retention, for want of a better word. Safeguards for MPs, for journalists and their sources, for constituents and for clients bite at the later examination or access point.
The Solicitor General
I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. A lot of the material that is collected will never be examined. The key point is the next stage.
Briefly, the other amendments relate to the arguments about legal professional privilege, and the question whether there are circumstances in which material would not be covered by the iniquity exemption but would be of interest. We have discussed that point before, and I draw my remarks to a close on the same terms that we have discussed previously.
Keir Starmer
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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
Clean Water and Sanitation (Africa)
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered clean water and sanitation in Africa.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Let us be honest: Thursday is often referred to in the Backbench Business Committee as the graveyard slot. We are approaching the end of the Adjournment debate in the House, which gives us an idea of how business is moving forward. We in Westminster Hall will be the ones who stay the longest today, because the House will have risen before this debate finishes.
Why have I brought this matter to this Chamber for consideration? Very simply, the reason why we are all here to speak is that we want to improve water aid and sanitation throughout Africa. Right hon. and hon. Members, and the Minister and the shadow Minister, are here to speak, to respond and to take on some of the comments that we make. It is a massive issue in my constituency, probably off the back of the churches and charitable givers. A number of churches in my area are keen to support the digging of wells, for example; we have a charity in Northern Ireland that does nothing else. I will mention some of the groups that we work with, because it is important to at least try to acknowledge all those who participate and help.
Poverty in Africa begins with a lack of clean water. Some 650 million people live without safe water, the equivalent of one in eight people on the planet. That gives an idea of the magnitude of the issue. Some 2.3 billion people, or one in three of the world’s population, do not have access to adequate sanitation. Around 500,000 children under five die every year from diarrhoeal diseases caused by dirty water and poor sanitation. That is more than one child every moment, or 900 children every single day. Clean water sources are often miles from villages, so many able-bodied members of a community are forced to spend hours each day simply finding and transporting water. We know that the impacts go beyond location to the safety of the young girls and ladies who must go to gather water. The trips sometimes take five or six hours and involve long distances, which can leave them vulnerable to attacks, never mind the burden of carrying the water.
The scouts in my constituency in Strangford have been involved in water, sanitation and hygiene projects, which I know others will probably want to mention as well. They have raised money and awareness, participating from afar in the issue of water in Africa. I will also mention the work of one church in my constituency—Movilla Abbey Church of Ireland church—and its Uganda team, although there are many churches there doing such work. The abbey’s primary school, in partnership with the abbey, raised £5,542.38. The children collected pencils, sharpeners, rubbers and rulers, and made loom bands for the pupils whom they would visit at Namansa primary school in Uganda’s Nakasongola district.
The combined amount raised by the project, which also involved the church, climaxed at £22,222.09, a magnificent contribution from the schoolchildren, the church and the local community. We had a wonderful opportunity to hear some of the schoolchildren whom the partnership had helped come to the school and to sing some of their songs. I cannot say I am proficient in the language of Uganda, but we have practised the Ugandan handshake. The Fields of Life project also managed to deliver much-needed equipment for the construction of a kitchen, textbooks, exercise books, hand washing basins and other simple things to help, such as soap. In this debate, we will find out the importance of soap. We wash our hands with soap every day, and probably take it for granted. In Africa, soap could do away with a lot of diseases.
The Sunday school children at the church delivered 232 Bibles. The children came to the school and sang Ugandan songs. One of the phrases that they used was “Webale nnyo”. William McCartney led and supported the team, and Fields of Life made the whole project possible. It was done with the school, the church and the community.
The typical container used for water collection in Africa, the jerry can, weighs more than 40 pounds when completely full. The social and economic effects of the lack of clean water are often the highest priorities when African communities speak of their own development. The World Health Organisation has shown us the issue in economic terms. Every $1 invested in water and sanitation yields an economic return of $3 to $34. More people have a mobile phone than have a toilet. Globally, one third of all schools lack access to safe water and adequate sanitation. In low and middle-income countries, one third of all health care facilities lack a safe water resource. Every 90 seconds, a child dies from a water-related disease.
In Africa and some parts of Asia, women and children can end up walking an average of 3.7 miles a day just to collect water, spending almost six hours finding water and bringing it back—and we waste water back home by letting the taps run. Of course, in Northern Ireland, water is never in short supply, as we have a regular abundance of rain, but in a majority of African countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, less than 50% of the population has access to improved sanitation. I know that the Minister will respond to questions when he replies to the debate. Although some progress has been made, it has mostly been frustratingly slow. Those figures are in stark contrast to the running water that is virtually universal throughout the United Kingdom, and putting them together makes us appreciate how lucky we are.
In the background information provided by officials from the Department for International Development, we can clearly chart some improved water access. The map of Africa on the first page shows a lot of improvement, which is wonderful. In most parts of Africa, access to water has improved, which we welcome. The second page, unfortunately, shows that access to improved sanitation has not matched access to water. We must look towards that as well. Water is an important and scarce commodity in Africa, but it must be matched by sanitation. In his response, will the Minister give us his thoughts on how best to address that important issue?
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate. Does he agree that there is nothing more important than access to clean water? It is a disgrace that, in 2016, the lack of it is the biggest killer of children in sub-Saharan Africa. They are 14 times more likely to die of things such as diarrhoea and pneumonia than children in developed parts of the world. It is time that something is done about it.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. I will touch on those issues now, as they are vital. When we consider water and sanitation, we must consider disease as well. I want to underline some of the issues addressed by the all-party parliamentary group on child health and vaccine preventable diseases, which was formerly chaired by Jim Dobbin, who passed away. Those of us in this House who knew him, even for a short time, were aware of his magnificent contribution. He outlined the issues from his personal experience of visits to Africa with vaccine programmes, where he witnessed at first hand deplorable hygiene and water facilities in hospitals. People can vaccinate and do all sorts of other things, but if they do not have water and sanitation, it is not going anywhere.
The scale of the problem is massive. In 2014, the lack of access to adequate water is estimated to have killed some 3,500 children under five years of age every day. The latest figures show that every year some 600,000 children lose their lives to diarrhoeal diseases, to which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) referred. Most of those deaths are of children less than two years of age in the poorest countries of the world.
Rotavirus is the most important cause of diarrhoeal mortality in children; it is associated with 28% of the deaths from diarrhoea. Despite the advances in treating water poverty, which have saved millions of children’s lives by protecting them against diarrhoeal disease, rotavirus remains the second leading killer of children worldwide.
We have to implement a combination of health, safe water, sanitation and hygiene solutions, and then we can do what the hon. Gentleman said—save more lives. That is part of the purpose of this debate. We can save the lives of children who are still at risk with simple interventions: improved safe water; sanitation; hygiene; exclusive breastfeeding; and vaccines that prevent rotavirus.
I will pose a couple of questions at this stage to the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), and to his officials who are here. The United Kingdom has a very proud history of providing expertise, resources and global leadership to improve children’s health worldwide. It continues to provide leadership and support to build upon the positive trends. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how we can build upon the success that we have had so far in order to try, with others, to close the clear gap that exists? Can the UK continue to invest in a package of life-saving tools and services, which includes the vaccines, the medicines, the water, the sanitation, the hygiene and the nutrition, too?
What priority and weighting are given to the water, sanitation and hygiene, or WASH, strategies in the upcoming bilateral aid review, which we all know about and which the Minister will hopefully speak about in his response to the debate? Where do the Government sit regarding ongoing support and commitment to the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pneumonia and Diarrhoea, which was introduced by the WHO and UNICEF? How do the Government intend to ensure that
“sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”,
as outlined in sustainable development goal 6, is achieved? What fall-back do they have if that goal is not achieved? Let us consider what happens if we do not get there. What action does the Department for International Development intend to take—I am conscious that this may cross departmental boundaries—in the Nutrition for Growth summit in Rio in August? Has DFID discussed that with stakeholder organisations? If it has, what has been the outcome? Is the Minister yet in a position to state the level of funding that will be provided through the Ross Fund for health interventions, and whether WASH will benefit from the fund? Those are the questions that I wish to pose at this early stage.
Although this issue goes back as far as we can remember, the United Kingdom’s commitment to dealing with it could be significantly better. Investment in water, sanitation and hygiene is extremely cost-effective. According to WaterAid, for every £1 spent we can get £4 in return. In fact, the World Bank has declared that hand-washing with soap is the single most cost-effective intervention. As I mentioned earlier, the Movilla church in Newtownards has sent bars of soap over to Africa, because that is one of the small ways in which we can make a difference.
The lack of sanitation services is estimated to cost the world more than US$250 million per annum. The United Kingdom currently spends some 2% of its bilateral aid budget on water and sanitation, compared with around 13% on education and 19% on health. However, we need to be careful that we are not jumping the gun on this one, as access to clean water and sanitation can often be a prerequisite for success in other development areas such as education and health, and we must acknowledge the overlap between these issues.
Yesterday I had the chance to speak to representatives of some organisations who were keen to add their comments, to help with this debate. When we consider health, water and sanitation, we also have to consider the environment. I will just mark up one thing. Management of habitats is important; it can lead to better water access or worse water access, and to better or worse sanitation. I heard a comment yesterday about Madagascar, where people’s access to water is threatened by habitat destruction over huge areas. The destruction of the African wetlands deprives people of access to drinking water, and threatens livelihoods that depend on water, such as fishing, and the core survival of some people, including some tribes. In Madagascar, deforestation and erosion threaten almost every wetland, and as a result many thousands of people are in trouble and many species could be lost for ever.
I will just mark something else up; it is completely off the line of this debate, but is none the less important. The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust is trying to help to save the Madagascar Pochard, or the “Mad Pochard” as it is called, which is the world’s rarest duck; I am not sure whether calling it “mad” is a compliment or not. In any case, there are only a few dozen left. The point that I am trying to make is that if something is not done about the water and wetland where that duck lives, it will not be able to provide drinking water for the local people or be used for sanitation, and it will not have any fish living in it either. Again, 6,000 people benefit from that clean water; many livelihoods go with it. That is just a reminder that conservation of nature goes hand in hand with looking after people who depend directly on the natural world.
As I have said, the United Kingdom currently spends some 2% of its bilateral aid budget on water and sanitation, compared with around 13% on education and a large percentage on health. For example, the delivery of quality healthcare in Africa has been seriously hampered by the lack of access to safely managed water. That is why I gave the example from Madagascar.
Sanitation and hygiene also affect practices in healthcare facilities. The WHO and UNICEF estimate that 42% of healthcare facilities in Africa do not have access to a safe water source within 500 metres. According to the WHO, 50% of malnutrition is associated with infections caused by a lack of access to water, sanitation and hygiene.
Globally, malnutrition accounts for some 45% of child deaths, of which a large proportion are within Africa. Children in sub-Saharan Africa are more than four times as likely to die before the age of five than children in developed regions. And after the first month of life, pneumonia and diarrhoea are the leading causes of the death of children under the age of five. Both pneumonia and diarrhoea are inextricably linked to a lack of water, sanitation and hygiene.
We have not had a debate on water aid or sanitation in this Session of Parliament. That is why we have asked for this debate today. First, we aim to raise awareness; secondly, the debate gives hon. Members a chance to participate and add their contributions; and, thirdly, we aim to highlight the issues that we feel are so very important.
Approximately 800,000 children aged between one month and five years died from pneumonia in 2013. Around 1,400 children die every day from preventable diarrhoea, and 58% of diarrhoeal deaths are caused by unsafe water, poor sanitation and poor hygiene. That is incontrovertible evidence that access to clean water and sanitation is essential if we are to see any meaningful development in other areas.
In conclusion, I will just give two examples of what I have talked about; nothing better illustrates the case I am trying to prove than case studies. The first involves child health. The name of the mother is Peggy Mpundu. She is 36 and part of the Mwasha village in Lubwe in Zambia. Peggy recently gave birth to twins, Kapya and Mpundu, in hospital. Two days later, they were discharged as healthy babies. However, one day after returning home, both babies started having problems breathing. Their parents, Peggy and her husband Sylvester, rushed them back into hospital, but tragically they both died that day. Peggy said:
“I was then told that water from shallow wells was harmful for babies.”
That was the same water that she had used for years. She continued:
“Having bathed my children using water from a shallow well just left me with a feeling of guilt and regret. I wish I knew that water could be so harmful”.
That is the true story of Peggy Mpundu.
The second case study is about opportunities for girls. The name of the girl involved is Erika Makalli, from Tanzania; I know that the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is here today, has particular knowledge of that country. Erika, who is 12, lives in Mbalawala village, in Tanzania. Like so many young girls, she was responsible for collecting water for her family, leaving her little time, if any, to go to school. The Tanzanian Government estimate that 58% of the country’s rural population do not have access to a safe water supply.
Discussing her old routine, Erika said that previously:
“I had to get up at 4 am and walk a long distance to find water. It took two hours and I could only collect a small amount of water to take home. That meant that Mum had to spend most of the day finding water so that we’d have enough to drink and cook with. I used to try and rush to get to school and wouldn’t be able to wash or have any breakfast beforehand. Most of the time I missed school altogether because I was sick or just exhausted. There were so many diseases in this village.”
I am very pleased that two officials from WaterAid are here in Westminster Hall today; they have helped me in preparing for this debate. WaterAid started working in the Mbalawala village two years ago and now there is a tapstand 15 minutes’ walk from Erika’s house and in her school. Erika now attends schools with her friends. Get the water right, get the health right, get the education, give them opportunities—those things follow on from each other. She is a prefect. Discussing the transformation in her life, she said:
“If I still had dirty water I wouldn’t be going to school anymore. I probably wouldn’t have had any real education at all. Also, most of my friends would probably also have died from the diseases we used to get. Life would be miserable. I feel I can at last look forward to a brighter future. Perhaps I will be a health and hygiene teacher when I leave school.”
WaterAid, this House, our Government and all the many other organisations—whoever they may be, and whether they are Churches, individuals or groups—have enabled that to happen.
Dr Lee Jong-wook, the former director general of the World Health Organisation, said:
“Water and Sanitation is one of the primary drivers of public health. I often refer to it as ‘Health 101’, which means that once we can secure access to clean water and to adequate sanitation facilities for all people, irrespective of the difference in their living conditions, a huge battle against all kinds of diseases will be won.”
I conclude with a question for the Minister. I am convinced that his response will be positive and helpful; I have no doubt about that. The contributions we all make show how united the House is on the issue. I will say it again: in this House, we are fortunate to have access to water for all purposes, whether that is washing, cleaning, sanitation or regular showers. Many of us have a shower every morning, but many people elsewhere would just love to have that water. We have it every day. We have to be the voice for the voiceless. We have to speak here on behalf of those who need help, wherever they may be in the world. Can the Minister give us some idea of the Government’s bilateral and multilateral aid reviews? Will he set out and prioritise water and sanitation in the reviews? We need to be ever mindful of the fact that if we start with water and sanitation, then health, education and opportunity follow.
Andrew Percy (in the Chair)
The Front Benchers will be called at the usual time. There is plenty of time for the debate, so there is no need for a time limit or anything like that.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I did not know that you had been made a Chairman. I am delighted to see someone from our intake—you are possibly the first—become a Chairman in the House.
Pauline Latham
Absolutely. Congratulations.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. It is a shame it happened to come on a Thursday afternoon when everyone is desperate to get home, but it is an important debate. I apologise if I repeat things that he said, but I am completely deaf in one ear and 50% deaf in the other since I had a really bad cold. I cannot clear it. Although I listened as much I could, I did not hear very much of what was said, so my apologies if I repeat anything.
Pauline Latham
Just this once, it was not the hon. Gentleman’s accent that confused me, but the fact I could not hear. That is my problem, and I apologise.
Clean water is one of the fundamental things that we expect to have. In this country, we have had it for donkey’s years. but we recently saw the problems in the north-west when water was contaminated for some time. One suddenly realised how much we take it for granted in this country that we can wash and use the washing machine and probably the dishwasher. We can have a shower or bath or clean our teeth with no worries at all. That incident showed the population of Britain that we use a huge amount of water without thinking about it.
For those in a developing country—we know that almost a third of the global population lack access to sanitation facilities and more than 660 million people lack access to clean water—it is a daily problem that they have to live with and deal with. We see so many young people dying under the age of five because they do not have access to clean water or sanitation. We and many other countries accept water as something that we can use at any time, and we should be looking to help the countries affected. Other countries have to look themselves at improving clean water facilities, but it is incredibly difficult. Where does a President or a Government start if people have no decent housing, no clean water, no or few sanitation facilities, no education and no good health facilities?
Without clean water, people cannot have access to education or decent healthcare. I have seen some hospitals where there is no running water—how can a hospital facility have no running water? How can things be kept clean? Even in the Crimean war, Florence Nightingale understood that the one thing needed in a hospital is cleanliness and sanitation. That was a very long time ago, but some countries in Africa do not have that facility, and that is totally shocking.
I am pleased to see that sustainable development goal 6 is the aim of achieving universal access to safe water and sanitation by 2030, but 2030 is not very far away—only 14 years. We have been involved in international development for many years, as have many other countries, non-governmental organisations, charities and individuals, along with diaspora communities that send money back. Why do some Governments appear to have little will to install decent water facilities? It is not difficult to do; it just needs a comprehensive plan.
As a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I have visited many countries in Africa where I have been shocked by the poor facilities that people have to live with. For instance, when we went on a visit to Burundi, we were embedded in a house right out in the sticks for 24 hours with no water and no sanitation. The only place to go to the toilet was where they had literally dug a hole specifically for me to go in. I found that rather embarrassing—not for me, but for them to have to do that. They did it, though, and the joke was that they made a wooden box for me to sit on so that I would not have to squat. They thought that as a westerner, I would not have been able to cope with that. It would not have bothered me, but they have to deal with that all the time, and I do not know that things are that much better now in Burundi. There are a lot of other problems there, but when there is conflict in an area, it makes things harder still, and not just for the people living there. How do Governments, if they are in conflict and there is a civil war, or whatever the situation is, deal with the country’s problems with water and sanitation?
I have spent a lot of my time in Uganda with a friend of mine who was a Member of Parliament there. Sadly, he lost at the last election; I do not think it was quite fair. He was very keen on helping his community have sanitation and water as well as decent health. He is a doctor, so he is very keen on health facilities, but he was struggling. I was able to go to Uganda at the beginning of this year, and I saw for myself the problems with malaria. There is no clean water. I went to a hospital that had no sheets on the bed. The parents and family members who had to go to that hospital with their children had nowhere to go to the loo. It was a state-run hospital, and I think that situation is pretty appalling. Some of the children who were in the hospitals I went to did not have malaria. They might have had dysentery or diarrhoea, which are relatively easy to cure if there is clean water and the right medication.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The hon. Lady made an interesting reference to the pit latrine that she encountered in Burundi, but does she agree that those are the least of the problem? Within memory, people in this country had to use toilets at the bottom of their garden or chamber pots. Part of the problem is that there are too many parts of the world where people are still accustomed to defecating in the open, in fields, with all the hygiene problems that that causes.
Pauline Latham
I was going to mention that problem. I well remember living in Lincolnshire as a child and having to go down the garden to the toilet. There was a large seat for the adults and a small seat for the children. I did not mind doing that, because I had not known anything different. Of course, at night we had a chamber pot, and when it was freezing cold it was frozen in the morning. That is not that many years ago; I know I am old, but I am not as old as the Queen, although I suspect she never went down the garden to the loo. Nevertheless, I remember doing that, and it was something that one lived with. I remember having a tin bath in front of the fire with everybody around me—there was no hot water upstairs. I was tiny, but I do remember it. It has not been that many years since we solved the problem, but we have solved it.
As the hon. Lady says, one problem is open defecation. I described the hole in the ground in Burundi, and it was a tiny hole just for me, not for anyone else. The problem with open defecation is that people have to go into the bushes to get some privacy, so they are at risk of rape and all sorts of violence. Of course, when the rains come, all the sewage is washed through the villages, which is one of the biggest problems in many places. When the Select Committee went to South Sudan, we saw that was happening. The people in the refugee camp who had been told to leave Sudan and go to South Sudan—although they and previous generations had never lived there, they were considered South Sudanese, so they had to go and had walked there—had no toilet facilities and no water. People can go to collect water, but toilet facilities are a basic human right and everybody should have them. It is a huge problem.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a number of interesting points. Interesting though this trip down memory lane is, for most of us these are memories, either distant or otherwise, because we recognise the need for proper sanitation facilities. Is it not right that the focus of the debate is on how we can work with others to ensure that everyone has access to those same facilities?
Pauline Latham
Yes, they should have access to those facilities.
The WHO and UNICEF joint monitoring programme has drawn up a ladder of WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—facilities, ranked according to their degree of safety. The facilities fall into the following categories, from the most to the least safe. The safest are “safely managed” facilities, which include
“drinking water sources that are located on premises, and are free of faecal and chemical contamination. Private sanitation facilities where excreta are safely disposed are also included.”
That was what I had, because the night soil men used to come once a week to clear it out. That was absolutely safe, but it was still pretty basic, and people would not want to be doing it now. “Basic” facilities include
“piped water sources, protected groundwater sources (such as standpipes, hand-pumps and protected dug wells) within a 30 minute round trip of a household. ‘Basic’ sanitation facilities include flush, or pour-based toilet systems connected to a piped sewer or septic tank and contained pit latrines. Hand washing facilities with both soap and water are counted as basic”—
but without them, how can there be any sort of hygiene?
“Unimproved” facilities include
“unprotected groundwater sources, water provided by tankers, or water sources that are greater than 30 minutes-walk from a household. Shared sanitation facilities, uncontained pit latrines and handwashing facilities with no soap are also included.”
“Open defecation”, which is the worst and the least safe, is where
“human faeces are disposed of directly into the open environment”,
as the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned earlier.
When there is a move towards proper, contained pit latrines—not open pit latrines—that are emptied regularly, it is important that girls and boys at schools have separate facilities, because many girls say they cannot go to school because they are in danger of being raped in the toilets. If they cannot go to the toilet in private, that is horrific. Not only that, but if they have to share the facilities, they cannot go when they are menstruating because they find it embarrassing and are likely to be made fun of, so they need better facilities than most schools, particularly those in rural areas, currently have. They need that protection so that they feel safe and have privacy and can go to the toilet during menstruation and at other times without feeling threatened. That is not the only reason why girls do not go to school, but it is quite a large one.
Diarrhoea kills many under-fives, so there should be better testing and better, quicker medication. Mothers often think it is malaria when it is not. There are rapid diagnostic tests, but we all know that in some places in some African countries, the rapid diagnostic tests and medication do not get to pharmacies or health facilities. Better access would help many children to live much longer.
The Department for International Development is providing funding to the SHINE—sanitation, hygiene and infant nutrition efficacy—trial. People will have poor nutrition if they do not have clean water for mixing bottles or whatever. Mothers without clean water will also have problems before they have children. Many children either die before birth—stillbirths or spontaneous abortions—or have low birth weights or stunting. Children who have been stunted never catch up, so access to clean water is needed. I am pleased that DFID is providing £7.2 million of funding to support the SHINE trial that is currently under way in Zimbabwe, because that is another problem that children without clean water face—they seem to have one thing piled on top of another.
As I said earlier, I have worked very closely with a friend who was a Member of Parliament and a medical doctor. In his former constituency is a place that I know only as a landing site. It is on the lake between Kampala and Jinja. The people there spend their whole lives on the lake, because they are fishermen, fisherwomen and indeed fisherchildren—many of the children have to go out fishing and are exploited by their employers. They have water, but because it is not clean there is a lot of disease and stunting. They have very poor livelihoods. They drown in the water because they cannot swim—they are not allowed to, because the water is too heavily contaminated. They need their own borehole, because they have to walk miles to get to one, so of course they do not bother. More places should have at least a simple borehole so that people can access clean water.
I know about the importance of boreholes from my experience with a charity called Free The Children, which the Minister will know. I went out to Kenya with Free The Children staff to see what they were doing there. They are building health facilities and schools in communities, and they put a borehole next to schools so that the children—particularly the girls—can go to school and take water home in the evening. That saves an awful lot of worry for the parents, because they know that the water is clean and that their children are in school, so they are safe and getting an education. There are health facilities nearby to which the mothers can go for pre-natal classes and monitoring, so they are helped too.
There was something that I did not appreciate until I did it for myself. We walked a kilometre with the yellow cans that people put on their heads, although we had them on a rope band around our heads. I could not lift the large, 20-litre ones; I could not even get them off the ground. I managed to get a 10-litre one off the ground, but I could not physically manage to get it all the way back, so somebody had to help me. That was a lesson for me. I have been to countries where women and children walk miles to collect their water, but I had never thought of the weight. Not only is it not good for people to have it on their head, because it affects their neck muscles—although they are obviously more used to it—but the sheer weight of the can means that getting it home is problematic. Sometimes people have to do that 10 times a day to get clean water for their family. A big lesson for me was not just the distances that people have to walk but the weight that they have to carry. We have to encourage children to go to school; that has to be done better. If they have to have a water facility that requires them to carry the water like that, it is incredibly important that it is close to a school and/or a health facility. I am very pleased that DFID is doing a lot of work in that area.
We have to concentrate on water facilities and work with the charities that do such a good job of providing them, but we have to monitor them to ensure that they are being used and that people have access to spare parts. In some parts of the world, a facility can be put in, but unless the spare parts are easily available and simple to install, it will go into disuse. I have seen that happen in Africa. The International Development Committee went somewhere where there was a borehole and a pump, but the pump was broken so the people could not use it and had to go to the next one.
There are many things that can be done to help people in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the world to access water, but we need to act fast. If we are serious about giving everybody access to water by 2030, we have got only 14 years left, which is not very long at all. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate on this important subject. I am delighted that I have been able to take part in it.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Percy. I apologise to you and the Front Benchers for not being able to stay for the whole debate. I have a meeting in my constituency later, so I have to get the train. As Members know, my constituency is quite a way away, so it will take me a few hours to get there. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate.
The UN defines access to safe water and sanitation facilities as basic human rights. Promoting hygiene is widely regarded to be one of the most cost-effective ways of improving public health. Poor water and a lack of sanitation have a wide range of negative effects. For example, they are major causes of infectious diseases; they have knock-on effects on educational attainment, public health and economic productivity; and they exacerbate the impact of disease outbreaks, such as Ebola and the Zika virus. That is why this debate is so important, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House.
Given the amount of time we spend in Parliament discussing access to healthcare and education, it is interesting that we do not spend enough time discussing access to clean water and sanitation. Those issues underpin people’s life chances, so it is extraordinary that we do not look at them in more detail and more often. I hope that today we will be able to set out a clear way forward, which will enable us to return to this issue in later months.
Brendan O'Hara
On that point, will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating organisations such as WaterAid on their great work? They not only educate the wider public but come directly to parliamentarians to give us knowledge about what they do. WaterAid works in 37 countries around the world. I pay tribute to the work that it and other organisations do.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I was going to acknowledge WaterAid’s work later in my speech, not least because Northumbrian Water, which is based in my constituency, does a lot of work with it. Northumbrian Water has been very energetic in getting MPs in our region to take note of the sort of issues that WaterAid gets involved with.
Since 2000, there have been two rounds of UN-sponsored global international development goals. The first was the millennium development goals, which ran from 2000 to 2015 and aimed to halve the number of people without access to improved drinking water and sanitation. Interestingly, the water target was met but the sanitation target was not met by a considerable amount—about 700 million people. The headline figures mask large geographical variations among countries and between rural and urban populations.
The MDGs have been replaced by the sustainable development goals. SDG 6 relates to what we are talking about this afternoon. We need to take on board the lessons learned from the MDGs, which showed that a donor-led approach on its own is not enough. Work has to be done in partnership with the recipient countries. There can be too much of a focus on short-term targets, rather than long-term viability. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) touched on that point when she said that the facilities that are put in might not be appropriate or sustainable. It is really important that there is some sort of community partnership. There was a failure to exploit links with the private sector fully. The focus was on absolute numbers, so the poorest were often neglected because they were not picked out as a group for targeted intervention. I will talk more about SDG 6 in a moment, but it is interesting that it was informed by the lessons learned from the MDGs.
Globally, one in 10 people still has no access to a safe water source, and one in three has no access to proper sanitation. In parts of Africa, a third of the population does not have access to clean water. In Ethiopia alone, 42.2 million people have no access to safe water. There is still a significant problem, which is a big problem for the new SDG goal to meet in 14 years. Yet we know that it is really important. There cannot be societal transformation without proper access to clean water and sanitation. We know that from our own experience. It was only when the UK recognised, from its public health problems, that we needed properly piped water that we got the economic development that moved us on. There was a transformation in our public health, and that is what we want to see in other countries.
We are not only talking about health, because research has shown that, for every $1 spent on water and sanitation, $4 would be generated in increased economic opportunity. It has been estimated that, if everyone had universal access to water and sanitation, there would be $32 billion in economic benefits each year globally, from reductions in healthcare costs and from increased productivity as a result of reduced illness.
Interestingly, more than a quarter of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than they were in 1960. Therefore, foreign aid is going in, but if it is not directed in the right way, we do not necessarily get the development that we would want. The lack of access to clean water and basic sanitation is among the reasons given for the lack of economic development flowing from aid. Some of the biggest challenges are in sub-Saharan Africa: only about 30% of individuals have access to improved sanitation services; and nearly half of all people who use unimproved sources live in the region.
We have already heard this afternoon about some of the health impacts. According to the World Health Organisation, 50% of malnutrition is associated with infections caused by a lack of access to water, sanitation and hygiene. Globally, malnutrition accounts for 45% of child deaths, of which a large proportion is in Africa. A truly stark figure, also mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford, involves children in sub-Saharan Africa, who are over 14 times more likely to die before the age of five than children in developed regions. The figures speak for themselves and are clear: there is an urgent need to improve access to clean water and good sanitation.
Another thing we have heard this afternoon is that limited access to clean water and good sanitation disproportionately affects women and girls, who are more than twice as likely as men to be responsible for water collection. On average, women and girls in developing countries walk 6 km each day to collect water—time that could be spent in school or at work. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, each day, women spend a combined total of at least 16 million hours collecting drinking water. That is a truly staggering figure.
Additionally, more than half of girls who drop out of primary school in sub-Saharan Africa do so because of a lack of separate toilets and easy access to safe water. However, the issue is to provide not any sanitation, but the right sort of sanitation. I have visited villages in Asia and Africa where money has come through for new sanitation in schools. Toilet blocks were put in, but the schools might as well not have bothered, because the toilets were communal ones, could be too easily accessed by a wide range of people, or had doors that did not close properly—people could look over the top. There was a complete lack of consideration about what actually needed to happen to make the toilets a secure, safe place, in particular for girls, enabling them to stay on at school. So, alas, despite new sanitation facilities, the girls could not continue at school anyway, because they still did not feel safe. So many girls leave education at puberty. Obviously, therefore, co-operation with the local community is necessary, and water sources should be as close as possible to the people who need them.
I will now outline some of the things for which WaterAid is calling, before finishing with a few questions for the Minister. As we know, world leaders committed to reach everyone, everywhere with safe water and sanitation by 2030. That is a wide-ranging goal, with eight objectives, and if they are met that should be a good and helpful step forward. WaterAid, however, has said that Governments must bring about a dramatic and long-term increase in public and private financing for water, sanitation and hygiene to achieve strong, national systems so that there is universal access. Private and public sectors need to co-operate effectively to achieve that universal access. An integrated approach could ensure that improving access to water, sanitation and hygiene services is embedded in plans, policies and programmes on health, nutrition, education, gender equality and employment. Last but not least, pledges made at the 2015 Paris climate summit must be implemented, because they are about the long-term sustainability of water supplies.
Are the Government using their strong voice internationally to push up the international agenda the importance of clean water and sanitation? SDG 6 should become a real priority, so how will progress towards achieving it be monitored internationally? Will the Government use the expertise of the Department for International Development, which works on some very good schemes, to inform best practice everywhere and to ensure that women and girls are prioritised for sanitation and water supply?
Jim Shannon
There is much talk in the press maligning DFID projects, or saying that some are not used properly. Sometimes it is good, as the hon. Lady has just done, to focus on some of the excellent work that DFID does and on the projects that are successful. It is good to remind us of such things, because everything is not negative.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I echo that point. I urge the Minister to use that good experience to help to roll out best practice elsewhere.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for speaking so eloquently, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods).
I will give two examples from my own experience of why this issue is so important. In 1982, I visited for the first time a country that was then a developing country—Peru. I was in the high Andes and visiting a friend of mine, Philip Archer, who was a doctor with a mission there. For the first part of his service—three or four years—he had been a doctor at a health centre. Time after time, the patients who came through his door had diseases that were caused by poor water or lack of water. For his second period of service, he said, “There is no point in my treating the symptoms; I will treat the cause”, so he ended up becoming a public health educator and putting in water systems to help the people of the high Andes.
My second example is perhaps closer to home. My wife ran a public health education programme in northern Tanzania, Kilimanjaro region, for the Evangelical Lutheran Church Northern diocese. As part of the programme, she and her colleagues also saw the problems caused by poor water—not so much on the mountain, where there was plenty of water, although sanitation was sometimes an issue, but on the plains, in particular among the Masai, and elsewhere. She, too, said, “There’s not much point talking to people about health education when they don’t have water, or if they do, they have to walk several kilometres to it.” The problems that that brings have been eloquently described. Collecting water is usually—almost always— done by women or girls. They suffer attacks from wild animals. We heard of people being killed and very badly hurt by crocodiles when collecting water from rivers and, when walking through the bush, by other wild animals. People are also attacked by humans from time to time—they have to cope with all that as well as missing out on their education or livelihood.
With the help of the Rabobank Foundation of the Netherlands, the northern diocese of the Lutheran Church instituted a programme for drilling shallow wells in various villages. In my view that was done in a very sensible manner—I have to say that because my wife was in charge of the project and she is an extremely sensible person, as were her colleagues. They did it under the guidance of the local community, which, first of all, would come to them and say, “Let’s have a shallow well. We really want one.” They then had to show a sign of commitment, so the idea was that the well would be drilled with money from the Rabobank Foundation and other donations, but the villagers would collect the money for the pump. By doing that, they would assume responsibility for the pump and for its maintenance.
By and large, the programme worked well. I shall be going back to Tanzania later this year and I hope to see some of the wells that were drilled up to 20 years ago—or even longer—still in operation and maintained, with the villagers contributing a set amount each month for the pump’s maintenance. Perhaps they will have replaced the pump in that time with the money that they have accumulated.
To me, the programme spoke of a lot of things: first, of the determination of the people themselves. They wanted clean water and could see the impact on their wives and daughters; the women were the loudest in saying, “We want this.” Secondly, these were not massive programmes. This was not a huge project. It involved a few thousand dollars per village and the villagers themselves were able to collect several hundred dollars for the pump. We are therefore talking about small programmes, the impact of which, as we have seen in the International Development Committee, is sometimes overlooked. However, a great deal can be achieved by running a large number of small village and community-based programmes.
At the same time, sanitation was a clear issue. Public health education was the way to convey the importance of good sanitation, and it did not take a lot of money; this was a public health programme that covered several hundred thousand people yet probably cost only a few cents per person per year. People did not have to be given money; once they were told the importance of putting in more modern sanitation and modern toilets, they did so, because they saw how obvious it was. They heard about the consequences of poor sanitation and poor water and did something about it. I will come on to what I would like to ask the Minister at the end, but I am talking now about a relatively modestly funded programme achieving significant results. The educators, who were trained by my wife and her team, would go out into their community, month in, month out, and encourage people to improve the sanitation in their homes and villages.
My final point is about the link with disease, which has already been made very clear and is completely uncontroversial. If we look at the diarrheal diseases, in particular, and one or two others that are classified among the neglected tropical diseases—I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire also contributes hugely—we see that many of these diseases are directly linked to a lack of water or poor water and a lack of hygiene. I know that DFID has made neglected tropical diseases a key part of its programme from 2011 onwards. Indeed, under the previous Labour Government, a significant sum of £50 million was committed, which was raised to £240 million over five years under the coalition Government. It has been shown that there is a huge payback from work on neglected tropical diseases—something like £30 to £40 for every £1 invested.
Will the Minister commit, first, to look at the whole area of water and sanitation and see what more can be done? This is a very basic thing. I saw the impact at first hand 35 years ago, yet we are still talking about it. Let us do more.
Secondly, let us do it in a smart way. There are so many programmes around the world. Water Aid is a fantastic organisation that has contributed to many of them, but there are so many programmes that are not big and which perhaps go under the radar. Let us see how we can support them as a country. We may have to go through a larger organisation to do so, but let us ask how we can do more than we are doing at the moment. Let us not hear colleagues come to us and say, “Well, I’ve got a link in my constituency to a water project in Africa, but I cannot get DFID to support it because it is too small.” Excellent programmes such as Aid Match and Aid Direct have made a real impact in this area, but let us make water programmes a priority; they are ideal and they very much fit into that category of spending.
Thirdly, let us look at how we can support health education programmes, which, again, are often fairly low-key but incredibly effective. They can be run through government, faith groups, Churches and community organisations and are often low-cost, involving amounts of money that do not appear on DFID’s radar. There must be ways of ensuring that these programmes are supported, either though some kind of match funding or direct funding, or even possibly, as we have suggested in our Committee, by making funds available to local DFID offices for support, without people having to go through the centre, with the time and effort that that involves.
Finally, I emphasise again the importance of continuing to support neglected tropical diseases alongside the work on WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene. In fact, WASH projects and NTD projects should go together. Even though providing medicines to schoolchildren to get rid of worms is excellent, there is little point in doing that year after year when those children will get worms back immediately because the water is poor. Let us have the two kinds of projects going hand in hand. As the current programmes come to an end and the Department considers the future funding of neglected tropical diseases, I urge the Minister to consider the huge value for money that those programmes provide.
Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Percy, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Percy. Although I am responding for the Scottish National party from the Front Bench, I would like to put on record the apologies of the SNP’s international spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). He has important constituency work today, otherwise he would have been here; this is a cause he is very passionate about.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate, which has been really good. I have a feeling that because he covered the issue so comprehensively, a lot of my comments will be prefaced by, “As the hon. Member for Strangford said earlier”. The two cases he mentioned at the end of his speech were very powerful and illustrated the need for further action on water and sanitation in Africa.
The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) certainly added to the debate, giving examples from Burundi, Uganda and South Sudan. She talked about open defecation in the fields and witnessing the sewage traversing towards villages, and that underpins the need for more action. I must say, I have learned more today about Members’ childhood toilet activities than I thought I would.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) made some important points about the millennium development goals and learning lessons for the sustainable development goals. She made a powerful point about sub-Saharan countries being poorer now than in the 1960s.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) presented some excellent examples from his personal knowledge of and involvement in projects. Importantly, he touched on the fact that small programmes and smart working are the way forward. There does not have to be big money. We hear about expenditure on headline projects and the overseas aid budget, but the way forward is to work smart and invest in small, sustainable projects so that communities can take ownership of them.
I am a civil engineer, and prior to being elected to this place, I spent my career in the water industry. I have always known the importance of clean water and sanitation in this country, let alone in the developing world. I used to do presentations in schools, and to try to capture the children’s imagination I used the example that the water infrastructure in this country saves more lives than the NHS. That is backed up by the fact that the World Bank has declared that hand-washing with soap is the single most cost-effective health intervention.
Hon. Members have touched on the fact that because we have a successful water and sanitation infrastructure in this country, many people it for granted. Some people complain about the taste of water if there is a slight change and do not realise that it is still perfectly healthy and provides great health benefits. They complain if they lose their water supply for three hours and cannot put their kettle or have a bath or shower, without realising that some people without water and sanitation face personal challenges every day.
It was when I worked for Scottish Water and its predecessor that I became aware of WaterAid and WaterAid Scotland, and I pay tribute to them. What struck me when I first went to a WaterAid presentation was the sustainability aspect of the projects it invests in, which struck a chord with me. That touches on the point the hon. Member for Stafford made about smart investment in sustainable projects. I am also impressed by the wider education that WaterAid is involved in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) said, it is fantastic at engaging MPs and widening their education, but it goes further than that in its education programme.
I was pleased that earlier this year a school in my constituency, James Hamilton Academy, won WaterAid’s star supporters competition as a result of its innovative learning programme about water collection and sustainability. The project challenged pupils to think differently about water usage and to compare their usage with that of a child in the developing world. We can safely say that the pupils will no longer take their water supply for granted.
Another example of education was in October 2015 when a group of Scottish Water staff headed out to Zambia to visit WaterAid projects. They visited communities with and without access to safe water, which helped them to gain a real understanding of the challenges facing communities. Since their return, the Zambia team have delivered numerous presentations to their colleagues at Scottish Water. That became an ongoing education programme to spread the word.
Statistics highlight the importance of this debate. It is a basic fact that unclean water and the lack of basic sanitation prevents the eradication of poverty and disease globally, and particularly in Africa. It is well documented that water and sanitation are necessary for success in many other development areas, such as improving health, education and the prospects of women and girls.
In sub-Saharan Africa, only 68% of people have access to clean water and 30% to adequate sanitation. That means children in sub-Saharan Africa are more than 14 times more likely to die before the age of five than children in developed regions. In Uganda, 80% of the population does not have a safe place to go to the toilet. Every year, 500,000 children, most of whom live in Africa, die from diarrhoea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. That is more than one child every minute.
Pauline Latham
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not a proud record for a President who has been in power in Uganda for more than 30 years? What progress has been made over the past 30-odd years? The President plans to carry on for ever. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation in that country is desperate?
Alan Brown
I agree with the hon. Lady. She obviously has a good understanding of Uganda, and I thank her for her intervention.
More than 9,000 children die every year in Ethiopia alone from diarrhoea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. Approximately 800,000 children aged between one month and five years died from pneumonia in 2013, and about 1,400 children die every day from preventable diarrhoea. Some 58% of diarrhoeal deaths are caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation and hygiene.
The effects of a lack of water and sanitation go much further than just disease, as other hon. Members have said. It affects all aspects of life and has a profound impact on women and girls in Africa. As we have heard, they are typically responsible for collecting water for their family, and girls spend as many as six hours a day collecting water, leaving them little time to go to school. In many places, schools are not located within villages or close to where people work, so if girls must travel for hours to collect water, they face the problem of having to travel for hours to go to school as well, so attendance is difficult.
Without a safe and private place to go to the toilet, many girls are forced to drop out of school when they start to menstruate. Many women and girls also have to wait until night to relieve themselves in the open, which causes further health problems and strips them of dignity. Many are harassed or even assaulted. A former work colleague of mine who went to India on a fact-finding mission gave harrowing accounts of women being raped as they went out at night to open fields to use as a toilet. Clearly, the same can happen in Africa.
A lack of clean water also makes it extremely difficult to give birth safely, and mother and child often do not survive. I would like to illustrate that point with one case. Aisha Mkude, who is 38, lives in Lugono village in Tanzania. Last year, she gave birth to her first son, who was born healthy. Aisha says she left the hospital feeling joyful, but just two days later her son got a high fever and started discharging smelly water from his belly button, so she returned to the clinic with him. She says:
“There wasn’t enough water at the health centre when I gave birth, resulting in him catching an infection.”
That was because after the birth, she had washed herself and her baby in water that her brother’s wife had fetched for her from the nearby river. It was the dry season, so she had to dig out part of the river to get water. Unfortunately Aisha’s son lived for only seven days, but if there had been regular availability of safe water at the health centre, that situation would have been prevented. She says:
“I feel so bad because I never expected this but because it has happened I will just accept it.”
She should not have to accept it, and that is the thrust of today’s debate. That example highlights the importance of WaterAid’s Healthy Start campaign, which brings into sharp focus the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene in improving the health and nutrition of newborns and children.
That example also illustrates why global action and co-operation are required in a wider context. To that end, we welcome the UN members signing up to the sustainable development goals, particularly goal 6—access to water and sanitation for all by 2030. It is vital that the UK Government set an ambitious and realistic agenda to help ensure that that framework of goals is achieved.
Other hon. Members have touched on this point, but investment in water, sanitation and hygiene is an extremely cost-effective way to spend the UK’s aid budget. We have heard about the 1:4 ratio—for every £1 spent on improving access to water and sanitation, an estimated £4 is returned. We also need to consider that according to the World Bank, total global economic losses due to inadequate water supply and sanitation services have been estimated at $260 billion a year. That illustrates the fact that it is imperative that suitable money be committed. At present, only 2% of UK bilateral aid goes to water, sanitation and hygiene. I put my name to a letter issued in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) calling on the Government to increase that percentage. It would be good if the Minister could give his thoughts on that.
The hon. Member for Strangford touched on the fact that the House is generally united on this subject, but I will make one criticism of the Government. Their overseas development aid needs to be concentrated on programmes relating to water and sanitation projects throughout Africa and elsewhere, instead of on defence. I am concerned that there is increasing double-counting of defence expenditure towards both the NATO targets and official development assistance, through mechanisms such as the conflict, security and stability fund. We should not blur the lines between aid and defence spending. The Government need to realign their moral compass and redirect aid towards those who need it most. The £1 billion conflict, security and stability fund, which the UK Government lists as overseas development aid, is not an appropriate use of UK aid spend. Indeed, in February 2016, Oxfam, Global Citizen and ONE called on Governments across Europe to ensure that aid budgets are used only for poverty eradication and sustainable development.
On a more positive note, I welcome the Government’s commitment to reach a further 60 million people with access to clean water and sanitation by 2020. I look forward to seeing how that will be advanced when the bilateral aid review is published. I suggest, however, that the Government could be even more ambitious.
In Scotland, the SNP-led Government are also committed to boosting water and sanitation projects in Africa, through their climate justice fund. In December 2015, Nicola Sturgeon announced £12 million of funding to help mitigate the effects of climate change on the world’s most vulnerable populations. That was a doubling of the climate justice fund. The head of Oxfam Scotland, Jamie Livingstone, said that
“the Scottish Government’s enhanced commitment to climate justice is very welcome—it increases the funding promised and creates much needed predictability.”
The work enabled by that fund has focused on clean water provision and is aimed at mapping pollution sources, which are very often sanitation facilities. The Scottish Government are working to position water and sanitation assets to maximise access and minimise cross-contamination.
A lot of good work is ongoing, and there is the ambitious aim to supply water and sanitation to all by 2030. As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said, that is not far away, but I remind the House that even if we achieve that goal by 2030, there will still be millions of deaths before then, and that is why urgent action is needed.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for initiating this very important debate. I listened with interest to the contributions from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). They all brought their different perspectives and insights to bear on this subject.
[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]
I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I will begin by saying this. Last week, I was thousands of miles away from this Chamber in Somaliland, in the horn of Africa, where people are suffering an absolute lack of clean water—drought. If the Minister will forgive me, I will say a few words about the incidence of drought in eastern and southern Africa before I complete my remarks.
However, on the question of clean water and sanitation, I, like others, pay my respects to WaterAid, an international organisation whose mission is to transform the lives of the poorest and most marginalised people by improving access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene. As hon. Members have said, WaterAid works with partners in 37 countries, and within Africa it works in 11 countries. Its global advocacy priority focuses on the importance of water, sanitation and hygiene in improving the health and nutrition of newborns and children.
There can be a tendency in advanced western societies to take clean water for granted. In this country, we expect to turn on a tap and see clean water. We probably spend more time worrying about water, precipitation and rain than about its absence, but I remind the Chamber that, in north America, people are just coming through an awful crisis, in Flint, Michigan, caused by an absence of clean water. In 2014, the water supply for that very poor city in Michigan was changed to save money. As a consequence, for the past two years, the people of Flint have been exposed to polluted water; 6,000 to 12,000 children have been exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead; and, most recently, Government officials have had to resign and criminal charges have been filed. Even in relatively prosperous western countries, we should not take clean water for granted.
Before the Minister responds to the debate, I have the following points to put to him; they were reflected in earlier speeches by my colleagues. Hon. Members want the Government to set an ambitious agenda that will help to ensure that SDG 6 is achieved. It is crucial that water, sanitation and hygiene are integrated into Government plans to help to achieve other goals—for example, on poverty, hunger, education and gender equality. Water, sanitation and hygiene are enablers for and signifiers of different types of development, so the UK Government should prioritise water, sanitation and hygiene. That of course includes increased resources. The proportion of UK bilateral aid that goes to water, sanitation and hygiene is currently just 2%. We would like those resources to be increased and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say to that. We would like water, sanitation and hygiene to be integrated into relevant health and nutrition programmes, including those to be announced in the bilateral aid review, which is expected shortly.
The UK Government should use their global influence to encourage national Governments to ensure that water and sanitation is prioritised. It is a contradiction that in Ghana, for instance, residential developments being built now are the equal of any in Miami or elsewhere in north America, but it is the country with the second highest level of open defecation in the world. We want to ensure in these societies that as well as private affluence, we see an end to public squalor. That includes public defecation and an emphasis on clean water, sanitation and hygiene.
This August, global leaders will attend a crucial summit on nutrition to pledge resources to tackle all forms of malnutrition. At that summit, we would all like the Government to prioritise water, sanitation and hygiene within any financial commitments that are made. The Government should also make clear the links between water, sanitation and hygiene and nutrition in keynote speeches that they deliver.
We are faced with many development challenges in an increasingly globalised world, but drought in the horn of Africa and southern Africa is a real issue. I was pleased to visit British Somaliland last week with the Muslim Charities Forum to see at first hand the consequences of that absence of water and to understand how problematic an absolute lack of water is. The peoples of Somaliland are largely pastoral, and they take their flocks of goats, sheep and camels from region to region looking for water to graze. In effect, they follow the clouds. A succession of seasons of drought has put them in a serious position. The danger in British Somaliland is that drought may turn into famine.
We know that Ministers have some excellent programmes in Somalia, but immediate help is needed, both to provide water, food and shelter and to make regions such as Somalia resilient to the increasing incidence of drought, which means more boreholes, better irrigation and better methods of storing rainwater. We saw flash floods when we left British Somaliland, but the water runs off the earth and into the rivers. Clean water is an issue, but so is an absolute lack of water. If the Minister is unable to answer now, will he write on what is being done to help the people of Somalia to deal with the incidence of drought that they are enduring now and on what is being done to help them to be resilient? With climate change, such regions of the world, which once might have seen drought every seven years or every decade, are seeing drought year after year. They need help in both the short term and the medium term to become resilient to drought.
It is easy in a country such as the UK to take water for granted, but whether it is the complete absence of water in the shape of drought, the absence of clean water or the absence of sanitation, such issues are crucial for developing countries. In this Chamber, which is within a few hundred yards of the River Thames and Peter Bazalgette’s great sewer, we cannot forget that nothing in the 19th century pushed back the incidence of infectious disease more than the creation of genuinely clean water and access to sanitation. What we did in the UK in the 19th century we can do in Africa and the developing world in the 21st century. I await the Minister’s response with interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. You have missed a good debate, with some typically thoughtful Back-Bench contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and from the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), who unfortunately has had to go back to her constituency. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate, which is an opportunity to throw light on an important issue that is central to what we do to try to help people in Africa out of poverty. It is worth remembering that we invested almost £800 million of taxpayers’ money in that work in the last Parliament. People complain about the smallness of that as a percentage of overall spending, but it is a lot of money to most of our constituents. It is therefore important to take such opportunities to remind ourselves of why we are spending that money and to what effect, and to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough.
Like others, I congratulate WaterAid on its work, and through the hon. Gentleman I congratulate the charities and churches and the scouts in his constituency on their work, which is emblematic of some of the small-scale, hugely valuable work to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also alluded. I have been pleased by how many speakers have been informed and perceptive enough to see the links between this agenda, which cannot sit in a silo, and other agendas about which we care deeply, particularly the transmission of diseases. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend talk about the links that this subject has with neglected tropical diseases—we share a passion for that subject—and with our determination to support more girls into education. He also spoke about the links with our work on climate resilience and on the conservation of water resources. This agenda touches so many other things.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned drought and the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather. She deserves great credit for visiting and seeing that for herself. We are living through a period of enormous risk to people’s lives, and the impact of El Niño in that part of the world is not sufficiently understood or appreciated. I thank her for raising its profile, and I assure her that DFID is on the case in the sense that, since mid-2015, we have committed an additional £150 million of support to the area. I have been to Ethiopia, and I am in regular contact with Ethiopia to help it manage the risk, which is at a 1984 Band Aid-type level—it is as severe as that.
Tom Tugendhat
Forgive me for my late arrival. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for being kind enough to help me prepare for it. One point that I have not heard in the Minister’s summing up—perhaps it was raised earlier—is about nature of power. I served in Afghanistan and sought to develop civil culture in areas where water was controlled by an individual or a small group. WaterAid should truly be valued for equalising power in communities that have only one source of life. The work being done is not simply about health or the ability to grow a crop or two, but about changing the democratic mandate in any group, whether it be a small tribe or a whole country. The work being done by DFID, which I saw for myself in Helmand in Afghanistan, is about exactly that. It is about empowering communities to take control of their own lives, not just to be free of disease.
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend adds another texture—another layer of relevance that has not yet been mentioned in this debate—so he has added value.
Like the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, I will not go over the statistics again, because they have been given a good airing. However numb we have become in this House to the horror of much of what is happening around the world, it is still staggering that by the end of the day another 1,000 children under five will have died from a lack of clean water and basic sanitation, which is just not acceptable. Such deaths are utterly preventable. The drinking water of at least a quarter of the world’s population is contaminated with faeces, and more than 650 million people do not have access to a water supply close to their home. Those numbers are shaming, given what we take for granted. That ground was well covered in the debate.
I was also extremely encouraged to hear how many Members wanted to emphasise the particularly heavy burden that falls on women and girls, which matters a great deal to the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire spoke powerfully about the huge physical burden on them. I lifted a water container in Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I was staggered by how heavy it was. I asked the ladies how far they had walked with it, and their answer was extraordinary. I also asked them about the risks they take in queuing and walking. The situation they face is genuinely shocking and unacceptable.
The human dimension has come through powerfully in the debate, but the economic dimension has not come up. Some clever people have attributed an economic cost to the lack of good water and sanitation at about $1.8 billion a year in Nigeria alone. Whether that is right or wrong, the human and financial cost is massively significant. So this issue matters, and I genuinely congratulate hon. Members on throwing a spotlight on it today. The good news is that we can do something about it. We have done something, but not enough. I will return to that, but it is worth noting that human endeavour has moved the needle in important ways.
The world met the millennium development goal for drinking water in 2010, and although the sanitation target was missed—I will return to that—2 billion more people had a toilet in 2015 than in 1990. Some countries have shown outstanding leadership in that context. For example, Ethiopia has reduced open defecation by 64% over the MDG period.
I am genuinely proud of the role that the UK has played over many years. It predates me and this Government, so I claim no credit for it. Between 2011 and 2015, we helped more than 60 million people to get access to water and sanitation, exceeding the coalition Government target. That has made a real difference to poor people’s lives in countries such as Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Nigeria. Many Members have seen that for themselves in their visits and know how powerful and important it is.
In Ethiopia, we are working hard to support the Government to reach 31 million people with sustainable water and sanitation services. That includes ensuring that the services are resilient to future threats from climate change, because as many Members will know, the sustainability of such services is critical.
Pauline Latham
Does my hon. Friend agree that the money that DFID is putting into Sierra Leone post-Ebola will be incredibly important to it in moving forward? The fight against Ebola required a lot of water, and water is crucial for many countries to stop disease. Sierra Leone had many problems before Ebola, and obviously during the outbreak it had more. In Freetown, in the slum area, pigs, chickens and people can be seen sharing the same dribble of water along the main street. Until that situation is solved, Ebola could occur again.
Mr Hurd
This is freaky; my hon. Friend has obviously seen my speech, because my next point is on Sierra Leone.
In Sierra Leone our support has been crucial in a country that was so cruelly affected by Ebola. I look forward to seeing our support on the ground there in a forthcoming visit. Our support for solid waste management in Bo will create more than 300 new jobs. There are many dimensions to the support being provided that we need to understand and appreciate. We have been leading innovation in how to deliver water and sanitation programmes. Through the WASH programme we have reached nearly 5 million people, but we have paid the NGOs undertaking the projects only once we have independently confirmed that the services are in place. Of course, we are working in a context of extreme and quite understandable scrutiny of the value for money of what we do, so as we contract services we have to be more innovative in how we push to make sure that we pay for results and get value for money for the British taxpayer.
Ms Abbott
I quite agree with the Minister about value for money, but there is another aspect that we have to be certain of. It is not enough to have capital spending and to physically put in place toilets, boreholes and so on; we have to work with communities so that they actually use those facilities.
Mr Hurd
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, and I will say a little more about that.
The focus of the debate has been largely on the role of Governments, with some entirely correct acknowledgment of the role of civil society. We have perhaps not talked enough about the role of the private sector, which has an enormously important role to play in its responsibilities and opportunities to scale up and sustain solutions. I draw Members’ attention to an interesting initiative, the Toilet Board Coalition, which is looking at new ways in which companies are planning investments in water and sanitation. Through our support provided to Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor, DFID has played a leading role in developing private sector sanitation solutions, including the award-winning Clean Team, which is delivering high quality services in Ghana. That is an example of using a business model for installation and service, which provides an opportunity to scale and sustain work.
So there has been some genuine progress, but, as the tone of the debate has made clear, not enough. There is still a great deal more to do. There have been shortfalls, and it is important to understand why. Meeting the challenge of water supply requires a collective effort of Governments, donors, NGOs and the private sector. On sustainability, at any one time 40% of water supplies do not function because of poor operation and maintenance. On sanitation, there has been a gap, because we are fighting against the reality of political and community priorities, which shift if cholera strikes. Sanitation is the responsibility of the household and community, but households have competing priorities.
On the hon. Lady’s point about sustaining services and building community support, in a lot of the work that we do, our preference is to work through community-led total sanitation solutions, which is about promoting the construction of latrines and also the maintenance and rebuilding of them after the rains come. We have to take time to invest in and engage with the community so that they understand the priority that should be attached to this against other competing priorities. So this work is not easy.
I assure the House, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford, who secured the debate, that the UK remains—there is cross-party support for this; we have heard it today and I am grateful for it—hugely committed to this agenda and wants to stay ambitious. We have to because, as various Members have said, sustainable development goal 6 calls for universal access to water and sanitation by 2030, which is massively ambitious and time marches on, but we are determined to play a key role in achieving the goal.
The UK aid strategy confirmed that, on top of the millions of people we helped to gain access to water and sanitation during the previous Parliament, the Government are committed—it is printed on my table in my ministerial office—to helping a further 60 million people gain access to water and sanitation by 2020. That is the commitment we will be held accountable for and we will meet that through our bilateral aid review and through our centrally managed programmes. Our commitment is hugely ambitious, but we are determined to see it through.
Tom Tugendhat
The point that the Minister is making about increasing support is absolutely essential. I am sure I am not alone in having people write to me about concerns over migration to this country. There can be few better ways to encourage people to stay at home than to allow them the opportunity to enjoy the normal areas of sanitation and life that we enjoy here, so the commitment that he is making is extremely welcome and I thank the Department for it.
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has skilfully brought us back to the national interest that we consistently need to focus on. There is a great deal of quite justified concern about migration from Africa. It is principally economic, but also driven by other factors. The drivers for why people move—of course, people have always moved in Africa, since time began—include land, access to water, and natural resources. Therefore, the more we can do to help people feel they can rely on resources and get access to those services in their area, the less risk there is that they will move.
The 60 million people are our additional commitment—they are in addition to the 60 million in the previous Parliament. I reassure the House—because it is the focus of the debate—that we will maintain an extremely strong focus on Africa and on meeting the needs of women and adolescent girls. Building on experience from countries such as South Sudan, Malawi and Tanzania, we will develop programmes that deliver improved nutrition as well as water and sanitation. It is becoming increasingly clear to me and the team I am working with that we must make more linkages across areas. Water and nutrition are an obvious case where work and thinking need to be integrated more.
Through our health programming we will continue to work with our partners to ensure that all healthcare facilities have safe water and adequate toilets and handwashing facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has been passionate and eloquent on that point, on the basis of her many visits.
Fiona Bruce
It is heartening to hear about the Government’s commitment, and the figures that the Minister has given. Does he agree that it is critical that the UK should use its global influence to work with the Governments of other countries and ensure that they make a commitment to informing and educating their populations about how the connection with water can improve health and hygiene? There is a great deal to be done on that account.
Mr Hurd
I am delighted that another highly valued member of the International Development Committee has joined us. That is a hugely important point, and there are two elements to it: one is the role that the UK can play in influencing other international donors and Governments to step up—because we have taken a lead and others need to step up, in a crowded environment where there are many pressures on time and money. However, there is also a conversation to be had in countries that we try to help—about priorities and capacity. As I elaborated on when I was speaking about Ethiopia, we now have some quite rich experience of how to help with the thinking, within Governments, about the priority to be given to this agenda.
I want briefly to mention water resource management, which the hon. Member for Strangford raised. It is a critical aspect of the matter, and we will continue to invest in water resource management, to ensure that water and sanitation services are sustainable. Those investments also help countries to reduce the impact of floods and droughts. It is worth noting that water insecurity in Africa is estimated to cost about 5% of GDP, and we think that unlocking investment in water, together with improved governance, could help more than 2 billion people to lead healthier and more prosperous lives.
The whole agenda of how water is managed is critical and it needs to be part of the debate—as does the need for evidence. That may not have come through strongly enough, but what we do must be based on solid evidence. That is why we are one of the largest funders of research in the sector, with flagship programmes including the Sanitation and Hygiene Applied Research for Equity programme, which is showing how sanitation can be improved most effectively.
We are keen to drive innovation in this area, wherever it comes from. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the statistic, which may or may not be true, although it sounds right, that in some areas more people have access to a mobile phone than to clean water. Our challenge is how to use that mobile phone technology as part of the solution. Part of the problem is the fact that often no one knows when water pumps fall into disrepair, and we are piloting work on building sensors into the pumps to provide real-time information on which ones are down and in need of attention. We are keen to see how the digital technology that is transforming all aspects of our life can help in that context.
I want to close by talking about our role in convening, encouraging and bringing people together. I am quite serious when I say that the pressures on the development budget are intense, because of all the problems around the world, such as El Niño, Syria and the humanitarian crises everywhere. There are lots of people competing to assert priorities, and powerful lobbies saying “We need more; we need to jump higher.” That is the reality of our world. The sanitation and water for all initiative was set up to develop political momentum and to secure financial commitments from countries and the private sector. We play an important role in that process; we think it is valuable and we will use it to hold others to account on their commitments, and to enable them to hold us to account on the achievement of our ambitions.
There has been clarity in the debate about the importance we should attach to helping millions more people to access the most basic necessities, which we take for granted. We can see all the development benefits that will accrue through doing that. In our view it is clearly in our national interest and we can see the consequences of failure. The evidence makes it clear that focusing aid money on delivering water and sanitation gives value for money, because of the changes it brings about. I hope that I have provided assurance to the hon. Member for Strangford in particular—who deserves credit for securing the debate—that the Government remain extremely committed to the agenda, to meeting the manifesto target, and to maintaining British leadership in this area.
Jim Shannon
I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for their valuable contributions, which I appreciate. I thank the ladies from WaterAid who kindly facilitated our debate with information, and whose knowledge helped us to bring the debate together factually. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) spoke with great personal knowledge gained through Select Committee work and the visits she has made. She mentioned having a tin bath, and I am in an age group that means I can remember that as well. I can also remember outside toilets. We have come on a great deal in our own countries, and there is a similar need to move on in Africa.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) mentioned the global goals—on water aid, which has been met, and on water sanitation, which has not. She talked about long-term viability and short-term fixes, and was clear about the need to have a vision and a strategy and to address urgent needs. I thought that she made an important comment when she said that some sub-Saharan countries are poorer today than they were in the ’60s and ’70s, and that addressing water aid and sanitation is even more difficult for them.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), whose contributions I value, as I do his friendship, gave us examples from Peru and Tanzania, where his wife has done good work, and talked about the importance of health education and treating problems at source. I thought it was great that he gave examples of what can be done with a $2,000 spend. A small investment can give great returns, and I thought it was a tremendous example. Some things that were done 30 or 35 years ago are still working today. He referred to the neglected tropical diseases, and we may want to focus on that over time.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) referred to communities involved in projects, including Scottish Water staff and their project in Zambia. He spoke of young people dropping out of school in Africa because of lack of access to water aid and sanitation, and the need to prioritise poverty eradication projects.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), brought to the debate something we had not considered: the problems stemming from drought that affects Somali tribesmen and their animals in their wanderings across Africa as they follow the water to where the grass is. She wanted to encourage national Governments to act together. She referred to the storage of water and the need to ensure that we access water wherever it is and retain it as best we can.
Some of the interventions were very helpful. I thank the two hon. Members who came in after the start of the debate; they had other engagements. I was aware of that. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) referred to the power over water rights and access, which, until he intervened on the Minister, had not been considered in the debate, but it is a vital issue in countries where water is almost the equivalent of oil. Water is of tremendous importance. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred, as she always does in the good work she does on the Select Committee, to the importance of the work within DFID to ensure that the Governments can deliver.
I was impressed by the Minister’s response—I am impressed by him anyway—for which I thank him. We recognise his commitment to his portfolio and to achieving what he wants to achieve, which I believe is what those who have spoken today and those in the House more widely want to achieve. That is important for us.
Water, sanitation and hygiene are enablers for other areas of development, including health and education. That theme ran through all the contributions today. Water, sanitation and hygiene are also highly cost-effective, but only 2% of UK bilateral aid goes towards that. However, I recognise the £800 million the Minister referred to. It is a significant contribution, but if we can do so much with small moneys, that is what we should be trying to do. I would also like water, sanitation and hygiene to be prioritised in the forthcoming aid reviews.
I have been told before that we are not allowed to use props in our speeches, so I am not going to use a prop, but I will refer to this bottle of water. To be truthful, I did not know this until yesterday, but on the labels of the bottles of water in front of us, it says:
“Belu is an ethical bottled water produced in the UK. It is completely carbon neutral. It comes in a lightweight recyclable bottle”
and so on. It then says that 100% of profits go to WaterAid. So, every time we pour a glass of water in this House from any bottle of Belu, we will be supporting WaterAid. WaterAid transforms people’s lives by improving access to safe water, hygiene and sanitation in the world’s poorest communities, and to date Belu has donated more than £1 million to WaterAid. If anyone ever needs a prop, or something to reach to and say, “That’s what WaterAid does”, they can use that bottle.
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, and all other Members for their contributions and for highlighting this issue and the position of the people outside the House whom we and the Government want to help.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered clean water and sanitation in Africa.
Written Statements
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections: Indemnity for Returning Officers
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I have laid a minute setting out the Cabinet Office’s proposal to indemnify returning officers for the police and crime commissioner elections on 5 May 2016 against uninsured claims that arise out of the conduct of their duties. We will also provide a certificate confirming that we will bear any employee liabilities of the returning officer which would otherwise be covered by insurance procured under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. An indemnity was previously provided by the Home Office to returning officers for the 2012 police and crime commissioner elections and the Cabinet Office regularly provides indemnities for UK parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. HM Treasury has approved the indemnity in principle.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present to Parliament a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
Cabinet Office officials have been in discussion with HM Treasury officials and lawyers on the scope of indemnities of this kind and to ensure consistency between indemnities provided in respect of these and other polls. Thus it has not been possible to lay this minute before now. As a consequence, there is now a special urgency as the elections will take place shortly.
[HCWS685]
Atomic Weapons Establishment Contract
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
I am announcing the successful completion of a review of the Department’s contract with one of its key suppliers, AWE Management Ltd (AWEML), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin Inc., Jacobs Inc. and Serco. The contract is for the management and operation of the AWE sites at Aldermaston, Burghfield and Blacknest.
As with all major commercial programmes, this contract is kept under regular review to ensure it continues to meet the Ministry of Defence’s requirements in terms of performance, affordability and value for money. As a result of the review, the contract with AWEML has been improved. It provides the opportunity for higher performance incentives, as well as reductions if targets are not met. The duration of the contract is unchanged, running through to 2025. It will also now be a qualifying defence contract under the terms of the Defence Reform Act 2014 and single source procurement framework.
The core commitment in the AWE management and operation contract remains extant—to provide and maintain the nuclear warhead stockpile for the UK’s nuclear deterrent, efficiently and effectively without compromising safety or security, for as long as the Government require.
[HCWS689]
Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report: Government Response
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
The supplement to the 2016 report of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body (AFPRB) making recommendations on the pay of service medical and dental officers has been published today. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the review body for their report. The AFPRB’s recommendations are to be accepted in full with implementation effective from 1 April 2016. Copies of the AFPRB supplementary report are available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS692]
Human Rights and Democracy Report
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the 2015 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report on Human Rights and Democracy (CM 9245).
The report focuses on significant human rights country and policy developments overseas in 2015. It sets out how the Government’s three human rights themes (democratic values and the rule of law; strengthening the rules-based international system; and human rights for a stable world) operate in practice, and includes reports on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 30 human rights priority countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
We have also published today the July-December 2015 updates on our previous 27 priority countries online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human- rights-and-democracy-report-2015/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2015.
The full report can be read at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2015.
[HCWS684]
Action Plan: Anti-money Laundering and Counter-terrorism Finance
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today, the Government are publishing an action plan that sets out the steps that the UK will take to strengthen their response to money laundering and terrorist financing, and to protect the safety of its citizens and the integrity of the UK financial system. Copies will be available on www.gov.uk and in the Library of the House.
This action plan will tackle all forms of money laundering, with a particular focus on the illicit funds supporting and generating serious and organised crime, which deprives people of their security and prosperity; terrorism, which poses a direct and immediate threat to our domestic security and overseas interests; and the laundering of the proceeds of overseas corruption into or through the UK, which fuels political instability in the source countries.
This Government have already taken significant action to tackle these damaging crimes and to improve the reputation of the UK, including of our financial and professional services industries. The National Risk Assessment on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (NRA), published in October 2015, was candid and robust in its assessment and set out our current understanding of the risks to the UK and the gaps in our response. The action plan addresses the gaps identified.
The Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption summit next month will galvanise the international response to issues including corporate secrecy, Government transparency, the enforcement of international anti-corruption laws, and the strengthening of international institutions.
This action plan sets out changes that amount to the most significant reform to our anti-money laundering regime for over a decade, since the commencement of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
We will:
Enhance the law enforcement response
Consult on tough new powers to tackle money laundering, including unexplained wealth orders (UWO) to require those who are suspected of money laundering to explain the sources of their wealth; the provision of a linked forfeiture power for use where the answers provided are unsatisfactory, or where the subject of the UWO fails to respond; the provision of a power to designate the highest risk entities and require additional regulatory measures to be carried out on them by the regulated sector; and the closing of loopholes that can be exploited by terrorists to raise and move funds.
Deliver new capabilities and support to take on the most sophisticated ‘high-end’ money laundering cases, and to ensure that operational partners have, and are able to use, an appropriate and effective suite of tools to counter terrorist finance.
The Government have already established a cross-agency taskforce, recently announced by the Prime Minister, to investigate all evidence of illegality that may emerge from the data relating to Mossack Fonseca, the law firm based in Panama.
Improve the effectiveness of the supervisory regime
Undertake a wide-ranging review of the supervisory regime to develop radical options for reform aimed at ensuring we have an effective and proportionate system. Engagement has already begun with stakeholders and the public call for information is included within the action plan.
Increase our international reach
Promote more effective information sharing across international boundaries.
Place new NCA International Liaison Officer posts in selected jurisdictions.
Training will be delivered to, and expertise shared with, key overseas partners to combat terrorist finance.
Work with international partners to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing threats upstream, and develop multilateral approaches in preparation for the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption summit in May 2016.
Develop a stronger partnership with the private sector
Radically reform the suspicious activity reports (SARs) regime (the statutory regime under which persons in the regulated sector must report suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing to the National Crime Agency), make better use of public and private sector resources against the highest threats, target the entities who carry out money laundering instead of individual transactions, and provide the National Crime Agency with a suite of new powers, including one to oblige SARs reporters to provide additional information when requested.
Make the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce (JMLIT) a permanent feature of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, which brings together the financial sector, law enforcement agencies and the Financial Conduct Authority to share information to prevent, detect and disrupt money laundering and terrorist financing activities.
Consult on proposed new powers to provide the financial sector with ‘safe harbour’ for the sharing of information on financial crime.
The reforms to our domestic anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime set out in the action plan, coupled with the international leadership being shown by the UK through the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption summit, will lead to greater disruption of money laundering and terrorist financing activities, the prosecution of those responsible and increased recovery of the proceeds of crime, and a greater protection of the UK financial system.
[HCWS686]
Section 40 (4a) of the British Nationality Act 1981
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has completed the first review on the operation of section 40(4A) of the British Nationality Act 1981. His report will be laid before the House today.
I am grateful to David Anderson for his considered report. He continues to provide important independent scrutiny of UK counter-terrorism legislation.
The report makes no recommendations, but sets out the evolution of the power under review and provides observations on the power, and on deprivation more broadly. The Government’s positions on the issues raised in the report are a matter of public record.
The report provides the basis for future reviews which may have the opportunity to consider examples of the operation of the power which, as was intended, is only likely to be used in a small subset of the most serious cases..
The next report is required to be produced and laid before the House after 28 July 2019.
[HCWS695]
Refugees and Resettlement
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Following my statement on 28 January, the Government have continued to work to provide support to refugee children. We have always been clear that in order to provide the best help to the greatest number of those in need, we need to support the majority of refugees to stay safely in their home region.
That is why we recently doubled our aid for the Syrian crisis to £2.3 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. This support has reached hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. To galvanise international efforts we co-hosted the “Supporting Syria and the Region” conference in London on 4 February, securing pledges of more than $11 billion, the largest amount ever raised in one day for a humanitarian crisis. These commitments will create an estimated 1.1 million jobs for refugees and host country citizens by 2018. By the end of the 2016-17 school year, 1.7 million refugee and vulnerable children will be in quality education with equal access for girls and boys.
Today I am able to announce the results of work with UNHCR and informed by a roundtable with NGOs, local authorities and devolved administrations to provide a resettlement route to the UK, specifically designed for “Children at Risk” from the middle east and north Africa region. On the UNHCR’s recommendation the scheme will not target unaccompanied children alone, but will be extended to all “Children at Risk” as defined by the UNHCR. This broad category encompasses unaccompanied children and separated children—those separated from their parents and/or other family members—as well as other vulnerable children such as child carers and those facing the risk of child labour, child marriage or other forms of neglect, abuse or exploitation.
Through this category we will resettle the most vulnerable children, accompanied by their families, where the UNHCR deems resettlement is in the best interests of the child. We will commit to resettling several hundred individuals in the first year with a view to resettling up to 3,000 individuals over the lifetime of this Parliament, the majority of whom will be children. We will also review the scheme at the two-year mark. This unique initiative will be the largest resettlement effort that focuses on children at risk from the MENA region and will be over and above the commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees under the Syrian resettlement scheme. It will be open to all at risk groups and nationalities within the region, with the best interests of the child at the heart of the scheme. The UNHCR is fully supportive of the launch of this new initiative and the UK’s commitment to assist vulnerable refugee children at risk through further resettlement efforts which uphold the principles of child protection.
The Government are committed to making a full contribution to the global refugee crisis, in particular by helping children at risk. We firmly believe that we can make the biggest difference and add most value by supporting children and their families in the conflict region while providing a route to the UK for the minority of vulnerable or at risk cases where resettlement is judged by the UNHCR to be in the child’s best interests.
At the same time we need to shut down the illegal migration routes to Europe, exploited by human traffickers who encourage people to risk their lives to make perilous journeys. The success of the EU-Turkey migration agreement is a vital opportunity to end the misery and lethal risk that smugglers and organised criminals are causing on a daily basis.
Following discussion with the European Commission and the Greek Government I can today announce that the UK will be offering 75 expert personnel to help with processing and administration of migrants in reception centres, act as interpreters, provide medical support and bolster our existing team assisting the Commission to ensure effective and efficient co-ordination. We will also provide vital equipment and medical supplies. This is in addition to the UK maritime contribution, with three Border Force vessels assisting the Hellenic Coastguard to conduct search and rescue missions, and a Royal Navy vessel as part of the NATO mission in the Aegean.
The teams we send to Greece will include experts in supporting vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied children and those trained to tackle people trafficking. This will help ensure that vulnerable people, including children, are identified and can access asylum procedures as quickly as possible. This is in addition to the work undertaken by the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, to visit hotspots and assess what more can be done to ensure unaccompanied children are protected from traffickers.
To increase support to refugees in Turkey the Government are contributing £250 million to the initial €3 billion Turkey refugee facility. This is expected to provide immediate humanitarian support as well as funding for schools, hospitals and housing. We are also working with the Turkish Government to identify what expert support would best assist their immigration and asylum services in handling migrants returned under the EU-Turkey agreement.
We continue to take action within Europe to assist vulnerable migrant children. The UK is the largest bilateral contributor to the humanitarian response to the crisis in Europe and the Balkans with a total contribution of £65 million. This includes nearly £46 million to provide life-saving aid to migrants and refugees including food, water, hygiene kits and infant packs, and protection for the most vulnerable, as well as support to organisations helping Governments build their capacity to manage arrivals in Greece and the Balkans. The efforts of the partners we fund are targeted to reach the most vulnerable—including children.
It also includes the £10 million refugee children fund the Department for International Development (DFID) has created to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children specifically in Europe. The fund will support three specialist and mandated organisations UNHCR, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee (IRC) to work with host authorities to care for and assist unaccompanied or separated children in Europe and the Balkans. This includes identifying vulnerable children, providing for their immediate support, referral to specialist care, and helping find solutions such as family reunification.
It is important to use the tools available to help children reunite with family wherever possible. The Government are committed to meeting our obligations under the Dublin regulation. We have seconded additional resource into the European Asylum Support Office totalling over 1,000 days of expert support to Italy and Greece to implement and streamline the Dublin process, including to quickly identify children who qualify for family reunion. And we continue to work with the French authorities to address the situation in Calais, including through a permanent bilateral standing committee to improve co-operation on Dublin transfers, particularly family reunion.
The recent secondment of a senior asylum expert to the French Interior Ministry to improve the process for family cases has already resulted in a significant increase in the number of children being reunited with family in the UK. In the last six weeks 24 cases have been accepted for transfer to the UK from France under family unity provisions, more than half of whom have already arrived in the UK. Once an asylum claim has been lodged in another member state we have demonstrated that transfers can take place within weeks.
We will do all we can to ensure that children in Europe with a right to be reunited with their family in the UK are supported to do so. However, the Government remain of the view that relocation schemes within Europe risk creating unintended consequences or perverse incentives for people to put their lives into the hands of traffickers. Instead we are committed to providing safe and legal routes for the most vulnerable refugees from Syria to resettle to the UK. Under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme we are committed to resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees by 2020. In the last quarter of 2015 we resettled 1,085 Syrian refugees under this scheme over half of whom were children.
[HCWS687]
Civil Legal Aid
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
On 18 February the Court of Appeal handed down judgment on an appeal in a judicial review challenge to the domestic violence evidence requirements under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). I would now like to inform the House of the steps the Government are taking to respond to the Court’s concerns.
Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. Our overriding approach to legal aid reform is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer of paying for legal aid, while ensuring that it is targeted at the highest priorities. In line with this approach, LASPO removed legal aid from most private family matters while making a clear exception for victims of domestic violence. In such cases, the applicant is required to supply specific evidence of domestic violence, which is set out in regulations.
In this judicial review, the Court of Appeal found that the regulations frustrated LASPO’s purpose in two specific areas. First, in that they required evidence to have been obtained within a two-year period before the application for legal aid. Secondly, because they lacked provision for victims of financial abuse.
We continue to believe that victims of domestic violence in private family disputes should receive legal aid where evidence is provided, and the Court of Appeal has agreed that the Lord Chancellor has the power to make arrangements in regulations to allow this. But there are areas where we need further information—for example, the number of individuals who have evidence over two years old. We also need to more fully appreciate the issues in play in cases of financial abuse, on which there is only limited research available.
We have begun work with domestic violence support groups, legal representative bodies and colleagues across Government to gather data and develop our understanding of these issues. Our findings will be used to inform an evidence-based solution to the Court’s concerns, with the aim of drawing up replacement regulations.
In the meantime we are taking immediate action, through interim regulations laid before Parliament today, to change our arrangements. We are more than doubling the original time limit for evidence—increasing it from two to five years, and we are introducing a provision for the assessment of evidence concerning financial abuse. We are expediting implementation of these changes so they will come into effect on Monday 25 April in order to make sure that victims of domestic violence can receive the support they need as soon as possible, and to give certainty to those considering applications for legal aid. We believe that these arrangements address the Court’s concerns while work continues to find a sustainable longer-term solution.
[HCWS690]
Inquests on Deaths of Service Personnel Overseas
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
My hon. Friend, the Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans, and I wish to make the last in our series of quarterly joint statements on the progress of coroner investigations into the deaths of UK service personnel who have died on active service overseas. As in all of our statements, we wish to express our continuing gratitude to all those members of the armed forces who have served or are now serving overseas for their bravery, professionalism, and commitment to service. Our thoughts are especially with the families and loved ones of those who have given their lives in this service.
This statement provides information on the inquests conducted by the Oxfordshire, Wiltshire and Swindon, and other coroner areas in England and Wales as at 13 April 2016.
Additional, supplemental, tables have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, which give the status and details of all current and previous cases, including whether there has been or will be a service inquiry (formerly known as a Board of Inquiry).
The Ministry of Defence’s Defence Inquests Unit continues to work with coroners (including the cadre of coroners specially trained to conduct investigations and inquests into the deaths of service personnel), with the aim of ensuring that investigations are thorough and that inquests are timely and effective. Under section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 investigations may now be held in Scotland, where appropriate.
Since 2007 our two Departments have provided funding for the additional resources required by the Oxfordshire and Wiltshire and Swindon coroner services, as service personnel who have lost their lives overseas have been repatriated to RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Coroners have thus been able to conduct investigations into these deaths as well as their local caseload.
We are sincerely grateful to all to those who support and assist bereaved families during this process, particularly coroners and their staff who unfailingly conduct their investigations with families at their heart, and the Chief Coroner who continues to provide leadership and oversight of coroner services.
Current status of inquests
Since our previous statement on 10 September last year, the inquests into the deaths of the five servicemen who died in the Lynx helicopter crash on 26 April 2014 have been held by the Oxfordshire Coroner. A total of 629 inquests have therefore now been held into the deaths of service personnel on active service in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who have died in the UK from injuries sustained while on active service. There are three cases where the death of an injured serviceman did not lead to a formal inquest, although two of these were taken into consideration at inquests into other deaths that occurred in the same incidents. The third death was of a serviceman in Scotland who made a partial recovery but later died from his injuries, and a fatal accident inquiry was not held.
Coroners’ investigations which remain open
As at 13 April 2016, there remain only two open coroner investigations into the deaths of service personnel in Afghanistan. The first relates to the death of Lance Corporal James Brynin on 13 October 2013. The Senior Coroner for West Sussex opened the inquest on 10 March 2016, and subsequently adjourned the hearing pending a police investigation into the death. The Coroner hopes to reconvene the hearing in September this year. The second is that of the death of Sapper Adam Moralee on 5 March 2014. This death is currently subject to a police investigation, and it is not known when this investigation and any subsequent action may be concluded.
An investigation is also open into the death of Private Jamie Sawyer who died while serving on the UN peacekeeping mission in Cyprus. The Senior Coroner for Birmingham is currently responsible for the investigation of the death, which is on hold while a prosecution takes place in Cyprus.
With the exception of the two inquests mentioned above, which are not expected to be completed for some time, all operational inquests relating to Iraq and Afghanistan have now been completed, and this will therefore be the last of our series of statements on this topic. Our sympathy and condolences go out to the families and friends of Lance Corporal Brynin and Sapper Moralee, and we mean no disrespect to their memory in taking the decision not to provide further updates.
Table detailing inquests into service deaths (WMS tables (updated) April 2016.docx) can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-04-21/HCWS688.
[HCWS688]
Tribunals
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
The Government have today published a consultation paper proposing new fees for proceedings in the first-tier tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) and upper tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber).
In the spending review the Government announced that we were investing £700 million in Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). This will transform our courts and tribunals, reducing complexity in language, processes and systems; helping people reach the best resolution for them; minimising the steps that people need to go through to obtain justice; and improving access to justice. We will invest in better facilities and use technology to reduce paperwork, so that we create a courts and tribunals service fit for the modern age.
At the same time, we must reduce the burden on the taxpayer of running our courts and tribunals. In meeting our spending review settlement, all parts of the Ministry of Justice must contribute to the national effort to reduce the deficit and restore the Government’s finances to surplus. The courts and tribunals service cost £1.8 billion in 2014-15, but only £700 million was received in income. This leaves a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1.1 billion in one year alone.
Our consultation proposes increasing fees in those immigration and asylum proceedings where a fee is payable so that the fee meets the costs of those proceedings in full. We have previously consulted on plans to raise fees for proceedings in the first-tier tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) in order to recover around 25% of the £84 million annual costs of that chamber. Having re-assessed the Ministry of Justice’s financial position following the spending review, we need to go much further.
In the light of the challenging financial circumstances we face we have already had to take difficult decisions. We have implemented enhanced court fees, above the cost of the proceedings to which they relate, for money claims; possession claims; general applications within civil proceedings; and divorce petitions.
In these financial circumstances, we have concluded that it is no longer reasonable to expect the taxpayer to fund around 75% of the costs of immigration and asylum proceedings. We therefore propose increasing fees in the first-tier tribunal from £80 to £490 for an application for a decision on the papers and from £140 to £800 for an application for an oral hearing. We also propose introducing a new fee of £455 for an application to the first-tier tribunal for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal.
We also believe that the same principles should apply to appeals to the upper tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) so the consultation also seeks views on introducing fees, set at full cost recovery levels, for these proceedings. The consultation proposes a fee of £350 for an application to the upper tribunal for permission to appeal, where permission has been refused by the first-tier tribunal, and a fee of £510 for an appeal hearing where permission is granted.
We are mindful of the fact that some applicants will face difficulties in paying these fees, so to make sure that the burden of funding the system is shared as fairly as possible we will continue to exempt from fees those in particularly vulnerable positions. This includes those who qualify for legal aid or asylum support; those who are appealing against a decision to deprive them of their citizenship; and those children bringing appeals to the tribunal who are being supported by a local authority. We will also extend our exemptions to protect children being housed by the local authority and the parents of children receiving local authority support. In addition, we are consulting on further extensions to the exemptions scheme in this consultation to make sure we continue to protect the most vulnerable.
Higher fees are never popular but they are necessary if we are, as a nation, to live within our means. These proposals would raise around an additional £37 million a year, which is a critical contribution to cutting the deficit and reducing the burden on the taxpayer of running the courts and tribunals.
Full details of the Government’s proposals are set out in the consultation document which has been published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS691]
Senior Salaries Review Body
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The 38th report of the Senior Salaries Review Body is being published today. This makes recommendations about the pay of the senior civil service, senior military officers and the judiciary.
We understand the need to ensure that we are able to recruit, retain and motivate staff with the right skills and experience. However, pay restraint continues to be a key part of our plans to finish fixing the public finances. Senior public sector workers, like everyone else, will have to continue to play their part to ensure we deliver security for working people across the country. Moreover, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that 200,000 public sector jobs have been protected thanks to our average 1% pay policy.
Senior military officers
The Government have accepted the recommendation of a 1% increase to base military salaries for all 2-star officers and above with effect from 1 April 2016. The Government have accepted the recommendation that there is no change to the current pay differentials for senior medical and dental officers.
Judiciary
The Government have accepted the review body’s recommendation of a 1% salary increase for the judiciary.
Senior civil service
The report makes clear the need to take a more strategic approach to senior civil service reward, including better targeting of resources and greater focus on the total package. We welcome this analysis which will inform the civil service workforce strategy.
The Government have accepted in full the recommendation of the Senior Salaries Review Body to introduce an in-year contribution award scheme for up to 10% of staff within current cost limits. This will provide a closer link between pay and performance by enabling departments to provide instant financial recognition for outstanding contribution.
We recognise the concerns of the Senior Salaries Review Body on the pay overlap between delegated grades and the bottom of senior civil service pay band 1. The Government believe that individual departments are best placed to assess the pay position of individuals within their own senior civil service cadre, and indeed the needs of their own delegated grades, and to decide how to prioritise the resources available to address any pay issues.
We have therefore accepted in part the recommendation on raising minimum salaries. The Government accept the increase in minima for pay bands 2 and 3. For pay band 1, a £2,000 increase in the minimum salary would restrict the flexibility that departments have asked for to enable them to target the resources available. Instead, the Government will prescribe an increase of £1,000 and ask departments to give serious consideration to raising salaries by more based on their individual business needs.
Similarly, the Government have accepted in part the recommendation on a flexible framework for base pay awards, but do not support an across the board budget of 0.94%. Instead, as well as raising staff to the new pay band minima, departments should have the flexibility they have asked for to target the remainder of the 1% award to meet their own business needs.
This package of proposals for 2016-17 provides the right balance between necessary pay restraint and the need to recruit and retain people of the right calibre. It gives departments flexibility to target pay increases within the 1 % average award, enables them to reward outstanding performance and will help them to recruit and retain people in business critical roles.
Very senior NHS managers
The report recommends that the Department for Health determines what level of pay increase is appropriate for this year. Such very senior managers are mainly employed by national arm’s length bodies.
The Government have decided to request arm’s length bodies to target the use of the 1% pay award to address both specific local recruitment and retention issues, and reward individual performance.
We will also proceed with the roll out of the new arm’s length body executive and senior manager pay framework, as set out in our evidence to Senior Salaries Review Body.
We are grateful to the chairman and members of the review body for their work on this year’s report. Copies have been laid in the Vote Office, the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS693]
Staff Counsellor for the Security and Intelligence Services
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I have appointed Julian Miller as staff counsellor for the security and intelligence agencies. He will start in May 2016. He was deputy National Security Adviser in the Cabinet Office from 2010 until his retirement in 2015. Previous posts included Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary, Chief of the Assessments Staff in the Joint Intelligence Organisation and director strategy and resources in the Ministry of Defence.
Julian Miller succeeds Desmond Bowen, who has served as staff counsellor since April 2009. I would like to thank Desmond Bowen for his service over the past seven years and the support and guidance he has provided to the staff of the security and intelligence agencies during his tenure.
The position of staff counsellor for the security and intelligence agencies was created in 1987. It is a non-statutory appointment. The post holder is available to be consulted by any member of the agencies regarding matters of conscience about the work of their service, or a personal grievance or other problem which has not been resolved internally. Staff in certain other Departments closely involved in intelligence work are also able to consult the staff counsellor on matters of conscience about their work, provided that such matters arise from or are related to the individual’s access to intelligence.
[HCWS694]
House of Lords
Her Majesty the Queen: 90th Birthday
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty The Queen as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer Your Majesty the warmest congratulations of this House on the occasion of Your Majesty’s ninetieth Birthday;
To assure Your Majesty of our deep affection and highest regard;
And to join our prayers with those of the Nation and Commonwealth for the long continuance of Your Majesty’s health and happiness.”
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to lead tributes to Her Majesty in your Lordships’ House today. We are celebrating her 90th birthday, and to do that justice we should first reflect on her early life.
When Her Majesty was born in 1926, she was not expected to be Queen, but at just nine years old her destiny changed and her life of a dedicated public servant began. As a young teenager of 14, during the early years of the war, she made her first radio broadcast to bring comfort and hope to other children being evacuated. Her first solo public engagement followed two years later. At just 25 years old, she succeeded her father to the Throne. That was four short years after she had married and while her first two children were still toddlers. As she became Queen, her first Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, warned:
“She comes to the Throne at a time when a tormented mankind stands uncertainly poised between world catastrophe and a golden age”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/1952; col. 962.]
We are fortunate that she will give her name to an era of unparalleled economic growth, technological advance and social change.
Throughout her whole life she has helped our nation to feel at ease with itself, and has served as a remarkable point of continuity for all her people. Despite her tender years, at the beginning of her reign she was admired by even her most experienced subjects. All of us have trembled at making our maiden speech in this Chamber, but nothing we have done could compare with her first gracious Speech from that Throne. Yet, following that first Queen’s Speech, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Viscount Swinton—a man who had first entered the Cabinet before she was even born—spoke for the whole House when he said that describing the Speech as gracious was not simply a formality but,
“the true word for all the Queen is and all she does”.—[Official Report, 4/11/1952; col. 20.]
As she has grown older, she has remained just as admired by successive generations. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge said on his recent state visit to India that Her Majesty is a “guiding force” for her family, and her contemporaries have looked to her to see how to respond to a changing world. She has innovated to bring the monarch closer to the people, her Christmas message of 1957 being the first to be transmitted live. She pioneered the royal walkabout and last year she sent her first tweet. The fact that she remains as relevant today as ever is testament to her enduring values of decency, honesty, humility and honour.
What is truly remarkable about Her Majesty’s commitment is that she continues to serve with a zest and undimmed sense of public duty. Last year she carried out 306 engagements in the UK and 35 overseas —a workload that would be daunting to someone even half her age. As Head of State, she fulfils her constitutional position with distinction. Uniquely among those who give public service, her commitment is beyond question.
As we mark this milestone birthday, Her Majesty would no doubt want us to acknowledge the lifelong support of her family, not least that of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, who remains always by her side. Indeed, those remarkable photographs that we have seen published this week show just what family means to Her Majesty.
As we look forward to the many events that will celebrate Her Majesty’s 90th birthday between now and June, many noble Lords will choose to pay tribute in their own way. Your Lordships may have noticed that my noble friend the Chief Whip is not in his usual place today. Instead, as Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, he is at Windsor Castle, presenting Her Majesty with a sheaf of a new variety of daffodils. These have been raised—that is the term that I am told is used—in honour of her birthday and registered with the Royal Horticultural Society. Appropriately, these daffodils are named “Gentleman at Arms”. My noble friend has taken them to Her Majesty and intends to offer her the warm wishes of those on all Benches in this House.
I know that all noble Lords will join me in wishing Her Majesty a very happy 90th birthday. I beg to move this Motion for a humble Address to Her Majesty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness and to speak on behalf of these Benches to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday and to support the humble Address.
For many of us, milestone birthdays are a time for reflection, but when that birthday is a 90th and a whole life has been spent in the public eye in public service, that reflection has an added dimension. Like all of us, Her Majesty the Queen will have many personal memories of births and deaths, and of people, places and events. While her life has brought more privilege and opportunities than most, she has also known the highs and the lows, and the joys and the sadnesses that normal family life brings. As the noble Baroness also said, it is impossible to reflect on the role of the Queen without recognition of her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh—outspoken, sometimes irreverent and at all times totally human, his support has been vital.
The late King George VI, with his sense of public responsibility during the Second World War, had a huge influence on his daughter. I am sure he would take immense pride in how she has conducted herself and shaped the role of our longest serving monarch.
This 90th birthday is a time for public celebration and public reflection. It is not just here at home but across the world that those with memories of the Queen will share them—memories of a visit, a conversation or even just a comment.
As the noble Baroness said, when Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born on this day in 1926 in London, few could have predicted the life that lay before her. At that time, she was third in line to the Throne, because the then Prince of Wales had not yet met Mrs Simpson and started the chain of events that led to the Queen’s father becoming King. Yet the responsibility is one that she readily absorbed, making her first radio broadcast in 1940 at the age of 14, as the noble Baroness referred to, on BBC “Children’s Hour”, to the children evacuated overseas during the Second World War.
With thousands of other young women, she qualified as a mechanic and driver with the ATS. For the time, that was quite bold and daring for a princess and not a decision that the Government were at all happy about, believing that her most important training should be as heir to the Throne, not as a mechanic. Her determination and persistence in insisting that she wanted to serve her country was a clear indication that she would become a Queen who would bring her own style and make her own way. So on VE Day, the two royal princesses were as keen as anyone to celebrate the peace. Her Majesty has spoken about joining the crowds in Whitehall, where they mingled anonymously with those linking arms and celebrating the end of the war. In a world without selfies or mobiles, I wonder how many thought that the two attractive young women partying with them looked just like Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, as with the first, the royal families from across Europe found that as time moved on so did they. In those post-war years, the monarchies of Bulgaria, Portugal and many other countries ceased to exist. But here in the UK, a country that has known just a very short-lived republic in the 17th century, the monarchy has not just survived but has increased in popularity. We should recognise and happily acknowledge that such success is to the enormous credit of the Queen and the way she has conducted herself and undertaken the role—a role for which there is no manual or guide.
In the age of Twitter, “Celebrity Big Brother” and, at times, the sharing of private moments far too publicly, it is refreshing and enormously valued and respected that Her Majesty the Queen has never spoken out publicly of her views on a political or policy issue. She has maintained a dignified privacy of thought and displayed strict impartiality. If it was frustrating at times, it never showed.
The 12 Prime Ministers who have had weekly audience with the Queen have found a willing listener and someone whose discretion they can rely on absolutely: no leaks, no Tweets, just absolute confidence. Those who have attended Privy Council meetings will recognise that businesslike approach.
Some will have heard of the Labour Minister who, while standing as business was conducted, suddenly heard her mobile phone ringing very loudly from the very large handbag at her feet. Hugely embarrassed, she dived into the bag and desperately rummaged until she eventually and triumphantly retrieved the phone and silenced it. Her Majesty looked at her and sympathised: “Oh dear, I do hope it wasn’t anyone important”. I do not think either of them will ever talk to me again.
That dry sense of humour has become very evident over the years. At the opening of the Docklands Light Railway, shortly after her election in 1987, the late Mildred Gordon MP was asked by the Queen how she liked her new job. She responded that she felt that she had little power to help her constituents. The Queen replied understandingly, “Once they find out that you lot can’t help them, they all write to me”.
The fascination with the life of the Queen is magnified overseas, and often the most die-hard republicans show an admiration for her role. Many will recall the somewhat bizarre pirouette of the former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, behind the Queen in 1977—although he later also spoke of his respect. Just last week, almost 40 years later, the current Canadian Prime Minister and Pierre Trudeau’s son, Justin Trudeau, met Her Majesty and paid a glowing tribute. You had to smile as one onlooker observed, “The hereditary principle is alive and well”.
There are other well-known people who also celebrate their 90th birthdays this year: Sir David Attenborough, the singer Tony Bennett and Fidel Castro. In those 90 years, the world has seen massive social and cultural change. In technology, John Logie Baird had only just demonstrated his new invention, the mechanical television, yet last Christmas, the Queen’s Christmas message had more viewers than any other programme on Christmas Day, even “Downton Abbey”—I was looking for the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, but fortunately he is not here. In 1926, the first transatlantic telephone call was made from London to New York, the first red telephone box was installed and the national grid was set up. In that same year, the League of Nations convention abolished all slavery—so it seems so disappointing that, almost 90 years later, we had to bring in our own Modern Slavery Act. While this week we debated and sought to improve the Government’s Trade Union Bill, it was tougher in 1926, when we had martial law on the streets in response to a general strike.
So times have changed, but values have not. The British Royal Family is one of the most traditional institutions in the world, yet if we stand back and reflect on the past 90 years, both the 90 years of the Queen’s life and more than 60 years of her reign, we see significant changes. Many politicians would give their right arm for her approval ratings. She has perceptively, skilfully and without fanfare guided the monarchy into the 21st century. It is clear that Her Majesty values not just the monarchy of today but that of the future, and has encouraged and supported her children and grandchildren in undertaking official engagements and public service.
For some in your Lordships’ House, she has been the Queen for our entire lives. Many of us do not remember any other monarch. She is the figurehead of our nation, and I hope that our tributes today convey something of the high personal esteem in which she is held. So today is a day for celebration. Happy birthday, Ma’am.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I am delighted to add our good wishes and congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on this very special occasion of her 90th birthday. Her Majesty has had, and continues to have, an extraordinary life which she has dedicated in service to our country.
As we have heard, we are living today in a very different society from the one into which Her Majesty was born 90 years ago today. Then, the sufferings and losses of the Great War were still raw. It was less than a decade since the United Kingdom had emerged from the horrors of the First World War, vowing that such devastating conflict should never happen again. And yet, sadly, it did happen again, when Her Majesty, then Princess Elizabeth, was barely a teenager. As we have heard from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, during the Second World War Her Majesty not only served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service but brought comfort to many young people by broadcasting a message to evacuees, urging them to have courage.
Thankfully, today the prospect of war breaking out in the heart of Europe is unimaginable. Today, too, we are living in a world which is far more interconnected than it has ever been. Again, the Queen has fully engaged with this changing world. The metamorphosis of empire and colonial rule into the Commonwealth of free nations has in no small way been achieved by the Queen’s strong personal commitment to that unique institution and force for good in the world. She has kept up with technology and the IT revolutions which have transformed our world. In March 1976, when almost 50, and taking part in a network technology demonstration, the Queen was the first Head of State to send an email, although I rather suspect they did not call it that then.
Throughout the huge change that this country has experienced in the past 90 years, Her Majesty has been a constant, standing with her people whether it be in times of tragedy or times of joy. Her unwavering sense of duty, supported for more than 68 years by the Duke of Edinburgh, and her commitment to the service and welfare of the people of this country are surely an inspiration to us all. When speaking in your Lordships’ House on the eve of Her Majesty’s 80th birthday, my noble friend Lord McNally recalled the vow that the then Princess Elizabeth made in Cape Town on her 21st birthday. She said:
“I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service”.
Gladly, it has been a long life and surely no vow has been more dutifully honoured.
On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I offer my warmest good wishes to Her Majesty the Queen on this most joyous of milestones for a day full of love and affection from family, friends and a grateful nation. Long live our noble Queen!
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as the House knows, members of the Cross-Bench group whom I represent seldom, if ever, speak with one voice. I am reminded of that feature of our existence almost every day, but this occasion, surely, is quite different. I know that each member of the group would wish me to say how delighted we all are to be associated in every way with what has been said, and that we join together as one in supporting this Motion.
The Cross-Bench group brings to this House Members with a wide range of experience. Many have spent their entire working lives in the public service. Some, by reason of the positions that they have held, have a much greater appreciation than the rest of us of the volume of work with which Her Majesty has lived for so many years, with such a great sense of dedication and commitment. But all of us, in one way or another, have our own memories of her and of the service that she has given. We can all share in the memories of the great occasions.
Perhaps one above the others that deserves to be remembered today is Her Majesty’s state visit to Dublin in May 2011. Her remarkable speech at the state dinner in Dublin Castle was surely an extraordinary moment in history, which only she could bring about. Her silent tribute in the garden of remembrance the previous day had done so much to settle memories of the past.
One occasion that stands out in my own memory, because I was there, was her Address to both Houses in Westminster Hall on the occasion of her Golden Jubilee. It is hard to believe, but that was 14 years ago in 2002. The then Speaker, Speaker Martin, and the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who I am glad to see is in his place, presented their addresses and handed them to her after reading them. Then it was her turn. She stood up and went forward to the microphones to read her own speech. There was no table; there was no lectern; she held her speech in front of her as she stood alone, I thought with great courage, on the steps in front of a huge audience. Unlike the speeches at a State Opening, that speech was her own creation—full of warmth and perfect for the occasion. She ended with a triumphant sentence assuring us of her resolve to continue to serve us all to the best of her ability. It was faultlessly read, as always, in a firm, clear voice. She then sat down to prolonged applause, which lasted for well over a minute. She seemed not to have expected that, and was greatly moved by that applause, but it was so well deserved.
Later she joined us for a reception in the Royal Gallery. One of the Law Lords who was with me had his back to her as she reached us. He was tapped on the shoulder by the Lord Chancellor. My colleague had the misfortune to be in the process of eating a large biscuit. Something was bound to go wrong and, indeed, it did. When he turned round, he was so astonished to see her standing beside him that he dropped his biscuit onto the floor right in front of Her Majesty’s feet. Her Majesty, who has a great sense of humour, was much amused. Another Law Lord, a judge from New Zealand, was then introduced. Her Majesty said to him, “I hear that you are about to end your appeals to the Privy Council”. He replied that it would not affect him, as he had already reached the retirement age of 75 and would no longer be able to sit. “When was your birthday?”, she asked. When he said that it was in June, she exclaimed, “You are two months younger than I am”. So much hangs on those words—we can all do our own arithmetic—but those words were as clear a demonstration as there could be that retirement was not for Her Majesty, that it is not and it never has been. How blessed we all are that this is so.
On behalf of all of us on the Cross Benches, I join with the rest of the House in supporting the Motion and wishing Her Majesty a very happy birthday. We offer her our warmest congratulations and our profound thanks. I think it is also right to say that we offer our profound thanks to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh—always there at Her Majesty’s side and with his own unique sense of humour, as has been said. For him, too, surely, this is a very happy day.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury and all the Lords Spiritual, I wish to endorse most heartily the proposed message of congratulations to Her Majesty, by divine providence Queen, head of the Commonwealth and defender of the faith.
At her coronation, Archbishop Fisher placed on the Queen’s wrists two newly-made gold bracelets, presented by a number of the overseas realms and territories as a symbol of the Commonwealth. As he did so, he said these words:
“Receive the Bracelets of sincerity and wisdom, both for tokens of the Lord’s protection embracing you on every side; and also for symbols and pledges of that bond which unites you with your Peoples”.
Today we give thanks for the Lord’s protection that has embraced Her Majesty on every side these many years. We also want to pay tribute to the sincerity, wisdom and devotion which she has consistently manifested throughout her long and glorious reign. They have served greatly to strengthen that bond between the Sovereign and all her peoples.
Since 1952, there have been seven Archbishops of Canterbury and seven Archbishops of York. What Her Majesty has made of that richly diverse and eclectic collection of Primates will no doubt never be revealed. All that I can say, from those of the Archbishops whom I have known, is that each has like me valued the support, interest, faithfulness and prayers of our Supreme Governor more than it is possible to describe. There are very few other people to whom an Archbishop can open his heart, knowing that his confidences will go no further and certain that at the end of the conversation he will go away affirmed and encouraged.
And so let this be a day for thanksgiving and much rejoicing on Her Majesty’s birthday. Long live the Queen!
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly add my warmest congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her 90th birthday. The tributes that we have heard today from all sides of the Chamber show the gratitude that this House, and indeed the nation, owe her for her extraordinary service throughout her reign. It is therefore my honour to put the Question today that the Motion be agreed to.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boothroyd
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, the House of Lords Appointments Commission does an effective job in recommending candidates for non-party peerages and vetting the propriety of all those nominated as life Peers. There are no plans to amend its remit.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I ask this Question on behalf of my noble friend Lady Boothroyd because she is having to spend a few days in hospital. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish her well.
The last triennial review of the House of Lords Appointments Commission took place in 2013. Is the next triennial review not now due? Is it not necessary to increase the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission in view of the widespread concern at the Prime Minister’s use of his unlimited powers of patronage in making appointments to this House?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s remarks wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, a speedy recovery. On the Question he raised, the House of Lords Appointments Commission does indeed play a very important part in vetting all nominees and recommending excellent candidates for the Cross Benches, but it is the political parties that must be accountable for the Members who sit on the political Benches. That is an important principle that should continue. It is also important that we maintain appointment to the Cross Benches, as well as to the political Benches. That is why the Prime Minister appointed 10 Peers to the Cross Benches in the last Parliament, alongside those appointed independently through the HOLAC process.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, being back with us when she is fully fit again. Does the Minister not recognise that the Question is being raised because of concern about the number of appointments to the House? I have raised this with her before. This Prime Minister has made appointments to your Lordships’ House at a faster rate than any other Prime Minister since 1958, when life peerages were introduced. We have had a greater percentage of government Peers appointed and fewer Cross-Bench and Opposition Peers. Is the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, not worthy of consideration if we are to maintain public confidence, and your Lordships’ confidence, in the work of this House?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I, too, very much care about the reputation of this House and that the public maintain their confidence in it. The best way for us to assure that is in the way we make our contributions to this House’s work. It is worth making a couple of points in response to the noble Baroness’s point about size and the number of appointments. Since 2010, nearly 150 Peers have left your Lordships’ House through retirement or, sadly, having passed away. Forty-four of those have been since the general election. We have to continue to refresh and renew our membership. It is an important part of our being effective as a House. On the noble Baroness’s point about appointments by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, 22% of the appointments he has made have been to the Labour Benches.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend explain why, when the Appointments Commission considers appointments of Cross-Bench Peers, it is required to look at issues not only of propriety, but suitability—do they have the time and necessary skills—but in the case of party appointments it is allowed to look only at propriety, not suitability? Should we not amend the terms of the Appointments Commission so that, while the political parties can still put forward names, the commission finds out whether they are prepared to give the time and have the necessary skills and experience to make a contribution to this House?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
It is very important that all Peers make a proper contribution to this House in a way that enables us to give the public confidence in the laws that Parliament makes. However, it is absolutely appropriate and proper that the party leaders are responsible for ensuring that those they nominate will make their contribution effectively, and that they are held to account for that. The process and service that HOLAC provides is important. When it makes recommendations, no Prime Minister, whether this one or any before him, has ever ignored that commission’s advice.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there is nothing wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been indicating, with the powers of the commission as far as the Cross Benches are concerned, but there is an issue about numbers and maintaining a fair balance between the Cross Benches and the other groups in the House. Would the Leader of the House be prepared to give an indication that that balance, which is approximately 20% of the House, will be maintained? Ultimately, the decision on numbers depends upon a communication between the chairman of the commission and the Prime Minister, so the Government do have a part to play in seeing that numbers are maintained.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
And the number of Cross Benchers as a proportion of this House has been pretty stable for about three decades now. There is not actually a specific formula for the number of Cross Benchers, but the noble and learned Lord makes an important point about the importance of the Cross Benches to our work. That is why, alongside other appointments that the Prime Minister has made in recent times, he has made important appointments to the Cross Benches of noble Lords who are making an active contribution to our work, and that is something I know he will continue to do.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, it is right that we should congratulate the Appointments Commission on its work. This House now has the distinction of being represented by more different communities, more women, more people with disabilities, et cetera, than ever before. For this, we should thank the Appointments Commission. But we now face a ridiculous situation: the legal requirement placed on my own party in relation to the hereditary election. We had the distinction of being asked to appoint a person in place of Lord Avebury, who recently died. We had three hereditary Peers and seven candidates, and they appointed somebody who had already been in the House. My Chief Whip assures me that this will go down in the Guinness book of records as the shortest time taken to count the votes. Is it not time to look at the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in his original Bill and move towards the second stage of reform of the House of Lords?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The hereditary Peers who are Members of this House make an important contribution to our work. Any change relating to their arrival in this House would be part of a much wider package of reform, and that is not something that is currently being explored.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If we are replacing to refresh, why not cap the numbers?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, many noble Lords, as I said, have left your Lordships’ House. They continue to use the facility of retirement. That opportunity is to be welcomed, and when we refresh we are ensuring that we are effective in what we do.
Wheelchair Users
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce uniform standards and a national tariff payment in order to achieve high-quality outcomes for wheelchair users.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, NHS England is developing a national dataset to ensure transparency about the quality of services in order to drive improvement. NHS England and NHS Improvement are actively working with the sector to define the currencies and reference costs that will enable national tariffs to be set.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the wheelchair alliance, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has shown that we have, essentially, a set of dysfunctional local wheelchair services with variations in access, standards and waiting times. The noble Lord has referred to a national specification but the reality is that, unless he can ensure that it is mandated at local level we will not get high-quality, consistent services. Will Ministers be prepared to meet the wheelchair alliance to discuss how we can get uniform, high-quality standards at local level?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord is right: the variation in wheelchair standards around the country is wholly unacceptable. The truth is that we do not know the level of this variation because we have never collected the data before. The data are now collected and, of course, I can answer yes to his question. In fact, my honourable friend in the other place is making an announcement on 18 May, I think, about the support we are going to provide to local CCGs over wheelchair provision. I am sure that I can speak for him and say that he will be delighted to meet the wheelchair alliance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of problems encountered with London buses? I declare an interest in that my daughter has used a wheelchair for many years, although just recently she has made a marvellous improvement after being given an electric impulse and has been able to walk for the first time for 30 years. Bus ramps have been broken by wheelchairs that are too heavy. She has done a lot of work to ensure that wheelchair manufacturers produce wheelchairs with a marked vehicle weight that will not damage buses. Therefore, there is a need for more uniformity in higher standards.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I totally agree with my noble friend that there is an absolute need for greater uniformity and standardisation. The level of variation around the country is wholly unacceptable.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the NHS guidance on the website to people seeking a powered wheelchair says:
“Each service will have a strict criteria of eligibility. Usually the NHS services do not provide powered wheelchairs … for outdoor use only”.
Some areas, including mine, say that this means you get one only if you need to use it inside your own house. This does not mean independent living. When will the criteria be changed to ensure that if a powered wheelchair is needed for work purposes it will be provided?
Lord Prior of Brampton
As the noble Baroness knows, the criteria are local at the moment. The point of collecting the data and developing a tariff, which takes into account assessment, the equipment and repair and maintenance, is to have local commissioning against the national standard.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the national Wheelchair Leadership Alliance. Does the Minister recognise that not getting this service right is increasing the burden on the NHS? The cost of fixing a pressure sore alone is about £150,000, whereas providing the right cushion costs £400, so by improving wheelchair services we can save the NHS money rather than costing it money.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Getting the wheelchairs fitted properly and making the right assessments can save the NHS a fortune. It is outrageous that we have not tackled this before. The tragedy of the NHS is that if you do not have a tariff or target, you do not get the money. We are developing a tariff. The charter developed last year by the wheelchair alliance is an outstanding document.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister indicate how much progress his honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People has made in persuading Britain’s sports governing bodies, particularly the football authorities, to make sure that all their stadia comply with the accessibility guidelines, which are of course of particular importance to wheelchair users? I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Level Playing Field charity.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question as I do not know the answer. If it is all right to do so, I will write to the noble Lord and place the answer in the Library.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Is the Minister aware of the very complex needs of some people who break their necks, are completely paralysed and operate a wheelchair by pushing the back of their head or by their mouth? Will he assure the House that the specialist hospital units are able to advise CCGs on this issue?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. I will do what I can to ensure that we retain that specialist knowledge that can be provided to local CCGs.
Iraqi Troops: Training
Baroness Mobarik
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Iraqi troops British forces are expected to help train this year to fight Daesh.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Mobarik, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, numbers of Iraqi, including Kurdish, security force personnel in training at any time depend on the operational tempo. Since December 2014, UK military personnel have helped to train more than 12,000 individuals in infantry skills, weapons maintenance techniques and counter-IED and combat medical expertise. We expect this effort to continue in the coming year. The pace of training reflects the Iraqi Government’s ability to identify personnel and units not currently committed to offensive operations, who are therefore able to attend training in the subjects we offer.
Lord Robathan
Daesh—or Islamic State, call it what you will—is waging war, as your Lordships know, not just in Iraq but in Syria, Libya and, indeed, against the whole West. It is incumbent upon nations such as ourselves and in our own interest to assist in the battle against this brutal organisation. Will my noble friend tell the House what progress is being made with our assistance in Iraq in the war against Daesh?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, before I answer my noble friend, as this is a Ministry of Defence Question, I think that it would be appropriate to express the Armed Forces’ appreciation to Her Majesty on her birthday for her deep knowledge of, interest in and support to her Armed Forces.
I am pleased to report that the campaign against Daesh in Iraq is making progress. With coalition support, Iraqi security forces have taken around 40% of the populated areas that Daesh once held in Iraq, including Tikrit, Sinjar and Ramadi, and Hit is now being cleared of Daesh remnants. We have also been striking elsewhere in northern Iraq, predominantly on Daesh’s lines of communication, to support the Iraqi forces preparing for the retaking of Mosul. We will continue to provide vital air support and specialist training and equipment, as I mentioned.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that the coalition will defeat Daesh militarily in Iraq—but what then? To defeat and destroy Daesh we have to get to its heartland, which is in Syria. Does the Minister agree that, to do that, we will have to talk to the loathsome Assad and deal with the Syrian army? That is the truth on the ground and we will not defeat Daesh militarily overall unless we do that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the point that this crosses borders— Daesh does not recognise conventional borders. One problem of course is that when we do defeat it militarily, foreign fighters in particular move to other countries. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to consider what we do in other countries including Syria, and, during the transition, dealing with people we may not wish to deal with. However, defeating Daesh militarily is not the only answer. The coalition has five lines of effort, not only for military support but dealing with foreign fighters, Daesh financing and funding, humanitarian stabilisation work and exposing the true nature of Daesh.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, Britain has a proud record of helping to build a free and democratic Iraq. Like noble Lords across the House, I am full of admiration for the role played by our Armed Forces. I can think of no better way of assisting that country than helping it defend itself, especially against the tyrannical evil of ISIL. Can the Minister say whether the troops deployed on training are embedded forces which, according to the Statement issued by the Defence Secretary on Monday, would put them under Iraqi command and mean that they could become combatants without the British Parliament being told about it?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a Written Statement, to which the noble Lord referred, and made it clear that embedded forces are not included in the convention that has grown up since 2011, when troops are sent to conflict zones, of bringing that to the House of Commons. However, he has acknowledged that transparency is needed, and those embedded forces—where they are and who they work for—are made public once a year. There are embedded forces in coalition HQs. At the moment there are 177 embedded forces throughout the world. That number will be updated in a year’s time.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, having recently returned from a visit to Iraqi Kurdistan under the auspices of Christian Aid, I ask whether due consideration has been given to the fight against Daesh to the extent that it must involve support for the removal of mines and explosive devices. Many millions are still in situ in the places that are being liberated.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I could not agree more with the right reverend Prelate. That is one of the main features of our training and it is particularly appreciated. When forces take over former Daesh territory it is littered with booby traps, so we provide not only training but counter-IED detectors.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, in the context of increasing turbulence in the Middle East, can the Minister give us an assessment of the effect of this country leaving the European Union along the lines proposed the other day by Mr Gove, who suggested that our model for the future outside the European Union might be something along the lines of Serbia and Albania?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the Government’s position is that Britain is stronger within the European Union. That includes our security position as well.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, if I could get slightly closer to the Question, which is about training troops to fight against Daesh, does the Minister have the latest figures for how many troops we have in Jordan, which in many ways is the other key front against Daesh operations? I know that this is slightly outside the Question but it is very much part of the overall battlefield.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I do not have the precise figures to hand, but we have increased our aid to Lebanon and Jordan with exactly that in mind.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, we are beginning to be effective in choking off the finance to Daesh. Are we providing training and help to other states to enable them to improve that capability of choking off the money? It seems to be having a great effect.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My noble friend is absolutely right that Daesh is feeling the pressure on the finance side. We of course agree that it extends to other countries. As I mentioned, we acknowledge that when we defeat Daesh militarily in one area, foreign fighters move to other countries. We are bearing that in mind.
Crime: Religiously Motivated Crime
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of religiously motivated crime and violence in the United Kingdom in the light of the murder of Asad Shah.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, first, I believe that I speak for us all in your Lordships’ House in saying that we share the shock at the appalling death of Mr Shah. Our prayers and thoughts go out to his family and the wider community at this most difficult time. There were 3,254 religious hate crimes recorded in England and Wales last year, representing an increase of 43%. We are clear that hatred against people because of their religion has no place in our society or country. We will do everything we can to stop those who promote hatred and intolerance in our communities.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer and express our condolences to his own community at this sad time. Over the last 18 months Tell MAMA, an anti-Islamophobia organisation, has reported an increased amount of anti-Ahmadiyya hate crime on the internet. Flyers were allegedly found in a south London mosque stating that Ahmadis should face death if they refuse to convert to so-called mainstream Islam. Will my noble friend please outline what action Her Majesty’s Government are taking to identify and shut down social media and other internet sites that incite and glorify violence towards the Ahmadis, which is in fact a crime here in the United Kingdom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, let me be absolutely clear that the Government—and, I believe, all in this House and beyond—share the sentiment that people are free to live their lives free from interference and attack simply because of who they are or their religious beliefs. My noble friend is quite right to point out the increased attacks that we have seen on the internet, not just on the Ahmadi Muslim community but on other communities as well. The Government are taking steps on this and my colleague at the Home Office, my noble friend Lady Shields, is leading on internet safety and security. We are building alliances not just with the communities in the United Kingdom but beyond to ensure that wherever we find hate, whatever its cause and whoever the perpetrator and victim, we send a clear message: such hate will not be tolerated.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the Minister’s remarks about the tragic death of Asad Shah. Religiously motivated sectarian violence has been prevalent in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom for many years. The tragic death of Asad Shah is another example, albeit involving a different religion. What training is being given to police officers, and what advice is being given to victims, to help them differentiate between race-hate crime and religiously motivated hate crime?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is quite right to raise the growing and worrying tide of sectarian differences within different communities and the rising tide of hate crime. In that regard, I am pleased to tell the House that as of 1 April this year, as the noble Lord may well be aware, for the first time all police forces across England and Wales specifically record religious hate crime by religion and not just in its general sense. That is an important step forward.
In Scotland, as the noble Lord will know, there are devolved powers, but we are working very closely with the Scottish Government. Indeed, I will shortly visit Scotland—both Edinburgh and Glasgow—to discuss the issue of the growing tide of religious hate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, how do the Government react to the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s recent finding that only 8.6% of tip-offs to the Prevent programme have come from the Muslim community? How do they plan to encourage very much more collaboration from our Muslim friends and their leaders in exposing potential extremists?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, let me put on record that every religious community, including the Muslim community, was appalled by the events we saw in Scotland. This is exactly what is required: for the whole country, no matter what your religion or if you are of no faith, to come together to condemn and then unify against extremism in all its ugly guises. I assure the noble Lord that we are speaking extensively to all faith communities, including Muslim communities. There are initiatives such as the Prime Minister’s direct community round tables, on which the Home Secretary is leading. I am talking directly to all faith communities. Most recently I have met other and wider Muslim organisations, including the Bradford Council for Mosques, and earlier this week the Lancashire Council of Mosques and the Bolton Council of Mosques, to discuss the rising tide not just of the challenges we are facing but of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred as well.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I disclose my interest as a patron of the Woolf Institute for interfaith relations. Does the Minister agree that an important antidote to race hate is education and that we should support all means of educating the public at large in the way that faiths can interrelate?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord’s sentiments.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday was getting dangerously close to encouraging race hatred by making allegations against Mr Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate for Mayor of London, concerning his association with somebody who had been visiting Tooting to work for the Conservative Party and recruit members to it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Let me put on record and make absolutely clear that at no time did the Prime Minister or any other member of the Conservative Party allege that the right honourable Member for Tooting is an extremist. We need to ensure in the current climate that we take a very responsible view on all the circumstances and the environment in which we find ourselves—and, more importantly, build and strengthen the partnerships that we are investing in. I pay tribute to all across the House who are doing just that, to ensure that wherever we find bigotry and hatred, be it based on race, religion or any other cause, we unify against it and build and strengthen our partnerships across the UK to face up to it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, while echoing everything that my noble friend has just said, may I ask him to make it abundantly plain, in the wake of the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that there is an enormous difference between race hatred and hate crime and freedom of speech? Many of us are extremely concerned by the erosion of freedom of speech, particularly in our universities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
One of the things that I would say to my noble friend is that the Government’s view, particularly in my Home Office brief of countering extremism, is that we must ensure that we face up to hate and bigotry but, at the same time, protect the very freedoms that we battle so hard to achieve, which include the freedom of expression and belief.
Syria and Iraq: Genocide
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to respond to yesterday’s unanimous vote in the House of Commons declaring a genocide against minorities in Syria and Iraq and instructing the Government to refer this to the Security Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, this Government share the House of Commons condemnation of Daesh atrocities against minorities, and the majority Muslim population of Iraq and Syria. That is why we mandated the UN Human Rights Council to investigate Daesh’s crimes in 2014, why we will do everything we can to gather evidence for use by judicial bodies, and why this Government have a comprehensive strategy to defeat Daesh and free people from its barbaric rule.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has she had a chance to read the Hansard of yesterday’s debate, in particular the reference made by many Members to the disturbing evidence given here to Members of your Lordships’ House and another place by a 16 year-old Yazidi girl, Ekhlas, and accounts of crucifixions, beheadings, systematic rape and mass graves? Has she seen the admission of her ministerial colleague, Tobias Ellwood, that a genocide is under way? Given the unanimous vote of 278 votes to zero, following similar declarations in the United States House of Representatives, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, would it not almost be contempt of Parliament for the Government simply to say that this is non-binding and that they have no intention of following the will of Parliament in taking this matter to the Security Council, so that those responsible for these horrendous crimes will one day meet their Nuremberg moment and be held accountable for them?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I bear in mind victims of Daesh whom I have personally met, both here and in Iraq. I am not therefore going to get involved in what may or may not be procedural niceties. It is clearly a matter for judicial authorities to determine whether a genocide has taken place. The noble Lord referred to a comment by my honourable friend in another place yesterday, when he expressed his personal view, which he has expressed before, when he said:
“I believe that genocide has taken place”.
He added that,
“as the Prime Minister has said”—
and I am aware that the Prime Minister has written to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this—
“genocide is a matter of legal rather than political opinion. We as the Government are not the prosecutor, the judge or the jury”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/16; col. 995.]
We may not be all those things, but I say to Daesh and to the perpetrators that we have a long memory; we have allies, and we are working with the Government of Iraq. We will not forget the perpetrators, and they will pay the price.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the government Ministers abstained yesterday. Of course, the House of Commons spoke with a clear and unanimous voice yesterday, and there is no doubt that Daesh is killing people because they belong to ethnic, racial or religious groups. What it is doing has all the hallmarks of genocide, as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Government have moved on since the Minister spoke to this House in December, and Tobias Ellwood yesterday repeated what he said earlier in the month that we are helping to gather evidence that could be used to hold Daesh to account appropriately. He said, ultimately—and I repeat what the Minister said—that,
“it is not for Governments to be the prosecutor, judge or jury”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/16; col. 996.]
However, can the Minister tell us what progress the Government are making in gathering evidence, and when they intend to take that evidence to the Security Council so that the matter can be referred to the courts?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I shall address the last part of the noble Lord’s question first, because it covers something that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, properly raised—the Security Council, which was the nub of the resolution passed yesterday in another place. As I said earlier, we have tried to take this matter forward. We were very successful in achieving a resolution about investigations, but not further than that. Further discussions are taking place across the board. Clearly, all right-minded people are trying to find a resolution to this. The collection of information and evidence has to be robustly done. We are making some progress with that simply because of the bravery of organisations which we, alongside other members of the United Nations, help to fund. Yesterday in this House, I launched the Kurdish-language version of the international protocol on the collection and documentation of evidence, which already exists in Arabic. We are making progress, but only because of great risks taken by people who, having collected robust evidence, have to smuggle it out. They are brave indeed.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we all appreciate that, technically, the final decision on the genocide label will be taken at the United Nations, but we all surely also recognise that, regardless of various investigations, Daesh is a movement of undiluted evil that has complete contempt for human life and justice and has committed the most appalling atrocities. On the basis of that and of the unanimous view of the other place yesterday, can we be assured that Her Majesty’s Government will at least take the case for the label of genocide to the United Nations, even though we will not be the final body deciding and others will have to join us in doing that?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I have made clear, it is not for politicians to determine whether something is genocide; it is a legal decision. In January, I visited the ICC to discuss these matters, and I have discussed them with the International Criminal Court on previous occasions. I also held round-table discussions with academics and lawyers—they are not mutually exclusive, I know—on these matters. It is important that we make progress on reaching a position where it is possible for the ICC to determine whether it will proceed. In the mean time, there are further discussions going ahead around the international community, and all right-minded people want to be sure that we defeat Daesh.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said this is not a matter for politicians. Is she aware of Article VIII of the convention on genocide, which says:
“Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide”?
Why will the Government not do that?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Because, my Lords, it is the Government’s view that, in order to hold out hope to people who have suffered from the violence of Daesh, one has to be reasonably sure of achieving agreement within the United Nations. We are not confident that that agreement currently exists. That is why we want to make progress with discussions. A lot of work is going on with regard to this. The noble Lord will be more aware than others that genocide, which has a very high threshold, is not the only determination available. There is also crimes against humanity. Let us consider how we get the perpetrators and work together on that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that it is not for politicians to make a decision on genocide. As we have heard, there are cases under the treaty where it could be brought. We are not to be judge and jury, but surely political leadership means that we should raise it. It is not good enough simply to say that this should be left to the judge and jury. Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty’s Government should raise this at the UN, reflecting the views of your Lordships’ House during the Immigration Bill and those of the other place?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I have made clear, if one wants to persuade the United Nations to pass a resolution on something such as this that means so much to every victim, one should be assured in advance of being able to secure the result that one needs, and that would be for the prevention of genocide. Ultimately, whatever the United Nations determined, it would be for a court to decide whether a genocide had taken place. What has taken place is barbaric action by Daesh, and we need to work together to stop it.
Privileges and Conduct Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That the 6th Report from the Select Committee (The conduct of Lord Bhatia) (HL Paper 133) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming)
My Lords, this is the second time that the House has considered a Motion on the conduct of Lord Bhatia. In 2010, the House suspended him for eight months for wrongly designating his main residence and claiming £27,466 in overnight subsistence and mileage expenses. The report before us today concerns his claims for mileage expenses from January to July 2010.
Following an allegation made on the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme, the House’s independent Commissioner for Standards investigated Lord Bhatia, and found that on 63 days he double-claimed for mileage expenses both from the House and from a charity that he was then involved with, the Ethnic Minority Foundation. The commissioner found that he breached the House’s rules on financial support for Members, and so breached the Code of Conduct. The commissioner also found that, in not being scrupulous about his claims, he had,
“failed to act on his personal honour.”
The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct recommended that Lord Bhatia be suspended from the House for eight months and required to repay the £756 he wrongly claimed. He appealed to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and the committee considered his appeal last week. Having carefully considered the points that he put, the committee decided to dismiss his appeal and upheld the findings of the Commissioner and the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct.
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Bhatia be suspended from the service of the House for eight months.
Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alderdice
“( ) The Commission must report two times per year.”
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, the Bill emerges from the fresh start agreement of late 2015, in which the main parties in Northern Ireland, most particularly the two senior and largest governing parties, the DUP and Sinn Fein, reached an agreement on a series of matters that had been in contention. Some of them are matters of governance involving the budget and welfare payments, but others involve questions of security and the legacy of the past.
I bring forward this amendment because the Bill before us, which we debated at Second Reading recently, is firmly based on the fresh start agreement; that is perfectly appropriate in general principle terms. However, there was one element of the establishment of the Independent Reporting Commission which, from my own experience of it, I felt was unsatisfactory. The Bill does not spell this out, merely referring to Article 5.1 of the fresh start agreement, but that article says that the commission will produce annual reports. That is the issue of difficulty for me.
When the Independent Monitoring Commission was established by legislation and treaty between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in 2003, it was required by law to report at least twice a year. It could also be asked to produce ad hoc reports but it was required to report twice a year on the situation with paramilitaries and security normalisation. The experience of the subsequent seven years was one of some reasonable success. However, one thing that was clear to the four commissioners and to other thoughtful observers was that the relentless force of reports coming every six months—everybody knew when they were coming: paramilitaries, the security services, civil society, politicians—meant that in the run-up to them, the IMC would receive many representations and questions. People would want to come to talk to us to say, “This is how we perceive things are”, and would look to the reports. The IMC did not make any statements in between times—we did not have any press conferences, and so on—and that gave greater strength to the reports, but only because they were coming out every six months. In the period of the IMC we produced 26 reports in all. Most were six-monthly. Most were on paramilitary issues, some were on security normalisation, and a few were specific ad hoc reports that were asked for on problems such as UVF violence, murders and so on.
When the question of bringing back the IMC arose in the later part of last year because of a couple of murders, we had a debate on it in your Lordships’ House. I said at that time that I did not think it appropriate to bring back the IMC because it would have been working in a particular context. I was also concerned that if people were asked to produce a single snapshot report in a very short time, without the possibility of building a whole network of people, official and otherwise, through which a commission could establish what was going on, it would be possible only for the PSNI and MI5 to produce the kind of report they produce regularly for the Secretary of State and then have two or three distinguished people read it and say, “Yes, I think this is an accurate report”, without being able to do any of the investigatory work that would help to triangulate or give other evidence for the views being expressed by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security service.
As it was, the Secretary of State decided to go ahead and establish a body, and the report that came from that body did not provide particular reassurance; in fact, in many ways it was much less reassuring than the last reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission. That is why, when it came to fresh start, another agreement had to be reached, which this time had to set up by the end of December 2015 a panel of three people who would produce by the end of May a strategy for the disbanding of paramilitary groups. I declare an interest, because I was appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister as one of those three panel members. We have been doing our work and we still expect to report by the end of May, as we have been requested to do. I expect it to be published perhaps some time during June, although that is a matter for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
The Bill is putting in place an Independent Reporting Commission to take that strategy, if agreed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and monitor or report on how it is implemented. That is not the same thing as the IMC; it is quite different, as it is to report on a specific strategy, and there may be various aspects of that, but it also reports only once a year. I ask noble Lords to think about that. It is going to take four or five years before a handful of reports is produced so that you can see what is actually happening.
Nearly 20 years after the Belfast agreement, I do not get a sense that there is sufficient urgency in relation to this matter, and I doubt very much that it will be perceived as sufficiently urgent in the minds of many people in Northern Ireland. They want, on a regular but relatively frequent basis, to hear what is happening so that the Executive can be held to account if they suggest legislative changes, which they may or may not do. However, if they do, is it enough to report back only once a year? An annual report is the sort of thing a company produces to fulfil the regulatory requirements and to provide information for shareholders. It is not the sort of thing you produce when you feel that major changes urgently need to take place. It may well be said that matters can be raised within the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is absolutely true, but that is the case at the moment and, if it were satisfactory, there would not be an Independent Reporting Commission.
I tabled this modest amendment not to put the Bill in conflict with fresh start but to appeal to Her Majesty’s Government to understand the need for a greater sense of pressure and urgency in the fulfilment of whatever comes out of the strategy and other matters. I do this not to create difficulties and not to change the Bill, which would mean that it had to go back to the other place. I absolutely appreciate that this legislation needs to be in place before the House prorogues and before the Northern Ireland Assembly has a new Executive, who will have to reach agreement on a programme for government as quickly as possible. I absolutely appreciate that, partly because of other elements of the Bill, but I seek from the Minister, who has been extremely open, helpful and constructive during the relatively rapid progress of the Bill in parliamentary terms, some kind of reassurance that Her Majesty’s Government understand the question I am raising and that they will do what is necessary to find ways of making more frequent reporting possible. There are processes by which that can be done. I absolutely understand that it does not have to be done in the way I have described, but this is the only way we can do something that is reflected in the Bill.
If the Minister could find a way of reassuring us that there will be maintained momentum in this reporting, that would be extremely helpful not just to those of us in your Lordships’ House who want to see movement but to people in Northern Ireland, who at times are despairing and at other times frustrated and impatient at the lack of progress on this important issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. We hear so little in this House about Northern Ireland. It is really only when we have short debates, reported in Hansard, that we bring what happens in Northern Ireland to the attention of this House and the wider public. Having the IRC report twice a year is the very least we can hope for. I echo my noble friend’s thanks to the Minister and to the Bill team for all the help they have given us on the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will consider this matter with great speed and alacrity.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who touched on a number of very significant points. Noble Lords need to understand that this commission was appointed as a mechanism following the very severe events that took place last summer, which nearly brought the whole show down. A number of people have found that the appointment of this body gives them some reassurance that they can remain in the Assembly and that this commission would at least have the opportunity to shine a light on what was going on and to tackle one of the most significant outstanding, unresolved issues: those paramilitary organisations that were deemed to be active and have influence and control over one of the major parties and the totality of paramilitary involvement, which goes right across the community at all sorts of levels—in politics, in security, in crime and in other significant social circumstances where influence is being brought to bear on the younger generation to corrupt their views.
This is a very broad canvas. However, I want to talk about the specific security aspect of it, which is extremely important. The two shootings last year led up to the crisis and to a statement by the chief constable about the continuing operation of the Provisional IRA. That really destabilised the institutions to a significant extent. For many of us, the appointment of this body was an attempt to provide reassurance by shining an independent light on what was actually going on. I was one of those who felt that the removal of the IICD was premature. Perhaps I was wrong, but I felt that that body kept, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, relentless pressure on paramilitaries. It also provided a degree of reassurance and kept momentum in the process going. I am not sure that an annual report is sufficient to deal with that.
I digress for a moment to the Explanatory Notes that were prepared by the Government for this Bill. I mention them because they are significant and relevant to this amendment. I refer to paragraph 2, on the policy background, which says that:
“The Fresh Start Agreement was reached on 17 November 2015 after 10 weeks of cross party talks between the UK Government, the five largest parties of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Government of Ireland”.
The language in that would give the uninitiated reader reason to believe that this document and the Bill that has arisen were the product of that negotiation and agreed by the participants. That is not true. Yes, for the first eight out of 10 weeks of the discussions all the parties were involved. Sometimes they turned up and sometimes they did not, but everybody at least had the opportunity to turn up and most did. However, in the last fortnight, the discussions were taken out of Stormont House and moved to Stormont Castle, where the two largest parties, together with the Governments, produced the document, which some of the parties were then summoned to see on 17 November. My own party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party, and the Social Democratic and Labour Party were provided with this document, and we simply said that we would take it away and look at it. But this is not the product of an all-party agreement; let us be very clear about that.
The long-term problem that we have with this sort of legislation, and indeed the Scottish legislation, is that when it comes to the parliamentary side of it, government feels inhibited in paying any attention to Parliament, because it deals with these documents as if they were treaties—I made this point on the Scotland Bill. In my opinion, Parliament should be able to scrutinise and amend any of these things should it see fit. Governments, when they are making commitments, should make it very clear that they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny—they should not simply railroad things through whether they are right or wrong.
I believe that this amendment has merit. I would also like to comment on the other amendment in the group, in my name, which concerns appointments to the commission itself. Part of the arrangement is that the British Government and the Irish Government will appoint a nominee, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will appoint two nominees between them. There is a perfectly logical argument for that. You could say that for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the day, whoever they may be, it is a perfectly sensible arrangement. On the other hand, it means that you have people who are appointed basically on political grounds. Both of them will have a veto over who is appointed. One of them might be from Sinn Fein. We have to understand that the current Deputy First Minister, while he has changed much over the years—which I welcome—is nevertheless a self-confessed member of a paramilitary organisation. I personally believe that he was chief of staff of the IRA; he will have conducted paramilitary campaigns against and ordered the assassination of individuals and destruction of property and assets. Is it correct that the cat is put in charge of the cream?
So, there are two logical arguments for the amendment. However, I wanted to put it down as a probing amendment to assess whether there is an alternative mechanism. Some people say that the policing board is one. Of course, it is not a totally independent body either, but at least there are independent people on it, so it is not a political deal. But I know from experience that whoever is appointed, if the current arrangements are applied, it will be a political deal. That is fine, but I am just saying that the people who could be involved in that appointment are not necessarily independent. One of them at least, should he remain Deputy First Minister, is a self-confessed member of a paramilitary organisation. I would much prefer a more independent appointment process where people are not put in simply as stooges but would be genuinely free and independent and able to make a judgment without being somebody’s clone. That risk exists with the present arrangements.
I want to make it clear to your Lordships that this document is not universally agreed, although there are bits in it that I think are perfectly fine and reasonable and have no objection to. I do not understand why language is used which does not tell the reader what the situation in practice was.
There is great merit in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. It could also help to avoid pressures on the new Executive, when they come in, should other events occur that we cannot anticipate. What if we have to wait maybe 10 or 11 months? Let us take the situation of last summer, when those shootings occurred. If somebody said, “Well, the commission reported in June, so there’ll not be anything till next June”, that would be absolutely useless. This commission has the power to give reassurance to people that the paramilitary issue is being dealt with and will be reported on. It is not unreasonable to ask that the reporting mechanism be brought forward to six months, which could be an important escape valve for events that may occur which could destabilise the institutions once again.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in his amendment, but I do so from a point of view which has yet to be mentioned in this debate. On retirement, I have maintained the work that I initiated in those years with those former paramilitary members who were seeking a better way of life and a more just way of expressing their opinions. I have continued that work and am utterly convinced that one of the most extreme pressure points in ensuring that that process continues for the greatest number is contained in the words of the amendment, and for this reason. We may suspect, in the relatively calm waters of this Chamber and the Palace of Westminster, that some of the things that are said are not listened to by the likes of those who have former or present contact with paramilitary organisations, but let me assure noble Lords that that is untrue. Those words are read, thought about and used in deciding the meaning of this. Only recently, a group who I have been working with for some time said, “When will it be recognised that we are trying? We are trying to get out of this cauldron of paramilitary activity. When will society recognise that some of us do want out of it?”.
If the commission reports only at the sorts of intervals mentioned in the Bill, this important pressure will cease to have effect unless we accept what is sought in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. As events move—and they can move very quickly in the world of the paramilitary—if this commission does not have the opportunity to tell civil society, “This is what’s happening”, and to tell it in a relatively speedy way after evidence has been uncovered, a wonderful opportunity will be lost. I beg the Government to think just as carefully about the meaning behind the proposal in this amendment as they do about what the amendment says. I beg the House to take this very seriously.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on what he has done over a number of years in this area. He was heavily involved with the Independent Monitoring Commission, which played a significant role in accelerating the move away from paramilitarism and enabling the institutions to be recreated on a more stable basis. That would not have happened but for the work of the International Monitoring Commission. Indeed, if the IMC had been in existence before the summer of 2002, as some of us were trying to bring about, I do not think that the institutions would have collapsed in the autumn in the way that they did. That is the context that one should put the IMC in.
It was a very bad mistake to wind up the IMC so quickly. Had it been there, things would have been somewhat different. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice: just bringing back the IMC as it was would not be appropriate because we are in a slightly different context. But within that different context, we want to see that the new body will be just as effective in the contribution that it makes. That means looking a little more closely at some of the provisions here.
The noble Lord’s amendment refers to reporting by the IMC, which he wants to happen more frequently. The way for the Minister to achieve that is very simple. In that first clause, he should set out the words used in the so-called fresh start agreement. That agreement says in its paragraph 5.1:
“The body will: report annually on progress towards ending continuing paramilitary activity”.
Then it continues,
“(or on such further occasions as required)”.
That is all the Minister needs to do. He can table a simple amendment that would carry out the exact terms of the agreement that the Bill is supposed to be implementing. It solves the problems that have been mentioned just as long as no one tries to put too tight a construction on the phrase “as required”. I suggest that one does that without adding to the language in the fresh start agreement itself.
Part of the reason for saying that we should make sure that the language does not go too far, is that when we look at how the commission will exercise its functions as set out in Clause 2, something strange happens to the language used. It says:
“In exercising its functions, the Commission must not do anything which might … prejudice the national security interests … put at risk the life or safety of any person”.
Of course, national security and risks to persons are matters to which people should have regard in a situation such as this and bear in mind carefully, but how will the words “must not do anything” which could engender prejudice or cause a risk operate? How is the commission to construe that phrase? It is something that could create a chill in the commission’s operations so it would have to think, “Is there any risk attached to what we are doing?”. At what level does the risk become something where it must not do anything to bring it about?
There may be a way out of this. Trying to rewrite this clause is not something we can do easily in the time available to us, but there is a way to put this on a better basis, and that is in the provisions for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the exercise of the function. That might use language that provides a better balance than the words before us here. Mention of the guidance raises the question: when will it become available? Will it be available before Third Reading? If it is not ready then, will it become available in a form that will enable this House to give it some scrutiny? These are matters about which we would like to hear from the Minister, and he will bear in mind that our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that the guidance should be treated as a legislative instrument subject to negative resolution. That will enable scrutiny to take place here, so having it come out in a way that means we cannot look at it and then relate it to the overall objectives of the commission should be avoided if at all possible. I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say on this point.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, for his courtesy in allowing us some very helpful meetings on the Bill. I fully support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. In the past, many inquiries and commissions have taken far too long and, in the end, when they do report, what they were originally reporting on is perhaps forgotten. I cite the Saville inquiry. It went on and on, cost £200 million and, quite frankly, its report satisfied no one.
I turn to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Northern Ireland is a comparatively small geographical area. To be precise, it consists of 5,344.8 square miles. You can get from point A to point B in one and a half hours. We have a population of some 1.7 million. The effect of these facts is that we all know each other, or we know a friend of a friend. It is almost impossible to meet a fellow Ulsterman or Ulsterwoman and not, within 15 minutes of conversation, find some geographical or other link. At times we are accused of being tribal, whether we come from the inner cities, with their peace walls, from leafy suburbs or the rural countryside.
All these facts make it difficult to identify people who are seen to be completely neutral. I think we did achieve that when we appointed the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, if not, perhaps, with some other appointees. However, in order to appoint people who are neutral and seen to be neutral—and many people in Northern Ireland would fit that bill—we must end the practice of political appointments, appointments being made, currently, by only two of the main parties. We need to broaden it out so that the broadest possible organisation can be the appointing body. While I absolutely agree that the police authority is not the ideal—when are we ever going to get an ideal body?—I feel that the Policing Board would fulfil this role. There still definitely is a political element, with political appointees, but the appointed lay members will dilute that somewhat. I support the amendment.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and I shall also speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It is important that the Executive in Northern Ireland continue to tackle paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime, and therefore I very much welcome the provision for the establishment of the Independent Reporting Commission. No doubt, it will expose those in both the republican and loyalist paramilitary groups who continue to engage in criminal acts of violence. Regrettably, over past weeks, we have witnessed the murder of the prison officer Adrian Ismay in east Belfast, the murder of Michael McGibbon in north Belfast and the serious wounding of Harry Boyle in Londonderry. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has stated that these all bear the hallmarks of the action of violent dissident republican groups. I am sure that all Members of the House will condemn the vile actions of those groups.
This is why it is all the more important that the Independent Reporting Commission is in place and fully operational as soon as possible, so that it can report to the Northern Ireland Executive and enable them to draw up a programme to promote the ending of paramilitary activity. This commission is to be established through an international agreement between the UK Government and the Republic of Ireland Government. I trust that a Government in the Republic can be formed soon so that there will be no delay.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
In saying that the First Minister would have a veto, does the noble Lord recognise that there is an election under way in Northern Ireland and that the next First Minister could easily be a former IRA terrorist?
Lord Browne of Belmont
What I said was that the veto would rest within the Office of the First Minister.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, like all who have spoken in this very interesting and wide-ranging debate, I warmly endorse and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. We seem to have strayed also into Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I have great sympathy with what he said about it. However, I think that this debate is primarily about Amendment 1.
We all remember the deep sense of crisis that existed last summer in Northern Ireland with regard to the extent and viciousness of paramilitary activity. It has been touched on from time to time in this debate, bringing it home to us again. The latest police figures show that nearly 100 people were injured last year as a result of paramilitary assaults or shooting incidents. The sooner the new commission is able to get to work, the better it will be. The effectiveness of its work would surely be most usefully demonstrated by regular twice-yearly reports. No one speaks with more authority on this matter than the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who is hugely respected for the work that he did on the Independent Monitoring Commission, to which tribute has been paid today. I would like to be part of that tribute.
The Government will have noted the strength of feeling that exists and I hope they will respond in the way that all of us who have spoken in this debate would wish.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the contributions of all noble Lords on these amendments. I record the Labour Party’s appreciation of the Independent Reporting Commission, the creation of which is extremely important. The Labour Party also expressed that appreciation in the other place.
As regards representation, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, echoed almost completely the view put forward by the Labour Front Bencher in the Commons, Steve Pound. The only thing that I think Steve Pound missed out was the square mileage, but he certainly referred to the saying that everybody knows one another. I have listened to many debates on representation in Northern Ireland on various bodies. With due respect to those who have far more experience than I do and who live in the place, no one has come up with a solution that is accepted by everyone. That is the difficulty we face with the representation issue. It is important that the view of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on that issue is heard.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I make it clear that if the Government can come up with a form of words in an amendment to reflect that position, we would support it. On the other hand—there are always three hands in Northern Ireland—if that would delay the passage of the Bill in any way, we would support the Government on that.
Although the legislation refers to reporting once a year, does that preclude further reports? Can the commission of itself respond to any given situation and issue a report or carry out an investigation and comment on any incidents that arise, or is an amendment needed to enable it to do so? The legislation does not strike me as restricting the commission to producing only one report. As we all know, events can move very quickly in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that the commission will be able to carry out reports as and when required.
In ending my remarks, and as I think that everything has been said, I just echo the view expressed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, that although we know that not everybody listens to what is said in this place, there is a place for us in appealing in moderate language for cross-party and cross-community support. I value his point of view very much.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, and Lord Empey, respectively. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been, as my noble friend Lord Lexden said, a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. My noble friend Lord Trimble raised a number of issues that go wider than the amendments. He asked, in particular, about the strategy to tackle paramilitary activity. The commission will report on measures of the three Administrations, including but not restricted to the strategy. He also mentioned issues that had been raised by the Delegated Powers Committee: the duties of the Independent Reporting Commission and the guidance the Secretary of State can issue. I have responded to the Delegated Powers Committee. My noble friend raised a number of detailed broader points and I am happy to respond to him in writing on those.
Before addressing the substance of the amendments, I will give an overview of the Independent Reporting Commission and Clause 1, to which the amendments relate. The new commission is one of a series of measures set out in November’s fresh start agreement to tackle ongoing paramilitarism. The new commission builds on the precedent set by the Independent Monitoring Commission, on which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, gave such distinguished service as a commissioner. As the House knows, the Independent Monitoring Commission operated between 2004 and 2011, during which time it monitored activity by paramilitary groups and oversaw the implementation of security normalisation measures, which culminated in the ending of Operation Banner in July 2007. Like the Independent Monitoring Commission before it, the Independent Reporting Commission will be an international body, established through an international agreement between the UK Government and Irish Government. Its objective will be to promote progress towards ending paramilitary activity. Its functions will be to report annually on progress towards ending paramilitary activity; to report on the implementation of the measures taken by the Government, Northern Ireland Executive and Irish Government to tackle paramilitary activity, including oversight of the implementation of the Executive’s strategy to end paramilitarism; and to consult a wide range of stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, local councils, communities and civic society organisations.
I said that the commission will report annually on progress towards ending paramilitary activity. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, proposes that Clause 1 be amended to prescribe that the new commission must report twice annually. I have absolutely no doubt that this reflects the noble Lord’s considerable experience, as he suggested, as a member of the Independent Monitoring Commission, which reported twice annually while in operation. I am sure that all sides of the House would agree that there should be urgency in tackling paramilitary activity and establishing momentum in this process.
However, as I have outlined, the new commission, while subject to similar governance arrangements, has a different objective and functions from the IMC, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, recognised in his own remarks. The frequency with which it reports must necessarily take account of those different functions. This question was considered as part of the discussions that led to the fresh start agreement, where it was agreed that annual reporting would strike the best balance between ensuring regular and adequate oversight of measures taken to tackle paramilitary activity and allowing sufficient time between reports for progress to be made. Paramilitary activity has unfortunately been a scourge on Northern Ireland society for many years. The measures to be taken to tackle it, on whose impact the commission will report, will not work overnight.
An annual reporting cycle was judged most appropriate to properly measure progress towards the goal of tackling paramilitarism and offer meaningful commentary on the implementation of measures to this end. The fresh start agreement therefore gives the new commission a function to report annually on progress towards ending continued paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland, or on such further occasions as required.
Lord Trimble
The Minister says that he is quoting what was said in the fresh start agreement but, as I pointed out, that agreement, while saying “annually”, also clearly anticipated other reports as required. I hope the Minister will come on to that.
Lord Dunlop
I am glad that my noble friend raised that point because I am indeed about to address it. I recognise that the intent behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is to highlight that more frequent reporting may be necessary. To respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, this does not preclude more frequent reports. The fresh start agreement does provide flexibility for more frequent reports, as my noble friend Lord Trimble said, should circumstances mean that this is appropriate, but it does not envisage that this will be the norm. This will, I suggest, allow more flexibility to respond to circumstances that may arise than by prescribing twice-yearly reports. We will discuss the circumstances in which more frequent reporting may be appropriate with the new Irish Government, as soon as it is formed. To address the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, sought reassurance, the final agreement establishing the committee is still under discussion with the Government of Ireland. It is our expectation, however, that the sponsoring Governments will be able to request more frequent or ad hoc reports as circumstances dictate.
I turn to the make-up of the commission and Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. As set out in the fresh start agreement, the commission will consist of four members: one nominated by the UK Government, one by the Irish Government, and two by the Executive. For the purposes of the Bill, in the case of the Executive’s nominees, it has been necessary to confer the power to nominate members on a specific statutory office holder or body within the Executive, as the Executive is not a body under the Northern Ireland Act. Clause 1(4) therefore confers on the First and Deputy First Ministers the power to jointly nominate their members.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has proposed that the Northern Ireland Policing Board should be given this power instead. The same amendment was proposed in the other place. The fresh start agreement specified that the Executive should nominate two members to the IRC. I note what the noble Lord has said about the extent of all-party agreement; notwithstanding that, the Northern Ireland Assembly did give legislative consent to aspects of this Bill that we are bringing forward. It is the Government’s view that the First and Deputy First Ministers, acting jointly, are the most appropriate officeholders to nominate members on behalf of the Executive as a whole, in view of the objective and functions of the commission, which go beyond criminal justice. In particular, they have responsibility for delivering a number of the Executive’s measures to tackle paramilitarism on which the IRC will report. Moreover, requiring the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act jointly—which is how they currently exercise almost all of their powers and, as my noble friend Lord Trimble said, the panel on which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, serves has emerged from this process—is intended to ensure a collaborative process and nominees that have cross-community credibility.
The NI Policing Board is not part of the Executive and the amendment proposed would therefore be inconsistent with the terms of the fresh start agreement. However, neither the Bill nor the fresh start agreement specifies how the First and Deputy First Ministers will decide on their joint nominees. They may, therefore, seek suggestions from external stakeholders, such as the Policing Board, and consult with their Executive colleagues in reaching their decision. We would, of course, encourage them to do so. The key point, as I said at Second Reading, is that the four-person commission should collectively carry credibility across the Northern Ireland community. In this vein, as I also said at Second Reading, I welcome the commitment given by Minister Emma Pengelly during the debate on 15 March —in which the Northern Assembly passed a legislative consent Motion for several provisions in this Bill—to consult with the Justice Minister.
This Government are clear that paramilitarism has no place in Northern Ireland society. The new commission will therefore play an important role in tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality. For the reasons I have outlined, I urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and beg to move that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate and expressed their strong support for the amendment in my name. I am also grateful for the kind words many of them have said about my own efforts. I hope that the existence of such robust support for Amendment 1 will affect the continuing thinking of Her Majesty’s Government and of the Minister here. I was at least a little encouraged by his saying that there were still negotiations to be had with the Irish Government. That is important, and I have little doubt that I will be making my views apparent to them. I am also a little encouraged by the Minister’s telling the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, that there was more to be said on what the Secretary of State might say and do on regulations, for example. I think we will continue to show interest in that area even after this legislation is passed.
It is very important that the Government understand that it is the relentless pressure that often reaches the successful outcome. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said that we can provide by this process encouragement to those who want to give up, as well as pressure on those who do not necessarily want to. That point has been apparent in my own conversations over the last two or three months. I hope that it will be part of the calculus of Her Majesty’s Government. With that hope, and being a little encouraged by the Minister’s comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lexden
Lord Lexden
My Lords, at Second Reading I raised an issue of terminology in relation to the Bill. The text of it contains four references to Ireland as a state, which led me to wonder how this usage had arisen. Surely in international law the name of the state referred to in the Bill as “Ireland” is in fact “the Republic of Ireland”. I have tabled this probing amendment so that the issue could be explored and discussed.
Twenty-six counties of Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1922 to become the Irish Free State in international law. That state significantly amended its constitution in 1937 and, in 1948, its Government declared their intention to create a republic. The legislation which passed through its parliament is entitled the Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Its purpose was,
“to declare … the description of the state”,
as “the Republic of Ireland”. This Parliament brought itself into line with the new state of affairs when the then Labour Government of Clement Attlee passed the Ireland Act 1949. It stated that the “part of Ireland” which had declared itself a republic would,
“after the passing of this Act be referred to, by the name attributed thereto by the law thereof, that is to say, as the Republic of Ireland”.
So in 1949, an admirably clear state of affairs came into existence. Northern Ireland was plainly part of the United Kingdom and the rest of Ireland, now named the Republic of Ireland, was equally plainly a separate state on the same divided island.
Why depart from that clear position, settled in law by Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament and the parliament of the Republic of Ireland, sometimes referred to in everyday usage as the Irish Republic? As far as I can see, neither country departed from that for many years after 1949. I have been in touch with a number of constitutional experts, for whose advice I am deeply grateful, and they tend to take the same view.
The Government of the Republic of Ireland who signed the European Convention on Human Rights did so in that name; so did the later Government who signed the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. Legislation passed by this House which made reference to the Republic used the established legal terminology but suddenly, in an Act passed just 16 years ago in 2000 to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there appears a reference to a Minister of “the Government of Ireland”. How could this have happened? The Ireland Act 1949 defined the name of the 26 counties of Ireland outside the United Kingdom as the Republic of Ireland, not as Ireland tout court.
Was this Parliament asked to approve the change of terminology? I have not been able to trace such approval and, in its absence, three questions immediately arise. Was the change the result of a ministerial decision? Could the change be legitimately made in that way without explicit parliamentary approval? If those were the circumstances, should Parliament reassert the law as defined in 1949? I pose those questions and make no party-political points. I accept that constitutional arrangements evolve but surely they should evolve clearly and openly, with full explanations of changes being provided to Parliament. This probing amendment seeks to draw attention to what seems a not unimportant issue. I beg to move.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. On Second Reading, he said that it was a terminological point but it is rather more than that, as he has demonstrated today. It is actually a substantive point of some significance. I will draw attention to the fact that the loose use of the phrase “the Government of Ireland” has a bad history. The noble Lord said in his remarks on the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985, accurately, that in the British text it is defined as an agreement between the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there were two texts of this agreement. In the Irish text, the agreement was defined as between the Government of Ireland and the Government of Great Britain.
The consequences of that are really severe for something vital to the whole peace process: the protection, preservation and respect for the principle of consent. When the McGimpsey brothers challenged the agreement of 1985 in Dublin’s Supreme Court, that Supreme Court ruled that it was an agreement between something called the Government of Ireland and the Government of Great Britain, and that any apparent remarks in the agreement of 1985 acknowledging the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine the status of Northern Ireland were therefore of no substance because it was not clear what Northern Ireland was. It could conceivably have been the case that it was part of the Government of Ireland. This is fairly obviously a spurious argument; none the less, it was so used and accepted by the Irish Supreme Court. It therefore diluted what Her Majesty’s Government thought that they had achieved in 1985: an acknowledgement of the right of the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future, which exists in the British version of the documentation.
Given the rather difficult history of the loose use of the phrase “Government of Ireland” it seems very surprising that it now not only appears in Irish government documents, which is to some degree understandable, but is starting to appear in the documents of the United Kingdom Government. This is surely a step too far. It has a dangerous prehistory and we need to be very careful about it. I believe that the Irish Government today fully support the principle of consent and that one of the great achievements of the agreement of 1998 was the fact that that support became absolutely explicit through a referendum of the Irish people, passed by a large majority. But having achieved this remarkable development, and therefore the possibility on which the whole peace process rests, we should not be playing around in any of our internal documents by using this loose language, which has such a troubled prehistory.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. The term “Ireland” is being used very loosely by the present Conservative Government, which is causing great offence to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. This error of decision by the Conservative Government has been increasingly noticeable over the past 18 months. Nationally, it is contrary to the laws of this country, as has been said. The Ireland Act 1949 made it clear that the Government in the southern part of our island are the “Republic of Ireland” —nothing else, not “Ireland”. Why are the present Government pretending that the Government in Dublin are now the “Government of Ireland”, because that is causing offence?
It has been stated that, in international law, they are the Government of the Republic of Ireland, but that is not so in European law. When the United Kingdom decided to accede to the treaty of Rome, the southern part of Ireland agreed to do the same on the same day, just as it is suggested now that, if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the southern part of Ireland will also leave the European Union on the same day—that is for the future to decide. At the time of accession, it was the Conservative Prime Minister who was there on behalf of the United Kingdom, and it was Mr Lynch, the then Prime Minister of southern Ireland, who was there on behalf of the Republic of Ireland. As they were signing, Jack Lynch said to Ted Heath, “Do you mind if I sign as the Prime Minister of Ireland?”, and the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, “It’s fine, go ahead”. Since that day, the European Union has referred to the southern part of Ireland as being Ireland and, I am sorry to say, it is Ireland in the context of the European Union and its laws.
However, in the context of the United Kingdom and our laws, it is the “Republic of Ireland”, and the present Government are going contrary to the laws of this nation by referring to it as the “Government of Ireland”.
Lord Empey
My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has an uncanny habit of putting his finger on something that sparks a series of comments.
I am no lawyer or expert in these matters. All I can say is that, when we came to the Belfast agreement in 1998, no agreement would have been reached had the constitution of the Irish Republic remained as it was. We had the issue of Articles 2 and 3, which claimed the territory of Northern Ireland as part of the nation. If I remember correctly, “the island and its territorial seas” was the terminology at the time. Had that remained in place, there would have been no agreement.
A treaty was eventually written to implement the agreement—although it was brought in here as the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is of course a treaty. The Irish Republic effectively changed its constitution by referendum in 1998 to remove those offending articles. So in terms of our operational day-to-day relationships with the Republic, when we were going to meet Irish Ministers, deal with them and set up bodies with them—which, as the result of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, appointing me to positions, I had the opportunity to do—it was clear to us that the perceived threat/claim no longer existed from a practical position.
However, the problem was demonstrated by the 1985 arrangements, when there were two separate documents, as was pointed out. There was the question of the United Kingdom being given its full title—the mirror image of this question. This country was not getting its proper legal title from the Republic. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as anyone who looks at the passport will see. The Irish state was not legally permitted to acknowledge anything other than Great Britain as part of our national territory. That was where the agreement of 1998 made progress, in that it was then accepted that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom. That had been the missing link and something that we had attempted to achieve. Several noble Lords who are here today were part of that negotiation.
So we have made huge progress. I am not qualified to judge what the international implications of this could be, but we know from dealing with this issue that things can creep in over time to dilute the agreements that we have made, because there are always people who will never give up their ultimate objectives. We know that people have been prepared to kill, be killed and do all sorts of other things to achieve an objective which does not meet with the democratic will of all of the people on the island of Ireland, as was expressed by the 1998 referendum.
Your Lordships will recall that John Hume’s argument always was that, if you got the people on the island to vote, you would undermine the arguments of 1918 and the republican movement, because you would actually get people to vote to accept the position. That was, of course, the whole purpose of the agreement. People were forced into accepting that—through gritted teeth, I suspect—and we got the vote.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for raising this matter, because it brings out whether people truly and actually believe what they have signed up to.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, everything that has been said by the previous three noble Lords who have spoken is significant, and how people feel about things and the language that is used is also significant, but in assessing the legal situation we must bear in mind that Ireland—the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Free State, whatever you want to call it—operates under a formal, written constitution. Here, I am speaking from memory, not having consulted documents to refresh my memory and ensure that it is accurate, which is a dangerous thing to do, but the 1937 constitution, in giving a name to the state, said that the name of the state was “Éire, which in English means Ireland”. That is a nice one to reflect on. That constitution was still in force in 1949, when the state was declared to be a republic, but that was legislation. No amendment was made to the constitution, so in Irish constitutional law, the name remained unchanged.
Lord Trimble
My apologies. I hope that the microphone caught what I was saying and that the noble Lords could hear it, but I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention to that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, will not mind if I turn my back to him for the rest of my comments; that is no reflection on him at all.
I was saying that the 1949 Act did not change the Irish constitution, and in Irish constitutional law the name remained unchanged. There is nothing unusual about that, where common popular usage varies from the formal usage. There is a central European state that is always described incorrectly in our media as the Czech Republic. The name of the state is Czechia, but we call it the Czech Republic because we find it difficult to get our tongue around the name Czechia.
The point where we run into difficulties is that the Irish constitution was changed as a result of the agreement in 1998. What the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about that agreement was absolutely true. But the question then is: did that constitutional change change the name of the state? I rather suspect that it did, but I would like to go and check. Perhaps I will pause at that point and leave the Minister to direct inquiries on our behalf.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, this is an interesting debate, but I wonder—I might annoy a few people by saying this—about what the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said about people’s perceptions and about the indication by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that people feel strongly about this. I always listen very carefully and closely to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, because in his life he has experienced things which, to my mind, give him the right to speak on these issues.
I will pose a question—and maybe run for cover once I have asked it. Does this debate, with some of the things said here today, help the situation in Northern Ireland? Does it contribute to cross-community spirit? Does it allay suspicions? Or does it increase them? Clearly, in 1998 the people of the whole of the island of Ireland voted to accept the status quo, so any change must come through consent—and, as far as I am concerned, the principle of consent is a complete and utter guarantee that any change, if it ever happens, will be through consent.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, I managed to call on somebody to give me some advice on the current position. Article 4 of the constitution of Ireland refers to the country as “Ireland”. Legally, that is the country’s name. We cannot tell that country what to call itself. We in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland cannot dictate to somebody else what they can call themselves. To suggest that in any formal treaty or any signed agreement between our two sovereign countries we should tell the Irish Government that they should call themselves the Republic of Ireland is surprising, coming from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
Lord Kilclooney
I think that the noble Lord is missing the point. We are not telling the Dublin authorities what to call themselves. We are trying to get the present Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to comply with the law that we created in 1949.
Lord McAvoy
I am contributing to the length of this debate and I should not be. These are international treaties. We cannot tell somebody else how to designate themselves. So I am quite surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—although I was very impressed that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, weighed in to support him. It made me a bit wary of saying what I said—but, on the other hand, I have said it and I will leave it at that.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, in rising to respond to this short debate, I will echo the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, in saying that when we have heard from two very eminent historians, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and my noble friend Lord Lexden, we should tread very warily—but tread I must.
Amendment 2A relates to a number of clauses in the Bill that deal with the Independent Reporting Commission. As my noble friend Lord Lexden made clear, he raised this issue at Second Reading and I am very grateful to him for giving the House an opportunity to debate it this afternoon. My noble friend has proposed that the reference to “Ireland” in Clause 2(3)(a) should be changed to “Republic of Ireland”. I have known my noble friend for well over 30 years and know that throughout that time his interest in and commitment to Northern Ireland has been constant and steadfast—and his sense of history is unfailing. Having also worked under his tutelage, I can also personally attest to his great attention to important detail.
With regard to my noble friend’s amendment, I can confirm that it has been the practice since 2006 to refer to “Ireland” in international agreements and in UK legislation, and that the references to “Ireland” in the Bill are therefore in line with current drafting practice. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that the legislation that established the IMC in 2003 used the term “Ireland”. So the Government are confident that the 1949 Act does not require the use of the term “Republic of Ireland”.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, this has opened up an interesting and quite valuable debate. It has brought me some mildly critical comments from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. In the past his criticisms have been slightly stronger: thus I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for achieving a degree of change. I sometimes wonder whether I will ever be able to produce anything that will appeal wholly to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. He even picks me up from time to time on passages that he finds in publications to which I have contributed. Of course, I am extremely grateful for the kind references from my noble friend Lord Dunlop.
The essential point that I would ask the Government to bear in mind is that in 1949, this Parliament voted for a Bill that clearly defined the 26 counties as the Republic of Ireland. This point was stressed by my noble friend Lord Kilclooney. It is important in our documents and laws that the 1949 position should be very clearly borne in mind. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Empey
“Victims and survivors
In Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, at the end insert—“(3) In this Order references to “victim and survivor” shall not include an individual appearing to the Commission to be any of the following—(a) someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict-related incident;(b) someone who was in whole or in part responsible for an unlawful conflict-related incident if that person took part in all or any of the planning or execution of that unlawful act.””
Lord Empey
My Lords, I will take this opportunity first to remind noble Lords of our contributions at Second Reading. The co-called Stormont House agreement is a two-stage rocket. The first stage took place in 2014. Of course, even in 2015 a large part of the discussions rested on legacy issues and not on the issues contained in the Bill. So the Bill is largely devoid of the matters that were discussed for prolonged periods during both sets of negotiations.
I will take this opportunity to thank the Minister for holding a meeting. Sadly, it was in Committee Room 10A, which was far too small and stuffy for the number of people who showed up, but I thank him for holding it. I do not know whether he believes that it served him any purpose—a number of noble Lords are here this afternoon who were there last week to express their views—nevertheless, it gave an opportunity to ventilate on the legacy issues, which the Minister had indicated he hoped to bring before your Lordships at a future date, in a separate piece of legislation. We also have people in this House today, such as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who have a distinguished history of work in this very sensitive area.
As someone who, fortunately, came out of our Troubles without a member of my family or a close acquaintance being directly affected, in the sense of being either killed or injured as a result, I am in a minority, but I know there are still a lot of people who are deeply unhappy that the issues they feel are so significant to them are not being addressed. Consequently, this amendment seeks to amend the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to make it clear that, if a perpetrator of an act of violence should subsequently try to claim compensation, that they would no longer be eligible. The situation is fairly clear in English law. When a person is responsible for something that is their own doing and that thing is unlawful, it seems perverse that they should then have full access and be treated as being in exactly the same position as the person against whom an act of violence was committed. Effectively, that is what the amendment seeks to deal with.
There is no common view or belief on what is a victim. For a variety of reasons, it has not been possible to get an agreed definition, despite the fact that many people have tried. We understand the rationale for this—that those who were members of paramilitary organisations feel that they have been fighting in their terms a just war, and therefore they see themselves in the same light as we would see veterans of our Armed Forces, for instance. Strange as that may seem to many people, it is nevertheless the fact, and we have to be aware of that. Similarly, the loyalists and republicans felt that they were involved in just wars. But of course, that is not how the law of this country sees it, and it is not unreasonable to see a distinction between someone involved in an act of terrorism—an unlawful act—and a person who was a victim of that particular unlawful act, and treat them differently. That is what this addition to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Rogan
My Lords, efforts are increasingly being made by Sinn Fein/IRA to rewrite the history of the Troubles. The forces of the Crown are being portrayed as the bad boys and the bad side and, indeed, have been shown as the perpetrators of most of the violence. The terrorists are being seen as not really to blame—indeed, if it had not been for the British Government’s misrule, they would all have been model, peace-loving citizens. They are attempting to airbrush terrorists and terrorist atrocities out of history, and they portray themselves as victims, putting themselves in the same category as those thousands of innocent victims. This revisionism must not be allowed to happen. There is absolutely no way that someone injured or killed when carrying out an unlawful terrorist incident can be equated with an innocent civilian or member of the Crown forces performing their duties of protecting us.
In giving evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee yesterday, the victims commissioner stated that some 200,000 persons in Northern Ireland, 12% of the population, are suffering from mental health problems as a result of the Troubles. A disproportionate number of these victims—and these people are as much victims as those with physical injuries—live in areas which were, and in some cases still are, controlled by paramilitaries. Paramilitaries were terrorising and exploiting their own communities—one more reason why no more justification can be given to equate innocent victims with terrorists. I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
Lord Eames
My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, takes us to the very heart of the legacy issues that have haunted us every time we look back on the beginnings of the peace process. I have no reservation whatever in supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, and how he defined the distinction between those who, in uniform and on behalf of society, protected us, and those who took it into their hands, as the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, has just reminded us, and simply thought that they were involved in a just war. There is no comparison. Having said that, I want to express a certain apprehension.
When the report, which I spent so much of my time helping to prepare some years ago, was produced, we had no latitude on the question of the definition of a victim. The survivors order, as it was known, was in existence, and that was the law of the land—as it is. The amendment touches on this and seeks to change it. However, in all seriousness, is this the right place and time and the right legislation to bring about that change?
The Bill before us refers to the months of discussion between the political parties in Northern Ireland on the way forward. If we are to believe that, these terms as we have them before us are the result of that negotiation and discussion. I worry that there are those who would wish to continue the Troubles, not by the gun, bomb or bullet but by the use of manoeuvring and language and manipulation. There are those at present in our society at home for whom the Troubles have not ended; for them, matters have simply moved into a different sphere, and they want to use that sphere in every possible way to achieve their aims. I am concerned that, in the legislative process in your Lordships’ House and the other place, if we should make the slightest mistake in the tactics of when these important issues are produced and brought together in legislation, that will play into the hands of those who will manipulate it for the very ends that I have just mentioned.
Having said that I fully endorse and support what the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan, have just said about the distinction in the term “victim” and the way in which it is used, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to think carefully about the implications of what is being suggested in the amendment, because of its timing and because of the place in which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, suggests that we should make this change. I underline again that I understand the distinction, and the difficulty of distinction, in the use of the word “victim”, but I express caution regarding the legislative process. I speak from constant work among the victims and survivors and after constant work and consultation with the organisations that represent them.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, when I was asked to help out this afternoon, I reflected that it is 22 years, I think, since I last spoke from a Dispatch Box on Northern Ireland matters. It is 20 years since the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I, and many others in the Chamber today, worked on the Good Friday agreement. I have a great deal of time for the noble Lord and for what he said about equivalence, which was echoed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. There is no equivalence whatever between what the Armed Forces of the state do in the performance of their duty to protect our citizens and what terrorists do. Therefore the essence of what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said was right on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was also right to bring to your Lordships’ House the importance of the victims issue. When he spoke, it reminded me of how many people have been affected physically or mentally by the Troubles over the past 30 or 40 years. It is an immense number. However, in the end, I am bound to agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, about when we deal with this issue. It has to be dealt with, and he, above all, I suppose, has been dealing with this for many years now. I understand from the Government that the reason there are no legacy clauses in the Bill is that there has yet to be agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland on what they should be. I hope that there will be agreement on that over the next months and that perhaps in the Queen’s Speech there will be a Bill dealing with legacy issues. It is probably then that we will have to look at definitions of victims and survivors because it will be the result of intense negotiation and discussion. Therefore, although the Opposition have much sympathy with the points put in this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, we think the timing should be later and should be the result of discussions in Belfast and of further legislation.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, this amendment is essentially concerned with the definition or redefinition of a victim. This is one of the most sensitive issues which still have to be dealt with. People who have suffered most throughout years of terrorism in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain must be treated in an appropriate and sympathetic manner. They all deserve to have their plight recognised and their voice listened to. It was disappointing that the problem of confronting the past was not resolved during the recent talks, but I am confident and remain optimistic that, after the election of a new Assembly on 5 May, every effort will be made to come a consensus on this matter. I particularly welcome and congratulate the Minister on holding a briefing with all the interested parties. I am confident that in the not too distant future this House will receive legislation to deal with this matter.
I should make it clear that my party believes that the definition of a victim is wrong and needs to be looked at and possibly changed. As part of those plans, the party proposes that the perpetrators of violence during the Troubles are not defined as victims. The Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 makes no distinction between paramilitaries who were killed or injured and other victims. It is therefore important at some stage to look at possibly narrowing the scope of the definition of a victim. I want to see the peace process moving on and a Northern Ireland that puts the past behind it, but in dealing with the past, it is important that we should not be prepared to countenance a rewriting of the Troubles whereby the perpetrators of acts of terrorism, whoever they are, are placed on a par with the thousands of people who were killed or maimed.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to the Dispatch Box. He played a very significant role in Northern Ireland, and it is great to see him speaking from the Dispatch Box.
Before I address the amendments, it has already been mentioned that organisations that deal with the legacy of the past may be the subject of legislation in future, but only if sufficient consensus can be established among the Northern Ireland parties. Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, relate to the definition of a victim in relation to the role of the Commission for Victims and Survivors. Before I engage on the detail of these amendments and the challenges that they pose, I first make clear that the Government are sympathetic to the import and feeling behind them. Noble Lords will be aware that the definition of a victim in Northern Ireland is a matter of considerable contention. It is a matter that has been debated in this House before—indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Empey, tabled a similar amendment to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in November 2014—and it remains an area of disagreement between the Northern Ireland parties that is yet to be resolved.
The legislation defining a victim in the context of legacy matters in Northern Ireland relates to the work of the Commission for Victims and Survivors. Under that order, which is now a devolved responsibility, the term “victim and survivor” is defined as a person appearing to the commission to be physically or psychologically injured as a result of a conflict-related incident, or who regularly provides substantial care for such a person, or who is bereaved as a result. This is a broad definition and can include persons who are psychologically injured as a result of being a witness to an incident or of providing medical or emergency assistance to a person in connection with an incident.
The placing of restrictions on the definition of a victim is a difficult and complex issue affecting access to services for those who have suffered losses during the Troubles. However, let me be clear again that the Government believe that there is an unquestionable distinction between innocent victims and perpetrators. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in February:
“The terrorist campaigns caused untold misery and suffering”,
and we will never accept any equivalence between those who sought to defend democracy and those who attempted to destroy it.
Under the current definition, it is possible for someone who was a perpetrator of violence or their family member or carer to be defined as a victim and to benefit from the commission’s assistance. The Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 was passed by the previous Labour Government, and the definition remains highly controversial, with the Northern Ireland parties divided on the issue. The lack of consensus around the definition of a victim is one of the key challenges in dealing with the past, and the issue has not formed part of the two agreements reached in recent cross-party talks: the Stormont House and fresh start agreements.
As I mentioned previously, this legislation is now a devolved matter and therefore the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Accordingly, any change to the definition would require cross-community support in the Assembly, and at present the issue is not one on which the Northern Ireland parties have been able to agree a way forward. Even if the Assembly were currently sitting, I doubt that a legislative consent Motion would be agreed enabling this Parliament to change the definition.
Noble Lords will be aware of the significant progress that has already been made on legacy issues during the Stormont House talks towards the end of 2014. It included the Northern Ireland Executive agreeing the Victims and Survivors Commission’s recommendation for a new mental trauma service, better to meet the needs in this area. Advocate counsellor assistance was agreed for victims and survivors in order to provide support and help to individuals in accessing relevant services.
When it comes to the past, and I recognise that many noble Lords have strong views on how best to deal with it, it is clear that victims should be our first priority. These commitments in the Stormont House agreement have the potential to deliver better outcomes for victims and their families. The delivery of the Stormont House agreement still represents the best chance of making progress on these matters and remains the Government’s priority in dealing with Northern Ireland’s troubled past.
My noble friend has made an argument on the issue of victims with which it is easy to sympathise. As I have made clear, the Government agree that there is a clear distinction between innocent victims and perpetrators. However, the matter is one that I am sure noble Lords will agree is best resolved by the political parties in Northern Ireland, and on that basis I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Empey
I am obliged to the Minister for his response. I would point out to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others that I and my party will take any legislative opportunity that we can to put this case forward. It should be drawn to people’s attention that the current legislation was introduced during direct rule. Had there been devolution at that time, there would not have been agreement on the current order because it does not do what it says on the tin. For that reason, we would object strongly. The reason why this Parliament has a role is its oversight over some of the fundamental issues. I still believe that while this particular legislative vehicle may not be the most appropriate, it is nevertheless possible to resolve this because it is such a fundamental issue.
The Minister says that Stormont has this responsibility today, but I can tell him that had Stormont been dealing with things at this stage in 2006 it would never have agreed to this particular set of proposals, because they leave the door wide open. They do not distinguish between a perpetrator and victim; in fact, they make the perpetrator and the victim equal. That is what the order says, and my amendment seeks to change that.
I understand the dilemma that the Minister is in. We can run away from this issue as much as we like but sooner or later we are going to have to confront it. Whether in this vehicle or some other vehicle is unimportant, but I personally and my colleagues in my party will take every legislative opportunity that comes our way to put this case until the matter is resolved. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Empey
“(5) Standing orders must provide for a process for investigating any alleged breach of the undertaking by any member of the Assembly and for determining whether the undertaking has been breached.(6) Standing orders must provide for sanctions that shall apply to any member of the Assembly who has been found to have breached the terms of the undertaking.”
Lord Empey
My Lords, this amendment was moved in the other place. It is on the back of the fact that a series of pledges were included in the Stormont House agreement, to which people were asked to commit before they took office as Ministers and Assembly Members, relating to a series of things that I have no difficulty with, although I said at Second Reading that I had little faith in commitments because I thought some people would sign anything, and the history over the last 30 years was that they did so. We had issues at local government level where people had to sign, pledging to a peaceful way forward, when we knew that they had no intention of doing so. Still, the language in some of the pledges is quite positive and a step forward.
However, if there is a breach of those undertakings, no sanction whatever is provided for. The point was made repeatedly in the House of Commons from all parties, including the Labour Party, that there were gaps here that should be filled. I suggest that we make it clear that Standing Orders should be provided in the Assembly saying that if a person is clearly guilty of a breach of these undertakings, something happens. At present, nothing happens. What will happen in practice is what has happened before: even where someone is in breach or is challenged over their behaviour in the current Assembly, the party of which that person is a member puts down a petition of concern, if it is in a position to do so, which means that nothing happens. That means we can have the best form of commitments and statements of commitment to pursue peaceful means and all the rest of it, but at the end of the day nothing can be done in the Assembly to have any impact or effect any change. That point was made repeatedly in the other place. It makes sense if you have a series of commitments that people are being asked to make. What is the point of asking them to make those commitments if, when they breach them, absolutely nothing happens?
Lord Rogan
My Lords, Clause 7, which deals with the pledge of office, has seven objectives. The first six are so self-evident that no government Minister in any democracy would not adhere to them whether or not they had taken an oath or a pledge. However, the seventh pledge in new paragraph (ck)—
“to accept no authority, direction or control on my political activities other than my democratic mandate alongside my own personal and party judgment”—
is somewhat different and indeed significant, given that the IRA Army Council still exists and that we were led to understand that it directs political Sinn Fein.
The Secretary of State has clarified in another place that an individual who refuses to give the undertaking will not be able to participate in Assembly proceedings or receive any of the privileges of office or salary. That is very welcome but somewhat different from what applies to Sinn Fein Members of the other place, who refuse to take an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty yet suffer no loss of salary or expense. We have a situation whereby a sanction and penalty for refusing to give an undertaking is in place, but the glaring omission in the Bill is that there is no process for investigating or, more importantly, providing sanctions for those who breach their undertaking.
Not all politicians may be as honourable as noble Lords. A process for investigating an alleged breach of the pledge would be helpful. Surely some penalty must be administered to those who wilfully break it, perhaps after being given orders from a six-man Army Council. I support the amendment.
Lord Trimble
My Lords, I indicate my support for this amendment, which, as my noble friend Lord Empey says, was tabled in the other place and debated there. I think it was tabled by Sylvia Hermon, the Member for North Down, and it is a very sensible provision. What is the value of these pledges and undertakings if they can be disregarded? There has to be some form of penalty or sanction available in the event of the undertakings not being honoured.
At Second Reading, the Minister gave two reasons why the amendment was not accepted. The second of the two reasons was to refer to established mechanisms by which the Assembly holds its Members to account, including adherence to the Assembly code of conduct and so on. This is like asking IPSA to take on such a highly political job as deciding what sanctions to apply to Members who take directions from paramilitary and terrorist organisations and so on. That is not a terribly good reason to give for not accepting this. The other reason the Minister gave was that:
“The Government are firmly of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for us at Westminster to pre-empt the Assembly’s own consideration of this issue”.—[Official Report, 12/4/16; col. 225.]
I can understand that—it sounds reasonable enough—but you then have to bear in mind that the likelihood of the Assembly agreeing to significant sanctions as things stand at the moment is round about zero, and maybe even less than zero. Therefore that, too, is not a good reason.
I also add a rider to say that one of the things that disturbs me about our Government’s attitude to the devolved Administrations—it is not just in Northern Ireland but comes across in their attitude to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—is that an exaggerated view of their position runs through all of this. This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. We have devolved matters, but power devolved is power retained. At the end of the day responsibility in all these matters rests with Her Majesty’s Government. For the Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave it up to the devolved Administration” might sound appropriate and diplomatic but it gives far too exaggerated a view of it. To see how at the end of the day that puts you in difficulty, just look at the history of Stormont. The same exaggerated view of Stormont’s position from 1922 onwards was taken by this House, and the result of that was not good in that it led the central Administration not to pay proper regard to what was going on and not to involve themselves in what was going on. If Government here had paid closer attention to it, we might have avoided the Troubles. That is a small point, but I hope the Minister will bear it in mind.
Finally, I understand the Minister’s desire to be diplomatic, on the basis that he is only being diplomatic, and I realise that it will not be possible to accept the amendment without losing the Government’s timetable to get this out before the end of the Session—and that is fine. Can the Minister then change his language slightly when he says that he will leave it to the Assembly to see what it does with regard to it? However, if the Assembly fails to take action on this matter, the Government will have to consider what they do.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I support Amendment 4, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. As I have said before, Northern Ireland goes to the polls on 5 May and it is only right that anyone who engages or supports paramilitarism should have no place in a democratic institution. Newly elected Members will thus be obliged to give an undertaking to abide by the principles outlined in Clause 8 and Schedule 2.
I fully concur with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that it is only right and proper that, when a Member of a legislative Assembly gives an undertaking and then is seen to breach that undertaking, within Standing Orders there should be a robust mechanism, first, to enable an investigation of any alleged breach of the undertaking, and, if proved, surely there should be sanctions that can be enforced. Otherwise, the undertaking those Members take will be meaningless. If not, the public in Northern Ireland will have little confidence in their elected Members and in the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Of course, it is only right that the Northern Ireland Assembly should prescribe the nature of the sanction, but surely, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, it is for the sovereign Parliament to ensure that the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly reflect the need for such sanctions.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
My Lords, again, I express a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords have said with regard to this amendment. There is no doubt that, if you have a pledge of office, there is not much point in having one unless you can enforce it. Your Lordships will recall that, during the course of the talks which led up to the Good Friday agreement, both Sinn Fein and a paramilitary party were excluded from them because they were seen to breach a similar sort of pledge. Therefore, in a way, this has run through negotiations in Northern Ireland politics for a long time.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that this is an issue of public confidence. There is no point in having the pledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said at Second Reading, unless it is enforceable. However, at the same time we know, and the Minister will undoubtedly tell us, that the Bill needs to go through quickly because of the election and other reasons. Therefore, how do you deal with a situation which is significant but which you are reluctant to legislate on because of the necessity of having to deal with it quickly?
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who was absolutely right that there are other ways of dealing with this. That is, the Secretary of State and Minister can return to Northern Ireland at the point when further discussions are held on these matters, ensure that the debate is held here and in the other place, and that there is cross-party support for the need for Standing Orders to express a view that, if the pledges are breached, there should be some method by which you can enforce some sort of punishment. What that would be I am sure would be a matter for great debate and negotiation, but it has to be addressed. Otherwise, the pledges are hollow and meaningless.
It seems to me that, during the course of the negotiations that led up to the fresh start agreement, people accepted the idea that there should be a pledge—obviously, it would not be in front of us otherwise. I am sure, although I do not know, that they must have talked about the enforceability of sanctions. So the ball is now in the Government’s court, and although it is not practical or feasible for this legislation to deal with it, it is practical and feasible for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to go back and talk with the political parties and try to get agreement.
Lord Dunlop
My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. Clause 8 makes provision for a new undertaking to be given by all Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, in line with the fresh start agreement. To be clear with the Committee, it was necessary to introduce this undertaking through Westminster legislation because the Assembly is prohibited by the Northern Ireland Act from introducing a requirement for its Members to make an oath or declaration as a condition of taking office. The Assembly has established mechanisms for holding MLAs to account for their adherence to the existing Assembly code of conduct, through the Assembly Committee on Standards and Privileges and the independent Commissioner for Standards. The Assembly already has the power to introduce measures to investigate alleged breaches of the undertaking and to impose sanctions for any such breaches.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, assumes that Standing Orders would be the obvious vehicle for introducing any such measures, but this is not necessarily the only vehicle. For example, it may be open to the Assembly to legislate. There may of course be other options, and it is right that the Assembly should be able to debate and explore the available options for itself. Indeed, the whole issue of devolution was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Trimble. There is considerable value in the Assembly and not this House determining how MLAs should be held to account for any breaches of the new undertaking, just as this House holds its Members to account for their behaviour. Any such measures would of course need to be built upon cross-community support in the Assembly, and it must be right that Assembly Members should be subject to scrutiny for their conduct.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, the Government will of course encourage the Assembly to consider carefully how this might be achieved. However, for the reasons I have given, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Empey
Once again, I thank the Minister for his comments and thank other noble Lords who have participated in this. As with the Minister, it is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, at the Dispatch Box once again. He knows his onions when it comes to this subject.
The Minister is right that Standing Orders may not be the only mechanism. I do not care what the mechanism is, to be honest. The simple point—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, put it very clearly—is that these pledges mean nothing if they can be ignored with no consequence. That is self-evident. The Minister hinted to us that he intended to bring forward another piece of legislation in the next Session, perhaps to deal with legacy and other matters. There will therefore be time for the Assembly to address this issue, and I welcome that, but there will also be time for the Assembly not to address it. However, I think that we, and the Government, will be provided with an opportunity and the time to get this matter resolved. If it is not resolved, it will continue to fester.
If I may paraphrase MacArthur, I assure the Minister that we shall return to this matter if it is not resolved. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
BBC Charter Review (Communications Committee Report)
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate on the report BBC Charter Review: Reith not Revolution from the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, which I have the honour to chair. The only interest that I must declare is that my son, Will Best, is the presenter of a BBC children’s programme on CBBC.
I am very grateful to my fellow committee members for their input into this report. They represent different perspectives within your Lordships’ House and I think it significant that so much unanimity was achieved on our conclusions and recommendations. Our thanks go to our clerk, Anna Murphy, our policy analyst, Helena Peacock, and our specialist adviser, Jacquie Hughes, and to all those who made submissions to the committee, particularly the 43 witnesses who presented oral evidence.
As a trailer for today’s debate, the lunch-break session held by the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on 10 March attracted some 20 speakers but with contributions limited to just one minute. Today, with even more speakers but with a sensible timetable, I hope that we can do rather more justice to a subject which affects virtually every single man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. I thank in advance all those who will be speaking in the debate.
The Secretary of State told our committee that, rather than respond separately to our report, the Government will take it into account in preparing the White Paper on renewal of the BBC’s charter. We now know that the White Paper will be published in late May. This means that our debate today is well timed to feed into the final stages of the White Paper’s contents, but once it has been released it will be important for this House to be given an opportunity to consider it fully. Can the Minister reassure us that time will be allocated on the Floor of the House to debate the proposals set out in this important White Paper?
The title of our report on BBC charter renewal, Reith not Revolution, for which we are indebted to our committee member, the noble Lord, Lord Hart, sums up the position we have taken. We put our faith in a BBC which respects and appreciates its founding principles, established by the first director-general, Lord Reith, and we rejected calls for radical, fundamental change in the underlying purpose of the BBC or its scale or scope. Speaking personally, I was aware at the outset of our inquiry of a lot of background noise about the possibilities of dramatic change for the BBC. Of course, there had been the Jimmy Savile scandal, criticisms of salaries for executives, accusations of political bias and so on, but, as the evidence rolled in, it became clear to me that mostly the fuss—the call for the BBC to be cut down to size or opened up to commercial competition and the rest—was coming from the Westminster village, not from the world outside. Broadly, we discovered that the public at large were strongly in favour of “their” BBC and would be greatly opposed to radical change.
We recognised that with a limited timescale we could not cover every aspect of the BBC’s future, so we deliberately excluded the topics of the governance and management of the corporation, not least because these areas were considered by our sister committee in the other place, and because in September last year the Government announced that Sir David Clementi would carry out a review into the governance and regulation of the BBC. In the event, I do not think the committee would have any disagreement with either the DCMS Select Committee’s views or Sir David’s recommendations on the creation of a new unitary board for the BBC, with the abolition of the BBC Trust and regulation by Ofcom.
The areas that we did tackle in our eight-month inquiry covered: first, the underlying purpose of the BBC; secondly, the BBC’s scale and scope; thirdly, the process for setting the licence fee; and, finally, the timing of the charter—how many years it should run before renewal.
The charter states that the BBC’s main objective is the promotion of certain public purposes. We decided to examine the six official public purposes in some depth but, as we ventured further into their detail, it became increasingly apparent—as was voiced most forcibly by the noble Earl, Lord Arran—that the purposes framework, comprising a mission statement, six public purposes, purpose remits, purpose priorities and very detailed service licences, was far too complex. When the director-general came before the committee, we were shown the huge stack of forms and submissions that the BBC must complete to fulfil these multiple requirements. All this complexity, we concluded, makes practical assessment of the BBC’s performance more difficult.
We recommended a much simpler and more transparent approach. We liked the distillation of the BBC’s objectives as set out by Lord Reith—to inform, educate and entertain—and we recommend that the status of these Reithian principles should be reaffirmed as the BBC’s overarching mission. We recommended scrapping the current six public purposes and felt, instead, that the BBC should adopt the four general public service broadcaster purposes that apply to all PSBs—that is, to ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, as well as the BBC—but with the BBC setting the gold standard among them. Its special status and its funding through a universal licence fee gives the BBC, we maintained, unique obligations to its audience. It should reflect the different opinions, lifestyles, beliefs and values of the UK’s nations, regions and diverse communities. Indeed, we dared to suggest a fourth dimension to the Reithian mission so that this might become “to inform, educate, entertain and reflect”.
We went on to propose the abolition of the cumbersome purpose remits and purpose priorities, and we recommended a full review of the service licences by the independent regulator of the BBC—most likely to be Ofcom—with a view to these being simplified and strengthened, defining clearly what is expected of each service while still encouraging creativity. We were not letting the BBC off the hook. We felt it should be firmly held to account for any non-compliance with the service licences and that these should be reviewed more frequently than the current five-yearly review.
To assist this process, we were clear that the independent regulator should be provided with a comprehensive account of the BBC’s spending by genre—for children’s programmes, news, drama, current affairs, et cetera. This information was made available to the committee but because of its commercial sensitivity could not be published more widely. In looking at this and other evidence, we expressed some concern at the downward trend in the BBC’s investment in current affairs. Spurred on by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, we underlined the importance of the BBC continuing to fund adequately its output as the leader in the field of children’s programmes. We noted with concern a decrease in spending on the arts, and we emphasised the important role of the BBC in stimulating creativity and cultural excellence, particularly in the field of music and drama, and through training and developing talent.
We noted the criticism that the BBC was too London-centric, and commended the steps taken to address this by moving production to other cities. We were impressed by the impact of the BBC’s investment in Salford’s MediaCity, which we visited. However, we heard from a number of witnesses, particularly a panel of young people, that the BBC did not sufficiently reflect their lives, the lives of those with disabilities or those in BAME communities. However, we noted that the BBC recognised its deficiencies here and we expect to see marked improvement.
We also heard concerns about the decline across broadcasting in religious programming, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford may mention today. We agreed that the BBC, as the dominant provider, should maintain the quality and content of its output in that genre.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to note that we welcomed additional government funding for the World Service. We endorsed the crucial role that the BBC plays in the UK’s cultural influence and soft power on the world stage.
Turning to our second area of interest, the BBC’s scale and scope, it is true that the BBC has already had to cut back and find significant savings. We noted that in today’s global economy, the BBC is really quite small compared in particular to American players such as Amazon and Netflix. We heard no convincing case for a significant reduction in the scale or scope of the BBC, nor did we accept arguments that the BBC should be restricted to remedying gaps for which the commercial market does not provide. We were clear that its outputs should bring benefits to all licence fee payers and that it should continue to be a universal broadcaster providing programmes that do not simply inform and educate but also entertain, as Lord Reith believed.
In the changing world of the digital age, we recognised that the BBC had an important role as a non-commercial contributor to developing innovative technologies such as the iPlayer, and also to delivering its content online.
When we came to our third theme, the process for setting the level of the licence fee, strong views were expressed to us about the deal struck behind closed doors in July 2015. Most of the evidence was highly critical of the Government’s proposal and the BBC’s acceptance that the cost of funding free television licences for the over-75s should come out of cuts to other spending by the BBC. We recommended instead that, in future, the process should be out in the open, with widespread consultation before any such deals are done. We spelled out a detailed process for setting the licence fee, or indeed a household levy, if that were introduced. The independent regulator would make an evidence-based recommendation to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Secretary of State would have an obligation to accept this or to publish their reasons for not doing so. The regulator, presumably Ofcom, would be allowed to submit an amended recommendation, but not a third one. The Secretary of State would have the final say and, as now, Parliament would be asked to approve a statutory instrument.
Finally, on the timing of the charter review process, we recommended a decoupling from the five-year general election cycle. The present timings could lead to overhasty decision-making soon after an election. We also noted that the impartiality and independence of the BBC could be compromised by a short charter period: there would be a sword of Damocles hanging over the BBC with the ever-present threat of an imminent new charter. Moreover, we recognised the considerable financial and management burden of more frequent charter reviews. We were persuaded, therefore, that the charter period should be no shorter than the current 10 years, which provides the BBC, and the wider creative industries that depend upon it, with the necessary stability for longer-term planning. However, to avoid coinciding with the cycle of general elections, we recommended that the next charter should be for 11 years, with a 10-year period thereafter.
We did not shirk from recommending an enhanced framework of accountability for the BBC, and I think it sits well with the recommendations from the Clementi review and the DCMS committee for new governance and regulation. We were unanimously opposed to a diminution in the scale and scope of the BBC and its position in our national life. We wanted a new, transparent system for setting the licence fee and an 11-year charter period next time. However, while noting valid criticisms of some aspects of the BBC’s behaviour in the past, our report was overwhelmingly supportive and appreciative of the BBC. It is indeed a national treasure: an institution from which all of us gain so much and about which we can rightly feel a genuine sense of national pride. I beg to move the Motion.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the committee on this report. I congratulate the noble Lord on his leadership of the Communications Committee and the way that he has introduced his report. I must say, I found myself in agreement with virtually everything that he said.
It is an important report, and I hope that the Government will follow its proposals. I particularly endorse what the committee said on the principles and guidance of Lord Reith, which make clear, and above all comprehensible, that the aim of the BBC should be to inform, educate and entertain—and even reflect, which has been added. Each is important. I have always been most supportive of the aim to inform, meaning that the BBC should provide the best possible objective news coverage; a duty which to my mind, and in spite of all the sniping, it fulfils excellently. The aim to entertain must be recognised. There should be no question of that being jettisoned so that the commercial sector can fill the gap. We all know what the result of that would be: an assault on the licence fee on the basis that the BBC was not reaching the whole of the nation.
The report begins by going back to 1927 and the formation of the BBC. However, there was a stage before that. In 1925, an all-party broadcasting committee set up by the Government proposed that a public corporation should be set up to act as a trustee for the national interest in broadcasting. It added that the corporation should be set up by statute. But Governments are the same, I fear, in every age. Ministers did not like the idea of them not being in the driving seat or it being set up by statute, because that meant putting things to both Houses. They said that it would become a “creature of Parliament”. So they brought forward the proposal that it should be under a royal charter, and thus it became a creature of government. The royal charter gave the Government the ability to evade Parliament and the power for Ministers to do virtually what they liked. For that is what the royal charter means: a transfer of power to the Executive. That is the position that basically we have today: government may make fundamental changes but without the inconvenience of getting parliamentary approval. How do the Government defend this indefensible position? They say, as my noble friend said only on Tuesday:
“For nearly 90 years a royal charter has been the constitutional basis of the BBC, underlying the independence of the BBC from political interference”.—[Official Report, 19/4/16; col. 539.]
I make absolutely no criticism of my noble friend, who is one of our very best Ministers, but this is the consistent line of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and has been for the past decade and probably more. Even when it says that it is protecting the BBC from political interference, that really is the greatest nonsense. The political interference comes not from Parliament but from government. The worst political interference is that of Ministers, and so it has been during the past few decades.
It was not Parliament that handed over to the BBC a £600 million bill for free television for the over-75s; it was the Government. Governments are notorious for interfering politically. Unless one understands and accepts that, we are not going to make vast progress. Let us recognise that, quite irrespective of party, all Governments and all Prime Ministers have their views. Lady Thatcher made no effort to disguise her scepticism. At a dinner of the Cabinet, I remember her telling us that if ever she was tempted to say anything nice about the BBC, “Denis soon persuaded me out of it”. It was not that she was tempted very much in any event, but there was just the odd occasion. And then, of course, following the last election, all kinds of threatening noises came from No. 10 that now was the time to take on the BBC.
Antipathy towards BBC reporting is not confined to one party. Harold Wilson was not renowned as a great supporter of the independence of the British Broadcasting Corporation and, even more up to date, nor were Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, who were beside themselves with rage about the corporation’s coverage of the Iraq war. In the last charter review in 2005-06—there are a number of us here who were on my committee which looked at the charter then—they invented the BBC Trust and deliberately divided responsibility at the top of the BBC.
So when the DCMS says that the charter,
“has served us so well for 90 years”,—[Official Report, 19/4/16; col. 540.]
and I fear again that I quote my noble friend, I think we are entitled to say, “Just who are you kidding?”. In 2005, I was chairman of the Select Committee which looked at charter renewal and the proposal for the BBC Trust, which provided divided leadership at the top of the corporation. Like virtually everybody else, we rejected the proposal. Of course, that had not the slightest impact on the decision. The Government, using their charter powers, imposed it. And now, 10 years later, can one see what is happening? It is going to be abolished as a bold step by the new Government. Goodness knows what the cost to the taxpayer is of this fruitless adventure, and this is the direct product of the royal charter that has served us so well.
The only sensible question to be asked now is what we can do about it. There seem to be two possible courses. We can turn the BBC into a statutory corporation like Channel 4. That has substantial attractions. With Channel 4, for example, it means that fundamental changes would have to be approved. It means that if one wanted to privatise Channel 4, and there are rumours of that kind, one would have to introduce primary legislation and bring it through both Houses of Parliament—I am not a Whip, but I would not give too many chances of that surviving all that. It means that if the Government have the slightest sense, they will not attempt such action, so it is a great check on the power of Governments to act. That is one course. The alternative is to make the charter changes subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In this way, the BBC Trust proposal would have had to come to Parliament and be approved by both Houses. That is an alternative and perhaps less elaborate way of doing it. My noble friend Lord Lester—I should say the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but he is my friend as well—has a plan in this regard which I shall allow him to set out.
The point is that the charter as it now stands needs either fundamental reform or total abolition. It is utterly undemocratic; it makes a nonsense of parliamentary sovereignty and it hands all power to Ministers. I would not have thought that that was what anyone in this country really wanted.
I have not tried to cover the whole of the BBC waterfront, but, in conclusion, perhaps I may be allowed just to say this. I am passionately in favour of an independent BBC absolutely free from government interference; of a BBC with a place in the world and a strong BBC World Service; of a BBC where news reporting is put high and the reporting skills of correspondents are properly valued; of a BBC with a licence fee and not some subscription model; of a BBC which is subject to check, but not the check of the BBC Trust, particularly when we have a perfectly good regulator in Ofcom; and, above all perhaps, of a BBC where the director-general and an independent board make decisions regarding the corporation inside the budget that they are given.
What I do not want is for a board for the BBC to be set up consisting of government placement of one kind or another. The other thing that I really do not want is five-year reviews rather than 10-year reviews. All that would mean was that the BBC was not only constantly under review but constantly under the threat of change. It would also mean that government’s involvement in the corporation would become greater rather than less, and I do not think that that is what the public in this country want.
My hope is that the Government will recognise the importance of the BBC and its national and international reputation. My hope is that the Government seek to strengthen the BBC, not to weaken it. My hope is also that the Government will follow the advice of this excellent report from the Communications Committee and implement the proposals within it.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity of this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his committee for their sterling work. It is not the first time in your Lordships’ House that I have followed a speech on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and found myself in agreement with precisely every word that he has spoken, but I shall try to approach some of the issues from a slightly different angle.
Having chaired the joint scrutiny committee for the 2003 Communications Bill, I am keenly aware of the complexities of any discussion around the future of public service broadcasting; and I should at this point declare an interest: I am chairing an ongoing inquiry into the future of public service broadcasting generally, not just the BBC, and we intend to report in June.
This committee’s report which we are debating today is extremely helpful, but it was forced to be somewhat narrower than the debate needs and deserves at this late stage in the process. I entirely welcome its focus on public purpose, its support for a far more transparent process in the setting of the licence fee and its resistance to the notion of the BBC as any form of “market failure” broadcaster. I also strongly support the report’s conclusion that there is no need or justification for contestable funding, let alone further top-slicing of the BBC’s resources for other purposes. But—and it is a rather big but—the report’s remit did not allow it to address the issues of governance and those of funding more generally. It suggested scrapping a good deal of the accountability framework without really putting in place anything substantive beyond supporting Ofcom’s definition of PSB.
For me, the crucial issue for anyone seriously interested in the health of plural democracy is to focus on the overriding importance of the corporation’s independence. In one sense at least, the Secretary of State John Whittingdale has got it right. The future should not—in fact, the future cannot—be simply a version of business as usual. The overwhelming need is to restore faith in the whole process, and to do so the Government must demonstrate their support for meaningful independence in their approach to appointments. As we are currently seeing, Governments of all persuasions can and do use the prospect of charter review and its associated funding decisions to put pressure on the BBC. For a democracy such as ours, that is a thoroughly unhealthy state of affairs. Surely, after almost a century of extraordinary success, the time has come for the BBC to be constituted on a more secure and permanent basis. I will therefore be avidly supporting the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in arguing in favour of replacing the present charter system by placing the BBC on a statutory footing, if necessary through a new Act of Parliament.
The recent review of the BBC’s governance and regulation by Sir David Clementi was right to highlight the problems that the BBC Trust has experienced since it replaced the governors as the corporation’s sovereign body. As Sir David noted, the trust model has conflated governance with regulation and, as a consequence, it has often been hard to tell who has been in charge—the executive or the trust. However, I am sure that I was not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who was disappointed to read Sir David’s suggestion that government could appoint six out of the 13 unitary board members. It is even more disturbing to hear a Conservative Secretary of State suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for government to appoint a significant majority of board members. Given that the Green Paper claims that:
“The independence of the BBC is absolutely central to its mission”,
surely any proposal to increase government influence over what is intended to be a powerful and influential body suggests precisely the opposite.
At the very least, the appointments process should resemble that of Channel 4, nine of whose 13 board members—and I was a very happy deputy chairman—are appointed by Ofcom, free of any perceptible government influence. Ideally, I would like to see a majority of board members selected through a significantly more democratic and, indeed, imaginative process, involving diverse and experienced representation drawn from right across the country.
We should all be conscious of a growing disquiet, and even an anger, over the prospect of a Whittingdale Broadcasting Corporation. I refer noble Lords to the excellent speech given by the shadow Secretary of State for DCMS on Tuesday of this week, in which she quite rightly excoriated the Government for what appeared to be their bullying of the corporation during the current charter review process; for example, by floating proposals that would involve the corporation selling its stake in UKTV’s bouquet of channels, thereby stripping BBC Worldwide of one-third of its profits. I also draw the attention of the House to a warning delivered by the person who may well be this country’s most trusted public figure, Sir David Attenborough, that the Government need to,
“keep themselves at arm’s length”,
from the BBC in order to protect its independence.
The Government have an opportunity to demonstrate their support for the BBC through their deeds rather than their words, providing the corporation with the security and the scale it requires to continue in its role as the fundamental cornerstone of the public service information landscape as well as the vital engine room of the UK’s ever more successful creative industries. Yes, the BBC needs to enter into new partnerships, but these should not be imposed through top-slicing or by forcing it to become more distinctive, when it is obvious that that is simply another way of saying that it should retreat from popular formats.
For almost 20 years, I had the pleasure of sitting on the board of Anglia Television. As such, I witnessed at first hand the manner in which ill-considered legislation —in that case, the Broadcasting Act 1990—led to significant and wholly unnecessary job losses; the evisceration of an excellent regionally based training structure; a general decline in regional pride and identity; and, most regrettable of all, the erosion of democratic accountability. Noble Lords have only to consider the dramatically reduced level of visibility of any Back-Bench MP as against the situation 30 years ago—a time when every MP, along with other significant local political figures, could expect to get their views aired across their regions and to their local constituents on at least a quarterly basis. That is what I am referring to when I speak of ill-thought-through legislation creating a damaging loss of democratic accountability.
I am pleased, however, to report that not every senior member of the Government shares a lingering antipathy towards the BBC. Here is what the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary had to say on Radio 4, no less, just two days ago:
“Britain is a great country—the world’s fifth largest economy with the world’s best armed forces, best health service and best broadcaster. We are first in the world for soft power thanks to our language, culture and creativity”.
Unless I am very much mistaken, I do not think that Mr Gove was referring to Sky, but then who knows?
We have been assured that the White Paper on the future of the BBC will be with us shortly. We can only hope that it contains measures designed to strengthen public service broadcasting and not to eviscerate it at the behest of its commercial rivals. Indeed, we should do more than hope. I would like to believe that today’s debate will be seen as a shot across the bows of any Government from any party wishing to bring forward measures that could damage one of this country’s two most highly regarded institutions. In a world running short on trust, the BBC remains a significantly more credible organisation than any of those who, for political or for commercial reasons, seek to undermine it.
Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of chairing an event at BAFTA discussing the future of public service broadcasting. At the end of what was a very lively session, I suggested that there was such public interest in this area that any attempt by the Government to undermine the BBC and its independence would be met by a march down Whitehall that would make the Countryside Alliance look like a tea party. I sincerely believe that that could be the case. I sincerely hope that I will be there, and I sincerely believe that the rest of the country would back it.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and members of his committee on an excellent and wide-ranging report. I have long been a critical friend of the BBC, believing it to be the best broadcaster in the world and one of the best gifts of this nation to the world. The committee’s report talks in similar terms, describing the BBC as,
“one of this nation’s most treasured institutions...
the keystone of British broadcasting”,
and,
“respected across the world”.
The report talks of the BBC playing,
“a central role in the wider creative industries”.
It is vital that, as the Government finalise their deliberations on a new charter, nothing is done that will undermine the BBC’s ability to continue to merit such accolades, and nothing should be done to undermine the independence and impartiality of the BBC.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said that this should be the top priority and I entirely agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with a distinguished track record in these areas, talked powerfully about the need to develop mechanisms to reduce government interference in the BBC. When he speaks later, I understand that my noble friend Lord Lester will talk about how he believes statutory underpinning can help, and I look forward to hearing his contribution.
The committee report makes clear—and I entirely agree—that maintaining independence and impartiality will be aided by a new charter which lasts for at least 10 years. On Tuesday, in your Lordships’ House, I noted that the Minister referred to the value of a royal charter lasting for,
“a good period of time”.—[Official Report, 19/4/16; col. 540.]
I hope that she will accept the committee’s recommendation for a minimum 10-year period, since that will not only help to protect independence and impartiality but provide security in terms of planning and investment for the BBC and, as the report points out, stability for the wider creative industries that relate to the BBC.
Of course, that security and stability would be undermined if the charter period is set for a good period of time, but includes a mid-term review whose scope allows for the unpicking of bits of the charter itself. I hope that we can receive reassurances that that will not be the case.
The report makes one other important recommendation on the length of the charter. It suggests that the next charter should be for 11 years, not 10 years, to decouple the charter review process from the general election cycle and allow full consultation and dialogue. That is an extremely sensible proposal, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.
The committee, as we have heard, consciously did not cover the issue of governance of the BBC. Its decision, in the words of the report, to “eschew” governance was well-founded, given the subsequent announcement of the Clementi review. Sir David Clementi’s review proposed the most radical overhaul of the BBC’s governance in its lifetime, ensuring that regulation of the BBC fully passes to an external regulator in Ofcom while governance is transferred to a new unitary board with executive and non-executive directors. I opposed the establishment of the BBC Trust—a fruitless venture, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, called it. I thought it was entirely wrong to set up a body that sought to be both a flag-waver for the BBC and a regulator of the BBC. These two roles are incompatible. Sir David’s proposal for an external regulator and a unitary board resolves this conflict, and I welcome it.
However, like others who have already spoken, I do not believe that the independence of the BBC will be achieved if the non-executive members of the proposed board are government appointees. The Secretary of State at DCMS said recently that he did not think that the Government’s appointment of BBC non-executives to the board would undermine independence, and pointed out that all 12 of the current members of the BBC Trust were appointed by the Government. I think that he is wrong. The current trust is far less powerful than the proposed unitary board, which will set the BBC’s editorial direction, make key decisions on programmes and even have a say in how the BBC manages news.
Giving these important powers to government appointees will understandably lead to accusations that we are creating a state broadcaster, not a public service broadcaster. A bizarre situation could arise in which decisions around how the BBC is reporting government policy or the action of Ministers is being decided by people appointed by the same Government or by the same Minister. That simply cannot be acceptable. Channel 4 has a similar board to the one proposed for the BBC, and its non-executives are all appointed by Ofcom, not by the Government. I believe that the BBC non-executives should also be appointed by an independent body, whether that be Ofcom or some other independent group.
While the report eschews governance, it has a great deal to say about the scale and scope of the BBC. There has been much talk about the BBC becoming a “market failure only” broadcaster, filling in the gaps left by other broadcasters, and of the BBC becoming significantly more distinctive. I hope that, in their deliberations on this issue, the Government will not be influenced by the recent Oliver & Ohlbaum/Oxera report on the BBC’s market impact and use it to justify going down this route. That is because I believe that the report is flawed. For example, contrary to all of the evidence such as Ofcom tracking data, it claims that BBC 1 has become less distinctive.
The Oliver & Ohlbaum/Oxera report also ignores the wider public value benefits and wider economic benefits to UK plc. The report authors merely looked at what revenue benefits there would be to commercial broadcasting competitors of making the BBC less popular, and the revenue benefits that they came up with would be small. The £155 million they quote is just one-quarter of last year’s increase in TV advertising revenue and one-sixth of ITV’s pre-tax profits. Following this route—according to research by Reuters, PwC and Enders Analysis—would have an overall negative impact on the wider UK media sector, let alone on UK plc, for a very small benefit to the BBC’s direct competitors. So I entirely reject the market failure only approach and I am delighted that the committee came to the same conclusion.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, the committee said that,
“we have not heard a convincing case for a significant reduction in the scale or scope of the BBC”.
The committee goes on to conclude that:
“The BBC should not be restricted to remedying gaps for which the market does not provide. The BBC must continue to be a universal broadcaster providing content which does not simply inform, and educate but also entertains”.
In terms of “inform, educate and entertain”—the Reithian principles—I entirely support the committee’s views that they should be the basis of the BBC’s mission and given greater prominence.
But if the scale and scope of the BBC is to be maintained, it needs to receive the appropriate income to achieve that. That means that there should be no further top-slicing of the licence fee income and no additional constraints on the BBC’s commercial activities. During the coalition Government, I strongly opposed the Conservative proposals to take money from the licence fee to fund free TV licences for the over-75s. I argued that government policies should be funded by the Government. I was pleased that my right honourable friend Nick Clegg vetoed the proposal and it did not take place. It is extremely disappointing that the current Government have now gone ahead to the detriment of the BBC.
Proposals for further top-slicing or new contestable funding should be rejected. Such proposals would mean less money for the BBC to spend on its services, would create additional bureaucracy and transaction costs, would risk transferring resources away from advertising-free services and from programmes that are guaranteed high reach and impact, and would risk poor quality programming. Two-thirds of BBC content spend is already contested, and that figure is set to increase. There is therefore no case for a separate “contestable” fund top-sliced from the licence fee, nor is there any case for requiring the BBC to sell off either BBC Worldwide or its stake in UKTV. Both would deprive licence fee payers of the financial and other benefits they currently receive, including funding for high-quality programming.
The BBC is undoubtedly the best broadcaster in the world, so I hope that in their charter negotiations the Government will do nothing to damage that reputation. Heeding the recommendations of this excellent Select Committee report should form an important component of their deliberations, so that we achieve Reith and not revolution.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I too speak as a member of the Select Committee that produced this report. I must declare an interest as a co-chair of the multi-faith standing conference of the BBC on religion and ethics, and related to that work I want to talk about the place of faith in public service broadcasting, and indeed to speak for all the faith communities in these islands.
It has been said that if a mission statement is more than two or three words long, it either means that the organisation does not really know its purpose, or even if it does, no one else will. Let me give a few examples: glasnost, girl power, flower power, New Labour and the big society; I will not go on. Consequently, if a mission statement is going to work, it has to be pithy and memorable. Lord Reith’s “inform, educate and entertain” does the job, and has done it very effectively for a long time—everyone knows it. When the last charter renewal process landed the BBC with six rather wordy and worthy public purposes, it was not necessarily doing it a favour. As the committee took evidence on those six public purposes, it was clear that the people who came to talk about them did not really know them very well themselves. I noticed that each person came with a crib sheet to remind themselves of what the purposes were about: they had clearly failed the memorability test. I also noted that while the new purposes are in some senses impossible to disagree with, the word “entertain”, which is surely a first base requirement for someone actually paying the licence fee, does not appear at all, and hence the title of the report: Reith not Revolution.
As we look forward to the forthcoming charter renewal, it is our strong view that the BBC should regroup around this historic vocation. We also want to say that it is good for the BBC to be entertaining. We do not want public service broadcasting relegated to just those bits of the output that a free market will not deliver. In this country we are rightly proud of the BBC and its place in our national life, its wider mission through the World Service, and its key contribution as part of a vibrant mixed economy of broadcasting in this country—one that is the envy of many other countries.
But we are not without criticism. To those three words that so admirably sum up the whole point of public service broadcasting, we tentatively add a fourth—the noble Lord, Lord Best, already mentioned it: “reflect”. It is to this recommendation that I will speak and limit what I say. Just as the BBC is called to educate, inform and entertain the nation, surely it must reflect the nation as well. This reflection must be more than merely regional. It is not just about sprinkling the airwaves with Yorkshire, scouse, Essex or Scottish accents. The UK is still a family of nations and, within that, a network of regions, each with its own culture and identity, but 21st-century Britain is also a network of communities. Many of these communities find their identity in ethnic origin and religious faith much more than geographic location. This is certainly the case in the East End of London where I serve as a bishop—one of the most multicultural and multifaith places in the whole of Europe. Having returned yesterday from the 16th meeting of the worldwide Anglican Consultative Council in Lusaka, where we discussed with Christians from all around the world what it means to be Christian in a world of great diversity and difference, we should also remember that multifaith and multiculturalism in Britain today also means significant Christian communities from around the world practising their faith here, as well as the presence of other faith communities. The BBC needs to work harder at being better at reflecting this new multiracial and multifaith face of Britain. In particular, religious broadcasting needs to be given a much higher priority in educating, informing and, yes, entertaining us with the beauty and challenges of this diversity.
However, across the public service broadcasting sector, religious broadcasting has been in decline for quite a long while. Contrary to the assumptions of a largely secular media, religion is not a just a private matter—a sort of “add-on” to the rest of life for people who like that sort of thing. Faith is not a leisure activity. Rather, for those of us who live by faith, religious belief is essential and formational—a prime motivator of individuals and communities, shaping their world view and inspiring and informing their political, economic, ethical and social behaviour. Our whole nation needs to wake up to this, and if the BBC is to be the broadcaster of the nation and reflect our national life, it must do too.
That being so, it is hard to comprehend why the BBC has never appointed a religion editor in the same way that it has an editor—an “interpreter”—for business, economics, politics, the arts, sports, et cetera. In July 2015, Ofcom voiced similar misgivings. Its Third Review of Public Service Broadcasting identified religious broadcasting as an area of immediate concern. The BBC is still the dominant provider of religious programmes and many of these are excellent. For this I give thanks, but it remains the case that the BBC downgraded the post of head of religion in January 2015 so that the postholder no longer has authority to commission programmes. Commissioning is where the power really lies. This now sits with non-subject specialists in multigenre commissioning, in a team of history, science, business and religion. This makes strategic decisions about commissioning almost impossible to make and limits the BBC’s ability to fulfil its mission.
This is a time where it is nigh on impossible to understand the world, what is going on in it and how best to find solutions so that we can live in peace, without an understanding of religion. Those who care about our democracy, as well as those who care about faith, need to press the BBC to answer this question: who has overall responsibility for the range, quantity and quality of religious programming? Since our report also voices concerns over the “downward trend” in spending on current affairs, it is not difficult to see how the BBC needs to strengthen its commitment to these areas of broadcasting. Hence the expectation in our report that the BBC maintain its commitment to religious broadcasting and increases its commitment to current affairs and the arts—my personal hope is that this is improved upon—and the following recommendation: that,
“the BBC, as the recipient of the universal licence fee”,
meets,
“its duty to serve all the diverse communities of the UK”,
and that,
“this obligation should be incorporated into any future accountability framework”.
Lord Hart of Chilton (Lab)
My Lords, I have the very great pleasure to serve on the Select Committee on Communications, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I also pay tribute to our assistants, clerks and special adviser, to whom he referred.
The BBC played a very important part in my life, both in my childhood and after. I must declare that interest straight away. Each day at 5 pm, while I had my tea, I listened to “Children’s Hour” with Uncle Mac. The Reithian principles of inform, educate and entertain were, so it turned out, to be a bedrock of my formative years. A favourite was “Toytown”, with Mr Growser, Larry the Lamb and Dennis the Dachshund. I immediately identified with Larry the Lamb, being a shy and mild-mannered child. I did not realise until later in my life that there are so many Mr Growsers in the world—even, as I discovered, one or two in your Lordships’ House.
I also identified with “Norman and Henry Bones”, the boy detectives. I had cousins who were very similar, called Norman and Peter, who often looked after me during the wartime air raids. They used to let me out of the air-raid shelter to see searchlights illuminate the sky, and then to listen out for the drone of the German bombers on their way to raid the docks at Ipswich. One stray bomb destroyed a house only three or four houses away. I always remember my cousins’ wise advice, “Don’t tell your mother”, which came in handy in the years to come.
On another occasion, one afternoon in the garden I noticed the sky full of planes towing gliders. It seemed ages before they passed and no one could tell me what they were. Later, however, we heard on the news that the gliders had landed at Arnhem as part of Operation Market Garden. The BBC news was an important part of our day. My father was a soldier overseas in north Africa, Italy and then Europe, building bridges. We did not hear from him very often but the BBC war correspondents wove a narrative into which my imagination inserted my father. Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, Frank Phillips, John Snagge and Richard Dimbleby were household names with their brilliant word pictures as the war progressed from depression to jubilation and the theme music for plays and serials remains with me. The intermezzo from “The Jewels of the Madonna” by Wolf-Ferrari introduced each part of “Ballet Shoes”, one of many superbly serialised books. Whenever I hear “Coronation Scot” I remember “Paul Temple”, and who can forget the introductory music to “Dick Barton, Special Agent”?
The BBC entertained us. At 1.10 pm on Saturday, “ITMA” with Tommy Handley made us laugh, and on Sunday “Down Your Way” with Franklin Engelmann introduced us to different communities. As I grew older the importance of the BBC did not diminish. All children must stare at the night sky and wonder at its enormity; I certainly did and the programme “Journey Into Space” provoked that wonder and stimulated the imagination. Laughter has always been of great importance. I think it brings wisdom and good health and well-being. Laughter and the absurd is part of the glue binding us together and a feature of a civilised society. “The Goon Show” and “Hancock’s Half Hour” were exemplars of brilliant scripts brilliantly performed and that tradition has continued and extended, with television nurturing comic talent. The sad death yesterday of Victoria Wood is a reminder of a tradition which includes “The Likely Lads”, “Not Only… But Also”, “Fawlty Towers” and many others. Your Lordships will have your own favourites.
The sheer brilliance of performers, producers and programmers at the BBC has brought entertainment, education and information to me in my lifetime; and as we listened to the evidence in the committee, I reflected on how fortunate I had been to live through times of enormous technological change, such as colour TV, HD, Freeview, YouView, iPlayer and so on, but during which the skills of programming had maintained a very high level. Today, the quality and creativity have never been higher, with programmes such as “The Night Manager”, “War & Peace” and “Line of Duty”. The ability to market programmes such as these worldwide provides an essential stream of income for the BBC and must not be harmed or diminished.
Wherever I go in the world I hear accolades for the BBC and how envied we are to have such an asset. I do not think that we appreciate sufficiently how significant this soft power is. There were many criticisms, of course. We met a focus group of young people, some of whom told us that they thought the BBC did not represent minorities and they did not see their own lives reflected on the screen, but the noble Lord, Lord Hall, for the BBC, replied that he was seeking to make a real difference on BAME representation, both onscreen and behind it. We expect the BBC to honour its commitment and encourage regional development. We were impressed by Salford Quays and the increased programme efforts at Birmingham and Cardiff. The BBC has become less London-centric and this must continue.
We did not believe that the BBC should be restricted to remedying gaps which the market does not fill. On the contrary, we concluded that the BBC must continue to be a universal broadcaster providing content that does not simply inform and educate but that also entertains. We had no evidence to support a claim that the BBC crowded out commercial competition. On the contrary, we received evidence of the benefits of the wider discovering and developing of talent and the encouragement of training. We were not persuaded that the BBC should reduce the scale or scope of its news operations, either in the United Kingdom or overseas.
Others have described our recommendations on the licence fee and on the charter period, with which I totally agree.
I end as I began. The BBC has played an important part in my life, and it continues to do so. I was once a part-time sheep farmer and each day I would begin by listening to “Farming Today”; and having spent some time each day here in your Lordships’ House, I end with “Today in Parliament”—sometimes enraged, sometimes entertained, but always a little more educated and informed. The BBC is one of our greatest assets and nothing should be done to harm it.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a producer and director in BBC television, and I am very grateful for the kind words that have been said about the content that my colleagues produce. We do, indeed, try to inform, entertain and educate.
I congratulate the Communications Committee on producing such an excellent report, which stresses the importance of the BBC as an independent, well-funded public service broadcaster. I am particularly pleased with the emphasis given in chapter 2 to the importance of a strong, independent regulator for the BBC. I understand why the report did not look at governance, but I am concerned—like the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord Foster and Lord Fowler—that the assumption in paragraph 20 of the report, that the charter will deliver satisfactory governance for the corporation, could be misplaced. I understand that the White Paper is proposing to set up a unitary board, combining the present BBC executive board and the BBC Trust, which will be regulated by Ofcom.
What is very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, explained, is that this unitary board will be much more powerful than the BBC Trust. It will control the BBC’s strategy, governance and, even more importantly, certainly from my point of view, the editorial guidance. It will control the day-to-day broadcast output of the BBC, drafting and approving editorial guidelines, maintaining editorial standards and dealing with editorial complaints—unless, of course, these are appealed to Ofcom. The trust has nowhere near such editorial influence. As a result, the board of this body has to be absolutely independent so that it cannot be accused of being subject to political interference or pressure.
I fear that that independence will not be safeguarded. I, too, was disappointed by Sir David Clementi’s report suggesting that the chairman, the vice-chairman and four non-executives directors should be appointed by the DCMS. My fears were heightened when I read the interview in the Sunday Times in which the Culture Secretary said he intended 10 of the 13 members of this unitary board to be appointed by the Government, with only three members coming from the BBC. My concern about the adverse effect this will have on the independence of the BBC was compounded by fears voiced by Sir David Normington, who retired as Commissioner for Public Appointments earlier this month. He told the Financial Times this month that without the check and balance of the Liberal Democrats in government, there is a feeling by the present Government that,
“if you want to get things done you need to have people who are your sympathisers working in some of the key roles”.
Sir David followed that with his evidence last week to the Public Administration Committee in which he expressed concern, following the Government’s response to Sir Gerry Grimstone’s report, that there is a threat of increased ministerial interference in the selection for public appointments. He said that the appointment of the last BBC Trust chair had been well run and was free from ministerial interference. However, he warned, having seen the Government’s response to the Grimstone proposals, that such a hands-off approach might not be possible in the future. I support the suggestion of the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Puttnam, that there should be an independent body to appoint these members of the unitary board. If we fail to do that, your Lordships have only to look at the political interference in the appointment of executives of public service broadcasters that takes place in many of our partner countries in the European Union. Either the heads of the public service companies are appointed directly by the Government and change when the Government change, or individual channels are controlled by separate parties. These appointments inevitably have an influence on the political alignment of the stations and mean that the stations are not impartial, which I am sure your Lordships would not want to happen.
This morning I received an email from the wife of an opposition leader in Poland which explained what was happening with Polish broadcasters. Of course, this is not relevant to what our Government propose but it is a warning of how extremely fragile the independence of public service broadcasters is. The email says that the Polish Government have dismissed the independent board which is supposed to supervise state TV and fired all the heads of radio and TV and appointed new ones. All such appointments will now be made directly by government Ministers and drastically alter the nature of programming. As a result, more than 100 journalists have been fired or resigned. The result is Communist-style, pro-ruling party propaganda of a kind not seen in Poland since 1989. Of course, that will not happen here but I urge noble Lords to be aware of what a precious thing we have in the independence of the BBC.
As a former day editor of “Newsnight”, I know at first hand the lengths to which government communications advisers will go to ensure that their view of the world is projected on the BBC. In my experience, I am afraid this relates to all Governments of all political persuasions. I fear that we live in a world in which many people think that if you are not with them, you must be against them. The BBC and other broadcasters are mandated to be impartial and it is crucial that everything is done to defend that position. As this report emphasises, impartiality is at the very core of the BBC. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness the Minister, in preparing for the White Paper, will listen very hard to the massive public response to the BBC Trust consultation, in which the people of this country overwhelmingly said that they wanted the BBC to be independent and free from political interference. I ask the noble Baroness: what will be done in the White Paper to ensure that this happens with the appointments to the new unitary board?
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Communications Select Committee, under its excellent chair, the noble Lord, Lord Best, on having delivered an exemplary report that is both focused in scope and wise in its conclusions. I concur with and support much of what has already been said in its favour. It is to be commended to all parliamentarians, especially those who are eager to see the BBC broken up, sold off or simply shackled. The public—as a recent poll indicated—are not with them. The BBC remains a loved and admired institution by a great majority of those who own it, by which I mean the licence payers of this country. To act in defiance of their expressed opinions would be to damage one of the greatest of our national institutions simply to gratify the self-interest of the commercial radio and television enterprises.
When I interviewed Lord Reith in this House back in 1970, he was very disapproving of television. He deplored the fact that it broadcast jazz, which he regarded as the music of the devil. He had a distinct preference for educational programmes and those that instilled rigorous Christian principles of behaviour. But, of course, he was then a man at the end of his life, to some extent disappointed with that life and embittered by what he had seen happen to broadcasting. But I am still sure that the younger Reith—that vigorous young man who pressed ahead with exploring television’s possibilities in the 1930s to be ahead of the Americans, as he said—defied government interference, turning away Churchill’s emissaries at the time of the national strike. He would be proud of the leading role the BBC plays in sustaining standards, promoting British interests and influence around the globe, and in not having commercial breaks.
As we have heard, Lord Reith managed to sum up the purpose of the BBC in just one phrase, which can scarcely be bettered—namely, to “inform, educate and entertain”. As the right reverend Prelate said, that phrase is terse and exact. I did not think that it could be improved. However, the suggestion that the phrase “and to reflect” through the addition of a single word encompasses and enlarges the remit of the BBC appropriate to the times is to be commended.
The committee’s recommendations covered much so I will speak to just two of them. Having worked within the BBC throughout numerous licence renewals, I know that the prospect throws BBC management into a distracted frenzy of concern. Licence renewal casts a long shadow, distorting the focus and concentration of its managers, heads of departments, channel controllers and even programme makers. It is an ordeal that lasts for years. When the licence is finally renewed, everyone sinks back, sighing with relief that the negotiations have gone away, but for how long? It will be for a good few years.
This frenzy is even worse around the time of elections, whether they are coming up or are just over. Both leading parties—indeed all parties—blame the BBC for the supposed broadcasting bias that robbed them of victory or even greater success. They cannot all be right. But it is a matter of blaming the messenger, and it makes for a climate of resentment and revenge that is no mood in which to address serious and thoughtful considerations of the BBC’s future. For these reasons I support the committee’s recommendation that the charter should come up for renewal only every 10 years, and that it should be uncoupled from that deadly electoral cycle. The recommendation is sound and wise. It would allow for long-term planning, which, in the global media world, needs precise marketing knowledge and a sense of the rhythm of change to which this industry is subject.
The second concern of the committee that I wish to address is this matter of scale and scope. There have been suggestions, mainly from other broadcasting bodies, that the BBC should be limited in its scope, possibly confined to news, current affairs, serious documentaries, and education—all areas of broadcasting that attract low viewing figures and, therefore, are not prize pickings for commercial companies. This is clearly a pitch to cut the BBC down to size and would be disastrous for the BBC as a global player. It is essential that its creative heartline is given the scope to be inventive across the whole area of human activity. That is where its genius lies. What other company would have backed a modest idea to encourage people to bake cakes and see it grow into a global format? Once it were successful, would such a format then be declared beyond the BBC’s scope? What happens then? The whole concept is flawed and unworkable.
The BBC faces change, and needs to change. The media landscape is always shifting; the BBC needs the backing of government and the industry to continue as the flagship of broadcasting that it is known to be worldwide.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House for only 52 years but I used to do media research, and I think that I am really only here because of my grandfather. In May 1934, the Government appointed a committee under the guidance of my grandfather, Lord Selsdon, to begin inquiries into the viability of setting up a public television service, with recommendations on the conditions under which such a service should be offered. The result was the Selsdon report. I had never heard of it—I was not quite sure for a time why I had a different name from my father, which is often the case with peerages—but I did media research, quite thoroughly, for a period of time. At home, we were allowed to listen only to the BBC, as everything else was banned, and that included the early days of television.
I have a tremendous affection for the BBC—I cannot help it. In the days when I did media research, we tended to be influenced primarily by characters. Here in your Lordships’ House, we have a remarkable depth of knowledge and experience, but we do not necessarily know each other. There was and still is a BBC advisory council, which goes on and on, but the BBC is a global institution, not a British one. If you have been in parts of Africa where, to encourage local communities to co-operate in mining or other things, you hand out a little pay phone to workers so that they may listen to the BBC, you realise the extent of its coverage and the respect in which it is held.
What the BBC does next is another matter. Television is a fairly difficult and doubtful exercise. We had the television advisory councils, we now have everyone guiding us here and there, we have the script-writers, but we do not necessarily have the media research and the depth of marketing that one would expect globally. I do not see why there should not be a special relationship with every Commonwealth country for broadcasting programmes daily and constantly right the way around the world. The technology and the expertise are already there.
I would like to make a very simple suggestion. We need to have a programme, a business plan, so that we may all look at the BBC. I know that I am here entirely because of my grandfather; I know, too, that I was never allowed to listen to any programme that was not BBC—they could not, however, teach me languages and I was sent off to various countries in order to speak the foreign languages. With this level of respect, I find myself unable to be of much assistance to your Lordships but I would like the Government to give a little more attention, in developing British relationships on a global basis, to the much more important role that the BBC can play than it does today, not least in the production and syndication of television programmes across the world, and its value in the learning of English.
I thank noble Lords for coming here today. I am so surprised that, in looking up the BBC, I found out more about myself than I would have deemed possible and wonder why my grandfather never told me anything about it or why I was never allowed to watch television until I reached a certain age. I wish the BBC well—I have a great affection for it and that affection will remain with me until I die.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, on securing this debate at a particularly timely moment and for his Communications Committee’s first-class charter review. There is so much that I agree with that, if I were to talk about it, I would just say “Tick, tick, tick”—I am sure that your Lordships do not want that.
In this debate, I hope that there is room to proceed by indirections and to see the BBC not so much through the prism of the review—although that has been marvellously addressed by previous speakers in detail, who in the way they did so have educated, informed and entertained us and given us plenty of time for reflection—but from the general point of view of someone who works for it, as I do. I am one who began his career there in 1961 as a trainee, listened to the radio in the 1940s and was, if I may use the word, suckled by it, and who believes that at its best it is a unique force for excellence and cohesion in this country.
Currently, the BBC is on tremendous form. Its recent television dramas including “The Night Manager”, “War and Peace” and “Undercover” are pulling off the envied double act of high ratings and high praise. This is rare in any broadcasting organisation anywhere in the world, or at any time, but it has three out of three so far and it is only April. In the end, the BBC is the sum of its programmes. The “Panorama” programme on the Panama set-up boldly set the context for what should become an essential and continuing debate. “Newsnight” had the nerve to bite the hand that feeds or could starve it and has wounded it already with its piece on Mr Whittingdale. The news struggles with impartiality and the delicate task of balancing what are often rather overheated and undercooked arguments but it is still walking the tightrope admirably. A magnetic murder in “The Archers” has caught the imagination of so many people in this country. Above the noise there is the even beat of the five national and many regional radio channels, which perhaps more than any of the BBC’s productions best represent the muscle, pulse and mind of this nation.
As has been mentioned, wherever there are debates on the BBC—I have taken part in half a dozen over the last six months, as many of us here have—if a vote is asked for there is always a wholly convincing majority for supporting the BBC. I see no demonstrations about the BBC in our streets, yet in our country where there would be demonstrations about the removal of a bus stop. There is global admiration of the BBC, which is Britain’s most admired brand. It encourages a multitude of writers, actors, producers, directors and researcher talents in radio and television, which is the cornerstone of the cultural power that this country undoubtedly has at the moment. No other country has this and it is, per head, comparatively inexpensive. I do not need to go on. It works magnificently, delivers for this country and is still recognisably within the discipline of Lord Reith.
However, we seem to exist in an atmosphere of permanent crisis about the future of the BBC, from the Government and from parts of the media, as if it were a patient etherized across the sky, in constant need of attention and operations from higher forces that are dive-bombing it again and again. Most of us do not see what the fuss is about. It is not too difficult to pick out sources of discontent, some of which have grievances that need to be addressed, of course. Principally, for instance, the imperial growth of the BBC disturbs the unsubsidised parts of our information economy. The BBC is right to be much more aware of that now than ever before. Even imperialism that is thought to be by the good guys is still imperialism and ultimately unacceptable. The BBC is so vast in its output that it is not too difficult to pick up or embellish an anti-Auntie story quite regularly, in sure and certain knowledge that the compelling letters “BBC” will draw readers’ attention to the contents of that story. The BBC is at once a national treasure and a national dartboard; that seems to be its dual role.
Digging into this, it is argued by some that the BBC’s fundamental singularity—or to use a royal term today, peculiarity—is an affront to the prevailing free-trade and ever-rolling capitalism of the day. Indeed, in some respects it interferes with it unacceptably. Or you could see it another way: as a stimulating alternative, it adds to the variety and richness of this country and gives an oppositional argument. It appears to me that the BBC’s many roles are seamlessly interwoven into the tapestry of broadcasting that we have in this country and, further, that the roles of others are tempered—they are often encouraged and even enriched —by the competition and interchanges with the BBC.
This country is and always has been a place of tribes, since it began to emerge as a place of its own about 1,300 years ago. They are ethnically different, always, and culturally diverse, mostly. These are islands containing differences but, for all that, islands bounded by and often bonded together by the seas. Many have tried and often failed, but tried again, to reach out to all the jostling or sometimes rival groups over those centuries. Through democracy, we have finally arrived at a plausible though often fragile method of inclusion. The BBC’s democratic inclusiveness, which began as a demand of genius by Lord Reith, is not only its strength and its burden; more than that, it is its purpose. We want the best in our society and despite catcalls from the galleries several of our institutions, including this one, try to and can succeed in the attempt to bring together the still-existing and the new tribes.
There is something beyond even that. The BBC does what it does with style, consistency and force. It brings together majorities and minorities in watching the same programme or live event. Most of all, though, the BBC is a statement of public service. That phrase has seen its meaning and strength weakened over the years. In area after area of our public life, too often those at the top who were once content to be public servants have found themselves outflanked and diminished by those who believe that public service is just another ladder to personal riches. Pro bono publico has not gone away, though. Millions of people in the United Kingdom are still alive to it, still working by it, still believing that work is one thing and serving the public is another, and they need not be separate.
We can say that especially today. We see the monarchy, under Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as a symbol of public service. The admiration, even reverence, that is felt for her is entirely to do with her palpable sense of service to the public.
The BBC remains still, despite its gaffes, despite muddles, despite being treated by this Government as a cash cow for social policies, a symbol of something that this country craves for deeply. People who are divided want to return to what they think of as living properly—what Orwell called the decency of these people, which of course includes us.
Of course we have to create wealth, make a living and construct a complex society, but we need an element of something else, and perhaps the word “higher” might serve, or the word “better”—that there are great bodies which speak in our name, unfettered by the demands of making and getting, independent and, in the name of all of us, standing for an ideal without which we would be so very much poorer, so much less of a place.
If it is chipped away, as the BBC is chipped away—as some of them out there want it to be—we will be much less than we could be. We will have lost what has been so strenuously built up, cherished and loved over many decades. That is, in brief, something unique, something of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said at the beginning of this debate, we can be, and are, proud.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken so far in the debate, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his committee, on a very important and excellent report.
Continuing uncertainty about the Government’s plans is very harmful to the BBC and the public interest. The continuing uncertainty, and the Government’s dumping of the cost of free licences for the over-75s on the BBC, rather than taxpayers, have undermined morale within the BBC as well as public trust and confidence.
The Government are likely to replace the BBC Trust with a new unitary board, as recommended by Sir David Clementi. The new board will have executive functions relating to the content of its broadcasts. That makes it essential that the chair, deputy chair and other members of the board are independent and manifestly seem to be independent. It is essential that they are independently appointed, without ministerial influence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hall, has rightly said that the BBC needs regulation that is effective but not prescriptive. He has emphasised the importance of protecting the BBC’s independence, recalling that Willie Whitelaw gave the BBC a 15-year charter. The Government should follow that example and give the BBC a charter for the next 11 years.
What we call a royal charter is really a ministerial charter. It is a charter shaped by Ministers using the prerogative powers inherited from the Crown. We speak of parliamentary sovereignty as the cornerstone of the British constitution, but it is Ministers, and not Parliament, who determine the scope and effect of the charter. There are no overarching, binding principles approved by Parliament that Ministers or the BBC must respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, former director-general and television journalist, said during the debate on 10 March, a royal charter,
“far from being a powerful symbol and safeguard of the BBC’s independence, on the contrary enables Governments to be less accountable even than medieval kings; to amend the charter through the Privy Council … and to inflict unprincipled and material change on the BBC”.—[Official Report, 10/3/16; col. 1055.]
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that it is time to place the BBC on a statutory footing. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on whose most powerful speech I congratulate him, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, another former chair of the Communications Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have each suggested that the charter is an anomaly that should be replaced by legislation, much like that which governs Channel 4. But it is inconceivable, as the Minister will confirm, that the present Government will agree to dispense with the charter.
In truth, the choice is not a binary choice between legislation and charter. A statute could and should set out the governing principles protecting the independence and effectiveness of the BBC as a public service broadcaster, and the core duties of the BBC and the Secretary of State. It should make the charter and charter changes subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In that way, the BBC’s independence would be protected against political interference.
So, as other noble Lords have indicated, I am fashioning a Bill to provide a framework of core principles and duties governing Ministers and the BBC, and the charter and its renewal, while leaving the detail to be covered in the charter and the accompanying agreement. I hope that it will have support in Parliament and Whitehall. Several noble Lords who cannot be here today have authorised me to indicate their support, including the noble Lords, Lord Alli, Lord Inglewood and Lord Pannick.
The Bill will provide for the BBC to be a statutory corporation established by royal charter but subject to the Bill’s criteria. It will underpin the BBC’s duty as a public service broadcaster to serve the public interest by informing, educating and entertaining the people of the United Kingdom, including its nations, regions and communities, by means of television, radio, online services and other similar services. It is important that the BBC—and nobody else—defines the scope of its public service broadcasting and its limits. The Bill will protect the BBC’s independence as regards the content of its output, the times at which and the manner in which that output is supplied, and the governance and management of its affairs. The Secretary of State, other Ministers of the Crown, the BBC and anyone else with responsibility for the BBC’s governance will have a duty to ensure that the BBC is able to operate independently from Ministers and other public authorities in the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State will be required to make available to the BBC sufficient funds to enable it to perform its functions to promote public purposes as a public service broadcaster. The licence fee must be for the exclusive use of the BBC in performing those functions. It will be index-linked and increased at least in line with inflation. The BBC’s funding must be protected against top-slicing—as happened, for example, under the current licence fee deal, under which £150 million a year was diverted from the licence fee to subsidise BT’s rural broadband rollout. The Secretary of State will not be able to transfer public expenditure to the BBC. If Ministers and future Ministers want to change this, they will have to persuade Parliament to legislate.
The BBC’s use of the licence fee carries responsibilities, but those are matters not for the Government but for the new board and senior staff, and for the regulator. Under my Bill, there will be an independent, external regulator, whether Ofcom or another body, to oversee the performance of the BBC’s duties as a public service broadcaster, including any increase above inflation in the licence fee. The Secretary of State and other Ministers will be forbidden to seek to influence the BBC’s decisions. The Secretary of State will be required to have regard to the need to defend the BBC’s independence, to the need for the BBC to have the financial and non-financial support needed to enable it to exercise its functions, and to the need for the public interest to be considered in regard to matters relating to the BBC.
An independent board of, I suggest, no more than 14 members, including the chair and deputy chair, will govern the BBC. The members should be people with the skills, knowledge and experience needed to perform the board’s function of directing a public service broadcaster. They should be drawn from across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, including from BBC licence fee payers and present and former members of staff. Crucially, they must not be political appointments but must be appointed by an independent appointments committee established by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The board will be required to carry out its duties in an open and transparent manner. The royal charter and any amendments to it will not have effect or be granted unless a draft of the charter or amendment has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
For the last six years, the BBC has seen no increase in its funding for the licence fee, so it has had to make millions of pounds of cuts in its services and staff. But reforms are needed and are being made. The number of managers remains far too high, in spite of commitments to reduce their ranks by a thousand. The BBC must not operate from an ivory tower, broadcasting to an intellectual elite. But the BBC has become over-blown and top-heavy, involved in commercial projects that could be left to others. Again, these are matters for the board, senior staff and the regulator to address, and not the Government.
As we have said in this debate repeatedly, the public enthusiastically trust the BBC and appreciate the public service it provides. The BBC’s staff do their best to deliver a first-class and balanced public service, despite the worsening financial pressures. This Government have dumped more than £600 million of public spending on to the BBC by transferring the cost of licence fees for the over-75s. This makes the BBC carry the burden of fulfilling part of the Government’s welfare policy. The BBC is faced with the serious threat of a new unitary board that is appointed politically by Ministers and may influence content.
As several noble Lords have said, the BBC is a national treasure that could easily be harmed by government interference. We all want to ensure the independence of the BBC, so that it pursues the Reithian principles that have made it the most respected broadcaster in the world. I hope that the Government will accept the need for a properly funded BBC that is independent and free from political interference, and is able with its guaranteed income to continue to produce impartial high-quality programming that is envied the world over. That is what my Bill will seek to safeguard—but, ultimately, it is the public that, to coin a phrase, must fight, and fight, and fight again for the BBC they love.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate on the Select Committee report on the future of the BBC, aptly named Reith not Revolution, on which I served, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his excellent and diligent chairmanship. As many noble Lords have already made clear, it is essential that the BBC remains the keystone of British broadcasting, and continues to play a central role in the wider creative industries. The BBC must retain its reputation for quality and independence throughout the world. This is possible only with the continued support from the Government in keeping with the overwhelming wishes of the British public, apparent from the DCMS consultation response summary published on 1 March. The findings showed that the public value the BBC, believe it produces high-quality and distinctive content and want it to remain independent. As in our report, however, concern was voiced that the BBC falls short for some viewers, such as reaching black, Asian and ethnic minority and young audiences, and representing the lives of people in the UK’s nations and regions.
Just to highlight how important the BBC is for the country, it is worth stating that BBC services reach 97% of the UK population every week, with an average of around 8.5 hours of TV and over 10 hours of BBC radio per head. For £145.50 a year, audiences are provided with nine national TV channels, 10 national radio stations, 39 local radio stations and a wealth of online and mobile services including BBC Three, iPlayer and bbc.co.uk.
However, as our report said,
“audiences have higher expectations of the BBC than … of other Public … Broadcasters”.
The BBC must play its part by reaffirming the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain and by reflecting better the society we live in, which other noble Lords mentioned. The BBC should,
“make a particular commitment to reflecting the nations, regions and all the diverse communities of the UK”.
The BBC has,
“unique obligations to its audience”,
because,
“it is established by royal charter”—
no matter how controversial that is today—
“and its principal source of funding is a universal licence fee”.
It must,
“set the gold standard amongst the PSBs”,
and thereby remain,
“one of this nation’s most treasured institutions”.
I acknowledge that the BBC recognises that it should be held firmly to account by licence fee payers, Parliament and the new regulator, but it is also imperative that the BBC retains its editorial and creative freedom to react to the changing needs of the public, the highly competitive evolving media market and social conditions. That is why our report wants to see the BBC better reflect UK society in all its diversity. We were concerned to hear,
“from a number of witnesses who felt that the BBC did not reflect their lives, particularly the panel of young people, those with a disability and those within the BAME community. We note that the BBC has recognised this and we expect to see a marked improvement here”.
In a recent article Tunde Ogungbesan, head of diversity, inclusion and succession at the BBC, wrote:
“We all want to get the same result: a BBC where all our audiences can see their lives authentically portrayed in our programmes, where our shows are made by a broad range of people, and where your background—whatever it is—is no barrier to a successful career here”.
The BBC is aware of its responsibilities to make itself a truly diverse organisation and states that almost half its workforce—48.5%—are women and that the proportion of the workforce that is black, Asian and other ethnic minority is at an all-time high of 13.1%. I welcome its independent diversity advisory group of disabled and BAME experts and cultural leaders, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which continues to hold the BBC to account.
Likewise, it is good to see the efforts made in training by the new BBC Academy, which is based in Birmingham and aims to attract the best new talent from all over the UK. Its Extend recruitment programme, aimed at people with disabilities who are hired on six-month placements across the BBC, has reached 628 people over the 18 years it has been running, and last year, with the help of my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon the BBC launched a pre-employment traineeship with the Stephen Lawrence Trust to identify and develop young BAME talent. Everyone who successfully completed the traineeship was fast-tracked to near the end of the application process for BBC production apprenticeships.
I welcome the BBC’s new four-year diversity strategy, which aims to make a difference to the audience and employees. I hope that it meets its target for 15% of leadership grades to be BAME by 2020. For disabled staff the target is 5% by 2017. Currently the figure is 3.1%. It is also important to improve on-air portrayal. The BBC recognises this with its target to increase BAME presence from the current 10.4% to 15% by 2017 and to increase disabled portrayal from only 1.2% to 5% by 2017. I hope “Redefining Juliet”, which is to be aired on BBC4 on 1 May as part of its Shakespeare festival, will be a trailblazer for increasing such portrayal. In it a diverse group of actors, all with disabilities or differences, led by Storme Toolis, a wheelchair user, brings Juliet into the 21st century and recasts her for today’s diverse society.
Also to be welcomed is Peter Bowker’s new drama “The A Word” on BBC1, which was described by Charlotte Moore, the new controller of BBC TV channels and iPlayer, as,
“a brilliant story about autism and contemporary family life”.
In documentary, the new series “Employable Me”, which follows adults with neurological conditions such as Tourette’s or autism, is also ground-breaking.
I hope the BBC will continue to meet the challenges of reflecting our modern and ever-changing Britain, to ensure that it remains pertinent to the concerns of the young as well as to the rest of its audience, and to preserve its vital role in the life of our nation. I am sure the BBC can have a great future, and there is absolutely no case for the Government to consider reducing its scale or scope. However, all great institutions must continue to change and innovate, and I hope the charter renewal process will prove an opportunity to refresh, but not fracture, the BBC. I look forward to an assurance on this from the Minister.
Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation. As the register of interests notes, I am that much maligned species, a trustee of the BBC. Noble Lords might ask why I joined the BBC Trust. I did so because the BBC has always been important in my life and career. Indeed, I worked in that iconic building, Bush House, as a journalist and editor for the World Service for some eight years from 1984 to 1992. Thereafter I left the BBC to work for the United Nations and served for many years in Cambodia, the Balkans and the Middle East. During those years, the BBC was vital for me. Far more important than that, though, I saw that it was critical for the people with whom I worked in those countries.
I worked for Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the UN, who once famously described the BBC as Britain’s greatest contribution to the world in the 20th century. The World Service has been able to make that enormous contribution because it is part of the wider BBC, which over the past 90 years has done so much to inform, educate and entertain, in the words of the great John Reith, one of the greatest public servants this country has produced.
At the outset, there can be no argument—the BBC is one of the best public broadcasters in the world, if not the best. Is there anyone who can challenge that? This year marks the 400th anniversary of the birth of our greatest writer, William Shakespeare, and the BBC will be marking that event with a special programme on 23 April, bringing together Dame Judi Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Joseph Fiennes, the Royal Shakespeare Company, English National Opera and the Royal Ballet in a televised event to honour the birthday of the national bard. It is typical of what our great public broadcaster can do at its best, bringing together our finest cultural institutions and actors, broadcast nationwide and internationally to the widest possible audience.
The very concept of public service broadcasting was pioneered here in Britain by the BBC. We should be immensely proud of that. From 1932 the BBC began to broadcast globally, first in English and then, interestingly, on the eve of the Second World War in 1938, in Arabic. The need for broadcasting in that language is as great now as it was then.
The journalism of the BBC goes from strength to strength under the leadership of James Harding, the editor of the news department. Recently I saw an extraordinary report on the “Ten O’Clock News” from Alastair Leithead in Nigeria, looking at the horrible movement Boko Haram and the mystery of the 200 girls who were kidnapped by that vile group more than two years ago. I cannot think of another public broadcaster that, in prime time, would have given such attention to that movement and the hideous work it has done.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his committee on producing an excellent report that has informed this debate on an institution that is national as well as international. At a time when our international presence is diminishing, when much of the world watches with amazement at the spectre of our pending referendum, we can ill afford to see the BBC retreat.
I commend the Government for the extra funds they have made available to the BBC in 2015 for African languages such as Amharic and Oromo, for the establishment of the Korean service, so long championed by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and also for further enhancement of the BBC Arabic and Farsi services, which play such a critical role in the Middle East.
This year, of course, is the year of charter renewal, which I hope will not be marked by the cuts that have been inflicted on fellow public broadcasters in Canada and Australia in recent years. I submit that that is not a path we want to see the BBC go down. The BBC can ill afford to accept any more surprises from government of the sort meted out by the Chancellor last year. As a result of that step, as many noble Lords have noted, the BBC has had to take responsibility for the free licences for over-75s, introduced by the Labour Government led by Gordon Brown. There should be no more fiats of this order. The BBC is not a state broadcaster. It is for Governments to decide appropriate levels of social welfare for the elderly and to accept the costs, not to pass them on to the BBC. Assurance from the Minister that there will be no similar action in that respect would be most welcome.
On the report of the noble Lord, Lord Best, like other members of the trust I welcome the suggestion that there should be an 11-year charter, which is vital to detach the process from the electoral cycle—that should be obvious to us all; the need for the licence fee process to involve an independent regulator to propose the level of the licence fee; and an end to top-slicing of the licence fee or any kind of contestable fund paid for by licence fee payers.
The importance of the BBC’s independence—financial, editorial and operational—comes through strongly in the Select Committee’s report. This independence is vital for the future of the BBC and it matters crucially to licence fee payers. Following the publication of the BBC Charter Review Green Paper in July 2015, the trust launched its own consultation for members of the public to have their say on the future of the BBC. Alongside this, the trust commissioned qualitative and quantitative research studies to examine issues in greater depth. That consultation found that nine in 10 respondents—88%—felt that it was important that the BBC remain independent, and a large majority—79%—felt it was “very” important.
I will make three critical points. The BBC’s financial independence is absolutely imperative for the organisation’s future. Future funding periods should be fixed for no less than six years to provide certainty for planning. Licence fee moneys should be dedicated to BBC services and should never again be used to fund wider Government programmes. The crucial new proposal, developed by the trust, relates to a process to determine the licence fee. After three unsatisfactory processes for the BBC’s funding, the trust is now calling for a clear process to be written into the charter. It also adds that a formal process and timescale needs to be established; the regulator, whether it is Ofcom or something else, needs to be empowered to bring neutral, evidence-based analysis into the debate about the BBC’s funding and to give advice, in public, to the Government; and Parliament and the public need to be provided with a proper opportunity for debate before final decisions are taken.
It is also our firm opinion that there should be no mid-point review, which has been much speculated upon in the press. This would create significant operational uncertainty for the BBC and would make long-term planning difficult. Moreover, it could undermine the BBC’s ability to invest in innovative projects which benefit both audiences and the UK’s wider creative industries. The current 10-year charter has shown sufficient flexibility to enable the BBC to respond effectively to significant shifts in the media and the technological landscape—for example, the decision to launch the iPlayer in 2007. A mid-point review is, we believe, unnecessary.
Thirdly and finally, we support the proposal in David Clementi’s report for the creation of a unitary board which is fully independent of the Government. We have significant concerns, however, about the suggestion that the DCMS should have the power to appoint all members of the BBC’s new unitary board. This, we believe, is unacceptable. Instead, the charter should set out a clear and transparent process for the appointment of members of the board. Ministerial involvement should be limited to the appointment of the chair. This view is widely supported by polling the trust has carried out.
Earlier today in this House, in the humble Address to Her Majesty, we marked her 90th birthday. The BBC, at 94, is slightly older. Her Majesty’s Christmas Day broadcasts are watched by all, and it is remarkable that, when so much has changed during her reign, last Christmas it was the most watched programme on that day. I believe that it shows again how the BBC can play a powerful role in bringing this nation together.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Communications Committee for this excellent debate based on their excellent report, both of which highlight in particular the importance of better governance, greater diversity and protection against political pressure.
The report anticipates that the existing BBC Trust will be replaced by an independent regulator—most likely Ofcom, which I would welcome because it is very well regarded across business and politics. Given the replacement of the BBC Trust by an independent regulator, Sir David Clementi’s recent review proposes a unitary BBC board of perhaps 13 members, led by a non-executive chair with a deputy chair acting as senior independent director, plus four other non-executive directors “designated” from the four nations of the United Kingdom, and the balance of five or six non-execs also to be appointed to a 13 or 14-strong board. The proposed unitary board might therefore have only two or perhaps three executive directors from BBC management, including, of course, the director-general.
As we have heard, the DCMS Secretary of State, John Whittingdale, suggests that the Government might appoint all the non-executives. That would be, as previous speakers have made clear, a very real threat to the independence of the BBC because, in an organisation controlled by a unitary board, these government appointees could exert influence in many sensitive areas, including programming decisions. One consideration should therefore be that the next royal charter must make it clear that the ultimate editor-in-chief of all programme output is the director-general.
The noble Lord, Lord Hall, the current director-general, recently stressed that the independence of the BBC from political pressure must be a priority. As we have heard today, it is clear that most noble Lords share that view. We now know that the White Paper on charter renewal will finally be published next month, and I hope that by then the Government will have backed away from proposing an appointments procedure that would threaten the BBC’s traditional independence and would be very vigorously contested.
The weakness of the royal charter process in protecting the BBC from government interference has long and cogently been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who rightly states that it should be rooted in statute, with more transparent and democratic decisions debated and endorsed in Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, a former director-general, criticised the way in which the royal charter’s supposed safeguards have been so easily bypassed to divert around 25% of BBC programme budgets to fund Treasury schemes. Unfortunately, it is almost too late to push through fundamental reforms, but I look forward to the draft Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to which I hope this House can give attention and momentum. However, we must still use next month’s White Paper to press for reforms in other arrangements.
Your Lordships’ Communications Committee recommends scrapping the multiple accountability layers of BBC bureaucracy and adopting Ofcom’s four general public service broadcasting purposes, which are: informing our understanding of the world; stimulating knowledge and learning; reflecting UK cultural identity; and representing diversity and alternative viewpoints. So to the BBC’s traditional Reithian mission, to inform, educate and entertain, we might now add a fourth priority: to reflect the diversity of the UK. That diversity will, no doubt, become even greater over the life of the next BBC charter, and I pick up here on some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Healy.
In the House of Commons last Thursday, a debate on the BBC and diversity was introduced by the MP for Tottenham, David Lammy, in an excellent speech. Mr Lammy’s Motion noted with concern that black, Asian and minority-ethnic people working in the UK’s creative media fell by 31% between 2006 and 2012. It also noted that the BBC had fallen behind other broadcasters in setting and achieving targets for a more diverse workforce. Diversity, of course, embraces more than BAME matters; it is also about the representation and employment of people with disabilities, about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, about regionalism and about gender. Noble Lords may recall that our own Communications Committee recently reported on the problems facing older women working in television.
Over the 15 years from 1999, the BBC launched 29 initiatives aimed at improving BAME employment, and no doubt another initiative will be announced soon, which will be welcomed. However, clearly what is needed are action and results if the BBC is to meet its targets, which, at present, lag behind Channel 4 and Sky. Sky Entertainment has decreed that all new shows will have 20% of people from BAME backgrounds in significant on-screen roles, plus targets for senior roles off-screen in all productions. On Sky News, 15% of interviewers were from black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities. Channel 4 has ambitious targets in its 360° Diversity Charter, with an increase from 15% of BAME staff in 2015 to 20% in 2020. Channel 4 has also made remarkable progress in employing and presenting, on-screen and off-screen, people with disabilities. My noble friend Lady King is the driving force on these issues at Channel 4.
Currently, the reckoning is that in London, where national broadcasters are based, about 40% of the population are from BAME communities or are not British born. Across the UK, the figure is around 14% and rising. Significantly, BBC1 has a share of 22% of the television audience but only a 13% share of BAME viewers. The BAME percentage of the BBC workforce has crept up pretty slowly in recent years to just over 13%, but that is markedly lower in senior positions.
Interestingly, the Minister for Culture, Ed Vaizey, who took part in the Commons debate, was repeatedly praised for the personal and very positive role he plays in encouraging greater diversity. The Minister in turn praised the work done to highlight diversity issues by Sir Lenny Henry, the actor Idris Elba, who recently addressed a packed meeting here in Parliament, and Simon Albury of the Campaign for Broadcasting Equality, who is a former chief executive of the Royal Television Society. Mr Albury says that the advances made on-screen in BAME representation are important but that on-screen representation must now be matched by more off-screen employment, especially in the areas of commissioning power and editorial influence, which must be mobilised to drive faster change across the BBC.
Regarding regional diversity, the BBC can be proud of the progress it has made in spending much more of its programming budget outside the M25. Media City in Salford has given a great boost to production in the north of England. ITV has also built on its old regional structures in Yorkshire and in what used to be called “Granadaland” in the north-west, especially with location drama and serials such as “Emmerdale” and “Coronation Street”. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have shares of BBC programme production that better reflect their share of UK audiences, a much welcome advance on past practice. BBC television and radio now have a more diverse regional spread, but there is surely a lot more that could be done for the populous Midlands and the north-east of England. Our judgments on these matters might be better informed if the BBC were not so grudging in giving out information about programme budgets and staffing, for which it was criticised in the Commons debate. How viewers’ licence fee money is spent demands and deserves more transparency.
The diversity of the UK can be defined in so many ways that no royal charter or PSB purpose can capture all its complexity. The creative challenge in producing BBC programmes has been defined as “making the good popular and the popular good”. With digital platforms and alternative channels multiplying, competition increasing and audiences fragmenting, the demands on executives and creative producers will intensify. These demands for quality and higher ratings will at times not sit easily alongside the targeting of more diversity. That challenge must be guided strongly and imaginatively from the top of broadcasting organisations, especially one as indispensable to the UK as the BBC —I speak as somebody who has spent his 30 years in broadcasting in the rival, independent side of television. That leadership will not be achieved by a unitary board of the BBC if it is dominated by political appointees.
Between the publication of the White Paper and the start of the new BBC charter, Parliament must strive to put the right structures of governance in place to encourage creativity and diversity, to sustain impartiality and independence, and to reward the viewing public for the trust and affection they have for the BBC.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I, too, want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who chaired our committee. I also pay tribute to my fellow committee members. These are warm-hearted tributes, and I will explain why.
Our report reminds me of how one produces a soufflé. We served up a dish which looks simple. It contains clear and straightforward observations and recommendations. But as with a soufflé, it involved hours and hours of toil and sweat in the preparation. Only members of the committee who were involved in this process can appreciate what agonies we went through.
What happened was this: we did not want to have an inquiry into every element of the BBC, so we said that we would focus on specific elements, one being the public purposes of the BBC. Little did we know what we were getting into. We thought that this arena, the arena of public purposes, would be a light stroll in a garden involving a pair of secateurs for a little light pruning. Instead, we found ourselves entangled, almost strangulated, in a thicket of six public purposes, a further six public remits, 28 purpose priorities and 26 service licences. Add to these Ofcom’s own public purposes.
Not surprisingly, we decided that what were needed were not secateurs but heavy garden-shears. So we came to the view: “Keep it simple, please. Get back to the simple Reithian mission—the three objectives—to inform, educate and entertain”. We were then encouraged by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford to add a fourth: to reflect—the right reverend Prelate has spoken today about the need to reflect beliefs across the country. So our report says that the BBC should reflect,
“the different opinions, lifestyles, beliefs and values of the nations, regions and diverse communities of the UK”.
I hope that the BBC will take note of the recommendation to reflect the range of different opinions across the UK, because I do not think that it has always done so. I have heard highly respected BBC commentators, such as Nick Robinson, say that the BBC has sometimes been slow to reflect public opinion on controversial subjects. He cited, for example, Europe and immigration. I suspect that that is partly the result of a metropolitan bias in news reporting. How often have we heard the anchor-man or woman on the “Today” programme as they introduce the weather forecast say, “It’s raining over Broadcasting House. What’s it doing in the rest of the country?” It was therefore very encouraging when our committee went to visit the BBC in Media City at Salford Quays. That move has been a great success and not just for the BBC but for the locality and the region. The same will be true, I think, as the BBC extends its presence elsewhere—for example, in Cardiff.
The Government will soon publish their proposals on charter renewal, so I shall make a few points about that. It is right, as has been said by many noble Lords—notably my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who is not in his place—that the BBC should be independent and be seen to be independent. Points have been raised about how the process by which charter renewal takes place should happen. I listened very carefully to what was said. As I understand it, the provisions of the BBC charter and charter renewal might be put into legislation—an Act of Parliament—and decided by Parliament, but I wonder whether that might not make the process more political. I wonder if my noble friend Lord Fowler can imagine the kind of amendments and who might move them that such a Bill might attract. I look forward to seeing what proposals the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has when he comes forward with his proposed Bill. Let us judge it when we see the details.
On the licence fee, I would not want to see a repeat of last year’s process, which pushed on to the BBC the cost of free licences for the over-75s. Not surprisingly, that has led to calls for a more independent system for setting the licence fee, and our committee indeed recommends one. But I am not sure that it is quite as straightforward as that. At the end of the day, the level of the licence fee surely has to reflect the scale and scope of the BBC. At least under the present regime, that will, at the end of the day, be decided by the Government. But let us suppose that the Government were to adopt a system of licence fee settlement along the lines of our report, and that it should be handed to an independent body to make a recommendation. Surely, there would have to be factored into that process a view or calculation of what efficiency savings are required of the BBC. Every well-run organisation and company looks each year at how it can run itself more efficiently and cut costs where it can. The BBC should not be immune from that process.
That brings me to the tough choices that the management of the BBC has to confront. It is faced with demands from the public for extensive news and current affairs, loads of sport, top-class drama, brilliant wildlife programmes, high-quality entertainment, comedy, the arts and the list goes on. But of course the BBC has very little control over its funding, so the demands made of the BBC in the new charter must be realistic—ambitious but not overambitious. In my opinion, the BBC cannot do everything unless the public are really prepared to pay for it. Therefore, I do not think that the BBC should always try to compete with the commercial channels at every level. But that emphatically does not mean that the BBC should confine itself to output that the market will not provide—the so-called market failure model. It is not a binary choice. What I want to see is market enrichment.
The BBC makes programmes which inform, educate and entertain, but which are distinctive because of their high quality. Its programmes are innovative, break new ground and are challenging. It has been mentioned in the course of the debate that programmes such as “The Great British Bake Off” and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, “In Our Time”, are wonderful and brilliant. The BBC can and does make a huge range of programmes, and here in the UK we are blessed with an abundance of creative people within the BBC and among the independent producers with the ideas, imagination and expertise to conceive and make these programmes. They will go on doing so as long as the BBC has clear objectives, its culture and ethos encourages them, and as long as it is not swamped by an incomprehensible hierarchy of public purposes and remits involving endless and pointless box-ticking.
Give the BBC a new, straightforward board structure, appoint independent people at the top and establish a clear regulatory framework, and then quite simply let it get on with the job.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to hear all the tributes to the committee and its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Best, on this really quite statesmanlike and distinguished report. The way the noble Lord introduced the report had the ring of Reithian authoritative comment at its best. The debate got off to a good start because its introduction was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. There has been no more consistent and firm champion of the cause of the BBC in this House and beyond than the noble Lord. He not only champions the BBC; he analyses situations, underlines the strengths, sees the challenges and—what is so important—puts forward constructive remedies to take it forward. He is no Greek chorus: he is an active player who wants to engage in the whole dynamic of the future.
What has also been very good for a layman like me is that we have again discovered the value of hearing from my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg. There are no people in the political community in Westminster who have done more, practically and in an engaged way, to advance the cause of the arts and to bring them to the widest possible cross-section of people. If I am allowed to make a personal observation, I am constantly reminded of this in Cumbria, where I live. It is really quite remarkable how, in his demanding life, my noble friend Lord Bragg has found so much time to nurture what has become a very significant event—the Keswick literature festival.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam underlined splendidly that if what we appreciate and love about the BBC is to survive and foster, its independence is crucial. In that regard, the way the governors and the chair are appointed is of course essential. We need to watch that very carefully indeed. The report put forward the thought that an additional objective might be added to the BBC mission, and that is to “reflect”. Of course the way in which the word is used is that the BBC must reflect society as it is. It must reflect society generationally, it must reflect the nations that make up the United Kingdom, and it must do so demonstrably and with commitment. It also needs to reflect the ethnic mix which is now Britain. But the word “reflect” has two meanings. I hope it feels as strongly about the other dimension of “reflect”, which is to pause, consider and evaluate the society in which you are living. This is a tremendous contribution that the BBC can make: encouraging people to think about the world in which they live, to see the challenges and not just react to the world, but see how they can become engaged in shaping that world.
In this context, I was also very glad that the report unashamedly emphasised children. Gosh, I cannot help forgetting my upbringing, but “Children’s Hour” was a very important part of my young days, not least because I was growing up in the war, with all its tensions, stress and drama. How we waited for the next episode of the radio drama on Thursday nights. Some children were asked in a serious survey soon after television came in and started working with children, “Which do you prefer: radio drama or television drama?”. At that stage, a majority of children said radio drama. When asked why, they said, “Because the pictures are better”. I wonder whether, with all our high-tech cameras and the rest, we are stimulating vision and imagination to quite the degree that children’s radio programmes used to do in the 1930s and 1940s.
If it is about stimulating imagination and vision in the young, we have to look at what the BBC is making available to the young in the context of the crisis in our society. I almost literally lose sleep about the fact that the concept of citizenship is withering in our society as consumerism takes over. Consumerism fosters responsive attitudes in terms of personal need, self-aggrandisement and the rest, but citizenship demands thought and participation. Without becoming propaganda agents, the BBC has a unique opportunity to begin effectively to introduce children to the importance of citizenship, what its issues are and how they can participate in it.
When I was a Member of Parliament I had an inner-city constituency. I used to make a point every year of going to visit every secondary school in it. It was not a cheering experience, because when I talked to the youngsters about the importance of participation in politics, they would say that they had nothing to do with politics. I used to say to them, “Look: does your family have any housing problems? Do your families ever encounter medical problems? Do your families have issues about education?”. I was repeatedly told by these youngsters, in words of one syllable, sometimes very bluntly, “That’s got nothing to do with politics”. That was some years ago, but I suspect that disillusionment with the political community is even worse today. The BBC has a terrific opportunity to rehabilitate the political context and quality of our society.
Local radio has a particular part to play in that. I can speak with real warmth and appreciation of Radio Cumbria and the key part it played in two terrible flooding episodes in recent years. It was crucial to the well-being and safety of the population. Local radio has another opportunity, which is to link local perceptions—local engagement—to national issues. I was struck at the time of the last floods that they virtually coincided with the great conference in Paris. There was a terrific opportunity there to get people thinking about what relevance events in Paris had to their situation and the difficulties they were facing. There again, the role the BBC can play locally must never be underestimated, but it is not just about reporting local crime, murders and so on—it is quite easy to slip into that kind of preoccupation. It is about taking the opportunity to stimulate a better neighbourhood and community understanding of how the issues of the world affect people and relate to them as a community.
In view of the pattern of my own life, I cannot conclude without saying how glad I am that there is so much fulsome support for the World Service in the report. The World Service is something very special. As a young man, not infrequently I found myself in Bush House. Bush House had, it seemed to me, all the characteristics of a unique university. It had a real sense of community in journalism, of shared experiences and depth, and a very high level of analysis and thought about the issues before the world’s society.
Of course, if we have one reality with which we all have to live—I really cannot say how strongly I feel this, and it is so sad to see in Britain so many people, not least in the Westminster community, who wish it were not true and want to run away from it—it is that from the moment we are born, we are locked into a world community. We are utterly interdependent with the world. There is hardly a single issue of significance that can be solved, resolved or dealt with successfully on our own as a nation: it has to be dealt with in the context of co-operation and participation in the wider world community of which we are a part. Here, the BBC—not only in the quality of thinking it brings and the contribution it makes, but in the practical reality of its link between the World Service, the national service, the regional service and the local services—is in a strong position to help ensure the quality of the future of our democracy.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for being a wonderful chairman and I thank my fellow committee members for the stimulating experience of putting this report together. I speak as a proud member of the committee looking into the future of one of our most valued treasures, the BBC, and I declare an interest as per the register. I want to concentrate on children’s programming and diversity.
Key figures in the children’s industry, including PACT, the Children’s Media Foundation, Animation UK and academics, contributed to this report. They called for a funding commitment by the BBC into children’s content at around 8% of the network original content spend and insisted that this should not fall below £100 million per year over the next charter period. However, it was felt that any ring-fencing of funding for children’s content before the final funding settlement for the BBC’s charter is negotiated would tie the BBC’s hands when it comes to negotiating the final funding package for BBC children’s programming.
There has been much talk of contestable funding for children’s programming, but everyone in the children’s industry, including those who gave evidence for the report, made clear their strong opposition to a contestable fund for children’s content. Nor is there any support for topslicing of the licence fee to establish a contestable fund, because of the risk of the BBC doing less and the uncertainties of establishing a fund without a clear idea of who would administer it, as well as the cost of doing so. Also, where would the content find a home? The direct and indirect costs of administering contestable funding would take money directly out of PSB content and therefore result in net negative investment. Also, it could mean that the funding would be taken from BBC’s children’s budgets or wider content budgets within the BBC. It is acknowledged that contestable funding that shifts PSB away from the BBC to other providers will most likely reduce audience reach and impact. It would be wholly unacceptable to have reduced BBC budgets to fund commercial PSB activity and there is a general consensus that contestable funding would not be an incentive for commercial PSBs to commission more children’s content.
Contestable funding has not worked when tried in other countries, such as New Zealand or Canada, where it has been criticised for being inefficient and bureaucrat-led and for commissioning low-impact and low-quality programmes. Any ring-fencing or topslicing would also impede the funding of new initiatives such as iPlay and tie the BBC down in ways that do not take into account how children’s viewing habits are evolving, as the introduction of the dedicated and highly successful BBC children’s channels CBeebies and CBBC has shown.
Investment in PSB UK original children’s content has declined sharply over the last 10 years. Spend has fallen by 95% since 2003 and it will not be long before there is little of our excellent children’s production sector left. If this decline is allowed to continue, the UK will no longer be the world leader in children’s content, as it has been for many years, which has contributed hugely to the UK economy. It is strongly felt that new money should be found to boost original production of children’s PSB content that is culturally relevant to them, especially in the areas of drama and factual.
Many believe that the answer could be to encourage Channel 4 and other commercial broadcasters to re-enter the children’s market specifically targeted at 12 to 16 year-olds to fill the gap in provision for older children. This would provide competition for the BBC because at the moment there is virtually only one buyer in the marketplace for UK-made children’s content—and that is the BBC. This is a chance—maybe the last chance—for real radical thinking, as supported by PACT and the Children’s Media Foundation. So I ask the Minister: will the Government consider addressing this issue through primary legislation and make children’s content a tier 2, rather than a tier 3, requirement for broadcasters, and include this in the digital economy Bill to be announced in the Queen’s Speech next month? Will they also set up a feasibility study into new ways of funding children’s content, which should not be dismissed as too difficult?
A 48 year-old woman once told me that as an eight year-old child she was abused by her foster parents’ sons, but the BBC’s children’s programmes and their presenters got her through it because they were there for her. They told her—through the television—that she was loved and was worthy. This still applies today; these programmes are a support tool for children. The whole landscape of broadcasting and media is changing but, whatever happens, quality and inspirational content has to be created for children, reflecting their world. We must not do anything to hinder the BBC continuing to do this in the way that it has historically.
I turn my attention to diversity. One in five nursery school children is from a diverse background. They are the future and they desperately need—and expect—to see role models to inspire them, to encourage them to find a place in society, so that they feel valued and appreciated. Without this feeling of aspiration, the gaps between the haves and the have-nots will for ever widen.
I have been dealing with the issue of diversity all my life and professionally, for more than 40 years, have been trying to make change. It started when I asked a television producer back in 1973 why we could not have a more diverse and positive portrayal of professional black characters, such as lawyers and accountants. He dismissively told me that it was not realistic. In 1976, when I first appeared on children’s programmes—good old “Play School”—I asked why there were no black, Chinese and Asian faces represented in the illustrations of the stories that I read. The producer said, “Oh, we hadn’t noticed”. Thankfully she acted on it immediately and, from that day on, BBC children’s programmes became the most diverse genre on television and a great example of how differences can be so brilliantly represented on our screens and, in turn, in society.
Television is perhaps the most influential sector of the media. It affects people’s thinking; it forms attitudes, tolerances, acceptances and how we have empathy with others. That is why I believe that it is important that we all work together to make lasting change. It is widely acknowledged that the lack of diversity within the television industry has always been a major issue. Many have fought hard to make changes for decades with very little effect, even after Greg Dyke called the BBC “hideously white” in 2001. Suddenly, however, things have taken a dramatic turn for the better and now all the major broadcasters are coming up with strategies, including the BBC’s dynamic drive to improve its diversity remit, which sweeps away the shocking practices of the past. But we need to see results—and fast—in the commissioning process, production staff, senior management team and, of course, the make-up of the independent production companies that the BBC commissions. Diversity has to freely filter down from the top with no blockages or obstacles in the middle. This is essential for change.
I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, director-general of the BBC, has set up a BBC diversity advisory panel, on which I sit along with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We advise the BBC how to put right what should have been addressed decades ago: ensuring that diversity is sustainable and embedded in the BBC’s DNA, both in front and behind the camera, as well as in its promotional material. We must not forget that that needs to be reflected throughout BBC Radio as well.
Having said that, I am still concerned as to whether the BBC can and will deliver on all its promises. My heart has been broken on this important diversity issue so many times over the years. Many others are also justifiably concerned about this issue. As we have heard, the honourable David Lammy led a strong debate on BBC diversity in the other place last week, which was the first time in history that this had happened. But I am an optimist and I am encouraged by the commitment of the right honourable Ed Vaizey to address some of the diversity issues across our creative industries. He has become a true diversity champion; now, he really gets it.
On a personal note, after 43 years of campaigning, persuading and being told to shut up or I would never work again, I believe that at last things are really beginning to change for the better. Will the Government ensure that diversity features strongly in the White Paper as a requirement on the BBC to fulfil its obligations to all licence fee payers? I long for the day when everyone is given an equal opportunity to take part in the process of making Britain the great country that we know and love. The BBC must play a vital role in this process. It is its duty to comply.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and wide-ranging debate and I declare an interest as a former governor of the BBC. I suppose that it was a unitary board in those days, when I reflect on it. I am also an avid listener and viewer and I go back as far as the crystal set, so that dates me. I do not want to indicate the programmes that I liked then, because I have done that once before, and my noble friend Lord Hart took us through some programmes for which I shared an enormous affection. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the committee on a report which was well crafted in the way that it confined itself. It did not seek to reach too far and wide, which was a strength in the report and the way that it was introduced.
As has been said, the BBC is a great institution and a world beater but that does not mean that it is incapable of reform or does not need it, or does not need constant attention to the way that it behaves and produces programmes. That has been said today in the Chamber, including in the previous contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. The ways that people interact nowadays with the media would have been beyond the comprehension of Lord Reith in his day. He had a different set of challenges in establishing the broadcasting corporation. We know that the BBC will need to continue to change. However, the idea that having examined its role it should somehow restrict itself to being a market-failure organisation seems an approach designed just to undermine the BBC.
There is one bit of the committee’s report which I profoundly disagree with. Fortunately, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is not here but it was the desire to tinker with the mission statement—but it ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it because you will ruin it. Come on: “To inform, educate, entertain and reflect” would mean that the statement ends with a whimper. Of course we want the BBC to reflect today’s diverse multicultural and multiracial society, but we do not need to put that in the mission statement. In my view, that is the responsibility of the board and the regulator. The responsibility to produce programme content is what shows what the BBC is really doing, so that is my plea about the mission statement.
Looking at and listening to today’s programmes, as I do, their track record is brilliant. The BBC does not always get it right but then no organisation is always going to do so. Some really interesting programmes have been cited. Look at the programmes which seek just to entertain—the way in which they not only entertain but inform and educate is when the BBC has really cracked it. I like the programmes that attract large viewing numbers, because what they are doing is important. One episode of “Call the Midwife” dealt with thalidomide, which, for many people, is an issue that has drifted away, a part of history that they had probably forgotten about. It dealt with it sensitively, in a way that informed and educated us. In my view, that is the BBC doing it right.
“The Great British Bake Off” has been referred to several times. I want to refer to it in a slightly different way. Last year’s winner was Nadiya Hussain. What a fascinating result that was. There was an obvious example of the multiracial, multicultural country that we are today. There was a young woman of Muslim faith winning such an essentially British competition. That, I hope, did much to make us a society that understands how different we are but how people can make their contributions regardless of their background.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said that this debate had both informed and educated him, and I would say the same thing. I was fascinated by the contribution of my noble friend Lady Healy, for example. She gave so many interesting statistics about programme content, training, et cetera that she will drive me to Hansard to read them again.
Although it is clear that the BBC has further to go on diversity, there are programmes such as “The A Word”—I do not know whether noble Lords have watched that recently—which deals with autism in such an imaginative way, and “Employable Me”, which is another great example of the BBC combining that mission to inform, educate and entertain. We should not forget about things that we take for granted. What other broadcaster in the world would have a season like the Proms every year? We take it for granted.
So where to with the BBC? I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of the weakness and deficiencies of the charter, and I wish him well in his attempt to reform it. That would be better, given the way that we have seen the Government behaving to the BBC by hiving off to it their responsibility for free licences, and by top-slicing.
I repeat my question to the Minister from the previous debate. I hope that the White Paper will make it clear that the licence fee is to ensure that the BBC can function and do all the things that we expect it to, which have been mentioned in this debate, such as producing those quality programmes appealing to a wide section of the population, and that the BBC will not be attacked yet again by taking a slice of the licence fee to perform another necessary function. Everyone knows that we want good broadband services, but it should not be part of the BBC’s job to provide them out of the licence fee.
Similarly, there are those who say that 10 years is too long in a world that is changing fundamentally in its technology. I do not endorse every aspect of the Clementi review, but it may have got it right that the BBC should return to a unitary board. I agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the importance of independent board members—and not just their independence but their skill, competence and ability to challenge the powers that be at the BBC. I often reflect on my time, when we were invited to endorse yet another large increase in the director-general’s pay on the basis that they could get far more if they were working outside the corporation. We desperately tried to point out, “Yes, but the job of director-general of the BBC is something special, given only to a few”. That has been proved now, as although the pay has been halved it has continued to attract a really good-quality person in the noble Lord, Lord Hall. If that is the way we are going, the importance of the independence of the board cannot be stressed too much.
I am conscious of the time and of the fact that most of the points have already been made—although, as some wag said, not by everyone. At this time in the day, I will conclude my thoughts on the future of the BBC by expressing the hope that the Government will produce a White Paper that genuinely ensures that what is definitely one of the greatest things that this country has produced—and which gives a service not only to this country but, as many noble Lords said, all round the world—will continue to be able to do so in a way that we can have confidence in.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I must at once declare a dual interest, having been a presenter for the BBC for some 40-odd years—like other noble Lords—and also a recipient of several commissions, including one for this year’s Proms. Indeed, I look forward to seeing noble Lords of a brave musical bent at the Royal Albert Hall in July.
I contend that my declaration of interest amounts to something of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I have clearly gained, like countless other composers, writers, designers and actors, from my association with the BBC. So you could say, “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?”. On the other hand, I could be said to have a degree of experience and knowledge, like other noble Lords, of how the BBC works, and in particular of the cultural dimension, to which I will largely confine myself.
In many ways, the BBC is not unlike your Lordships’ House: it does very good work, but there are many areas that have required overhaul. There have been ludicrous pay-offs at the corporation, and a huge and disproportionate ratio of middle management to people actually working in studios on programmes. However, the BBC is manifestly getting its house in order on these points. I have witnessed the cuts on the shop floor, as it were, in the studio and on location, because programme budgets have been cut to the bone.
Just as I believe, despite anomalies such as the political appointment process for Peers that we heard about this morning, that this Chamber does a hugely valuable job in scrutinising and improving legislation, so I believe that the BBC fulfils well the Reithian principles of informing, educating and entertaining in a way that really is the envy of the world. Like other noble Lords, whenever I go abroad, I am told, “Gosh, you’re so lucky. You have the NHS and the BBC”. When I was artistic director of the Cheltenham festival, it was my partnership with Radio 3 that helped secure the festival’s truly national and international reputation. Radio 3 embraced and encouraged my initiative of saying that every artist had to include a contemporary piece in their programme.
The sheer number of people whose lives have been transformed by access to experiences that, were it not for the BBC, would have been denied them is staggering. That is why I wholeheartedly endorse paragraph 23 of the committee’s summary and conclusions, in which it welcomes the additional funding that the Government have found for the World Service. I congratulate the Government on this initiative because the link to the free world has been—I witnessed it in the bad old days in Czechoslovakia and the former USSR—and still is a lifeline for those living under oppression. It is also a marvellous vehicle for the subtle dissemination of the soft power of thoughts and ideas that are often restricted or forbidden elsewhere.
Closer to home, I have had countless artists, such as the playwright Alan Plater, tell me of the huge debt they owed to the BBC for shining a light, in a distinctly underprivileged area of the north, on to music and art in the days of the Third Programme—whose 70th birthday, incidentally, the BBC is about to celebrate. As we sit here in Westminster, in central London, able to pop over the bridge to enjoy the best theatre, film, visual art and music that the world has to offer, we should think about these priceless riches and how they are paid for by taxpayers in communities in areas where there is a dearth of cultural provision. That the BBC can disseminate these riches must always be a social imperative. I am often told by the disabled or infirm that, for example, choral evensong and the morning service provide much-appreciated spiritual nourishment.
Today’s BBC is a listening organisation—hence the move to Salford, the emphasis on regional diversity and the celebration of a tapestry of cultural accents, if I might put it like that. I agree with the committee in paragraph 35, where it says that,
“lack of a clear process for setting the level of the licence fee”,
or whatever replaces it, is unacceptable. Anyone engaged in business or festival planning knows that a primary prerequisite is a budget to allow forward planning. I also believe that it was not right for the Government to propose free television licences for the over-75s to be provided by the BBC. I can understand the dilemma that the director-general was in when he accepted it and, doubtless, the bridge that he hoped it would build—but this should not, in future, be a dilemma in which he or any other director-general is ever placed again.
The committee rightly says that it is persuaded by the argument that a charter period of at least 10 years is necessary. When I was on the, now defunct, general advisory committee of the BBC, I recall that a huge amount of time would be spent—we have heard this from other noble Lords—preparing for charter and licence fee renewal, with scarcely a break before having to embark on the next one.
The cultural position that the BBC holds is extraordinary, providing orchestras, not just in London but throughout the land, and singing this country’s gifts still further afield. At this very moment, the BBC is exporting the Proms, with performances in Melbourne, in Australia, featuring young generation artists. Really the question that one needs to ask is this: if the BBC were curtailed still further in its current work and potential, is there another broadcaster that could take on the Proms, “Young Musician of the Year”, “Shakespeare’s Celebrations”, or the Free Thinking Festival in Gateshead? Would another broadcaster commission to the same extent new work from writers and composers or relay from all over the kingdom, and often the world, artistic experiences that are the right of the many and not just the privileged few?
Would any other organisation be able to take risks to uncover originality and innovation, which are so central to a prosperous cultural landscape—furthermore, one that feeds directly into and nurtures the hugely successful creative industries for which the Government have often been fulsome in their praise? These industries, which are so often allied to the BBC, bring vast income into the Treasury. Tamper with one leg of that industry—the cultural side of the BBC—and you begin to risk toppling the entire edifice, for they are inextricably linked.
Surely we and the Government should seek not to constrain but to celebrate the BBC and what it brings all of us and a global audience. What better advertisement could there be for the United Kingdom? Any Government who seriously damage the BBC would simply not be forgiven by the electorate. Even if Ministers may feel justified in discounting a certain percentage of opinion polls—although I am not sure that they are right so to do—that have shown huge support for the BBC, they surely cannot be unaware of the overriding message and warning that they are confronting and will, make no mistake, continue to confront.
To continue the point about political interference from the noble Lord Fowler, I would argue that, if politicians never feel irritated by journalistic inquiry, those journalists are simply not doing their job properly. An external board, constructed by government appointment, would not be truly external or independent, in the broadest sense of the words, but parti pris.
Finally, in thanking my noble friend Lord Best for his considerable contribution today, I endorse his request to the Minister that your Lordships’ House has real time to debate the forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, coming 20th out of 21 speakers is not a great position to be in. I endorse most of the things the committee said about the governance of the BBC, regarding independence, a single board and so on. In his concluding remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, summarised those very well. Let this be the last royal charter. Let us get rid of the royal charter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, in our system, “royal” actually means the Prime Minister’s prerogative and politicians’ power. Royal just gives an impression that somehow it is above politics. It is actually deep down in politics. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lester, once again brings about a revolution like the many others he has brought about in our public life. I wish him good luck.
Before I get on to what I wanted to say, let me say that I do not watch the BBC that much. I watch only the news on television. There are perfectly good substitutes available. I am not completely given over to the uniqueness and fantasticness of the BBC. I am not saying it is not good, but I do not watch drama and those sorts of things. As far as the news is concerned, it is all right. However, I somehow feel very surprised that everybody is so fulsome about Lord Reith and the mission statement. I dislike the phrase “mission statement”, which is another reason. Why does anybody need a mission statement? Just get on with the job. It is so paternalistic to say: “educate”. It is commanding, “Out you go to educate and entertain”. As Douglas Jay said, “The man in Whitehall knows best”. So the man in Whitehall said to education and entertain and everybody responded, “Wow”. I am sure that if we had a few people under 25 in your Lordships’ House, they would be laughing at us.
I want to talk about the licence fee. No body can be independent unless it has an independent source of income. Ministers love the licence fee because it gives them immense power and a constant blackmailing force over the BBC. I want to explore how we can find substitutes for the licence fee. The licence fee is regressive because it is a household levy, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said. If you own four televisions, you pay the same as somebody who owns just one television. If you own four cars, you have to get four discs, but not with televisions. It is very inelastic. My main worry is that it may be anachronistic because we are going to have a generation that will not receive its entertainment from a box. A box may not even be needed. Entertainment will be streamed or whatever. We may be talking about the medium, especially the instrument through which we receive this education, entertainment and information. The instrument may not be there in 10 years’ time. Therefore, we have to start thinking now about other ways of financing the BBC which will give it a substantial degree of independence and ensure that the money continues to come. The BBC has a budget of around £5 billion, and £4 billion of that comes from the licence fee—I am keeping the numbers fairly broad—and £1 billion comes from its own business. So we have to find £4 billion at any point in time. Obviously the Government list the receipts from the licence fee among their tax receipts, but we could find from other sources of taxation a form of income whose proceeds could be hypothecated to the BBC. For a long time hypothecation was anathema to the Treasury, but recently it has increasingly adopted the idea that certain taxes should be hypothecated.
I was looking around to find out what kind of numbers there are. Take, say, the duty on fuel along with those on tobacco, spirits and wine. Together they raise about £48 billion, so we are basically looking at a 10% enhancement of the receipts. Noble Lords would be surprised to know that the fuel duty, which has been frozen for the last few years, is right now 25% below what it would have been had the fuel duty regime continued and not favoured people who pollute our air. Just by taking fuel duty back to what the level should be, we would get a substantial part of the £4 billion that we are worried about. I say that as an illustration. I strongly believe that one should have consumption taxes, not income taxes. If you tax people on their consumption basket, tax is felt less acutely than in any other way. The Government ought to explore alternative forms of hypothecated taxes, or increases in existing taxes, which would be given straight to the BBC for its budget. Then it could just continue and no time would have to be spent on the next licence fee renewal.
I have a more expensive proposal to pass on. Right now, the Government pay about 3% on their debt. If they were to gift the BBC a debt stock of £100 billion to perpetually finance its income of £3 billion-odd for a long time, that would be the corpus that the BBC could keep and get on with it. If the yield could be indexed, that would be even better. That would be very cheap; £100 billion is not very much these days.
It should be possible for us to think of elastic, progressive and modern ways of raising money for the BBC. If we can find that, we will guarantee its independence more than in any other way. As soon as the White Paper is issued—it may be too soon for the White Paper itself to include such things—I urge the Government to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to examine the reforms proposed in the report of the Communications Committee and the other proposals that have come up in your Lordships’ House, starting now. If we start now, then by the time the charter needs renewing we will be ready with all the necessary equipment: the structures, the financing and the mission statement.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I am last but, I hope, not least. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for the excellent way in which he introduced his report, and for the report itself, which is very good, although there are criticisms that I will make of it as we go along. For a start, the report does not mention the fact that the BBC ought to be established by an Act of Parliament, not by royal charter. That ought to have been in the report, and it should have been said loud and clear.
On the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for an independent board and so on, I would like to combine the two and suggest that we ought to look at an advise-and-consent procedure, whereby anyone who is named as an appointee should appear before a Select Committee of the House of Commons before being appointed. They would then be appointed thereafter. That is just a thought that I am throwing into the debate.
On the licence fee, I think that it is time that we looked at it. I am not saying that my noble friend Lord Desai’s ideas are the right ones, but we certainly have to look at it. We have to remember that the licence fee was introduced, in the first place, for one radio in one house. It was then expanded to include one television and one radio in one house. Now, if you take just myself in my house in Hamilton as an example, we have eight different ways of watching television—we have two televisions, two computers and two phones, which we can watch television on; I even have a phone in my car, which I emphasise is a Skoda—as well as having a radio in my car, and a radio in my son’s car as well. We are all covered by a single licence fee. It cannot be right that we have one licence fee to cover so many different options.
I am standing here today with two devices in my pockets—one my mobile phone, one my mini iPad—on which I could watch television now. In fact, I could go further than that, because if I forget to record a programme at home in Hamilton, I can look it up on the Virgin app on my mobile and set it to record the programme. I can do that now, standing here—although I will not. That makes a nonsense of the whole idea of having a single licence fee to cover one house, which was the initial idea. It is regressive and it means that those who are poorer or older—not a lot older than me, maybe—and who have only one television and one radio in their house pay exactly the same as I pay for all the devices I have in my house, and that cannot be right.
My third point relates to a word that has not been mentioned in the whole of this debate—yet no other area has seen a bigger decline in BBC output than sport. It used to be the case that, if you wanted to watch or listen to a football match or a cricket match or whatever, you went to the BBC. The BBC cannot do that anymore. It appears that it cannot afford it, and maybe it cannot. However, there are a lot of other sports that are not professional which would welcome the BBC showing their sport on television. I am told that netball, for instance, which is now being shown on Sky, has become a very popular sport indeed. Sky shows it, young girls are encouraged to go and play netball, and as a result the number of people who participate in that sport has increased. Noble Lords may say, “What’s this got to do with the BBC?”. The BBC’s mission statement is to “inform, educate and entertain”. I accept that sport entertains, but it also educates. There is a lot of evidence that, if you show a sport on television, you raise the participation rate of that sport generally in the country, and as a result you increase the levels of health in the country. There is no question that playing sport is a way of ensuring that people are healthy. They may not necessarily lose a large amount of weight when doing sport but they are kept healthy.
I will also raise an issue, which again was not raised in the report, which is that the BBC has a wonderful, enormous archive, both as regards sport and a whole range of different programmes. Why is that archive not readily available to all of us? Why are we not able to watch programmes on the BBC website? We can watch some programmes which are on Gold, or whatever the channel is called these days, but a lot of them are not. That brings me back to sport, because a whole range of great sporting events are never shown on television but they are in the archive. The BBC promised years ago that it was going to digitalise its archive. It has failed to do so and it has failed to put it on its website.
I now turn to the major point. I accept the report, which I think is good, but I do not like the title, Reith not Revolution. I looked up Lord Reith on the internet—not on the BBC website but on Google. I googled his name and discovered what a nasty piece of goods he was. He was a thoroughly nasty man. He supported Hitler and Mussolini during the 1930s. He also disliked Winston Churchill. There may be a reason for that, but he was an enemy of Winston Churchill throughout the whole of his career. He also never watched television. He sometimes listened to the radio when he was director-general, but I do not think that he ever listened to it after that.
However, my main point relates to the words “not revolution”. The fact is that we are living through a revolution. We are in the middle of a technological revolution that goes much further than just the media, but the media are living through it as well. Since the 10-year period when I sat on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, the world, even in those 10 years, has changed dramatically with the advent of the iPad, the iPhone and all these new devices and means of getting on to the internet. We have seen the way in which apps are now used on the internet. There is now a whole range of things that were not available in those days. So there is a revolution and it is going to continue. I can watch programmes on my television set via my iPad, and that will become easier and easier to do. How do we combat that?
I am a supporter of the BBC. I believe that it ought to continue and that it ought to be part and parcel of the revolution, but it will become a producer of programmes—and I am happy to pay a licence fee towards that—rather than a broadcaster in the sense that we now know it. People will not watch a television or listen to a radio; they will record programmes and watch them on catch-up or on the internet. They will do that in a variety of ways, but they will still be watching the BBC.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, is not the last.
I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best. I sit on the committee and he has been an admirable chair. Picking up on the all too accurate description of the toil and sweat given by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, he has also been an admirably patient chair, and patience was needed. Patience was also exhibited by the team: the clerk, Anna Murphy, the policy analyst, Helena Peacock, the committee assistant, Rita Logan, and our special adviser, Jacquie Hughes.
I sat on the Communications Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and, not for the first time, I am going to disagree with him because I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hart, for what I think is an excellent title for our report: Reith not Revolution. That is what the British public—the licence fee payers—want. According to the BBC Trust, 85% of the public support the BBC’s main mission to inform, educate and entertain.
What I did not realise until today is that the noble Lord, Lord Hart, and I share an appreciation of Ballet Shoes as well as the BBC. What a rounded man he is.
We welcome the fact that the elusive White Paper will be published next month, and, as I understand it, the Minister has confirmed that the Government intend to hold debates on that in both Houses. We are disappointed that she could not confirm that there will be approval Motions, but perhaps she can today.
The process of charter renewal has confirmed that the British public overwhelmingly support the BBC. Over 80% of people responding to the Green Paper believe that the BBC is effectively serving audiences, around 75% support the licence fee, and almost three-quarters believe that BBC services are truly distinctive and that it has a positive wider impact on the market. As the summary of responses document says, it was one of the largest ever received to a government consultation, highlighting that the future of the BBC is an important issue to a great many people.
Despite this, the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the involvement of the organisation 38 Degrees has somehow distorted the responses. Replying to an Oral Question in January, he said:
“That does not mean they are not valid expressions of opinion; it just means that perhaps they are not wholly representative of public opinion at large”. —[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/16; col. 1536.]
No surprise, then, that a recent YouGov poll found that 53% of voters do not trust the Government’s intentions where the BBC is concerned, rising to 62% among the over-60s. What is clear is that despite what you read in certain newspapers, and despite such reservations expressed by the Secretary of State, public opinion at large does support the BBC. It is clear that across Britain people use the BBC’s services every day and very happily, because it serves them well. So what fuels the negativity—something that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, questioned? We seem, as Armando Iannucci said in his MacTaggart Lecture, to be in some artificially concocted zone of outrage.
The public largely support the licence fee, and why not? At 40p per day, the BBC is tremendous value for the consumer, but it is also great for the UK economy, generating the equivalent of £2 for every £1 of licence fee—in other words, it doubles its money and is a crucial pillar of our very successful creative economy. Sir Peter Bazalgette, chair of Arts Council England, when giving evidence to the committee, said that:
“One of the justifications for the intervention in the marketplace that is the BBC is the value of the creative industries democratically, culturally, socially and economically”.
What we do not support, along with so many other speakers today, is how the licence fee is set. As our report says, a new process must be established to set the level of our licence fee in a transparent way. The covert way in which the Chancellor negotiated the BBC taking on the cost of funding free TV licences for the over-75s was inappropriate, to say the least. Will the Minister agree with so many of the participants in this debate that the process in future should be transparent and, as our report says, that the level should be recommended by the new regulatory body?
As was pointed out, our report did not address governance, but we on these Benches agree with Sir David Clementi’s recommendation that a strong unitary BBC board matched by a strong external regulator is the right model for running and overseeing the BBC. However—I am going to repeat what everyone has said, but I have to say it too—it is absolutely vital that the Government ensure the appointment of a genuinely independent chair and non-executive directors. The Secretary of State’s plan to give the Government power to appoint most members of the new board is not acceptable. The BBC is a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. It must be independent to do its job, and must be seen to be independent. Does the Minister agree that there should be a transparent and independent process for appointing a BBC unitary board, starting with the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and then a wholly independent appointments panel, as my noble friend Lord Lester said? Also on independence, does she agree, as our report has recommended, that the next BBC royal charter should last for 11 years so as to decouple the charter review process from the general election cycle, and thereafter that charters should last for 10 years? The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, with her experience, pointed to how this would provide stability for the BBC.
Another recently published report on the BBC was titled, An Assessment of Market Impact and Distinctiveness. On market impact, crowding out, there seems to be a particular concern in the area of online news. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, BBC news has a higher level of trust than any other news source. In what Sir Peter Bazalgette referred to in evidence as,
“the Klondike mayhem of the internet world”,
it is surely more important than ever that it has an online presence. There was a fascinating “Start the Week” on Radio 4 this Monday about journalism in the digital age and the struggle to sort out the abundance of information and misinformation—I think that this addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maxton—and how new technology is increasingly manipulated in certain parts of the world by those who exert power. Images being circulated in Syrian refugee camps, for example, of Sunnis decapitating Shias were actually footage of members of a Latin American drug cartel murdering their rivals. I quote Sir Peter again when he said in evidence that,
“yes, it—
that is, the BBC—
“does compete and it is a market intervention, but if it is to have an impartial and independent news and information service for the country—if we believe in that—it has to have an online iteration”.
Our concern about BBC news as expressed in the report—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to this—is different: the downward trend in investment in current affairs, noted by Ofcom in the last review of PSB. It is vital that the BBC maintain both quality and quantity in this genre.
Then, there is the matter of a word very much in the ether—distinctiveness, which I think has somehow replaced scale and scope. The Oliver and Ohlbaum report called in particular for BBC1 to be more distinctive, echoed by the Secretary of State, which is odd considering the channel comes out top in Ofcom’s distinctiveness measure. There is a Trojan horse element to this request, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and identified by the actor and writer, David Mitchell, who said:
“An overt challenge to the corporation’s existence remains politically unfeasible—the public would miss it too much. The first step, then, is to turn it into something that fewer people would miss—and eventually, over time, to make it so distinctive that hardly anyone likes it at all”.
As many have said, there are of course areas where the BBC’s choices and behaviour have been far from perfect. The “officer class”, as the noble Lord, Lord Hall, refers to them, has on occasion been out of step, and there are still too many layers of them, as well as bureaucracy, referred to so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We therefore welcome the appointment of one head of TV channels, Charlotte Moore, and her very plain pledge that:
“Life’s going to be simpler”.
The BBC must learn to understand the true definition of partnership and to do so, as we say in our report,
“in an open and generous manner”.
Here, I echo the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Healy, the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Hart, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. If the BBC is properly to reflect the country, it has to address the problem of a lack of diversity. We need diversity at production and management level, as well as on screen. As Idris Elba said here in Parliament, there is a disconnect between people who make TV and people who watch TV. Charlotte Moore has personally committed to champion and drive diversity, but this must be delivered on, because in the past, as so many of your Lordships have said, there have been too many commitments and too little action.
I end as I did in the last debate, with the words of Terry Wogan, because I feel that their pertinence bears repeating. My first job at the BBC was working for him. He was a great man who certainly knew how to entertain, but also how to inform and educate. I wonder, would he be distinct enough if seeking a job under the world of Whittingdale? He said of the BBC:
“The BBC is the greatest broadcaster in the world. It is the standard that everyone measures themselves against. If we lose the BBC it won’t be quite as bad as losing the Royal family but an integral part of this country will have gone”.
Before then, many of us here will be marching with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, because once the BBC has gone, it is never coming back.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good debate and we owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the Communications Committee for their excellent choice for this topic. Anticipating more opportunities to debate the wider issue in the future, I will restrict myself mainly to comments arising from the Communications Committee’s proposals, specifically how the BBC is held to account, and its priorities, and on the issue of distinctiveness before briefly addressing the process of the licence fee and the timing of the charter renewal.
We on this side of the House do not claim that the BBC is perfect: we are critical friends. But what we will do is fight hard against a politically motivated attack on the BBC. In some senses, the BBC is the quintessential public good whose value is really only quantifiable if it were to disappear or be harmed. However, the question that must be settled before any others is: what is the BBC for? As the committee said, the Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain are widely understood and recognised as forming the BBC mission. We agree, and believe that they should remain embedded in the BBC royal charter.
We agree with the committee that it is time to sort out the regulatory and accountability problems that have hampered rather than helped the BBC since 2007. The structures put in place at that time were considered appropriate, but we believe that a leaner and more effective structure should be introduced under the next royal charter. We also think that Ofcom should be the independent regulator of the BBC. It must be given not only the responsibilities appropriate for that role, independent of government, but the staff and other resources that it needs to fulfil it.
The BBC board of governors should be reconstituted, with a majority of independent, external members and an independent chair. It should deliver the Reithian principles across all activities using what the committee describes as,
“a simpler, more transparent framework that both encourages creativity and allows all stakeholders to analyse the BBC’s performance”.
The new unitary board has not only to be fully independent of government, it must be seen to be so. There is significant concern over the suggestion that the DCMS should take the power to appoint all non-executive members of the BBC’s new unitary board. We therefore agree with the committee that, to strengthen the BBC’s independence, the new charter should set out a clear and transparent process for the appointment of members of the board at arm’s length from the Government.
We also need to take account of the different nations in the United Kingdom and that they have appropriate levels of engagement with BBC management and governors. That needs to be carefully considered. On the one hand, a set of national committees may be required, but it is important not only that the BBC management embraces such a structure and devolves real power but that the committees themselves have real expertise and are not captured by local political or operational interests. It will be for the new unitary board, independent of government, to set the objectives for the BBC, and it is difficult to see why the Government would want to become involved in specifying in the charter particular genres or indeed individual programmes which should be included in, or excluded from, output delivered. We hope that the Government will steer clear of this issue.
Ofcom already carries out a periodic review of public service broadcasting. It has drawn attention to the decrease in PSB spend in the commercial sector, hence it may be appropriate for the licences which form part of the charter renewal process to reflect the committee’s concern that important genres which make up our understanding of PSB should be given priority in the next charter period. These might include current affairs, children’s programming and the important role the BBC plays in stimulating creativity and cultural excellence. This it does through its own content and through its impact on the wider industry, particularly in the fields of music and drama, and through training and developing talent. In this context, the committee’s comment that it had heard from a number of witnesses who felt that the BBC did not reflect their lives, particularly the panel of young people, those with a disability and those within the BAME community, is of concern and should be addressed with vigour.
The Secretary of State has on several occasions suggested that the BBC should be restricted to “distinctive” programmes, although he has not spelled out what that means, other than to hint that it means that the BBC should not produce programmes offered by the other broadcasters. Charlotte Moore, the controller of BBC TV channels and iPlayer, addressed this issue on Tuesday this week in a speech she gave to the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. She put up a very robust defence of the distinctiveness of BBC programmes in a much richer and more textured sense than used to date by the Secretary of State. I think it is important that I should summarise the main arguments. She said that distinctiveness carries with it a promise of quality—a promise that all BBC programmes across all genres should aspire to be the best in class. Distinctiveness means ambition, and this in turn derives from the unique way the BBC is funded. It allows the BBC the chance to give the country’s best creative talent the freedom to pursue its creative ideas, back it to take risks, push boundaries and try new things; to innovate, to challenge and to surprise. Distinctive means range. It means accepting and celebrating the fact that the BBC has a duty to serve everyone, whoever they are and wherever they come from. While that means that the BBC has to provide programmes across a broad range of genres, it also means that there is an aim to make the good popular and the popular good. What a weird world we would live in if it were required of the BBC that, as soon as one of its programmes becomes popular, it has to stop making it. Distinctive means home grown. The BBC’s priority is a high level of first-run, UK-originated content across the whole of the BBC, and it is its goal to take those great British programmes to the world. Importantly, this allows the BBC to reinvest the proceeds back into more home-grown hits and the next generation of home-grown talent.
I think that everyone in this debate today agrees that there need to be changes in the way the licence fee is set. The committee made a good start on how a better process might be conducted, and we certainly think that the key to a new process going forward must be transparency. On the timing of the charter review, there is a growing consensus that the review process should be decoupled from the general election cycle resulting from the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and we agree. We also agree that the impartiality and independence of the BBC could be threatened by a short charter period. Eleven years takes us to 2018, which seems a sensible and pragmatic way of dealing with both points.
The BBC is the cornerstone of the creative industries in this country, which are the powerhouse of our future prosperity. They represent one in 11 jobs, bring in £76 billion a year, enhance our reputation overseas, are intrinsic to our whole added-value economy and have seen growth year on year well ahead of the rest of the economy. But the truth is that the British creative industries cohere as a balanced ecology with the BBC at its heart. Only a madman would take an axe to the tallest tree in the middle of a forest and not expect to do serious harm to the whole of the forest. The BBC does not harm the wider industry; it fosters it and creates a competition for quality. Its £3.7 billion from the licence fee is the largest and most productive investment we make in the arts. We should support it.
The history of broadcasting in this country is rightly praised for what it has achieved, bringing on stream over time both state-funded and commercial services that compete for audiences, but not for funding. Let us hope that the White Paper next month builds on where we are and allows the BBC to make progress in its mission to inform, educate and entertain.
This has been an interesting debate. Twenty-three Peers have spoken to this point. The extent of the consensus on the central theme of the values and shape of the BBC is amazing. It has been a calm and thoughtful debate, but there has been an underlying passion. If the Government plan to damage, restrict or interfere with the BBC, or challenge its unique character, they will release a torrent of opposition, not just from these Benches, but from all round the House. That opposition will spread throughout the country. I have only one request of the Minister: that she communicates the depth and passion of the debate not just to the DCMS, but forcefully to the whole Government. If the Government do not listen they will create a storm that they will sorely regret.
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, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for introducing this very timely debate. I join the House in congratulating him, the entire Communications Committee and their staff on their excellent report. After a busy week it has been an enjoyable, interesting and important afternoon. I will ensure a further opportunity for a debate on the charter this year. I am in discussion with the usual channels about the timing and the detail.
The report endorses the Reithian principles that the BBC should be about information, education and entertainment. The committee proposes adding an extra dimension with the fourth word “reflect” to commit the BBC to reflecting,
“the different opinions, lifestyles, beliefs and values of the nations, regions and diverse communities of the UK”.
This has been endorsed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and by inference by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. The Government agree that the BBC must serve every corner and community of the country, and next month’s White Paper will elaborate on that.
As a former businesswoman I was very taken by the eloquent deconstruction of the panoply of missions, activities and objectives by my noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury. As a gardener, I know that heavy garden shears do wonders to help the light in. The Committee’s report rightly advocates greater transparency and a simpler accountability framework for the BBC. These are themes that we have heard throughout the charter review and they are extremely important.
I am glad that, once again, the House has shown its full-throated commitment to the BBC. The Government share this commitment. The BBC is the finest broadcaster in the world. It is an indispensable part of our national life and makes an enormous contribution to our standing in the world. The 192,000 responses to the culture department’s consultation and countless surveys demonstrate the fact that the public care intensely about the BBC. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, about that and, indeed, about its huge contribution to our creative industries.
The proof of the pudding, of course, is always in the eating, and some 97% of Britons use the BBC’s services on a weekly basis, for an average of more than 18 hours. I enjoyed the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, took us on a walk down memory lane. I was, of course, another fan of “Ballet Shoes”. Programmes such as “The Night Manager”, “The Great British Bake Off”, “Sherlock”, “Doctor Who”, the new sports that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, spoke of and “University Challenge” all bring great delight to millions. And, of course, BBC radio should not be forgotten because it hits commanding heights as well. What would we do without “You and Yours” and “The Archers”? Both show how the BBC provides insightful, popular programming day after day, week after week. All inform, educate or entertain. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am a critical friend.
I am always interested in global perspectives, because of the way the world is changing and because of the interdependencies which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. BBC international services now reach 308 million people across the globe every week. This is higher than the weekly reach of the international group of broadcasters which includes Voice of America, China Central TV and Al Jazeera.
The BBC World Service is consistently recognised as the most accurate and highest-quality news outlet on earth and is also a much-needed corrective to state-run broadcasters that are controlled by despots. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, hinted at that. It reached 210 million people in 2014-15. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lord Selsdon, it is an extraordinary source of soft power. It helps—even more importantly, perhaps—to ensure the continued prominence of the language of Shakespeare in this year of his 400th anniversary. BBC global news operates in more than 170 countries and was accessed by 283 million people in 2014-15.
It is because the Government recognise how much the BBC matters that we want it to be as efficient and effective as possible. At the time of the last charter review, most households had access to five television channels. Now the BBC has eight channels and one online channel and the media landscape has changed beyond all recognition.
The BBC’s status as a pre-eminent player, both domestically and internationally, is not in doubt. Far from wishing to threaten this status, the Government want to solidify it.
One of the fundamental issues that the White Paper must address is the constitutional basis of the BBC. Some, including my noble friend Lord Fowler, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, take the view that the royal charter affords too much power to the Government and that the BBC should be established under statute. As I said in the House earlier in the week, the charter has been the basis of the BBC for nearly 90 years, ensuring, in my view, the BBC’s independence. We have consulted on the way the BBC is enshrined and no strong argument has come through in that consultation to change the approach of a charter which has served the BBC well over the past century. That included the Communication Committee’s own report.
Moreover, the BBC Trust has set out concerns about a statutory basis. Far from protecting the BBC, it would mean that the BBC could be subject to amendment, or at least the threat of it, at any time. I agree with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, who is very experienced, that a statutory approach could in practice be more political and less independent. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, kindly described an array of mechanisms by which legislation that he is hoping to bring forward might secure the independence of the BBC. I share the view that independence is central to the BBC’s future. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, there are many ways in which the charter may achieve the same effect of securing independence. As someone who has a passion for good government, I am not convinced that legislation is necessarily the way to deliver independence or the best possible outcome for the BBC.
I assure the House that this Administration takes editorial independence extremely seriously. The BBC must have the freedom and independence to take creative risks so that it can inform, educate and entertain. It must be free to be robust and critical in holding power to account through its hard-hitting journalism. The Government have been clear throughout the charter review that independence is not negotiable, and will set out their plans in the White Paper shortly. Of course, the BBC is in receipt of nearly £4 billion— £3.7 billion—of public money, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It also has a very significant impact on the commercial sector, although it is also important to acknowledge—and I think we should do so—that the BBC spends more than a billion pounds a year in the external creative economy, which I think is absolutely vital.
The White Paper, which we plan to release in May with a view to the new charter being in place for the beginning of next year, will strike a balance between giving the BBC the space and independence it needs to thrive and ensuring that it is efficient and fit for purpose in a much-changed media landscape. It is for this reason that we do not agree with the committee’s suggestion that the licence fee should be set by a regulator. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, the licence fee is essentially a tax and should therefore be government-led. The funding of free licences for the over-75s was agreed between the Government and the BBC. As a public institution in receipt of £3.7 billion a year, it is right that it should play some part in balancing the books.
As Ofcom has noted, some areas of public service broadcasting, such as children’s TV, are at risk, and there have been calls from some quarters to allow part of the licence fee—or some other form of public funding—to be made available for public service broadcasting to organisations other than the BBC. That is the contestable funding model. This could introduce greater competition and allow more creative risks to be taken. We have heard these calls and the concerns articulated so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, this evening. I share her passion for children’s television, which she has done so much to advance. That model is under discussion and our plans will be set out in the White Paper.
The Communications Committee has also called for future BBC charters to last for 11 years in order to decouple them from the electoral cycle and avoid the review acting as a sword of Damocles, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Best, said. This is an interesting idea, and we are looking at the length of future charters, recognising the need for stability within the fast-changing industry, which several noble Lords have mentioned.
There is widespread acceptance, including from the BBC, that governance has not worked properly. The Jimmy Savile outrage, the excessive payouts mentioned in the debate, the complaints procedure and other failings have naturally caused consternation and concern. The opacity and complexity of the current governance system make it far harder to find out what has gone wrong, and sort it out, than should be the case for such a vitally important and influential institution.
Noble Lords have made it clear that they feel strongly that BBC appointments should be wholly independent of government. The Government currently appoint, through a public appointments process, all members of the BBC Trust. As has been noted, all members of the executive board are appointed by the BBC Trust itself. The independent report published by Sir David Clementi recommended a unitary board for the BBC and found that the Government have a legitimate role in appointments. We are looking at this issue very carefully and will of course set out our proposals in the White Paper.
Lord Fowler
So far, my noble friend has said that there is basically going to be no change—certainly not to the government control of the charter. But when she and the Government come to make their proposals in the White Paper, is it their intention that they will be put to the vote in the House of Commons and House of Lords?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As I said right at the beginning, the detail and nature of the parliamentary scrutiny of the charter is a matter being considered by the usual channels.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Does the Minister appreciate that everything that she is saying makes me more and more depressed and convinced that I shall have to introduce a Bill? She has not yet made a single concession to the point that, in a parliamentary democracy, it should not be for the Government wearing the robes of the monarch to make all these decisions; it should be Parliament with external criteria. If the Minister is able to tell the House, or to tell us in a White Paper, that the Government accept the kind of criteria that I have tried to describe, I would not dream of pursuing a Bill, because it could be achieved in other ways. But she has said nothing so far to cheer me up.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I cannot anticipate what the White Paper will say. I have tried, partly by encouraging the usual channels, to have a debate today and to make it clear that there will be a debate on the charter to ensure that there is a process going forward.
Lord Puttnam
I ask a quick but quite important question. I listened very carefully to the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne—there are of course countervailing arguments one way or another for the charter, as against a legislative solution. I put to the Minister that, as we watch the retreat from the possibility of privatisation of Channel 4, I have no doubt whatsoever that this retreat is occasioned by the fact that it would require Parliament’s agreement and that the Government are fully aware that they would never get it. I would suggest in fact that the security of Channel 4 is created by its legislative status—why would that not be true of the BBC?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
No decisions have been taken on Channel 4. Obviously I hear what the noble Lord has said; equally, there are arguments on the other side, which I will not weary the House with repeating.
The Committee’s report says that there should be no reduction in the scale and scope of the BBC and that it should not restrict itself to content that is not provided commercially. The Government does not believe that “public service” simply means “minority interest”. The BBC is, as we have all agreed, able to take creative risks that other broadcasters cannot and we certainly want this to continue. It includes the important roles of supporting local democracy and reflecting diversity, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
Several people spoke very helpfully on the issue of diversity—the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. The BBC is for everyone and must serve and represent all audiences. The totemic programmes that were mentioned are very important and the new BBC1 drama “Undercover” is another one. Noble Lords can expect to see diversity addressed in the White Paper. Ed Vaizey recently responded to an important debate on that subject in another place and I will pass on the kind comments from noble Lords about his role as a champion of diversity. It is not, in conclusion, for the Government to tell the BBC what programmes it should make, but diversity is of course important.
I also noted with great interest the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in relation to religious programming. Programming about faith and religion has a vital role and, I believe, is an important part of the BBC’s distinctiveness. The BBC itself has acknowledged the importance of distinctiveness.
The BBC is of course a public service and, as a former public servant, I know that it is essential that the BBC delivers value for money for the licence fee payer. The public need to be assured that it is well-managed and that every pound is spent well.
The BBC’s commercial activities are an issue that we are considering as part of the charter review and, to reassure noble Lords, we certainly do not believe that the BBC should refrain at all from commercial activity. This is another issue that we will address in the White Paper.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, and to all colleagues for their contributions to an invigorating, if at times challenging, debate. The Communications Committee, along with the whole House, has made a big contribution to the charter review process. Today’s debate adds richly to the deliberations by the Government in the coming weeks and months.
In their concluding comments, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, focused on a range of issues that have been raised today in relation to independence and transparency. I can only say that the Government recognise the importance of an independent BBC and will be setting out their plans to that end in the White Paper.
The BBC—this is common ground—matters a great deal to us all. It is hugely admired around the world and something of which our country can be very proud. The Government want it to be the very best that it can be. The purpose of the charter review and next month’s White Paper is to ensure that it is fit for purpose, able to thrive and serves each and every licence payer and their families outstandingly well.
Lord Best
My Lords, six hours on, I am deeply grateful to everybody for their contributions. I feel privileged to have been part of a succession of contributions from some of the country’s wisest and most experienced politicians and public servants, along with some of our most senior lawyers and most successful and well-known broadcasters, with their unlimited knowledge of the BBC. Together, we have created a collection of essays that will probably be the standard text for students, politicians and policymakers for years to come. We have covered the BBC’s successes: from the Proms and “War and Peace” to “The Great British Bake Off”, from “Panorama” on the Panama papers to murder in “The Archers”, and from the BBC’s Korean service to Larry the Lamb. Almost unanimously, your Lordships have supported and endorsed the conclusions and recommendations of your Communications Committee, for which I am deeply grateful.
It took us until speakers 21 and 22 for the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Maxton, to add a little note of dissent. I will make one comment on the remarks they made. We felt that if the licence fee is to be replaced by a household levy, which may be a better way of collecting the resources needed, that should follow the same transparent and open process in being set as we were recommending for the licence fee itself. It might be a better system but we thought that the process should be the same.
The debate has drawn out some continuing unease that the new unitary board, if that is what emerges from the White Paper, will not be truly independent if the non-executive members are seen as creatures of the Secretary of State, and we will need to watch that very carefully. I am grateful to the Minister for reassuring us to some extent on that, and we await our debate on the White Paper, when we will be able to have a go at that.
We noted also that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is coming out in June. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, may well be bringing before us a Private Member’s Bill to put the BBC on a statutory footing and end what he regards as a ministerial charter. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, reminded us that a digital economy Bill is also coming, and that is an opportunity for us to comment further on some of these matters. But the White Paper debate itself will be significant, and we look forward to that.
The House has sent out a very clear message to any politician not to meddle or interfere with, micromanage or diminish the BBC. Long may the BBC reflect all the diversity of our nation as it informs, educates and, indeed, entertains us so brilliantly. I beg to move.