House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
Before I answer the questions, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in condemning the murder of Joe Reilly last Thursday in Belfast. My sympathy is with his family and with the local community. It is a stark reminder of why we must all continue to work together to ensure that this sort of violence has no place in Northern Ireland.
The UK and Northern Ireland economies are fundamentally strong. In Northern Ireland, economic activity increased by 1.6% over the year and 64,000 more people are in work compared with 2010. That means that we are well placed to build a stronger economy that works for everyone.
Graham Evans
I welcome the growth of the Northern Ireland economy, and particularly the fact that unemployment has fallen to its lowest levels since Labour’s great recession. I also welcome last week’s excellent news of the investment from Thales. Will my right hon. Friend continue to prioritise making the case for Northern Ireland as a great place to live, work and do business?
James Brokenshire
I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. I will not tire in talking up the Northern Ireland economy and underlining what a great place it is to do business. He highlights investment; outside London, Northern Ireland is the leading UK region for attracting inward investment across a range of sectors. He is right to highlight the new and innovative investment from Thales, with its space propulsion facilities in Belfast, which underlines what a great place Northern Ireland is to do business.
Jack Lopresti
The Northern Ireland economy is doing well, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the devolution of corporation tax offers further opportunities to boost the private sector and to build a stronger economy for everyone?
James Brokenshire
I certainly underline to my hon. Friend that we stand by our commitment to the devolution of corporation tax powers, subject to the conditions around fiscal discipline and financial stability agreed in the Stormont House and “Fresh Start” agreements. The Northern Ireland Executive have indicated that they would like corporation tax to be set at around 12.5% from April 2018, and they estimate that that could create 30,000 more jobs.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I join the Secretary of State in his comments about the recent murder. It is important that we all redouble our efforts to ensure that such events are a thing of the past.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, to build and strengthen the economy of Northern Ireland, investment in infrastructure is absolutely vital? The announcement by the Minister for Infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Executive that he was delaying the major York Street interchange project—for access to ports, an airport and a major road thoroughfare through Belfast to the rest of Northern Ireland—is a bit of a blow to that strategy. Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to reiterate to the Minister for Infrastructure that all EU projects that are signed off before we leave the EU will be funded even if they continue after we leave the EU?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the continuance of EU funding. He will have noted the statement, which he has referred to, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer underlining that the Government will guarantee funding for structural and investment fund projects that are signed off until the point at which the UK leaves the EU, even where projects continue after we leave. It is important to underline that message. There should, therefore, be more projects coming forward, and we should continue to benefit from EU funding up until the point at which we depart.
Mr Dodds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for underlining that important commitment, which should allow investment in that much-needed project to go ahead.
On the question of exporters, who have received a boost as a result of the revaluation of the pound, Northern Ireland was the only area last year that grew its exports, by 9.5%. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that the new Department for International Trade will work closely with Invest NI to continue that really positive news for Northern Ireland, along with many other very positive economic indicators for the Province?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman is right to underline the fact that the value of goods exported from Northern Ireland increased to £6.6 billion, which emphasises the strength of the Northern Ireland economy. The Secretary of State for International Trade has underlined his all-UK approach to his work, and he will want to work with Invest NI and the Executive to ensure that there is that clear message of seeing further investment and further exports coming from Northern Ireland.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the role that manufacturing plays in the Northern Ireland economy. It directly contributes more than 85,000 jobs—some 10% of employment—and, clearly, it provides high-skilled jobs. As a Government, we will continue to work with the Executive on the issues of skills and pathways into employment. It is notable that we have seen record employment levels. We want to work with the Executive to ensure that that very positive picture continues, underlining the fact that we want to see further investment in the economy.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the financial and related professional services industry provides jobs for some 31,000 people in Northern Ireland and generates more than 6% of economic output. What are the Government doing to ensure that Northern Ireland will have the benefits of passporting for financial services after the UK leaves the EU so that that industry is not damaged?
James Brokenshire
I underline the work I have done as Secretary of State to reach out to the business community. Indeed, I have established a new advisory group, and one of the sectors we have met is the financial services sector. We are listening keenly to the information that it is providing us with as we frame our all-UK approach to the negotiations that lie ahead with the EU.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
On the back of the Chancellor’s comment to Nissan that it will be compensated for losses due to Brexit, the Secretary of State for Scotland said at the Dispatch Box two weeks ago:
“whatever support is put in place for businesses in the north of England will apply to businesses in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 287.]
Given that the manufacturing sector plays such a pivotal role in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that his Government’s policy will apply to Northern Ireland in the same way as it appears to apply to Scotland and the north of England?
James Brokenshire
We take an all-UK approach. That is the way in which the Chancellor has been approaching his announcements about support post the departure from the EU, ensuring that we do have such a UK-wide approach, and indeed his preparations for his autumn statement. The approach will be to support the UK, with Northern Ireland being a core part of that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Kris Hopkins)
The armed forces covenant is making a real difference in Northern Ireland. Bids for funding from the armed forces covenant fund have been more successful in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK. Grants that have been made include £450,000 for Combat Stress to help veterans with mental health support, and £600,000 for the Somme Nursing Home in Belfast to enable it to add more bed spaces for veterans requiring nursing care.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his response. Northern Ireland is in 10th place among all the regions of the United Kingdom for small grants. Beyond the Battlefield has applied for LIBOR funding for four years running, with a substantial and detailed business plan, but it has not been successful. Does the Minister consider that to be fair? What steps will he take to address that imbalance, and to help groups and bodies such as Beyond the Battlefield to prepare successful applications?
Kris Hopkins
I commend the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for making sure that they have secured the largest proportion of the big pot, although I appreciate that he is now going after the small pot. His point about how to secure the funding is really important, and I am more than willing to sit down with him to talk about how we can support that package.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister confirm that he and the Secretary of State have the determination and the will to eliminate all impediments to the full implementation—I do mean the full implementation—of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland?
Kris Hopkins
I do not think I need to go further to reassure the hon. Lady than to say that I want the best possible services for our veterans. I want the covenant to be implemented in full, and I will do everything I can to ensure that that happens.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and to those of other hon. Friends representing Northern Ireland? When I went there as the Minister with responsibility for veterans, I was, frankly, deeply struck—perhaps only an English person can say this—by the complete lack of drive to ensure that all its local authorities signed up to the military covenant, as local authorities have done across the whole United Kingdom. There is no reason why the covenant should not be in effect in Northern Ireland just as much as it is elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Kris Hopkins
I agree with my right hon. Friend that every council should participate. I get the opportunity to meet lots of councils, and I know that a lot of them are making a massive contribution, but where they are not I reassure her that I will push those councils to do so.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
May I disagree with the Minister? The armed forces covenant is not working especially well in Northern Ireland. There is £100 million in the LIBOR funds for the whole military covenant. Can some of that be used to make sure that the mechanisms work—that is, that we get a nominee on to the covenant reference group, that the reserve forces and cadets association gets the support it needs to help all soldiers and that the champions get some help?
Kris Hopkins
I know that there are opportunities to get on to the committee that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and I will support him if he wants to do that. I know it is a big issue, and I say this as ex-services personnel myself: I want to make sure that this works, and that every partner—not just councils but health authorities and housing authorities—works together. But this is devolved, and it is up to the Executive to make it work. However, as someone with a history in this area, I will assist him in every way I can to ensure that that is delivered.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
The shadow of the past hangs heavily over the questions that have been asked and there are many unquiet graves still on the island of Ireland. Bearing in mind that it is now 42 years since the atrocity of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and in view of the vote in the Dáil Éireann, what contact and communication is the Minister having with the Irish Government on this question?
Kris Hopkins
I agree that that act 42 years ago was appalling, and offer my sympathies to the families of those who were lost. There is a continuing dialogue with the Irish Government and their Foreign Minister. We will continue that and I am quite happy to have discussions with the hon. Gentleman if he wants further information about the progress we are making.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
I have met and will continue to meet counterparts in the Irish Government as we work through the challenges ahead. The UK-Irish relationship has never been stronger. It is a unique relationship, and in the coming months we will strengthen co-operation to help to secure the best outcome from the EU negotiations.
Craig Whittaker
I think my right hon. Friend will agree that both the common travel area and the open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have served us well for decades. Will he do everything he can to ensure those arrangements continue and that there is no establishment of hard borders within the island of Ireland or within the UK?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my hon. Friend that the common travel area has served us well over many years; indeed, we were party to it before we joined the European Union. It is a priority that we do not see a return to the borders of the past.
Jeff Smith
I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State reassure us that the common travel area is a key priority. Does not the fact that citizens of EU countries will be able to move freely to live and work in the Irish Republic make a nonsense of the leave campaign claims that Brexit means that somehow we can take back control of our borders?
James Brokenshire
No. This Government are very clear that the EU referendum underlined that free movement cannot continue as it does today. We are considering carefully the options in relation to migration policy as well as border policy, to ensure that both work in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
Michael Tomlinson
Security co-operation between our two countries is vital to fight against organised crime and terrorism. As we leave the EU, will the Secretary of State ensure that that continues to be a priority in his ongoing discussions?
James Brokenshire
I entirely agree. There are very strong relationships and connections between An Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other UK Government agencies. Those have been and will continue to be really valuable and we are determined to maintain them.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
A number of institutions have been established for discussing these matters with the Government of the Irish Republic, including the North South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those are the bodies through which discussions take place, and not some ad hoc arrangement?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the structures that have been in place since the Belfast agreement, such as the North South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, which will meet again in a few weeks. They are really important and valuable structures that can and will be used in supporting the negotiations ahead; there is of course the new Joint Ministerial sub-committee as well.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Given that Her Majesty’s Government, the Irish Government and political parties in Northern Ireland want to see the special relationship and soft border continue, is it not incumbent on the European Union to allow us to exit on terms that will enable us to preserve that relationship?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend underlines a very significant point, which is the support that other EU member states have provided to the political process in Northern Ireland over many, many years. That is a point we have underlined and the Irish Government have underlined. We will continue to do so as we look towards the negotiations.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Charlie Flanagan said in Derry on Friday night:
“I view my role as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement as a solemn duty and—together with the Taoiseach—will be working to ensure that all aspects of that international agreement are fully respected in the new arrangements between the EU and the UK. Ireland has a seat at the EU table which we will use in the best interests of the whole island.”
Does the Secretary of State recognise that that will include the need for a bespoke and explicit reflection of the key constitutional precepts in annex A of the Good Friday agreement in any new EU-UK treaty?
James Brokenshire
The Irish Government and the UK Government are co-signatories to the Belfast agreement. I have said on a number of occasions that we stand behind our commitments. There are unique circumstances that operate on the island of Ireland: the common travel area, the single electricity market and so on. We are determined to find the right solutions that serve Northern Ireland well and all of the all-Ireland issues.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
As I have already underlined, the Government are determined not to see a return to the borders of the past. We want to strengthen the common travel area. Work with the Irish Government has been ongoing for many months and will continue, reflecting the important issues the hon. Gentleman highlights on the movement of people, the movement of goods and services, and the sense of politics and identity, which is why this is such a priority.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman wants to get into negotiations that have not yet started. I underline the shared will and commitment of ourselves, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to support the common travel area and to ensure we do not return to the borders of the past. That is the work we have ahead of us.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
We have already heard the huge concerns in Northern Ireland about the specific problems posed by Brexit. One fundamental issue that has not been addressed so far is the fate of the Good Friday agreement, which is an international agreement formally registered with the United Nations. Will the Secretary of State tell the House today what specific measures he and civil servants in Northern Ireland have taken to ensure that this important issue is not left behind in the wake of Brexit?
James Brokenshire
The Government remain fully committed to the political settlement and the institutions set out in the Belfast agreement and all its successors. The key principles established there, the details that have been taken over successive Governments, are things that we do not want to unsettle and that we will maintain. I assure the hon. Gentleman of the focus we are giving to this matter.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
Following my appointment, I established an advisory group to ensure the voice of business is heard. It is clear that our focus now needs to be on what we can achieve in terms of trade, jobs and exploiting the opportunities of the UK’s exit from the EU.
Toby Perkins
The Secretary of State referred a few minutes ago to taking a whole-country approach to the EU referendum negotiations. The Chancellor recently spoke to the British Bankers Association about the specific needs of the banking industry. If special privileges in terms of the single market are afforded to the City of London, will the Secretary of State be asking for the same privileges for Northern Ireland?
James Brokenshire
I set up the advisory group and am speaking to individual sectors within the Northern Ireland economy precisely to ensure that their voice is heard as we prepare for the negotiations ahead, and to ensure that, where there are specific issues and concerns, they are heard as part of those preparations and are reflected in the negotiations.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that leaving the European Union will enable the Northern Ireland economy to be rebalanced in favour of the private sector rather than the public sector? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I could scarcely hear the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), and I feel considerably disadvantaged.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend identifies—I think rightly—the opportunities for bringing about greater focus on enterprise in the Northern Ireland economy, where there has been significant reliance on the state to support employment. We need to work with the Executive on skills and opportunities, which is precisely what we will be doing. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are discussing matters appertaining to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Members must be heard.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit of the businesses in Northern Ireland, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises, are second to none, and that whatever they face with Brexit, they are up for the challenge.
James Brokenshire
I have heard that message very clearly. There are some fantastic, innovative businesses and some great family businesses in Northern Ireland. We want to support them to take that next step, to grow their business and to look at the new opportunities for exports. I think they now have a great opportunity to do that.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
The Government take part in regular direct discussions with the Irish Government through a number of forums, including the upcoming British-Irish Council. We will ensure that we engage closely with all relevant partners to secure the best outcome for Northern Ireland.
Dr McDonnell
I welcome the Secretary of State’s earlier comments about the increase in employment, which is very important, but in light of the significant damage to the British economy, the dramatic fall in the value of sterling and the increase in the price of food and fuel as a result of the referendum, does he accept that many businesses in Northern Ireland are frightened that damage to the Northern Ireland economy will be magnified relative to the British economy?
James Brokenshire
I reiterate for the hon. Gentleman the strong base that we see, with record levels of employment, exports that have grown significantly and continuing foreign direct investment. I will continue to champion business in Northern Ireland and to underline the fact that Northern Ireland remains open for business. A number of firms are continuing to invest and create jobs, which we will continue to welcome.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Four counties in the Republic of Ireland border my constituency, so what specific issues will the Secretary of State raise with his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that cross-border trade can continue?
James Brokenshire
I have already had two meetings—with the Taoiseach and with the Irish Foreign Minister—and there are more meetings and discussions to come. The British-Irish Council meeting is coming up in just a few weeks’ time. Border issues such as protecting the common travel area and not seeing a return to the borders of the past are a priority, and also a shared objective between the two Governments. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
If I may say politely to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell): spit it out succinctly, man.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that over the past few months there have been reports from the retail trade in Northern Ireland of a veritable multi-million pound boom along the border in shoppers from the Irish Republic, and that we should do more to encourage that as business continues to make progress?
James Brokenshire
Yes, I have seen those reports. When I visited towns in and around the border area, they certainly underlined some of the growth in business opportunities that they were seeing—something we clearly warmly welcome.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Kris Hopkins)
The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism continues to be “severe”, meaning that an attack is highly likely. Our response to terrorism and paramilitary activity is co-ordinated, effective and fully resourced. This Government’s focus is on keeping people safe, and we will ensure that terrorism never succeeds.
Sir Henry Bellingham
Does the Minister agree that it is damaging both to the security situation in Northern Ireland and to the peace process when former members of the armed forces who have been cleared on multiple occasions are now arrested for offences that are alleged to have taken place more than 40 years ago? Will he agree to meet me to discuss the broader issues surrounding the case of Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings?
Kris Hopkins
Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities, who act independently of Government and politicians. The Government therefore cannot comment on individual cases. However, I am more than willing to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the broader issue that he has raised.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In the past two years, 1,631 police officers—a quarter of Northern Ireland’s police force—have been injured or assaulted while on duty. When will the Northern Ireland Office fund and support a new recruitment drive to return the number of officers to the 7,800 required under the Patten settlement?
Kris Hopkins
I condemn all those attacks. They are absolutely appalling. This is, however, a devolved matter, and it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to make decisions on recruitment and numbers.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does the Minister agree that the best way of tackling paramilitarism and criminality in Northern Ireland is to adopt the community-wide approach that was outlined by the SDLP during last year’s Stormont House talks, rather than throwing money at paramilitary organisations?
Kris Hopkins
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but I can give her some comfort. We have ensured that £25 million is available specifically to counter paramilitary activity, and we are working with the Executive to deliver that. We look forward to seeing the report in the near future.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
James Morris
In the black country, in the west midlands, we are very proud of our long industrial heritage. We are also very proud of the recent revival in the fortunes of the black country, which is seeing new jobs and investment in the local economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that one way to create an economy that works for everyone is to devolve further powers and funds to the west midlands to drive investment, and to combine that with the strong leadership and vision that can only be provided by Andy Street, the Conservative candidate for the position of west midlands mayor?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks up well for the black country, and I am pleased to echo his comments about economic growth in the west midlands. Since 2010, we have seen the creation of over 220,000 more jobs and 55,000 more new businesses in the region. However, he is right to say that the devolution deal is important. It is the biggest devolution deal that is being done for the west midlands. A crucial part of it is the election of a directly elected mayor, and I think that, given both his local knowledge and his business experience, Andy Street will drive economic growth.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Let me start by welcoming the child refugees who have arrived in Britain in the last few days. They are obviously deeply traumatised young people, and we should welcome, love and support them in the best way that we possibly can.
Irrespective of party, when Members go through health problems we reach out the hand of support, solidarity and friendship to them. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for the message that he sent through social media this morning. It showed amazing humour and bravery. We wish him all the very best, and hope that he recovers fully.
There are now to be regular sessions of the Joint Ministerial Council to discuss Brexit, but it seems that the Prime Minister’s counterparts are already feeling the same sense of frustration as Members of the House of Commons. The First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, has said that there is a “great deal of uncertainty”, but that it is clear that there must be “full and unfettered access” to the single market. Can the Prime Minister help the First Minister of Wales—and, indeed, the other devolved Administrations—by giving them some clarity?
The Prime Minister
Let me first—in response to the right hon. Gentleman’s opening comments—commend the Home Office for working so carefully and in the best interests of the child refugees so that they have the support that they need when they come to the United Kingdom. Let me also join the right hon. Gentleman in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for his willingness to be so open about his health problem. We wish him all the very best for the future, and for his place here in the House.
On the issue of clarity on the Government’s aims in relation to Brexit, I have been very clear and I will be clear again. There are those who talk about means and those who talk about ends; I am talking about ends. What we want to see is the best possible arrangement for trade with and operation within the single European market for businesses in goods and services here in the United Kingdom.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thought for a moment the Prime Minister was going to say “Brexit means Brexit” again. [Interruption.] I am sure she will tell us one day what it actually means. The Mayor of London also added that this is causing “unnecessary uncertainty”.
It would also be very helpful if the Prime Minister provided some clarity over the Northern Ireland border. Will we continue membership of the customs union or are we going to see border checks introduced between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition tries to poke fun at the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”, but the whole point is this: on Brexit, it is this Government who are listening to the voice of the British people. “Brexit means Brexit” means we are coming out of the European Union. What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do is frustrate the will of the British people by saying that Brexit means something completely different.
In relation to the Northern Irish border, a considerable amount of work was already taking place with the Irish Government to look at the issues around the common travel area, and that work is continuing. We have been very clear, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have been very clear, and the Northern Ireland Executive have been very clear that none of us wants to see a return to the borders of the past, and I simply remind the right hon. Gentleman that the common travel area has been in place since 1923, which was well before either of us joined the European Union.
Jeremy Corbyn
On Monday the Prime Minister said that the customs union was “not a binary choice”. I cannot think that whether we have a border or do not have a border is anything other than a binary choice; there is no third way on that one. On Monday her friend the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) expressed concern about the automotive and aerospace industries, while the British Bankers Association said that its members’
“hands are quivering over the relocate button.”
Every day the Prime Minister dithers over this chaotic Brexit, employers delay investment and rumours circulate about relocation. This cannot carry on until March of next year; when is the Prime Minister going to come up with a plan?
The Prime Minister
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman seems to confuse a customs union with a border when they are actually two different issues shows— [Interruption]— why it is important that it is this party that is in government and dealing with these issues and not his.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the plan. I have been very clear that we want to trade freely—both trade with and operate within the single European market. I want this country to be a global leader in free trade; the Labour party is against free trade. I want to introduce control on free movement so that we have an end of free movement; the Labour party wants to continue with free movement. I want to deliver on the will of the British people; the right hon. Gentleman is trying to frustrate the will of the British people.
Jeremy Corbyn
There was no answer on the border, which was what the question was about. On Monday the Prime Minister told the House:
“We have a plan, which is not to set out at every stage of the negotiations the details of those negotiations”.—[Official Report, 24 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 31.]
I have been thinking about this for a couple of days, and—[Interruption.] I think when we are searching for the real meaning and the importance of the Prime Minister’s statement, we should consult the great philosophers. [Interruption.] The only one I could come up with—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Mr Cleverly, calm yourself. You are imperilling your own health, man, which is a source of great concern to me.
Jeremy Corbyn
The only one I could come up with was Baldrick, who said that his “cunning plan” was to have no plan. Brexit was apparently about taking back control, but the devolved Governments do not know the plan, businesses do not know the plan and Parliament does not know the plan. When will the Prime Minister abandon this shambolic Tory Brexit and develop a plan that delivers for the whole country?
The Prime Minister
I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman chose to support Baldrick. Of course, the actor who played Baldrick was a member of the Labour party, as I recall. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we are going to deliver. We are going to deliver on the vote of the British people. We are going to deliver the best possible deal for trade in goods and services, both with and operationally in the European Union. And we are going to deliver an end to free movement. That is what the British people want and that is what this Government are going to deliver for them.
Jeremy Corbyn
Three years ago, the United Kingdom backed Saudi Arabia for membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council. On 28 October, there will again be elections for the Human Rights Council. A UN panel has warned that Saudi Arabia’s bombing of Yemen has violated international law. Amnesty International has stated that
“executions are on the increase…women are widely discriminated against…torture is common…and human rights organisations are banned”.
Will the Government again be backing the Saudi dictatorship for membership of that committee?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, where there are legitimate human rights concerns in relation to Saudi Arabia, we raise them. In relation to the action in the Yemen, we have been clear that we want the incidents that have been referred to properly investigated, and if there are lessons to be learned from them, we want the Saudi Arabians to learn those lessons. I reiterate a point that I have made in this House before: our relationship with Saudi Arabia is an important one. It is particularly important in relation to the security of this country, to counter-terrorism and to foiling the activities of those who wish to do harm to our citizens here in the UK.
Jeremy Corbyn
Taher Qassim, a Yemeni man who lives in Liverpool, told me this week:
“Yemen is quickly becoming the forgotten crisis. If people aren’t being killed by bombs, it’s hunger that kills them. The UK needs to use its influence to help the people of Yemen”.
Bombs exported from Britain are being dropped on Yemeni children by Saudi pilots trained by Britain. If there are war crimes being committed, as the United Nations suggests, they must be investigated. Is it not about time that this Government suspended their arms sales to Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
The issues are being investigated, and we have taken action. The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the humanitarian crisis in the Yemen, and this country is one of those at the forefront of ensuring that humanitarian aid is provided. That is a record of action of which I believe this country and this Government can be proud around the world. There was a cessation of hostilities in the Yemen over the weekend. It lasted 72 hours. As I said in the House on Monday, I spoke to the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi at the weekend, and one of the issues we discussed was the importance of trying to find a political solution in Yemen and to see whether that cessation of hostilities could be continued. It has not been continued, but we are clear that the only solution that is going to work for the Yemen is to ensure that we have a political solution that will give stability to the Yemen.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to speak up for his constituents. He is also right that there is no single model that will work in every part of the country. That is why it is important for local people to come together to determine what is right for them. My hon. Friend is trying to build a consensus in Dorset on the right way forward. It is right that local people are able to respond to the consultation and that their concerns are listened to.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Scottish poppy appeal launches today for parliamentarians, so may I take this opportunity to praise all the fundraisers, volunteers and veterans involved? I am sure that colleagues in other parts of the House will commend the efforts to raise money for the poppy appeal in the rest of the United Kingdom.
One of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our time is in Syria, specifically Aleppo, where we expect the ceasefire to end shortly and an onslaught to begin. Will the Prime Minister tell us what efforts the UK is currently undertaking not only to support a peaceful resolution to the conflict, but to deal with those who are exacerbating the situation?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in commending and praising the work of all those across the United Kingdom who give their time and effort to raise money for the poppy appeal. It is important that we never forget those who have given of themselves for our safety and security through many conflicts. It is important that we recognise that and give generously to the poppy appeal across the country.
On Syria, it is important to approach the matter on a number of tracks. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been involved in discussions with the US Secretary of State, Senator Kerry, on such issues, looking for the way forward. I raised the issue of Russian action in Syria, in particular the bombing of Aleppo, at the EU Council at the end of last week, where it was on the agenda only because the UK had raised it. As a result of that discussion the EU agreed that, should the atrocities continue, we will look at all available options for taking action to put pressure on Russia in order to stop its indiscriminate bombing of innocent civilians.
Angus Robertson
I commend the Prime Minister for those endeavours, but it is widely expected that the onslaught on Aleppo will be unleashed by the Russian airpower that is aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov, currently steaming across the Mediterranean with its battle group. In recent years, more than 60 Russian naval vessels have refuelled and resupplied in Spanish ports, so will the Prime Minister join me and EU and NATO allies in unequivocally calling on Spain to refuse the refuelling?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the passage of Russian naval ships. They are of course able to travel as they wish on the high seas—although they were accompanied by royal naval vessels when they went through the English channel. We have sadly seen that the Russians are already able to unleash attacks on innocent civilians in Syria. What matters is that we put pressure on Russia to do what everybody agrees is the only way that we are going to resolve the issue, which is to ensure that we have a political transition in Syria. That is where we should focus our attention.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the proposed deal will provide the west midlands with £1 billion over 30 years to spend on local projects that will drive economic growth. That is the important part of the deal and is why it is so important to have a mayor, Andy Street, who not only understands the local area but has business expertise to ensure that those economic projects are developed with the interests of the locality as the prime focus. The deal will deliver more jobs and economic prosperity across the west midlands. It is good for the west midlands and her constituents. It is good for the rest of the country as well.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a very important point: the whole purpose of this inquiry was to be able to provide justice for those whose voices had not been heard for too long and who felt that people in positions of power and institutions of the state, and other organisations, had not heard their voice, and had not been prepared to listen to them and properly to investigate what had happened to them. It is important that victims and survivors have confidence in the inquiry. Of course, the inquiry is an independent inquiry and it is up to its chairman to work with survivors and victims, as I know the inquiry chairman has been doing. But I will ensure that the Home Secretary has heard the representations the hon. Lady has made, and we will take what she has said to us today away and consider it very carefully. We all want this inquiry to work properly, and to work in the interests of survivors and victims.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know she has championed the armed forces covenant and is a great proponent of our veterans and the armed forces. It is absolutely right to say that everybody in this House owes a great debt of gratitude to our veterans and to those serving today in our armed forces for what they do to keep us safe and secure. That is why it is so important that the covenant is not just a responsibility for the Government, but a national responsibility; we should all be working to ensure that those who have served us, and served us well, do not face disadvantages. That is why we have been doing things such as putting money into a forces Help to Buy scheme to help them with houses—I believe the figure is £200 million. We must continue to do this, and I absolutely commit to ensuring that this is a Government who continue to support our veterans and the members of our armed forces.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First, I recognise and commend the hon. Gentleman for raising his personal experience of the terrible tragedy that can occur when mental health problems are not properly dealt with. He raises a very serious issue—it is a serious issue for everybody in this House—about how the NHS treats mental health. This is why we have established the concept of parity of esteem for mental health and physical health in the NHS, and why we are seeing record levels of funding. He raises the question of talking therapies, which are very effective, and we have been introducing waiting time standards in relation to them. However, I accept that there is more for us to do in this area to ensure that those with mental health problems are properly treated, and are properly given the care and attention they need. This is an issue not just for them, but for the whole of our society.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Chilcot report was an important task. Although it looked at and criticised the way in which information had been handled, it did not say that people had set out deliberately to mislead, and it is important to recognise that. It is important also that we learn the lessons from the Chilcot report, which is why the National Security Adviser is leading an exercise to do precisely that. This was a long time coming. It was a serious report. There is much in it, and we need to ensure that we do learn the lessons from it.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister
There is no reason to believe that the outcome of the referendum will do anything to undermine the absolute rock-solid commitment of this Government and the people of Northern Ireland to the settlement that was set out in the Belfast agreement. There is, and remains, strong support for the entirely peaceful future for Northern Ireland. That has been determined by democracy and consent. We remain committed to that and to work with others to ensure that entirely peaceful future.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to hear of the commitment that GE has made to Stafford, but it is more than a commitment to Stafford; it is a commitment to the United Kingdom and to the future of our economy. I understand that the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade has already met GE to discuss its interests in trade and what we can be doing to promote free trade. As I said earlier, I want the UK to be a global leader in free trade. We are listening to businesses around the country and to the importance that they place on free trade as we look at the negotiations for exiting the EU.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes from the figures that we have seen recently, particularly the figures in relation to women and the use of alcohol. As Home Secretary, I was part of the development of the alcohol strategy that the Government produced a few years ago. I am pleased to say that, at that time, we were working well with industry to encourage it to ensure that it could take steps to impact on the drinking habits of the nation.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I seem to recall that I first met my hon. Friend when she was campaigning in relation to motorways. She is right that in order to support the rail infrastructure, we need to ensure that the right road infrastructure is in place. That is why we are investing £15 billion in the road investment strategy, which is about boosting local economies and further economic growth. I understand that Highways England is looking at the issues in the east midlands and at bringing forward significant new road enhancements around the expected site of the new east midlands HS2 station. Going forward it is looking at an audit of roads in the area. I trust that on this issue my hon. Friend will make her voice heard, and that of her constituents, as she has in the past.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I gave a serious answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), which is that we have been looking at the whole issue of talking therapies, their availability and the waiting times for them. We do want to improve the options that people have for access to talking therapies, precisely because they have been shown to be so successful in so many cases. The Government are working on this and we will continue to work on it to provide, as we have said, that parity of esteem between mental health and physical health in the national health service.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I can absolutely give the commitment that we continue to support Crossrail 2. We are waiting to see a robust business case and a proper funding proposal for Crossrail 2. My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary will in due course set out the timetable for that, but as a former Wimbledonian I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of his interest in the Wimbledon to Waterloo aspects of the project, and that the needs of the local area are being taken into account.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady sets out her case and the issues that she has identified. I take the same view as this Government have taken since they came into power and previously, which is that the issue of Kashmir is a matter for India and Pakistan to deal with and sort out. The Foreign Secretary has heard her representations and I am sure will be interested in taking up those matters with her.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Several months ago I raised with the former Prime Minister at his last Prime Minister’s questions the issue of enhanced medical assistance for the Kurdish peshmerga. I then wrote to the new Prime Minister. Now, with the campaign to liberate Mosul under way, will my right hon. Friend agree to meet with me and representatives of the Kurdistan Regional Government to discuss whether we can provide specialist medical facilities here in the UK—for instance, 10 beds for seriously wounded peshmerga—and to ensure that the forces on the ground are getting all the support they need? I understand that they are short of heavy weapons and basic infantry kit such as helmets and body armour.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right and I recognise that this is a matter that he has raised before. We have seen that the coalition activity that is taking place is having some impact, and is having an impact, as we wish it to, in relation to Daesh. There are no plans at present either to do what he suggested in his question or to provide a field hospital and field medical capabilities from the United Kingdom, but we continually review what we are doing in support of the coalition, and the training that we are providing for the peshmerga includes training in the provision of medical facilities.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Individuals are already being brought to the United Kingdom under the Dubs amendment, in addition to the resettlement scheme for vulnerable Syrians—the 20,000 who will be brought here over the course of this Parliament—and in addition to the 3,000 vulnerable people, children and others, who will be brought here from the middle east and north Africa. We are working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to ensure that it is right for those individuals to come to the UK and that they have support when they get here. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this country is the second biggest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid in the Syrian region, and we are able to support and provide for more people in-region, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Around Heathrow legal air quality limits are being breached, and over Twickenham noise pollution has increased, according to Heathrow data. Can the Prime Minister explain how a third runway can be delivered and comply with legal pollution requirements? Does she agree that, environmentally, Heathrow is not good enough and cannot possibly be both bigger and better?
The Prime Minister
The Government looked very closely at the issue of air quality and the environmental impact of all three schemes proposed by the Airports Commission. We took extra time, from the decision to increase airport capacity in the south-east, because we wanted to look particularly at the air quality issues. The evidence shows that air quality standards can be met, as required by all three schemes, including the north-west runway at Heathrow. My hon. Friend raises an issue that is actually about more than airports, because air quality is also about road transport. That is why we are looking to do more in relation to air quality. It is why, for example, I am pleased to see that we are at such a leading edge in the provision of electric vehicles.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Prime Minister’s real plan for Brexit seems to be to pick winners: to cut a special deal for the City of London and let the bankers avoid the dire consequences of leaving the economic union. Wales has an exporting economy, with a £5 billion trade surplus last year, and 200,000 jobs dependent on trade with the European Union. It is a soft Brexit for her friends in the City, and a hard Brexit for everybody else. Will she cut a similar deal for Wales?
The Prime Minister
I will be cutting the best deal for the United Kingdom—all parts of it.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
Every year, hundreds of people are diagnosed with, suffer and usually die prematurely from rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis and rare cancers, for which there has been no treatment, or for which the latest drugs are prohibitively expensive. This week sees the final report of our accelerated access review, which sets out a new model for the NHS to use its genetic and data leadership to get quicker access and discounted prices. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the review, which is strongly supported by patients, charities and the life sciences sector, and in encouraging the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and NHS England to implement it speedily?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the publication of the review. This is important in enabling patients to get quicker access to drugs and treatments. The United Kingdom has established a leading role in life sciences, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role he has played in that. I know that the Department of Health will be looking very closely at the report’s specific recommendations, recognising that where we can take opportunities through the national health service to encourage the development of new drugs to benefit patients, we should do so.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has just told us that record levels of spending are going into our mental health services. Her Health Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box on 9 December and told us that the proportion of funding going into mental health from every one of our clinical commissioning groups should be increasing. Why is it, then, that 57% of CCGs in our country are reducing the proportion of spend on mental health? It is yet another broken promise. When will we have real equality for mental health in our country?
The Prime Minister
The fact that I set out—that we are spending record levels in the NHS on mental health—is absolutely right, but I have said in response to a number of people who have questioned me on this that we recognise that there is more for us to do in mental health, and I would have thought that we should have cross-party support on doing just that.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Speaking outside 10 Downing Street on the day she became Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend said:
“If you suffer from mental health problems, there is not enough help to hand.”
I welcome her commitment to mental health, expressed on that day and in her responses today. What steps is she taking to make sure the bold ambitions of the Government’s five-year forward view for mental health are achieved?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to say that, in fact, what we see—far from the impression that is given by some of the comments from Opposition Members—is that, since 2009-10, around 750,000 more people are accessing talking therapies and 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day, compared to 2010, so that is up by 40%. But my hon. Friend, who I know has a particular interest and a particular expertise in this area, is right that we need to do more, and that is why we are continuing to invest in mental health services and continuing to increase the standards that we provide.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Just 20 children are diagnosed with inoperable brain tumours as a result of tuberous sclerosis every year. Yet, despite earlier indications, NHS England turned treatment down for funding, despite it being affordable. Will the Prime Minister meet me, the Tuberous Sclerosis Association and families to discuss how we can get through this blockage and get the treatment that these children need?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to look at the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and to look in detail at what can be done to take that forward.
Petition
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The petition relates to implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts and the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—Campaign. I want to place on record my thanks to Caron Fahy, Lynne Dorm, Rosemarie Phoenix, Janet Shefras, Julia Clay and Anne Tapp for collecting nearly 400 signatures in Alyn and Deeside.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Alyn and Deeside,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001966]
Maternity and Paternity Leave (Premature Birth)
Wednesday 26th October 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Maternity and Paternity Leave (Premature Birth) Bill 2016-17 View all Maternity and Paternity Leave (Premature Birth) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to make provision about maternity and paternity leave for parents of babies born prematurely; and for connected purposes.
Having a premature baby is one of the most traumatic experiences that any parent can go through. Instead of bringing home the healthy baby they had longed for, their tiny baby is put inside an incubator, fighting for its life, surrounded by tubes, wires and bleeping monitors. Instead of holding their baby close, these parents can only watch as their baby struggles to breathe, dependent on life support and intensive care. This can go on for weeks and months before a baby is well enough to go home. The stress, anxiety and worry lead two in every five premature mums to suffer mental ill health. Parents fall into debt from the unplanned expense of daily journeys to hospital, overnight accommodation or eating in expensive hospital cafes.
One mum told me her baby spent three months in intensive care, and that time was all taken out of her statutory maternity leave. So her baby suffers twice: first, from the serious health complications of being born too soon and, secondly, from having less time at home with mum and dad—vital bonding time that can affect a child’s development for many years to come.
I spoke to another mum who told me that once she had gone back to work, her employer would not give her the extra time off she needed to deal with her premature child’s frequent illnesses. She lost her job, and her family lost that vital extra income. I spoke to a dad who had to go back to work the day after his baby was born three months too soon and was fighting for her life in an incubator. Most people would agree that his family needed him more at that time than his employer did, but the law did not give him the support he needed to be there with his family. We should give the parents of premature babies all the support they need to cope at one of the most traumatic times they will ever experience.
I pay tribute to a Croydon mum and tireless campaigner, Catriona Ogilvy, who started campaigning on this issue after her two beautiful little boys were born prematurely. Over 100,000 people have already signed her online petition. I should also like to recognise the outstanding work of the charity Bliss, which campaigns for the rights of premature babies and their families.
It is time the law recognised the special needs of premature babies’ parents by extending their leave so that they can give their vulnerable, tiny babies all the love and care they need and deserve. This measure commands growing support in the country, it is the right thing to do, and it deserves the support of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Steve Reed, Norman Lamb, Heidi Allen, Chris Philp, Wes Streeting, Dan Jarvis, Stella Creasy, Mr Gareth Thomas, Jenny Chapman, Lyn Brown, Heidi Alexander and Lisa Nandy present the Bill.
Mr Steve Reed accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 81).
Opposition Day
Concentrix
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that Concentrix has not fully met the performance standards set out in its contract with the HM Revenue and Customs to correct tax credit claims, and welcomes the announcement that the services performed by Concentrix will be brought back in-house to HMRC next year; and calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix under its contract with HMRC, which includes a consideration of the potential effect on other HMRC services, take urgent action to compensate people who have erroneously had tax credits withdrawn by the company, and in doing so mitigate any adverse effect or reduction in service for claimants.
The topic of today’s first Opposition day debate affects every single hon. Member’s constituency. I have received many case studies from Labour Members, and I thank them for their hard work on this issue. I welcome the comments in the amendment tabled by Scottish National party Members; I am very pleased that we are on the same page on this issue. We have heard how constituents of Conservative Members have been affected by this scandal too. My own inbox and postbag have seen a surge in the number of anxious and distressed families needing my help after their tax credits have been stopped. I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and to the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee and the Treasury Committee, for their hard work in shining the spotlight on this very serious issue.
I am sure that Members will assist the Minister by illustrating their own cases, but I will begin by outlining a shocking yet typical case study brought to my attention recently. The lady in question is a single parent with three children and a job, although at the time of her exchanges with Concentrix she had just had a baby and was on maternity leave. This lady had been accused on two separate occasions of living with an undisclosed partner. On both occasions, she had never met the person. The first time, she was accused of living with a man who turned out to be the former tenant of the housing association flat that she now lives in. This was sorted out fairly easily. We can imagine her shock, though, when only months later she received another letter accusing her of living with another undisclosed partner. When she phoned Concentrix, she was told that she was living with a woman of whom she had never heard. The lady pointed out that there was absolutely no truth in that allegation and sent all the requested documentation, by recorded delivery, to Concentrix. She received no response. She gave birth to her third child two weeks later.
When the claimant phoned Concentrix, she was told that the documents that she had sent were not on the system, and she then received a letter cancelling her tax credits. That left her with only maternity allowance to live on and a demand to repay £4,100.
The lady in question obtained replacement documentation, after Concentrix appeared to have lost the originals, and sent a request for mandatory reconsideration, again by recorded delivery, to Concentrix. By this time, she was running very short of money and contacted her Member of Parliament for help. When the parliamentary office investigated the matter, it was told that there was a backlog of mandatory reconsiderations, so it could take six weeks for the case to be looked at.
By this time, the lady in question had been waiting for three months for a resolution to her case—that is three months in complete stress and turmoil, on the breadline, when she should have been enjoying those precious early moments of her child’s life.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early on. I was contacted not long ago by a woman in a similar situation. Her tax credits were cut because Concentrix accused her of having a lesbian relationship with her sister. It took her coming to me as her Member of Parliament and calling Concentrix myself before it started to believe the truth. Is it not absurd that it takes a direct intervention from a Member of Parliament before this ridiculous company takes these people seriously?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The term, “It beggars belief” springs to mind. Unfortunately, his case is not an isolated one.
After much chasing, it was eventually confirmed that the lady had no connection to this mystery woman. She was paid all the money she was owed, and the demand to repay the £4,100 was withdrawn.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We all have examples of constituents with similar stories, but the Government are showing a complete lack of urgency. People are left destitute by these decisions, for no good reason. We want to hear the Government say that they are going to put in extra resources to expedite investigations so that these people are paid and compensated, if necessary at the expense of Concentrix.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I could not agree more. The case to which I have referred is not an isolated one. According to the Government’s own figures, the company has considered about 667,000 cases, of which 103,000 have been amended. That means that 15% of investigations have wrongly pursued perfectly legitimate tax credit claimants, and they are simply the ones who have had the strength to come forward and present themselves, including to their MPs, as we have heard.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
In every single one of the Concentrix cases that has been taken up by my office so far and that has been resolved, the payment has been put back in place. In other words, they have been 100% wrong. What does my hon. Friend think that the Government ought to do about that?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I think that the cases we have seen so far are the tip of the iceberg. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that all cases are adequately investigated, and that no one has fallen through the cracks and not presented themselves either to their MP or directly to Concentrix.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I have spoken in previous debates about Capita’s failures in delaying the payment of disability benefits to some of our most vulnerable people. It seems to me that the only difference this time is the name of the corporation involved. Is not the fundamental issue that private profit-making companies are failing to deliver critical Government services?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I will come on in due course to the issue of the contract and how it is delivered, because there needs to be a wider investigation and discussion about that.
In 2014-15, there were no appeals against a decision. In 2015-16, there were 365, and from April to August 2016, there were 176. A similar spike is clear in the number of mandatory reconsiderations, which more than quadrupled between 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is even more shocking that that number almost quadrupled again in the period up to mid-August.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should commit to an official investigation into Concentrix’s conduct since it was awarded the contract in 2014, so that we know how what she has described was allowed to happen?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is hard to believe that the number of fraudulent tax credit claimants suddenly increased so dramatically in those two years. What is clear, however, is that there is an ever-growing evidence base suggesting that Concentrix has been unfairly and unjustly stopping people’s tax credits, leaving them in financial difficulty, along with the anxiety that that causes.
I am pleased that the Government have accepted that the contract was not working. Indeed, they were forced to concede that point in an answer to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley early last month. The response revealed:
“Since mid-October 2015 there has been 120 instances where Concentrix has not fully met the performance standards set out in the contract out of a total of 1625.”
Following mounting pressure from Opposition Members, the Government announced that they would not renew the Concentrix contract when it ends in May, and that they would redeploy 150 members of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to clear the backlog of cases.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Is she aware that it was not actually until October last year that the Government started monitoring the performance of Concentrix, as was revealed to me in a parliamentary answer just a couple of weeks ago? That shows exactly why they have removed the contract now, because before that they did not even know whether Concentrix was performing the service standards laid out in it.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. A whole section of my speech is devoted to particular clauses in the contract that may or may not have been enforced by HMRC and the Government. I will come on to that in due course.
Labour welcomed the announcement that 150 members of staff would be redeployed and that the contract would not be renewed, but we still had serious concerns that Concentrix would continue to handle cases and that the Government had not stated that they would bring the operation back in-house. Following further pressure from Labour and the Public and Commercial Services Union, the Government backed down and PCS confirmed last week that the operation will, indeed, be brought back in-house, with Concentrix staff in Belfast being transferred to HMRC.
We of course welcomed that action, but it does not even begin to address the wider issues. How did this situation arise? When did the Government first become aware of it? What action did they take? How will they ensure that it does not occur again? Most importantly, when and how will the victims be compensated? Media reports were surfacing as far back as 2015 in relation to erroneous tax credit decisions pursuant to the contract, and, as I have outlined, the figures indicated an unusual spike in appeals. The red flags were there and they should have been acted on.
I would like to direct the Minister to the contract between HMRC and Concentrix, which provided a number of tools that the Government had at their fingertips. Section I3.1 of the contract provides that where HMRC is concerned with the delivery of service, it can investigate. Was HMRC concerned, and if so, when? If the Minister cannot answer just yet, I will, to help her to pinpoint the information, illustrate further machinery in the contract that would have helped the Government and HMRC to find out about any problems pretty swiftly. Section E7.1 and schedule D provide for reviews of the contract’s effectiveness. Schedule D4.1 states that “prior to…Go Live”, HMRC would work with Concentrix to establish and agree a “robust Governance Framework” including contract management, communications, quality and assurance, payment risk management, performance management, change control and, most importantly, reporting. Will the Minister confirm the details of that “robust Governance Framework” for the benefit of the House?
If the Minister cannot do so, I can reassure her that fall-back options were still available. Schedule D12.1 states that HMRC would have full access to individual cases and, further, that Concentrix was under an obligation to let HMRC observe its working methods. Pursuant to that provision, were individual cases reviewed by HMRC, and did HMRC investigate the methods used by Concentrix? If so, how often did that happen and what were the findings of those investigations? It is clear that the Government had the tools that they needed to monitor service delivery, but perhaps they simply did not use them. The Minister will confirm in due course.
If the Government had found failings after exhausting the quite reasonable dispute process in the contract, they could have exercised the break clause found at section G3 by giving only three months’ notice. Will the Minister confirm whether and when that was considered, and tell us the outcome of that consideration? If, however, her answer to all my contractual questions is, “I don’t know,” I would ask whether she is really sure that HMRC had the capacity to monitor the contract effectively. She will be interested to know that PCS is due to publish a report on HMRC shortly, which suggests that
“the department is at breaking point…staff are hugely demoralised, 25% want to leave the department immediately or within a year and the department scores below average in all of the measures on the Civil Service’s annual staff survey.”
The report does not paint a happy picture.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a forensic case. Behind these facts and figures are very real human cases of people, particularly women and single mothers, who are being absolutely hammered by Concentrix. I have constituents who are going hungry, and whose children are going hungry, because of the incompetence of Concentrix. That is what we need the Minister to answer about.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; he is 100% correct. This is not simply a case of rapping Concentrix on the back of the hand. These contractual failings have caused real human suffering, and the Government need to address them urgently.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Is the hon. Lady aware of the spikes in such claims that she talks about arising in the week before conference recess and in the days following, when Concentrix was stripped of the contract? We all know what is happening here: drilling down into the contract to avoid exit penalties. Will the Government shed any light on that?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I hope that the Minister will address the hon. Gentleman’s question in her speech because we all want to hear the answer.
Several provisions in the contract relate to payment by delivery. The head of the National Audit Office stated in June 2015:
“While its supporters argue that, by its nature, Payment by Results offers value for money, these contracts are hard to get right, which generates risk and cost for commissioners…the increased risk and cost may be justified, but this requires credible evidence. Without such evidence, commissioners may be using this mechanism in circumstances to which it is ill-suited, to the detriment of value for money.”
Under schedule A6.1 of the contract, HMRC required Concentrix to deliver, over the duration of the contract, some £1.03 billion in savings in annually managed expenditure. I appreciate that the contract used estimates to forecast potential savings, but given the model, how could anyone have been certain about the position without a crystal ball? In answer to parliamentary questions, it was revealed that total savings in annual managed expenditure were £2.3 million in 2014-15, £122.3 million in 2015-16, and £159.5 million in 2016-17, to mid-August 2016.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these savings were made by my constituents facing a similar situation—100% of them have had their benefits paid back—going to food banks for the first time in their lives? The place-based team in Platt Bridge has seen a spike of some 50 families going to them because of problems with their tax credits.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend’s intervention highlights the human impact of these contractual failings. My constituents have asked me for the addresses of food banks and whether parcels could be delivered to them because they were too ashamed to be seen as struggling by their communities. To put people in such situations is an absolute disgrace.
Total savings of £284.1 million have been made since the commencement of the contract in November 2014. Anyone can see that the leap from £2.3 million in 2014 to £159.5 million by mid-August 2016 is excessive. Does the Minister therefore believe that there was simply a massive increase in fraud in the system, or does she agree that the contract was granted in the absence of a firm evidence base to justify the risks associated with an agreement based on payment by results?
As I said, there is a human impact and a human cost; it is not simply a case of slapping Concentrix on the back of the hand and saying, “Let’s all move on.” We are talking about the Government’s duty to preserve justice being abandoned as a result of the profit motive established by the contract. The risks were real human risks—families being forced into destitution, anguish and despair, with all the associated pressures on an individual’s mental health.
Earlier this year, the Social Security Advisory Committee noted that the payment model could create a conflict of interest. It recommended that the National Audit Office should examine the contract to ensure that it included appropriate safeguards to preserve justice for the claimant. At that stage, there was no investigation, but the Labour party has since written to the NAO and received the following response:
“My team has carried out some preliminary work to look into the issues. Their view is that the contract between HMRC and Concentrix merits further investigation.”
I am pleased that the NAO will investigate, but the Government must carry out a full and transparent inquiry of their own. Our motion calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix and HMRC’s contract with the company, in terms of both the adequacy of enforcing all the contractual terms, and the suitability of a payment-by-results model for delivering such a service. I would add that the NAO confirmed last year that the Government’s payment-by-results schemes accounted for at least £15 billion of public spending. It has stated that neither the Cabinet Office nor the Treasury monitors how payment by results operates across government.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a detailed case about the defects of the contract, including in relation to payment by results. Does she agree that the problems with that model were exacerbated by the fact that when people had a problem with their tax credits being withdrawn, they had to complain to Concentrix—they had to go back to the decision maker—and there was, naturally, no financial incentive for Concentrix to unwind a wrong decision?
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is right. Sadly, however, when many people tried to complain to Concentrix, all they received was a dull engaged tone, so they did not get very far.
Will the Minister assure the House that she will go beyond the scope of the motion and investigate such contracts more widely? She should consider putting measures before the House that will prevent the incorrect application of payment by results. I fear that Concentrix is just the tip of the iceberg.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I have just looked at how far back payment by results goes. Will new Labour, or old new Labour, take some responsibility—payment by results was introduced in the English NHS in 2003-04—and condemn it roundly in the Chamber today?
Rebecca Long Bailey
We can all learn lessons by reviewing the handling of payment-by-results contracts. I hope that the Minister will consider those experiences when she conducts a review of the delivery of such contracts.
Rebecca Long Bailey
No. I have one paragraph left before I finish.
I want to conclude by speaking about the victims of these terrible systematic failures. They did not deserve to face the hardship they have endured, and they must be adequately compensated for their losses. Will the Minister confirm that they will be compensated? On what basis will they be compensated, and what is the timeframe for that action? Will she confirm that, in addressing the problem and bringing services back into HMRC, she will mitigate any adverse effect on or reduction in service for complainants? I ask her to keep an eye out for the PCS report because it is a real eye-opener. I know that the Minister has experienced terrible cases on her own doorstep. She has seen the effects at first hand and seems to be very empathetic. As such, will she issue an apology on behalf of her Government for the distress and hardship that has been caused? That is the very least our constituents deserve.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
During the past few weeks, there have been a number of debates in this House about the quality of service provided by Concentrix in helping HMRC to counter fraud and error in our tax system. This is an important opportunity to debate the issue again, and I hope to go a little further in providing the House with information.
It is right that we have debated the issue because during the past few months it has become clear that Concentrix, despite the best efforts of the majority of its frontline staff, was failing to meet the standards we expected and, indeed, that we had specified in its contract. This meant that many of the people whose tax credits were being investigated—we have heard about them in the speech by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and in interventions, and they include my constituents—have been caused needless frustration and distress in resolving their cases. I suspect we will hear more examples as the debate unfolds. I intend to address the specific points in the motion, but as the hon. Lady accurately speculated, I may need in due course to write to her about aspects of the contractual arrangements, for reasons that may become obvious as I go through my speech.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Before the Minister leaves the human suffering aspect of this debate, may I welcome the speed with which she has responded to the letter and memoranda of cases that I, like other Members, have submitted to her? If we are not only talking about learning lessons from the contract, may I ask how we can quickly get compensation to the people who have been adversely affected? Will she give an undertaking today—she may have such an undertaking in her speech— that people whose benefits have been cut by Concentrix will be informed of the hardship fund that she has established so that they can quickly apply for help?
Jane Ellison
The right hon. Gentleman is right to anticipate that I will touch on that issue. I will reflect on his point. I do not know about the arrangements for being proactive in telling people, but there are arrangements in place. When I get to that point, he can let me know if he does not think they are adequate.
Given that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made such efforts to support their constituents during recent weeks—the human aspects of this issue are absolutely uppermost in our mind today—I should bring the House up to date on the action taken to rectify the situation. As I informed the House last month, we decided on 13 September not to pass any new cases to Concentrix. Instead, it was intended that it should concentrate on resolving outstanding cases. HMRC staff stepped in to reinstate a quality customer service, such as making sure that people could once again get through on the phones. We know how critical it is for people to be able to get through and have their voice heard.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On 14 September, when the Minister answered an urgent question in the House, she told all our constituents to phone the number they were given. One of my constituents phoned the line that day and waited for ages to get through, only to be told, “Because of all the complaints you’ve been making, we’re getting sacked”, and the phone was put down. Does she agree that that added further to the already deep distress that people were feeling, and that it is not acceptable?
Jane Ellison
Of course it is not acceptable—not at all. I would add that, as hon. Members may be aware, the opening hours of the MPs’ phone line have for some weeks been extended to cope with the larger number of calls coming through that route.
Louise Haigh
In her response to that urgent question, the Minister reassured the House that queries would be dealt with within four working days. We know that that simply is not the case, and many of my constituents have been waiting for weeks to hear back from Concentrix or HMRC about their tax credit award. Will she update the House about the deadline for dealing with these cases?
Jane Ellison
I will come on to that, but the hon. Lady has provided me with an apt moment to be clear about what I said on that day. I said that once we had established the facts of the case, people should be paid within four working days. Clearly, some cases are complex and need further details to be provided. In response to the urgent question, I said that once we had established the facts, an automated process would authorise payment to be made within four working days. That is the timeline to which HMRC is working.
As I have said, it is absolutely critical that we get the right information, establish the facts and get payments started again. To that end, HMRC took back from Concentrix 181,000 incomplete cases, and staff have been working hard to resolve them. I can update the House by saying that 178,000 of the 181,000 cases have already been finalised, which represents 98% of them. HMRC has already written to the people concerned in the other 2% of cases, and it should conclude those cases by the end of this month. I want to place on the record my thanks to HMRC staff for their efforts in that regard. HMRC staff are also taking on reviews that are requested of any decision made by Concentrix.
Chris Law
It is startling that 98% of cases have been resolved within four weeks. Is there any evidence whatsoever that there were grounds to pursue people over their tax credits in those 98% of cases, or was this a bogus fishing expedition, as all of us in the House are likely to believe?
Jane Ellison
It is important to recognise that when a case is resolved, it means that a conclusion has been reached based on the facts. I cannot give the House the breakdown of cases in which payments have been reinstated, cases in which there was in fact an error in the claim that had to be corrected, or indeed cases—a very small number of them—in which claims were fraudulent. The point is that the cases have been resolved according to the facts provided and in the knowledge of the person concerned. We may be able to provide a breakdown at some point, but I am not in a position to do so today.
Kate Green
The House would find it especially helpful to know to what degree Concentrix was steered by the Government towards looking for undeclared partners, and to what degree the contract incentivised Concentrix to jump to conclusions?
Jane Ellison
No. I really must make some progress—you may not indulge me too much more, Mr Speaker, if I give way again—but I will see whether I can take further interventions later.
As hon. Members should be aware, anyone who wishes to challenge any changes made to their tax credits has a right to request a mandatory reconsideration of their case. As of the start of this week, HMRC had received more than 26,000 such requests. Staff have already reviewed and resolved more than three quarters of them, and they are up to date with the Concentrix reviews. As I have said, that means that the cases have been resolved in accordance with the facts; it does not necessarily mean that there was a problem in each case. However, at least such cases have been resolved, and closing the remaining cases will of course be a priority.
That gives the House a sense of the necessary steps being taken to fix the immediate problem: restoring quality customer service, resolving people’s claims and checking that the right decisions have been made. But I know that hon. Members have been worried about people falling into hardship if their claim has been incorrectly withdrawn or reduced due to errors. That has quite rightly been the source of many of the questions we have been asked. I reassure Members that a system is in place to support anyone who contacts HMRC in such circumstances. They will be helped to request a review of the decision taken—the so-called mandatory reconsideration that I have just mentioned. Those in hardship will then receive a payment of £100, normally on the following day, while their review is being handled.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
On that specific point, my constituent Katy Holness successfully challenged an erroneous Concentrix investigation. HMRC wrote to her saying that she would have £100 compensation but warning her that that £100 might in itself trigger an overpayment. What does the Minister say about that?
Jane Ellison
It is very difficult for me to comment on a specific case, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details I will ask HMRC to comment on it. We held a further drop-in on 19 October, and if the House feels it would be useful to hold another such Member drop-in for cases such as that to be resolved face to face, I am very happy to arrange one. If hon. Members are aware of people in hardship—I know many are—they can bring that directly to our attention. In fact, I am grateful to all those Members who have already taken action of that kind and attended the various drop-in sessions I have organised in the House. I remind everyone that there is a special hotline for MPs to raise issues and seek information, and we have allocated extra staff to make that service available over extended opening hours. We will address any such cases with the greatest of urgency.
We are making some progress towards at least putting an end to the distress and worry that some people have regrettably faced in recent times. Mechanisms are in place to make sure that anyone in hardship as a result of uncertainties or mistakes will be supported. Those two things have been our top priorities.
Maria Eagle
Will the Minister tell us where the duff information that has been acted on by Concentrix has come from? One of the key things about these cases is that the information upon which people’s claims have been cancelled has been almost universally poor and nonsensical. Where have those data come from?
Jane Ellison
Most of the data that both HMRC and Concentrix are working from are the sort of data Members would expect companies and HMRC to be using in this regard. Concentrix makes some reference to credit data. Because there are so many tax credit claims, a lot of the work on pointing to where there might be errors is based on the history of where there have been substantial errors over time, and those individuals and people—
Jane Ellison
Not just at the moment—I must make some progress.
Particular individuals in particular circumstances are more prone to error. Over the years that tax credits have been running quite a substantial picture has built up of where error is more likely to exist.
Jane Ellison
No, I am sorry, I am going to make some progress.
We have been working—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) says the information is duff, but there are a lot of cases of error, and some of fraud, in the system. It is not the case that all the information is, in her word, duff—far from it. I will come on to mention the figures involved, but all right hon. and hon. Members know that there are times when people give the wrong information; that is mostly because of error, but sometimes because of fraud.
Jane Ellison
I will just make a bit more progress, then I will bring the hon. Gentleman in.
We are working hard to address the wider issues, many of which have been alluded to. I will move on to the three main points in the motion. We agree that Concentrix’s performance fell below the standards required in its contract. I do not want to ignore the millions of pounds’ worth of savings it has helped to deliver for the taxpayer, which might not otherwise have been achieved, but when the level of customer service is so far below what we expect, it is right that we take action.
First, then, as set out under the terms of the contract, payment to Concentrix will be cut in response to its failure to adhere to the standards required. Secondly, as HMRC announced on 13 September and I confirmed the following day, its contract will not be renewed beyond its end date in May 2017, nor will any further procurement exercise for tax credit checks be taken forward at that time. Thirdly, I can confirm that HMRC is in discussion with Concentrix to agree a negotiated early exit from the contact.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jane Ellison
I will take some interventions, but before I do I must say that, as the House would expect, while those commercial discussions are ongoing I cannot provide full details of the negotiated early exit; however, I expect it to be finalised shortly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jane Ellison
I will give way to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), because he has been waiting a long time.
Sammy Wilson
Although Members accept that cases of hardship have been created, does the Minister also accept that in a written answer to the House she indicated that Concentrix was meeting its 75-day service level, had an average answer time of six minutes for phone calls and was making decisions within 23 days, and that of the 660,000 appealed cases that went to HMRC, only 280, or 0.6%, were upheld? Does she accept that not all of the blame goes on Concentrix, which in many ways met its targets but is now being made a scapegoat?
Jane Ellison
I have said, both in reply to the urgent question on 14 September and in my opening remarks today, that front-line Concentrix staff have been working hard to resolve these issues. The problems of a contract like this, and of getting through on the phone, are never usually the fault of the person you finally get through to. It is right to say that people have been working hard. I suspect the hon. Gentleman represents many of the people who work there.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I also welcome the statement that we are terminating the contract with Concentrix. That is absolutely the right thing to do. I have a number of constituents who have suffered these problems. Mr and Mrs Young from Malton provided evidence that they were married. Despite that, Mrs Young was identified as unmarried and living in Whitby on her own. Members of Parliament have the emergency hotline—I have used it—and people can get emergency hardship payments. Does the Minister welcome that and should we make it more publicly known that those measures are available for people in hardship?
Jane Ellison
That is exactly right, and today’s debate is timely as it allows us to focus on that. I am now going to give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has done so much work on this matter.
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—she is being very generous. As we have heard, the contract altered last year. Will she confirm how the contract was altered last October, and that it was altered because Concentrix was unable to make enough money out of it before then?
Jane Ellison
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will write to her on that. As commercial discussions are ongoing it would be best to write on something as detailed as that, and I am happy to do so.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the Minister for giving way, as I know time is precious. I appreciate that she cannot divulge the terms of the ongoing negotiations for the termination of the contract, but will she commit to coming back to the House to make a statement as soon as those terms are finalised? Will she provide the information that she can obtain—for example, when the dispute process was first examined and the outcome of that process? We are at the very end of a contractual process, and simply want to know what the timeline was.
Jane Ellison
Again, those are matters I will return to, in part because there will be a number of examinations of this situation—the National Audit Office has already talked about the work it will do. I will come on to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jane Ellison
Well, I have not taken one from my hon. Friend, but I will take one from the Scottish National party and then I will progress to the end of my speech.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I understand, with the challenges coming from the Opposition Benches, why she wishes to outsource blame purely to Concentrix, but this Government wrote the contract to incentivise Concentrix’s behaviour and, as confirmed by the Economic Secretary last week in Westminster Hall, sent the personal data to Concentrix to investigate—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are tremendously grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I feel that he has surely concluded his intervention.
Jane Ellison
Far from saying that this is all Concentrix, I think there are lessons to be learned all round. I should signal now that, because I think there are lessons to be learned all round—for HMRC, for Ministers and certainly for Concentrix—the Government do not intend to divide the House on the Opposition’s motion. I want this to be an exercise in understanding the problems and learning the lessons. I will take one more intervention, for balance from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), and then move on to the end of my speech.
James Berry
I have two Concentrix cases from single mothers, one of whom was required to disprove a relationship she plainly never had with a former tenant of her house, evidence she could not possibly provide. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important now is that the Concentrix contract has been ended and a system for investigating mistakes and a hardship fund have been put in place? That is what is important.
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend rightly brings us back to the human factor. He is right to highlight that the heart of what we want to do is to get people back in payment, where they should be, and to relieve hardship. I will now move quickly towards the end of my remarks. Mr Speaker has been very indulgent.
Among the discussions happening at the moment, HMRC has agreed to the transfer of Concentrix staff to HMRC. Concentrix has begun consulting its staff on this point and anyone transferring to HMRC will be supported through further training to help us deliver a quality public service.
It is also right, as the motion suggests and the shadow Minister challenges, that we look long and hard at what went so wrong with Concentrix’s performance. Not only do we owe that to all those who were caused worry or distress as a result of these failures, but it is also of huge importance that we learn from what happened and prevent any similar issues arising in any future contracts across government. That is why HMRC will be looking at how the contract with Concentrix was managed. It accepts it has lessons to learn. It has given evidence to one Select Committee already and will be giving evidence to at least one other—learning lessons and undertaking analysis of the claims.
Members will be keen to see an unbiased, independent assessment. As has been alluded to already, the independent National Audit Office, which scrutinises public spending, has announced it will be conducting an inquiry into the Concentrix contract. HMRC will work and co-operate with the NAO very closely to support that inquiry. The investigations will undoubtedly include, as the motion suggests, a consideration of the knock-on effects that may have been caused to other services provided by HMRC. As I have outlined, HMRC has needed to deploy extra staff to address the problems encountered, but I reassure the House that it is currently managing the increased workload effectively. Again, that is a testament to the efforts of its staff. It is also a reflection of the flexibility HMRC possesses. It is a large organisation capable of moving staff around quickly and dealing with peaks of demand, which it is accustomed to handling at various points in the year.
During the debate we have touched a number of times on the point about mitigating suffering. As I set out, our first course of action is to ensure that we get people’s tax credit claims back on track. HMRC is working hard to get the information needed from claimants to put anyone entitled to tax credits back into payment, including paying any arrears to which they are entitled. In parallel, HMRC is taking forward any requests for reviews of Concentrix’s decisions. Indeed, many decisions have been overturned. I have made inquiries and it is fair to say that, largely, they have not been due to original errors, but have followed the provision of additional information that has been obtained through the process of the mandatory review. So many of these problems have been caused because people did not, or were not able to, respond to the first timetable they were given. They have now provided that information—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about this earlier—and we have been able to reassess their claims.
We have also made it a priority to address urgent cases of hardship through the usual mechanisms, but I will look at the point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. If anyone has been caused undue distress or financial loss following errors or wrongdoing by Concentrix, they should contact HMRC. Such complaints will be taken very seriously, with a thorough examination of all the evidence. Where mistakes have been made, HMRC will not only make sure claimants are now being paid correctly, but pay compensation where appropriate.
It may be helpful for colleagues to know that I have asked to be told on an ongoing basis the issues that Members are bringing up with HMRC. Someone used the phrase “early warning signal”. Members’ complaints—Members from both sides of the House have been assiduous in representing their constituents—are a very good early warning signal for when things might not be right.
In conclusion, it is undoubtedly the case that there remains too much fraud and error in the tax credits system. It is a complicated system and it is very easy for many honest people to get it wrong. Error and fraud stood at £1.37 billion in 2014-15, so it is right that the Government—any Government—are determined to spend taxpayer money sensibly and sustainably, and take action to address that. We want to ensure that those who are entitled to tax credits get them, but, as we all know, it is vital we prevent overpayments that will then need to be paid back. We have all seen the enormous distress that this causes to vulnerable people. Often, just through not supplying the right information and getting muddled up about a form, people end up owing a lot of money, and that causes a lot of distress.
Progress is being made. Error and fraud in the tax credit system are now close to their lowest levels since its introduction in 2003. We are not going to take a step back in our efforts to ensure we have a fair tax system that tackles non-compliance in all its forms. We announced an extra £800 million in funding last year to do so, but that has always got to be balanced by the need to keep providing both the financial support and quality customer service that people, whatever their income level, are entitled to. On this occasion, the balance was not appropriate. It is for that reason we have taken the action I have outlined to put the situation right. We want to support people who are struggling with their claims and we want to reinstate payments to those who are entitled to them.
I am sure that many of the comments that have been made so far, and will be made in the debate that follows, will be fair. I will not agree with all the points made, but there has been much fair comment. For that reason, we will not oppose the motion. Above all, we want a fair outcome for everyone affected and we want to learn important lessons to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again. We must ensure that these important public services work for the most vulnerable in our communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the next hon. Lady, it will be obvious to the House that there are a great many Members who wish to speak this afternoon. We will start with a voluntary time limit of eight minutes for Back-Bench speeches. If that does not work, I will impose a time limit of eight minutes. This time limit, voluntary or otherwise, does not, of course, apply to the spokesman for the Scottish National party, Mhairi Black.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The Scottish National party will fully support Labour’s motion. I thank the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for making the case so eloquently, but I think it is worth while reiterating some key points.
HMRC gave the contract to Concentrix, with the
“additional capacity to review and correct tax credit claims that are potentially based on incorrect information.”
One of the main tasks of Concentrix was to find people with an “undisclosed partner” and to see whether they were claiming the benefit as a single person but actually living with others. That is where the problem really begins. Concentrix spent a considerable amount of money putting out “fishing” letters to try to catch people claiming fraudulently. In a written answer on 7 September, the Treasury Minister said that Concentrix sent out 381,000 letters to tax credit claimants requesting proof of single status; 254,000 letters asking for details of hours worked; and 312,000 letters asking for evidence of childcare use.
Concentrix’s logic was that, unless people replied with the appropriate evidence, their tax credits would be stopped. However, despite all those letters apparently being sent out, thousands of people had absolutely no idea they were being investigated. Quite often, they did not know that they were under investigation, or that their tax credits had been stopped.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Given the clampdown on supposedly fraudulent claims with these fishing letters, would it not be good to see the same rigour applied to aggressive corporate tax avoidance?
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady also accept that, although 1.5 million cases were referred to Concentrix, it whittled them down to less than a fifth of the cases sent by HMRC? Therefore, had it been in HMRC’s control, a lot more people might have been affected than were actually affected.
Mhairi Black
Another interesting point is that, when the Work and Pensions Committee looked into the matter, we discovered that Concentrix had subcontractors —three, I believe—but it was not allowed to go into any detail about who they were or what their methods were. I hope that, at some point, the Government will answer those questions.
Like the constituents of many other Members here, all the constituents I dealt with did not discover that their tax credits had been stopped until they went to collect them from the bank and discovered that there was nothing. When I started to look into the matter, I realised that this is truly the most ridiculous level of incompetence that I have ever heard of. People were accused of being in relationships with dead tenants 70 years their senior. They were accused of being in relationships with some of their own children. In my constituency, Scottish flat numbers seemed to be a major issue for Concentrix because it could not get its head around the fact that flat 1/1 and 1/2 were across the landing from each other and were not the same house.
The best one, though, has to be the case of RS McColl. To provide a bit of perspective, RS McColl is a corner shop that is as common in Scotland as WH Smith is in England, yet people were being accused of living with this mysterious Mr McColl because their flat was above an RS McColl shop. At no point did anyone in Concentrix or HMRC think, “Wait a minute. This Casanova is getting about a bit.” This would be funny—until we remember that we are talking about people’s livelihoods and their survival.
As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I took part in the evidence session where we heard from claimants who had had their tax credits stopped. This is where we have to remember the human costs. We first heard from a woman called Marie, a mother of two who went six weeks with no support. She did not discover that her benefits had been stopped until she went to the bank. She said that she genuinely could not fill her cupboards with any food and she spoke of the shame of having to take her kids to a food bank and having to rely on the charity of others to be able to eat.
A woman called Sarah had no hand and suffered chronic pain every day of her life. She had two young kids, who were both under the age of five. She spent a combined total of 19 hours on the phone waiting for someone from Concentrix to answer. When she finally did get through to someone, the person at the other end of the phone just kept saying, “I don’t know; sorry about that. You need to phone back and try to get someone else.” She was asked to write a letter. She explained she could not write due to her disability, only to be told, “Well, sorry, you’ll just need to find someone else to write it”. At that point, that woman broke down in tears in front of the Committee. She was overwhelmed with emotion when she spoke about the fact that she had to look at her kids knowing that she did not know where the next meal was coming from.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady share my frustration about the fact that a constituent of mine who was down to her last £5 was told to send documents to Concentrix by recorded delivery? She then had to decide whether to feed her child or to send those documents. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that that is absolutely horrific.
Mhairi Black
It is actually completely disgusting for this to be happening under the watch of Government. It is also worth remembering that, when we talk about these horrendous individual cases, they are not unfortunate or rare examples—it is happening throughout the UK. Whoever made the music that is played when people are put on hold by Concentrix must be making a fortune, because my entire office can whistle it off the top of their heads, we were kept on hold for so long—and that was on the MPs’ hotline. The fact that people who do not have access to that hotline are sometimes having to spend up to 90 minutes on the phone is ridiculous.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I wonder whether other colleagues have shared the experience of my staff. Concentrix just flatly refused to deal with them, saying that it would speak only to the MP. We are only there one day a week, and that might be when it is not easy to take the history from the constituent.
Mhairi Black
It is also worth remembering that the number people were asked to phone was an 0845 number, so it cost an absolute fortune. I think that anyone in the Chamber would find it cost a fortune, so imagine how much pressure that will put on someone who already qualifies for tax credits, but has been told that they will not be receiving them.
When we in the office did get through, we were told that people had to apply for mandatory reconsiderations, only to discover that the contract also delegated extensive decision making powers to Concentrix, including the processing of mandatory reconsiderations. So this private company has to investigate itself to find out whether it made the correct decision. We should bear in mind the fact that the contract states that it should be paid only on the basis of results. The entire contract has been a shambles; it has been ludicrous from the start.
As if all that were not bad enough, during the evidence session with the Select Committee, Concentrix admitted that 90% to 95% of all mandatory reconsiderations were upheld. The company was openly admitting that it got it right only 5% of the time. These are the people who have applied for an appeal. How many people have had their benefits stolen from them who have not gone for a mandatory reconsideration?
Jane Ellison
It is kind of the hon. Lady to let me intervene. It is worth saying that often the reason the mandatory reconsideration succeeds is that the information previously requested has been supplied to that timetable. It is not fair to say that the reason is because the previous decisions were always wrong. Sometimes the information requested has at that point been supplied and then the correct claim can be instated.
Mhairi Black
I appreciate the Minister’s point, but we need to remember that HMRC and the Government were supplying information to Concentrix, so a lot of the fault lies with the Government.
Neil Gray
I was talking earlier about Government responsibility—before Mr Speaker rightly encouraged my pithiness. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way for the UK Government to take proper responsibility is not only by providing substantial and appropriate compensation, but by offering full apologies to those constituents who were wrongly dealt with by Concentrix and this Government?
Mhairi Black
I could not agree more.
Concentrix was saying that 95% of mandatory reconsiderations were upheld, but in the next panel before the Select Committee, the chief executive of HMRC said that it was not as bad as 95% and that 73% were upheld. He said that as though it was some kind of problem that—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mhairi Black
I want to make some progress.
It is such a farce that the Government and Concentrix cannot even agree on how many times they got it wrong. It is a ridiculous situation to find ourselves in. Meanwhile, people are having to go to food banks and to go home to their crying children, who do not want to eat Tesco’s 80p Bolognese for the fourth time that week.
I appreciate that mistakes can happen in all walks of life, whatever job one is in, but the reality is that, when the mistakes are made by Government, it is people who suffer—and often it is the most vulnerable people. Although we wholeheartedly support Labour’s motion, we have to highlight the fact that the Government have to bear some of the blame. The contract itself states that HMRC is required to monitor the exercise and remains responsible in law for the actions carried out by the contractor. I do not believe that the Government have done that adequately.
The most damning thing in this entire saga is that Concentrix was under the impression that its contract was going to be renewed. Only after the media cottoned on to this and began writing about it, and after 670-odd formal complaints were put in by elected Members to HMRC, did the heat begin to be turned up and the issue begin to be taken seriously. The vice-president of Concentrix said he was initially given only 15 minutes’ notice, before he went on a flight, that the contract was not going to be renewed. He pleaded with HMRC to be given an hour in order to inform staff. An hour was the difference between Concentrix thinking it had a contract that would be renewed and the contract being taken away because of its shambolic work. The level of incompetence is truly incredible. We cannot ignore that and place all the blame on Concentrix.
So what needs to be done now? The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the £100 hardship payment, but in all my cases constituents have been told that the £100 will be taken back off their benefits. That has to be looked at. If we are all being told that at the same time, that is clearly an issue.
As for how we should deal with the overall problem, the buck has to stop with HMRC. The Government must bring services of this kind back in house, and they must once again be the Government’s day-to-day responsibility. Saying to a private company “We want you to make £1 billion worth of cuts, but we will only pay you on a results basis” is a recipe for disaster. We have to legislate so that this is never allowed to happen again. One of the main reasons that it occurred in the first place was the lack of resources and Departments’ inability to cope. The Treasury must reconsider its ongoing policy of downsizing HMRC, especially when we are in the midst of such a cataclysmic problem.
As has been said by a number of Members today, and on another occasion by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), the Government must apologise to people. There is no shame in apologising and admitting that you got it wrong. The Government need to regain a bit of trust from the people who have been hurt. Concentrix is by no means innocent of any of what has happened, but ultimately it was HMRC that signed the contract: it happened on HMRC’s watch.
Conservative Members will probably roll their eyes and stop listening when I say this, but the biggest problem that I have with issues like this is that the Government seem to be perpetuating an overarching culture of blaming the poor. We treat people with suspicion from the start, and the onus is always on individuals to prove that they are not thieves or frauds. Pressure is put on people who have enough to deal with already. I have sat through many debates of this kind, and I have heard certain groups—disabled people, pensioners and those on low wages—being constantly targeted. We end up pitting them against each other. We tell young people “You cannot get a job because pensioners are living too long”, and we tell the disabled “Sorry, we cannot afford to pay these amounts any more, so we will have to cut £30 from your benefits.” All the while, at the heart of all that, there is a small group of people who are wealthier than ever before—and I have to say that I include every elected Member in the Chamber in that category. We were all given an 11% pay rise; who else was? Who in the outside world has seen that kind of pay rise?
Mhairi Black
I am going to finish soon.
Recently, Philip Green gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee. Here is a guy who has lost £570 million worth of pensions, 22,000 pensioners have been affected and 11,000 jobs have gone, yet he is still able to go off to the Greek islands on his £100 million yacht. That is not the kind of society that many us want.
Let us not forget that, despite this whole saga and despite all the horrendous stories that we are hearing, Concentrix will still walk away with millions of pounds as a result of the work that it has already done: I believe that the most recent figure is £27 million. This is a culture for which the Government must be responsible. Although only 0.8% of benefits are fraudulently claimed, the general public seem to think that one third of them are. The Government have not just a responsibility to look after people, but a responsibility for the language that they use—for the rhetoric—and also for the culture that they set.
I know that what I am saying will probably not convince Conservative Members. This may be an unconventional suggestion, but I want them to go and see a film called “I, Daniel Blake”, which will give them a cold and sobering view of the reality that so many people are experiencing. The film rightly makes it clear that, when we debate matters such as this, we are not talking about service users, claimants, or national insurance numbers on a Concentrix computer screen; we are talking about citizens—your citizens. We are talking about people here, and they deserve to be treated with a lot more dignity and respect than they have been.
In her first statement as Prime Minister, Theresa May made this promise in Downing Street:
“If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise… When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you.”
My last question to the Government is “When?” There are people with absolutely nothing. When will the Government prioritise the people who need them most? Lord knows, those people are losing both patience and hope.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). I welcome the debate, and the opportunity that it gives us to talk about the issues involved in the Concentrix contract, although it is worth noting that it is a month since our exchanges in the House about the Government’s intention to cancel it.
I believe that our goal should be to ensure that the people who pay for the benefits system through their taxes can be confident that fraud and error are kept to a minimum. However, that went badly wrong in this instance, and examples in my constituency reveal some of the places where it went wrong. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South gave us the interesting example of a “philandering shop” in Scotland. In my constituency, someone had supposedly moved in with a bloke living down the road. They rang Concentrix to try to deal with the matter and get some answers, but found that it was quicker to walk to my office with the phone—while still on hold—and sit there for about 20 minutes while we made them a cup of tea and enjoyed the “hold” music that they were listening to. To prove that this had happened, I took a photo of the phone as it went through the hour on hold in my office.
To be fair to Concentrix, it did only take four minutes to tell my constituent “Actually, you should ring HMRC”, but that was the only part of the customer service that was particularly speedy. The only other remarkable thing is that, given the level of concern and the number of issues that have been raised by Members and others, Concentrix was itself surprised to be told that the contract would not be renewed.
Kevin Foster
The focus should be on what went wrong, waiting to see what the National Audit Office comes up with—I shall say more about that shortly—observing the reaction to that and dealing with the issues, rather than getting into a debate about whether the gesture of an apology should be made. That said, I am pleased that the Government are not seeking to nit-pick the Opposition motion, that we are not going to divide the House, and that, effectively, we will support the motion. That, I think, speaks for itself.
In the light of the problems that had been raised with me, I welcomed the Government’s action in making it very clear that the contract would not be renewed. It is over a month since the last new case was sent to Concentrix. I am also pleased that HMRC is moving in to resolve many of the issues.
Kevin Foster
Will the hon. Lady give it a moment? I shall make some more progress, for now.
I said that HMRC was moving in. It should be noted that that organisation has had its own customer service issues in the past. In fact, in the next half hour my fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee will be discussing and examining its customer service. There have been some welcome improvements recently, but many Members who are present today will have had their own experiences of sitting and waiting to get through to the “hotline”.
Sammy Wilson
It is not surprising that when HMRC was challenged to specify the number of cases it had dealt with that had involved errors and how long it had taken it to respond to those errors, it could not give the figures. We cannot even make a comparison between HMRC’s performance and that of Concentrix.
Kevin Foster
This afternoon we received a fairly detailed report produced by the National Audit Office on HMRC’s annual report, which is being discussed by the Public Accounts Committee and which goes into some depth about HMRC’s performance and customer service standards. It can be read in comparison with what we have heard about Concentrix. The PAC is also discussing the tax gap, and the need to ensure that HMRC is performing as we would expect it to in ensuring that the taxes for which we legislate in the House are paid by those who are required to pay them. I genuinely welcome the fact that the National Audit Office will be investigating this matter, and, in that context, I think that some of the comments that have been made today may have been slightly premature.
I was going to intervene on the shadow Minister when she was commenting on our having an independent and fearless inquiry commissioned by the Government. I was struggling to think how more independent and fearless an inquiry could be than a report by the NAO, which is an arm of this Parliament, not of Government. It produces its reports independently. Yes, it will liaise with Treasury officials to ensure that facts are agreed when coming to its conclusions, but ultimately the Comptroller and Auditor General and his team answer to this House via the PAC. It has never held back from making comments, no matter how difficult and challenging for Government Departments, where required. The shadow Minister might wish to intervene and tell us how she felt that another inquiry would be different from that, but I think the right way forward is to get the NAO to look at this and bring a report that can be scrutinised fully and in depth in this House from a team of subject experts who understand how HMRC, the DWP and the benefits system work, and who owe a duty to Parliament, not to the Government. I am sure the depth of information they bring forward will inform future debates on this subject.
Chris Law
Is it not clear, then, that the approach over past years of reducing HMRC staff numbers must stop, and stop today? The current Government programme to reduce staff numbers from 55,000 to 35,000 is short-sighted, and from the evidence we have heard today it is clearly time to reverse that.
Kevin Foster
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the HMRC report being discussed this afternoon by the PAC; it might be worth his attending the session if he gets the chance. It is worth noting that with new leadership, which has been needed for some time, HMRC is starting to turn around its customer service, by moving more staff into dealing with post, for example. There is some evidence that the customer service is improving, therefore, which is welcome, although I know that some of these assertions will be robustly tested by a number of Members, including the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague and PAC member the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell).
It is vital that the investigation is full and that we look at what comes out of it. I welcome the Minister’s saying that there is an ongoing negotiation about concluding the contract early. We cannot go into the details of that today for obvious reasons, but I hope the work being done to bring this whole sorry tale to an end will be shared with the NAO as part of its inquiry.
One of the conclusions to be drawn is that it is clear that people have been caused pain and suffering that they should not have been caused. People have been subjected to allegations that were flagrantly untrue: the “philandering shop”; the person living down the road; someone who has been dead for some years. We should think about the way the contractor went about things—sending letters with the contractor’s logo that looked very similar to official Government or HMRC letters. We might have debates about whether in future the symbol of the Crown and HMRC should be used on a letter sent by a contractor.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Many of the constituents who came to me did not appear to have received a letter at all. A letter with some strange logo on it might not register as being what it is about and therefore might get overlooked.
Kevin Foster
I understand that point, but the evidence from my constituency case load is that it cut both ways. Some people saw a logo that looked like it was from HMRC and wondered what the letter was about. This matter might require further inquiry, and we should consider the information that the NAO will bring forward. The NAO does not just look at the sums. It is not just going to work out how many people got paid for what. It will also go into the detail around the customer service, and certainly in previous reports it has been extremely thorough when doing so.
I welcome the overall tone of the Minister’s response to this motion, and I welcome the fact that the Government took clear and decisive action to bring this contract to an end and are continuing to do that and to prevent more people from having to experience the issues many Members have highlighted today. I hope the monitoring will go on because, as we have seen with past issues to do with HMRC, an in-house solution is not necessarily a magic bullet to achieving amazing customer service. We have only to look at past debates on HMRC’s performance to see that. I welcome some of the tone of today’s debate, but it is now absolutely clear that we need to resolve the outstanding cases, let the NAO do its work and then form our conclusions based on the evidence it brings to us.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). It is very useful to have the Minister’s detailed and constructive responses on the operation of the contract, but I want to open my remarks by drawing attention to the policy issues that underlie the difficulty we have got into.
For many years we had a social security system designed and operated in a way that served to target, judge and stigmatise single parents in particular. I thought we had stopped doing that, but certainly as far as the experiences of my own constituents are concerned that group of claimants has been particularly affected by the way this contract has been designed and operated.
Of course, single parents will in most cases, although not always, be women—women who take responsibility for raising their children alone. There is a real question for Ministers to answer about the policy design that led to that group of women being so damaged and targeted by the operation of the contract. When I raised this point with the Minister earlier, she did not really address it, but I hope the NAO report will look at it—not just at the way the contract operated, but at how it was designed and what behaviour it incentivised.
I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Torbay that nobody condones fraud in the benefit system—it undermines confidence in the system and denies access to the system for those entitled to benefit from it—but when the system starts to make assumptions about intimate relationships and living arrangements, which are intrinsically intrusive matters, it is incumbent on the Government and their agents to handle that with great sensitivity and care. It seems pretty clear from all we have heard about the operation of this contract that Concentrix did not bother to do that. Instead, perhaps steered by Ministers or perhaps because of the payment-by-results model—about which the Social Security Advisory Committee warned of dangers early on—Concentrix appears to have taken the flimsiest of evidence at face value to determine that people must be living with undisclosed partners. In many cases, such as those of some of my constituents, without any further meaningful inquiry their tax credits would then be stopped.
Sammy Wilson
While Members have rightly identified the incentivisation issue, does the hon. Lady accept that Concentrix acted on only a fifth of the 1.5 million cases sent to it by HMRC, and that in the mandatory review it reviewed 95% positively? That militates against the incentivisation argument. In addition, when cases went to appeal, fewer than 0.005% were overturned, which would indicate that Concentrix was well aware that it had to abide by certain rules in dealing with these cases.
Kate Green
Assuming that there might be fraud in a fifth of cases and looking into them is a very high proportion, because we know, and the Minister acknowledged, that fraud in the social security system is very low. I am not sure I completely accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, therefore. I have concerns—and the whole House has expressed concerns about this in this debate, as has the SSAC and the NAO—that a payment-by-results model has to be designed very carefully if perverse incentives are to be avoided. In this instance that was not achieved.
As a result, constituents of mine and of Members across the House were put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative—to prove that they did not live with somebody, often somebody they did not know, and sometimes someone who did not even exist. Cases that I have seen include: a woman being asked about an undisclosed partner who turned out to be a previous tenant of the property who had moved out nine years earlier; a constituent who was accused of living with a previous tenant’s son; a constituent who was told that her landlord was in fact her undisclosed partner; and, in perhaps the most bizarre case of all, a constituent who appeared to have been told that her mother, with whom she lived, was her undisclosed partner.
Evidence that was provided to Concentrix by my constituents was too often ignored. Sometimes Concentrix had given the wrong address for the evidence to be sent to, or, as the hon. Member for Torbay mentioned, the letters did not look very convincing. One constituent drew my attention to the fact that many of the words were misspelled and that the letters were full of errors. She drew the overall conclusion, when Concentrix got in touch with her, that she was in fact the victim of some sort of scam. Sometimes evidence could not be produced. In two cases that I have dealt with, constituents were asked to submit utility bills, even though they were living with their parents and the utility bills were not in their name. We have also heard that when constituents have tried to deal with Concentrix on the telephone to explain their circumstances, they repeatedly received poor customer service or were unable to get through.
I consider it troubling that, even when there was clear evidence of Concentrix being in error, my constituents were told that they would have to go through a formal process of mandatory reconsideration—an extra barrier—when in fact Concentrix should immediately have said, “We have made a mistake, we will get the situation put right.” The Minister has told us of the commitment to get tax credits into payment within four days of an investigation being concluded. Of course I understand that time needs to be taken to look into the circumstances of a claim, but we need an overall time limit for these investigations. We cannot leave constituents waiting for weeks and weeks without these matters being resolved.
The consequences for all our constituents have been extremely harsh. Housing benefits have been stopped. In one case, I had to intervene to prevent a constituent from being threatened with eviction. Debt has been mounting. We have heard about women being forced to go to food banks for the first time. One mother in my constituency who was unable to pay her nursery fees was told to remove her child from the nursery. In another case, children have had to be sent away to live with relatives because the mother was no longer able to feed them or to heat their home.
Another policy point to which I draw the Minister’s attention relates to how especially damaging this contract has been in terms of its impact on children. The Government really have to face up to the fact that policies and their execution must be underpinned by an obligation to prioritise the wellbeing of children. In this contract, that clearly did not happen. It is iniquitous that the brunt of this chaos should have been borne by women and children. An equality impact assessment of the policy and its execution ought to have addressed that fact, but the Minister did not mention that this afternoon, and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby) did not mention it in the Westminster Hall debate last week either. I really hope that, in summing up the debate this afternoon, the Minister will tell us what equality impact assessment was carried out, and what adjustments were made to the policy as a result.
This has been a disgraceful catalogue of error and mistreatment. I am pleased that the contract has been terminated, and I am very pleased that the National Audit Office is to carry out a full review of what went wrong. I echo the questions asked by colleagues around the House. What compensation is going to be paid to our constituents who have borne the brunt of the erroneous management of the contract? What penalties will be imposed on Concentrix? What has been the overall cost to the taxpayer of the mismanagement of the contract, including the cost of the spike in appeals?
I echo the concern that it is at best philosophically inappropriate for intrusive inquiries into people’s personal circumstances to be carried out for commercial gain and rewarded by results. I ask the Minister to review whether it is appropriate to put someone through the formal mandatory reconsideration process when a simple error has been made by the contracting company and when dealing with the error there and then would have been a fairer and more effective way to proceed.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her fundamental thrust is to look at what lessons can be learned overall. Will she undertake to return to the House to report on those lessons and tell us how she intends to apply the learning that has been gained?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Today’s debate is primarily about the HMRC contractor, Concentrix, the delivery of its contract, its customer service and the impact of its work on those receiving tax credits who were wrongly suspected of fraud or error. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made some valid points about her constituents who have been affected, and other hon. Members have spoken equally movingly about some of theirs. The debate is about more than that, however. It is about the relative value, efficiency and service of third-party contracts as against the direct delivery of services by the Government or by Government agencies. It is also about how the Government—in this case, HMRC—reacted to the unexpected crisis when mandatory reconsideration appeals rose by 95% in August while the “success” in handling calls dropped off a cliff. It is about how quickly contingency plans were put in place, and what those plans were. It is also about whether the structure of the incentives and the contractor’s commission were appropriate for this type of public service delivery.
It is too early to offer definitive answers today, while the internal investigation is still going on. However, the inquiry by our Work and Pensions Committee and the measured comments from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today offer some clues. To this, I add my own experience as an MP dealing with constituents who have been affected, and the observations that we made in the Select Committee.
The first point has to be that the goal of reducing HMRC’s estimates of fraud and error was the right goal for the Government to have. The 2014-15 estimates, which are the most recent ones, suggest a net £1.2 billion of fraud and error on tax credits, potentially involving 500,000 people. The Government cannot spend billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on welfare without ensuring that it is spent properly, just as we expect the Department for International Development to ensure that its accounts are correct and its money is spent in the right way. We also expect the European Union to account correctly for the money it receives from its taxpayers, including our own.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) is absolutely right to say that rich people, and every company, should pay the right amount of tax. I would add that this is not a case of either/or. It is a case of both. The Government were absolutely right to increase HMRC’s resources for collecting the right amount of tax from those who have tax to pay and to ensure that the right amounts of welfare benefits are received by the right people. It is worth noting that the £270 million recovered through this programme will make a decent contribution to reducing fraud and we must ensure that it is made available to the people who need it most.
Secondly, there has been a cost during this process to our hard-working, not-well-off constituents. In each of the dozen or so cases that I or my office staff have replied to, there has been a degree of hardship and, in some cases, considerable hardship. HMRC’s response to such cases is therefore important. My sense, from our Select Committee inquiry, is that HMRC’s chief executive, Jon Thompson, is looking at how quickly HMRC has responded. It is true, however, that the moment HMRC took a grip, beefed up resources and put extra staff on to the MPs’ hotline, my office—and, I suspect, those of other MPs—was able to resolve these tax credits cases very fast. I am unsure whether all the cases were resolved within 48 hours, but all were done within three or four days, and some within a few hours. Indeed, the Work and Pensions Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), said that he could not
“recall an experience where, thank goodness, the Executive, whether Government or delegated, has acted so quickly when they have seen a crisis.”
That should be on the record. It is credit to how HMRC responded. In the evidence we took from affected people, there was one particularly gracious “thank you” to HMRC for resolving one individual’s crisis so quickly.
My third point relates to contracts to third parties and the incentive system within them. The National Audit Office recognised this as a complex area, and the jury is still out on how successful the system has been over the past few years. HMRC’s chief executive responded to my question on that with an interesting remark about
“the balance of incentives on third parties in these kinds of contracts”
which
“is essentially based on commission earned.”
He asked:
“Is that the right kind of incentive mechanism for this kind of public service delivery?”
It is a valid question, and other Members have mentioned it. The HMRC chief executive reflected on it. I also have no doubt that the NAO investigation will discuss whether bringing this sort of contract in-house would ensure better quality control, more experience of handling citizens who are on tax credits, and possibly even a reduced cost. From the evidence to the Committee, it broadly looked like Concentrix will have been paid about £27 million by the time its contract comes to an end on £270 million of fraud or error identified, implying a 10% commission. That feels high, but the figures are probably hypothetical at this stage and will need to be confirmed in due course by the investigation.
In all of this, the Government, HMRC and Concentrix have been absolutely right to start with an apology to those who have suffered. When mistakes are made, it is important that they are recognised immediately. HMRC and Concentrix started the Select Committee sessions by making their apologies—the Minister has added hers on more than one occasion—and that was important. There is the issue of compensation for those most affected, and the fact that, as the amendment states, the Government should “ensure that those people”—people on tax credits—
“are treated by HMRC in future with dignity and respect.”
That should happen all the time for everyone with whom the Government deal, particularly where monopolies such as HMRC exist. We all have a duty to treat our constituents with dignity and respect. That is what happens most of the time. My experience is that HMRC is helpful on every occasion with constituent issues.
In conclusion, today’s debate has been measured and the tone has been reflective and thoughtful across the House. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned. It is correct that tax collection is done, that welfare benefits are spent in the right way on the right people, that mistakes are responded to rapidly and that agencies such as HMRC should hold contingency plans. Poor service should be treated and amended as quickly as possible. I therefore welcome this opportunity to discuss some preliminary thoughts on the lessons that can be learned and I look forward to the NAO report in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Although the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke for precisely eight minutes, the previous speakers did not, so I must now impose a formal time limit of seven minutes.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Government have made it clear that the burden of austerity must be borne primarily by the most disadvantaged in our society. They made that clear through their repeated assaults on the welfare state, in their victimisation of the disabled, in their system of sanctions and in their attacks on benefits for our young people. They have made it clear that tax credits cost too much and are a drain on the public purse. They made it clear in their handling of the Concentrix contract that the suffering and hardship caused by this fiasco is not their concern. The Government did not seem to care about the indiscriminate targeting of single parents, the “fishing” letters, working parents being forced to give up their jobs, or families being forced out on to the streets as they lost their homes.
Strangely, none of those reasons was cited as a contributing factor to the withdrawal of the Concentrix contract. The statement given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explicitly said:
“Despite the best efforts of the staff manning the phones, Concentrix, with the high volume of calls in recent weeks, has not been providing the high levels of customer service that the public expect and which are required in its contract. HMRC has therefore given notice that this contract will not be renewed beyond its end date in May 2017.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 904.]
It seems that it was all about call handling. I am sure that I am not alone in having a list of constituents who are seriously out of pocket from waiting to speak to someone at Concentrix, but providing call waiting times as the main reason to ditch the contract is ludicrous.
This Government devised the model to target low-income families indiscriminately. The contract awarded to Concentrix was based on payment by results, creating a clear conflict of interest and encouraging bad practice. It was this Government, through HMRC, that supplied Concentrix with 1.5 million claimant records flagged as high risk—claimants like my constituent, Lauren. Lauren is the mother of two and a prime example of someone whom the system has failed, finding herself at the centre of a perfect storm. She suffers from anxiety and panic attacks and, despite having a line from her doctor, lost her job for being off ill. Her employer did not pay her statutory sick pay, and she was told that she would have to wait at least two weeks for employment support allowance. In a bizarre twist of fate, she found that both her working tax credits and her child tax credits had been stopped.
When Lauren first came to my office, she had no food and no money for gas or electricity. She had called Concentrix 48 times that day and had run out of credit on her phone. Rather than the state providing Lauren and her children with a safety net in their time of need, Concentrix had left them near destitute. Why? What was the key factor in determining that Lauren was one of the 1.5 million high-risk claimants? Someone had glanced at her file and decided that she could not possibly be working 16 hours a week and be paid so little. They had calculated her yearly income and then divided it, coming to the conclusion that she must have been working 15 hours a week, ignoring the fact that Lauren had spent a month out of work the year before—a change in circumstances of which she had diligently notified HMRC. A cursory glance was all it took to turn this young mother’s life upside down at a time when she was at her most vulnerable. My staff and I have been deeply affected by the number of cases in recent weeks in which people have been plunged into utter misery. We have felt sheer frustration at not being able to get a quick resolution. I doubt whether a single person on the Government Benches has ever experienced going without food.
We can stand here all day and trade stories like Lauren’s, and the Government can dish out platitudes and pat themselves on the back for acting so swiftly and decisively on the Concentrix contract, but that cannot detract from the fact that families have been driven further into debt and poverty by Concentrix’s actions. Families have been forced to beg for food by the actions of HMRC. Families are being forced to choose between heating and eating by this Government’s policies. It is time for the Government to accept their role in this fiasco and to step up and take some responsibility for the carnage they are causing in people’s lives. They must apologise for the hardship and suffering faced by people such as Lauren. They must look again at the ongoing policy of downsizing HMRC, leaving staff overworked and demoralised. They must introduce a freephone number for claimants and take on the costs of seeking mandatory reconsiderations. They must legislate to amend the compliance regime in respect of annual declarations and high risk renewals.
Earlier this month, leading figures from this Government stood up at the Conservative party conference right in front of a background that read:
“A country that works for everyone”.
Let us see them match their policy to that sentiment and step back from this destructive and failing drive to impose austerity on the many while allowing riches for the few. Those on the Government Benches should take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book and start treating people with fairness, dignity and respect.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for the state of my voice, but it is important that I speak in this debate on behalf of the many constituents who have contacted me about, and who are suffering as a result of, this scandalous Concentrix shambles. I commend the Opposition Front-Bench team for calling the debate, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for her forensic analysis of what the Government could have got right when enforcing this contract and the problems that have led us to this point. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who has done so much work to drive the debate forward. I also thank the staff in my office. We all have fantastic constituency staff who do so much to assist our constituents, and I particularly want to thank Shira, Lily and Ruba for the work they have done in dealing with a number of distressing cases involving individuals who have been in deep hardship and have been greatly upset. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said, the people affected have often been single mothers. I also thank Citizens Advice and other local advice charities, which have been faced with a deluge of these cases.
I wish to reflect on a few of these cases. In one, a single mother had a long-standing claim suspended after Concentrix said that she was living with another named woman in her rented property. It was suggested that a third woman was also living at the property, but both were actually previous tenants of the home, one from as far back as 2010. The information had come from the electoral register, even though my constituent had lived in the property only since 2014. The claim was eventually reinstated. Another case involved a single mother and homeowner who had her claim suspended after Concentrix said that she was living with “a couple”. She is the sole owner of the property and had provided evidence to demonstrate that. Again, the claim was eventually reinstated.
The citizens advice bureau referred the case of another single mother to us. Her award was stopped pending an investigation. She was left with no income and we had to refer her to food banks, which is a deeply distressing experience for anyone. Her son is diabetic and requires a specialist diet, so that contributed to her stress and unhappiness. Again, that claim was eventually reinstated. A further case involved a single mother in work who had both her tax credit claims stopped after she was told by Concentrix that her half-brother, who had once sent post to the property, was in fact her partner. That case has not been resolved and she has been without money since August. I have two to four such cases, and I question some of the assurances that we have heard about how long it takes to resolve these cases. I have written to the Minister about a number of cases and we are contacting the helplines. I hope that she will assure us that she will fast-track some of these deeply distressing cases.
Jane Ellison
I am happy to give that assurance. Once again, I urge Members with particularly long-running and difficult cases to get in touch, and I will make sure that HMRC prioritises them.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for those comments, which will provide some reassurance. We will certainly follow up cases with her office.
All the cases have common themes, one of which is their impact on single mothers and families with complex needs, often including children with health problems. These people are suddenly being left without food and money. Individuals with mental health issues are facing additional stress and anxiety. People have contacted me in desperation, by every possible means. Often they had not realised that their MP was the person to go to, but I have been contacted on Twitter and on Facebook, and by email and by phone. These people have been through the agony and desperation of not being able to get through on the helplines and, in some cases, they have found that the phone has been put down on them, as I outlined earlier. Obviously that is completely unacceptable, and I am glad that the Minister recognises that.
We need to deal with the problem of the final responses that people receive. Those responses often do not explain why the claims were stopped or reinstated, leaving constituents unsure about whether the same thing will happen again, and they do not give an apology. I appreciate what the Minister has said today, but we need to apologise directly to the individuals and families who have been affected. I have talked about the long delays, but an inability to speak to someone directly about the situation creates frustration and distress. We have heard examples of people receiving contradictory and confusing correspondence, and that adds to the pressure and concern that they experience. We have had to refer many constituents to food banks, which causes deep distress to anybody who has to go through it. These people, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in that terrible situation at the end of these erroneous investigations.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in many cases this has happened simply because, as the Minister indicated, Concentrix was following the processes, guidance and requirements of HMRC? The worrying thing is that if the situation does not change, it will not matter whether we change the contract between Concentrix and HMRC, as the same things will happen again.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that shows why we need a full independent investigation into what has gone wrong. Such a situation applies not just to Concentrix. We can look at what has happened with Capita, with contracts such as that for Clearsprings asylum accommodation, and with Atos. There is a common theme across Government contracts whereby things are contracted out but then not properly monitored and followed up. The people who suffer in the end are some of the most vulnerable and the poorest. A common thread is that some of our constituents in the most difficult situations are affected, so the Government need to take a wholesale look at whether they should even be contracting out these sorts of services. When they should be, and there is a legitimate reason for doing so, the Government need to monitor and follow up what is going on, down to the level of the experience that individuals face. That is the real thing that matters in all this. These people often have extremely complex lives and face many pressures.
Dr Philippa Whitford
The hon. Gentleman mentions the problems with Atos and now we have Maximus. I know of a case of someone who has been waiting for a work capability assessment for almost six months. Can we not foresee that we will have a similar debate in another half year’s time?
Stephen Doughty
I would not be surprised if we were to have that debate. I am frustrated by the Clearsprings case. People can see companies making a huge profit out of these contracts, and individuals making hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of pounds, as a result of providing the most shoddy and inappropriate services. People suffer, but these companies often get away without so much as a slap on the wrist, and often with payments at the end. When people look at this, and particularly at HMRC, they say, “We are being chased down for these relatively small sums, completely erroneously, through these fishing expeditions, but then we see sweetheart deals with major corporations over their non-payment of tax.” This is not just about tax credits. Small businesses in my constituency come to me with complex VAT cases and say, “It is one rule for those at the top and another for us.” They are often put into severe hardship and face deep complications as they try to resolve these cases. By the time people arrive at the doors of Members of Parliament, they are often in severe financial difficulties, be that as an individual or as a business.
I want to be absolutely assured that the Minister will not just hold a full investigation into this case and resolve the issues for individuals in my constituency and others that we have heard about today, but will raise in government the wider issue of the contracting out of such services and how they are monitored because, in the end, it is the people of this country who suffer. The situation is not acceptable. This has been an absolute disgrace and it has to stop.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. In common with other hon. Members, I have been appalled by the complaints that my office has received about Concentrix from worried constituents who have faced extreme hardship following its actions. I understand that a provider may want to conduct checks to ensure that money is provided to the right people, but stopping money to parents in this way while checks are carried out is wholly unacceptable. As many Members have said, Concentrix’s action has caused extreme hardship to many of my constituents and people across the country. People invariably use this income to provide food and essentials for their children, and it is totally unacceptable for them to be without that money for a period of time. As we have heard, the situation has resulted in many families relying on food banks—that has certainly been the case in my constituency—and in some cases people have been going without. This is utterly shameful.
It is not as though Concentrix has been quick about some of its checks; the majority of people seem to have had money withheld for two months or longer. How can people, many of whom are already on a low income, be expected to cope for long periods of time? One of the many cases my office staff have dealt with relates to a constituent who had her tax credits stopped because it was believed that she had an undeclared partner—we have heard similar stories this afternoon. Following much stress, and my constituent having to provide extensive evidence that she did not have an undeclared partner, it transpired that the basis of the action by Concentrix was out-of-date records of a previous tenant at the address. In a similar case, a constituent had her tax credits stopped because Concentrix required evidence that the tenant lived alone, as a random check on the electoral register had shown a previous tenant. It transpired that that previous tenant was now in prison. In yet another case, a constituent wrote to Concentrix to confirm and provide evidence that she was a single parent, yet it still took two months to investigate and reinstate the claim.
I could highlight a good many more cases, but I accept that a number of Members wish to contribute to the debate and that many of these cases are similar. The common factor is the lack of understanding or compassion on the part of the contractor engaged by HMRC. We know that many payments were stopped but that the decision was successfully overturned in around 90% to 95% of cases that went to appeal. Although Concentrix must bear its share of responsibility for the hardship that people have faced in recent months, HMRC, too, has to bear its share for allowing the situation to become such a mess. Does the Minister accept responsibility for the lack of scrutiny, and what lessons is HMRC learning from this debacle?
Concentrix’s failures have laid bare policy failures by the Government, because it certainly appears that, in this whole episode, there has been a deliberate attempt to target single parents. Again, if HMRC had been monitoring the contract, the situation might not have accelerated to the extent that we have seen. Lessons must be learned. Actions by Concentrix have caused extreme hardship and have completely lacked in compassion. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury outlined, many of these cases have involved real suffering. People in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and across the country deserve answers, and I look forward to hearing them from the Minister today. I thank the Minister for supporting the motion and for not seeking to divide the House this afternoon.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Like other Members, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for introducing the debate and setting out her points so cogently, particularly in relation to some of the details of the contract itself, and the opportunities and responsibilities that that contract gave to HMRC to better deal with the problems that did emerge. Both HMRC and the then Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), must have been aware of those problems, given the number of representations and complaints that were coming through from Members, and the range of questions that were being asked. None of those questions was properly dealt with, and all the complaints were treated fairly dismissively along the lines of young Mr Grace—“You’ve all done very well!” There seemed to be no problem whatever as far as that Minister was concerned. I am glad that, today, the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury is indicating that she will take a more personal interest in how these details are handled in future.
The motion could have been wider. It could have put into its sights the role and rationale of HMRC itself, as well as the responsibilities of Ministers. This debacle happened in the context of a progressive rundown in the capacity and character of HMRC, which then led to it outsourcing bits of work. It is the nature of that work and outsourcing that really raises questions about the mentality in HMRC.
In a written answer yesterday, the Minister confirmed this to me:
“during the course of the contract, HMRC delegated a total caseload of 2,209,500 cases for high risk renewal checks by Concentrix.”
It was HMRC itself that decided that more than 2 million cases could be appraised as high-risk renewals. When Concentrix received those cases, 1,635,676 of them were not the subject of further investigation for fraud or error, which means that it screened out 74% of the caseload that had been identified by HMRC. I ask Members to think about what we would have been dealing with if there had not been that screening. We would have had multiple versions of this problem—the adversity endured by our constituents; and the absurdity in the grievous conjecture that was being used against people.
The high-risk cases referred to Concentrix were placed in three main risk categories, and those three categories were decided by, and designed by, HMRC, not by Concentrix. The first was undeclared partner, which accounted for 1,398,908 cases. The second was work and hours, which accounted for 564,983, and the third was childcare, which amounted for 245,609 cases. Now that this work is returning to HMRC, I hope that Ministers will ensure that there is a change of culture there so that there is no longer such hostility and suspicion towards HMRC’s customers.
Sammy Wilson
The incentive for Concentrix was that it got paid only for those cases in which, eventually, it could be shown that there was genuine error or fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if that incentive does not rest with HMRC, the situation could become even worse, because HMRC will have no incentive to screen out any of those cases?
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about future performance. Many of us have had our own difficulties when dealing with HMRC about tax credits. Certainly in my constituency, I have had some particular issues in relation to the plight of cross-border workers, whose position is constantly mishandled by HMRC. At times, it seems that there is no end in sight to the difficulties.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question, I note that payment by results is the outcome after the mandatory reconsideration stage, so some of the arguments about the degree of incentivisation have to be measured against that point. Let us remember that what drove the cut-off of tax credits for most people was the application of the compliance requirement of 30 days. Therefore, officials using the HMRC system and the HMRC standard that was contracted to Concentrix sent letters to people saying, “Unless you return information within 30 days, your benefit will be stopped.” Most of the stops were made because information was supposedly not received within 30 days. That is why many cases were overturned on mandatory reconsideration, because by that stage the information had been provided.
That raises questions for us as legislators in the House. Where does the 30-day rule come from? It was introduced in the Tax Credits Act 2002. We have here a gross misapplication by HMRC of the terms of that Act, especially in terms of the high-risk renewal regime, the high-risk change of circumstances regime and the annual declaration. The Minister did not address the fact that thousands of people had their tax credits stopped this summer by HMRC directly. That had nothing to do with Concentrix. HMRC was terminating benefits because people had not returned their annual declaration on time. Compliance grounds were being used directly against people by HMRC. When those people were cut off in August—45,000 of them in the week beginning 8 August—they naturally assumed that that cut-off was being implemented by Concentrix. They were ringing Concentrix and we as MPs were ringing Concentrix, but it was actually HMRC that had implemented the cut-off, although some of those cases might have previously been referred to Concentrix. We had the daft anomaly of HMRC handing work to Concentrix, saying “Investigate these people as high-risk renewal claims,” while, at the same time, it decided to go against those same people on compliance grounds for annual declarations. It is no wonder that confusion, hardship and hurt was caused, and there are fundamental questions for HMRC as well.
I hope that the Minister will look at this again. She says that lessons will be learned. I hope that this will not be like Brexit means Brexit; “lessons will be learned” should mean that lessons will be learned. We hope that those lessons will be learned within HMRC itself, and that they will include looking at whether there has been particular misuse of provisions of the 2002 Act.
Regulation 32 of the Tax Credits (Claims and Notifications) Regulations 2002 states that the period of notice given for a person to submit information or evidence
“shall not be less than 30 days after the date of the notice.”
The period does not have to be 30 days—that is the minimum—but who decided that it should be 30 days? HMRC took that decision, and it passed that on to Concentrix, saying that that statute set out how the system works and how it had to proceed.
Did Ministers sign off on the 30-day period? Were they notified that those were the terms that HMRC was operating? Were they notified that those were the terms that Concentrix was operating? If we know that the 30-day cut-off was responsible—the Minister has said this herself—will it be reviewed? There is the question of whether we, as Parliament, need to review that, because some of these flaws are sourced in the legislation itself and its over-rigorous application by HMRC.
Many people have voiced their criticisms of Concentrix and its performance, and have spoken about their difficulties getting through to it. By means of this debate, we need to get through to HMRC, which is where the core responsibility lies. A culture change is needed there, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to keep an eye on that in the future.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I have spoken a number of times in Parliament on this subject, and every time I speak I listen to the many stories from across the Chamber and elsewhere about individual cases. My constituency is no different in the way that individuals have been affected by Concentrix, which is contracted by HMRC on behalf of this Tory Government As I said in my early-day motion 396, HMRC’s contract with Concentrix is driving families into immediate poverty.
Let me offer the House a few examples. One of my constituents who I spoke with had only part of her address held on the Concentrix system. When background checks were run on the address, a number of people were named as living at the same property. As a result of a needless investigation by Concentrix, this person struggled to feed and clothe her children for over a month. Another lone parent was judged to have made a false claim as a single parent. Following my complaint, it was discovered that an incorrect address had instigated the investigation and, in fact, HMRC owed this constituent a considerable sum of money. Sadly, this was not uncovered before the constituent had to give up her home due to financial hardship. Such cases reinforce the points that have been made in the debate.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another aspect of this shambles is the at times near-complete breakdown in communication between Concentrix and HMRC, as exemplified by my constituent Dionne Walker, a mother of three, who supplied Concentrix with every single piece of information it asked for, only to find out subsequently that Concentrix had not passed it on to HMRC? Her tax credit application was cancelled, leaving her having to seek crisis loans and go to food banks to feed her three children for the rest of the week. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unacceptable, and that people such as Dionne Walker and countless thousands of others are owed an apology by this Government?
Chris Law
Indeed. I hope to hear such an apology from the Minister this afternoon. My hon. Friend’s example makes the point that I was about to raise—make no mistake, many of these people are single parents, who are already struggling to make ends meet and are the target of this Government.
Evidence has now emerged that Concentrix, on behalf of this Government, sent out, over a two-year period, almost a million letters asking for information about people’s circumstances, in what can only be described as a fishing expedition to detect potentially irregular tax returns. It is up to the constituent to prove that they are innocent before tax credits are reinstated. In other words, they are treated as guilty until proven innocent. It does not end there. Reports suggest that staff at Concentrix are regularly dealing with suicidal callers who threaten to kill themselves. How desperate does the situation have to get before urgent action is taken and the contract is ended?
The social and health impacts of the Concentrix contract, on both members of the public and employees, are horrific. That has been reinforced in the recent report of the Work and Pensions Committee, which found evidence of humiliation of claimants and appalling customer service, and appeal success rates of between 73% and 95%, described as
“a terrible indictment of the original decision-making process”.
Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time that Government outsourcing has failed to meet expectations. I made the point earlier that these payment-by-results contracts go back to 2003, when Labour introduced them for NHS England. I am sure everyone in this Chamber remembers Atos, whose shambolic and cruel tests were designed to strip away benefits from sick and disabled people.
Under the contract that this Government have with Concentrix, Concentrix is paid on a payment-by-results basis—in short, commission. The more tax credit payments Concentrix puts a stop to, the more money it pockets. Our constituents, who are very often in low-paid, part-time work, find themselves at the rough end of a contract that many of us would never sign up to in jobs in our everyday lives. How different the decisions made by this Government would be if Government Members were put on payment-by-results contracts.
It is hard to believe that this Government continue to cut HMRC jobs in Dundee and right across Scotland, while at the same time privatising and outsourcing contracts. HMRC departments, which are already understaffed, have been left to pick up the pieces and have spent months restoring backlogs of claims and errors. It is time to end this madness.
Although Concentrix certainly has questions to answer, I believe that the disastrous implementation of the Concentrix contract by the Tory Government has implications that go far beyond that specific company. This Government have created a system designed to place the burden of their failing austerity agenda firmly on the shoulders of those most disadvantaged in our society. The contract with Concentrix has not been renewed, which is a step in the right direction, and it looks as though it will shortly be brought to a close, which is good news. However, the Government need to go further.
Alongside the ongoing investigation of the Concentrix contract by the Work and Pensions Committee, an inquiry has been initiated by the National Audit Office. I welcome these developments, albeit at a time when too many of my constituents have already suffered. I urge the Government to set up a public inquiry to examine the conditions under which Government Departments award public contracts to private sector providers. Such an inquiry would offer reassurance to members of the public who are weary of hearing disaster stories from the NHS, HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. Among the aspects that I believe deserve particular attention are how to devise contracts that ensure value for money and efficiency without allowing companies to profit by manipulating results and ignoring the well-being of people in our society; a clear statement of ethical principles to emphasise justice for individual citizens and parliamentary accountability; and representation of consumer and service user groups in decision making at all stages of formulating, awarding and monitoring contracts.
In the end, everyone in this House must remember that we are privileged to be here and serve the public. In that spirit, I urge this Government to re-examine all their contracts with private companies and ensure that dignity and respect, rather than profit and price, are at the heart of procurement.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I want to set out the experience of some of my constituents with Concentrix and their tax credits. Having listened to colleagues around the House and from around the UK, I know that it is a familiar story.
Normally, my constituents have waited five to seven weeks before they come along and see me to try to get a problem sorted. We can then get it sorted, although I do still have eight Concentrix cases that have not been resolved. The Minister said that she was resolving them all very quickly, but that is not the case. It is four or five weeks since we took up many of these cases and they have not yet been resolved, so there are outstanding cases.
We saw a rapid increase in cases from August onwards. Before that we had a drip, drip, drip of cases that went wrong, but from August something happened—something at HMRC or something at Concentrix. It would be interesting to know what it was and who initiated it, because suddenly there was an influx of cases, all wrongly decided and all coming in in a rush. The contract has been running since 2014, so what happened in August? We want to press the Minister to tell us what caused that sudden spike in cases.
All my constituents who have come to see me are single mums with children. They have mainly been accused of having an undisclosed partner. Some have been told that they did not have childcare costs that they had claimed. Occasionally they have been told that they do not have children, when they do. Most had simply had money stopped, without receiving any prior notification. They found out that there was a problem because there was no money in the bank. When they tried to get through on the telephone they could not do so, and then they received a letter that said, “You have an undisclosed partner”, but it did not say who that undisclosed partner was supposed to be.
The letter said, “Prove that you don’t have an undisclosed partner. Send us evidence to show that you don’t.” However, without knowing who the undisclosed partner is supposed to be, how can anyone do that? Worse, when my constituents have discovered who that undisclosed partner is meant to be, it turns out to be a previous tenant of their home whom they have never met and who left years ago, or a family member, who they never imagined would be construed as an undisclosed partner because they were related. What duff information is being used to make the lives of these people a misery? I have said it is duff once and I will say it again. If Concentrix turned down 80% of the cases sent to it because it decided that there was not an issue, what kind of information was it looking at for those 80%, given the kind it was looking at for the cases it decided to act on? It beggars belief.
In all these cases, my constituents were told to prove that they did not have a partner, but no name was given—in all the cases that have been resolved so far, the determination has been reversed and claims have been put back into payment—and that seems to me to be a complete reversal of any proper burden of proof. You prove that you do not have an undisclosed partner, Madam Deputy Speaker—not at this moment, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is what these people are being told, and it is not fair. They are already in financial difficulty, which is why they can get tax credits. They are usually living on the financial margins, working part time and in low-paid work. I have constituents who have had to take their children out of childcare and are in danger of losing their job because they have been told that they do not have children.
It is taking far too long to resolve these issues. The worry and stress is particularly difficult when dealing with an unreachable and harsh bureaucracy. That is what makes this experience particularly Kafkaesque. There are secondary impacts that go beyond getting these claims right, including severe debt problems, rent arrears and threats of eviction. There are bank charges, damaged credit histories and massive mobile phone bills. It is all very well saying that these cases have been put right, but what about those ongoing impacts? What can the Minister say about putting those right?
I think that there are cases where people ought to receive compensation. It is distressing enough to have this done without the ongoing financial problems that result from it. What about control of the data that HMRC is passing on, or that it will look at itself in future? Why are those data so poor? How is it possible that previous tenants, including those who may no longer be alive, can be suggested as undisclosed partners? What kind of quality control is there for those data, because obviously it is not working?
It is wrong for the Government to incentivise maladministration in their contracts. That, in effect, is what has happened here. I think that my constituents who have suffered in these cases have been subjected to maladministration. If they are not properly compensated, I will suggest that they make a claim to the parliamentary ombudsman because of this maladministration. The Government could stop that happening by compensating them before they have to make any such claims.
The worst of it—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on this—is that this has been specifically targeted at a population largely made up of financially vulnerable single mums who are trying to do the right thing by going to work. They are excessively impacted upon by this kind of behaviour by bureaucracies that they cannot even begin to reach. I think that it is incumbent on the Government now to compensate and apologise to those people and ensure that the information they use in future is not so poor.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
We are extremely hopeful that this sorry state of affairs marks the beginning of the end of payment by results in our welfare system. It has no place there, it creates perverse outcomes, and it has ruined the lives of thousands of people. Our social security system should be there to support people in their time of need, not to allow unaccountable conglomerates to make easy money chasing the voiceless and the vulnerable. Now is the time to draw a line under the grotesque profit model in our welfare system, because that model has failed: it has failed the individuals it was set up to help; it has failed employees; and it has failed the taxpayer.
All of us have horrific stories of individuals who have fallen foul of Concentrix. In my constituent’s case, her tax credits were cancelled while she was in a coma. Rather than answering for these failures, which lie squarely at the Government’s door, Ministers have preferred to throw this hapless contractor under the bus. However, as one senior Concentrix employee wrote to me:
“Every single action we took was directly informed by HMRC and was compliant in full with their guidance… there will be no investigation because there are paper trails after paper trails showing that we have only ever followed client instructions on amending claims.”
I was pleased to hear today that that is no longer the case and that there will be an investigation, because from start to finish this has been a mess entirely of the Government’s own making, and one for which they have not yet answered.
The company that conducted the trial that preceded Concentrix, Transactis, incorrectly removed entire awards regardless of evidence provided to the contrary. Despite the alarm bells that should have been ringing loud and clear in their ears, Ministers decided to push on. It was the beginning of a pattern that is now all too familiar.
Ministers have still not answered for structuring a contract that put maximising revenue at its heart in attempting to assess error and fraud—not accuracy, not meeting quality service standards, and certainly not customer service, but making as much money as possible off the backs of the vulnerable. Ministers have not answered for the measures they included in the contract to maximise revenue. HMRC “profiled”—that is the Government’s own word—1.4 million vulnerable individuals and then unleashed Concentrix to carry out its dirty work.
We do not know—they will not tell me, despite repeated requests—what indicators the Government used to establish which groups to target. Given what we have heard today, it is clear who was in that demographic: single mothers with children. It is some measure of justice that it was women like that—thousands of them across the country—who brought this contract crashing down with their articulate, brilliant campaign.
That is not the only issue with the contract, because the process also turned the burden of proof on its head. HMRC was asking tax credit claimants to prove that their claim had not been made in error. They were asking people to prove a negative, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) explained so eloquently. The Tax Credits Act 2002 clearly states that HMRC can amend or terminate tax credit awards only if it has significant grounds for believing that they are erroneous. It does not allow them to shift the burden of proof on to the claimant to disprove that a tax credit award has been made erroneously. That led one young mother to say to me, in tears, that she felt that she was being “treated like a criminal” and that Concentrix was treating her as “guilty until proven innocent.” One mistake like that would have been unacceptable, but 11,000 people had to apply for mandatory reconsideration in the past year alone. That cannot simply be passed off as a mistake; it was the deliberate design of the contract itself.
HMRC employed a contractor with just 500 staff to target over 2 million people. That meant the company’s pressured, poorly trained and low-paid staff were being instructed to open dozens of highly sensitive cases every day, leaving the phone lines permanently engaged, as we have heard. Concentrix staff have told me that the call volumes were such that the company would have needed to triple its staff in order to answer the phones.
Astonishingly, despite the failure of the trial, despite the highly sensitive nature of the contract, and despite the sheer volume of individuals a completely untested private sector provider had been designated to pursue, we now know that the Government did not actually monitor the performance for the first year of the contract. HMRC had no idea how many performance failures the contractor was incurring. Once it started monitoring that, it soon found out: over 120 breaches in the space of just nine months; and 13 black performance failures. Ironically, HMRC is up for an award this year for analysis and use of evidence. I very much hope that this is not viewed as best practice across Whitehall.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the chaos she is outlining will end up costing the taxpayer a whole lot more than any money that was saved in the first place?
Louise Haigh
That is a major concern, not least because HMRC has now had to allocate hundreds more staff to deal with the backlog that Concentrix caused, because this was failure on a monumental scale from start to finish. It seems that Ministers did not pay the blindest bit of notice until the scandal reached the media, because we now know that HMRC was about to renew the contract before the scandal hit.
The Government have traded on welfare as a dirty word, and now they are seeing the despicable consequences of their political attacks: single parents and families who have done nothing wrong being ruthlessly pursued by an unaccountable US firm for profit. Could this contract have been drawn up had the Government not fuelled a contemptible narrative about those on low pay and those who rely on tax credits to get by?
We welcome the fact that the National Audit Office will be investigating the drawing-up of this contract. Can we be assured that that will include the management of the contract and the profiling assumptions underpinning it? Will the NAO release any impact assessment that must have accompanied the contract? Will the Minister assure us that any compensation awarded will not be counted towards tax credit awards?
Kevin Foster
Does the hon. Lady agree that the National Audit Office is independent and works for this Parliament, not for the Government? Therefore, the NAO would structure how it conducted its inquiry, not necessarily a Minister. That is the core of what we want: somebody independent who will get to the nub of this and present evidence to this Parliament, not necessarily the Government.
Louise Haigh
I completely agree, and it is vital that this is an independent review, because, as we have heard on both sides of the debate, these problems originate from the Government themselves. However, we need to know that this information will be published, and if the NAO does not do that, we would call on the Minister to publish it alongside this inquiry.
Above all else, if the Government’s rhetoric is worth a penny, they will surely pledge to call time on contracts such as this, which target innocent single parents and families, and encourage the private sector to profit from them. That has no place in our welfare system.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many Members on both sides of the House, I have been inundated by constituents since the official Opposition—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—exposed the disgrace of what Concentrix has been doing.
One concern for me is that this seems to be a deliberate attack specifically on women—often innocent single mothers—and that is completely unacceptable. One case that was brought to my attention in my constituency involved a single mother living in a property with four flats. She was told on three separate occasions that she was living with each of the other tenants. She was then told that she was living with another tenant in the next block. Unsurprisingly, my constituent found it rather difficult to prove that she was not living with these people, particularly when she did not know the other people living in the other flats. That is not uncommon when someone is living in supported housing and focusing on bringing up their children, which is what we would think would be the whole point of a tax credit, allowing these women to work.
The key thing to remember is that none of us who have been helping constituents impacted by this travesty has any idea how many others in our communities have been affected but have not reached out to us, as Members of Parliament. It is important to recognise that, in contrast to how the Government may view people in receipt of tax credits, the vast majority are hard working and proud, with many affected by Concentrix having suffered in silence.
Ultimately, there are two forces to blame for the scandal: Concentrix and the Government. The actions of Concentrix can be labelled only as atrocious, yet, last month, when it learned that it would no longer have the contract renewed, its response was that it came “as a significant shock”. We can only conclude, therefore, that it saw little wrong with what it was doing.
The Government are, however, ultimately to blame. We should, of course, hold Concentrix to account for what it has done, but we should recognise that the true fault lies with the Government. Concentrix acted in a way that, because of the Government contract, was based on a payment-by-results model. The Government agreed to a deal with Concentrix under which they would pay more and more depending on how many people’s tax credits were removed, so it is no wonder that Concentrix acted so inappropriately.
If the issue surrounding Concentrix was isolated, the Government might have been able to claim that this was an honest mistake. The reality is, though, that the horror stories we are hearing today are indicative of this Government. Along with the bedroom tax, ruthless benefit sanctions and a handful of other policies, the hiring of Concentrix is yet another action by this Government that has led to record numbers of people being reliant on food banks. In Pencoed, in my constituency, a food bank will be opened at the end of this month. Ultimately, the blame for there being such demand lies with the Government.
The Government have shown yet again that they treat people in receipt of social security as a resource they can harvest money from, with no concern for the consequences of their actions. They have shown that they are happy to see more and more people reliant on food banks if that will save them just a few thousand pounds.
Although we may have a new Prime Minister, the attitude towards people in receipt of social security remains the same. As yet another food bank opens in my constituency, and yet another scandal passes, I hope the Government will learn from their mistakes, as I hoped they would learn from their previous errors time and time again. I am afraid to say, though, that I do not hold out much hope.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
This has, indeed, been a very passionate debate. I would like to take this opportunity—I am sure I speak for all Members on both sides of the House—to thank our staff members in our constituency offices who have had to deal with people who have been at the very end of their tether. Many have had no training and have met people in the most dire circumstances. I would like to place on record our thanks to all the staff of all Members on both sides of the House.
As we know, tax credits are a vital financial lifeline for many families who are struggling to get by on low wages. They allow single mothers and fathers the dignity of work, by ensuring that their income is enough to pay for rent and food and for heat for their homes. Without these payments, families have been plunged into immediate poverty, with all the financial and emotional stress that comes with coping with such a situation.
Despite many parliamentary questions and two debates, we are still no closer to finding out the facts or achieving a proper settlement to this sorry situation. At the same time, families know that their situation was entirely caused by the mistakes of others and as a direct result of faulty administrative processes and procedures, all of which must be fixed. Compensation must be paid.
I would like to refer to a particular case study. A constituent in Alloa was referred to my office just yesterday by the citizens advice bureau. Seven weeks ago, she had her money stopped without warning. She was accused of living with three different partners at the same address at the same time. Advised by Concentrix that she had been sent a letter in May—a letter she said she did not receive—she was then told the evidence she was required to submit. She submitted what she could: two bank statements and a council tax statement. She was told that that was not enough. She could not afford, however, to provide the bank statements requested, as they cost £5 per statement.
The realistic timeline for Concentrix cases needs to be known. Despite the assurances I was given by the Financial Secretary on 14 September, it is still taking around eight weeks from the submission of evidence by those falsely accused by Concentrix for payments to be reinstated. That is two months without vital payments—payments that are stopped without warning and with no good cause.
On the phone yesterday, HMRC advised my office that the burden of proof remains on the individuals accused of claiming tax credits incorrectly, not on the accuser. That is contrary to the laws of natural justice and contrary to the view of the upper tribunal, which has already considered similar issues.
For the Minister’s benefit, I would like to set out a timeline for an individual who is accused. On day one, their money is stopped. They call Concentrix to find out what has happened, and they are advised of what action is needed. It can take days to get an answer. On day two, they start to collate the evidence required. HMRC stated to my staff yesterday that it required the following evidence to establish innocence after making these accusations: bank statements for a period often up to a year; mortgage proof or a rental agreement; a court or solicitor’s letter providing detail of legal separation documents; Child Maintenance Service documents; evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions or Jobcentre Plus to show the benefits claimed, if applicable; car insurance documents; home insurance documents; detailed explanation of the person’s relationship status with the person they are accused of being in a relationship with—in this case, it is three people, two of whom my constituent does not even know; and a letter from the landlord to confirm who lives at the property.
That takes us to day six, when the person sends that evidence to HMRC, if they can afford to bring it together. On day seven, the evidence arrives at the HMRC and Concentrix offices. On day 28, HMRC begins to look at the case. People in previous cases have told us that it would take two to three weeks before the evidence could be looked at, due to a backlog in processing cases. On day 56, the evidence is processed by HMRC. Once the evidence pack is opened by HMRC staff, it takes 15 to 20 days to process. On day 60, there is a positive result—if the person gets a result—as money will be paid to them within four days. That is eight weeks’ processing between the submission of documents and payments being reinstated.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
In the intervening period, many of the individuals affected have experienced grave mental health issues. I am aware of at least two cases where people have gone on to self-harm as a result of the stress endured. Does my hon. Friend agree that the targeting of the most vulnerable is not something that should be happening under Government contracts?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. She has huge experience in the area of mental health. I am sure it is a matter of great concern and disturbance to us all to hear that people are resorting to self-harm.
My constituent continues to wait, as HMRC refuses to act until it has received a year’s worth of bank statements that she cannot afford to provide. HMRC did not inform her of the hardship payment. Will the Minister advise us on the guidelines with which HMRC is working in relation to the hardship payment? Is it not offered in all circumstances? Are not all people in positions of hardship once they have had these payments stopped?
In order to support those affected, we must immediately take a number of actions to remove the financial barriers to justice for these victims, and I ask the Minister to consider committing to these today. HMRC should immediately provide a freephone line for victims to use. As things stand, if someone wants to ask a question or appeal a decision, it is up to them to phone the call centre, and that can cost 10p a minute. Some callers have had to wait for hours, as confirmed in many speeches. Over and above this, HMRC should now act to provide a free call-back service for tax credit inquiries. HMRC should also meet the full cost of sending people all documents with postage-paid envelopes so that they can send back the information that is required on the basis of incorrect decisions that have been made on their part. Those changes are achievable, deliverable and fair, and should be implemented without delay. That is the right thing to do in these circumstances.
When this exercise is complete and people have the opportunity to access justice, at no cost to themselves—neither should there be—we can then move our attention on to securing full, fair and proper compensation for all victims, some of whom have lost their jobs and homes as a result of this fiasco.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Like other Members, my constituency casework is full of examples of the mismanagement of the tax credits contract. I thank my constituency team back up the road—Iain, Colin, Jenn and Louise—who have dealt with a large volume of cases, always with great sensitivity and professionalism.
Over a long period, Her Majesty’s Government have created a system that they charge Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to administer. HMRC outsources the process but not its responsibility, and this time its chosen enforcer was Concentrix. However, it is unfair to lay all the blame at the door of Concentrix staff, or, indeed, HMRC staff. The current welfare system, as designed, is flawed—seriously flawed—and while we continue to support it, the blame is ours. Far from enabling people and giving them the financial security to build their own lives, the welfare system has made life more complicated for those who need support.
Dealing with poverty is an ongoing struggle in constituencies such as mine, where deep-rooted inequality continues to stifle ambition and opportunity. Yet, as with so many other policies, my constituents are once again disproportionately affected by the UK Government’s inadequacies. We have heard excellent contributions from Members who outlined specific examples of how the tax credit contract has been so appallingly mismanaged. However, the saddest indictment of UK Government welfare and tax policy is that there are still so many people in desperate need of tax credits in the first place.
Concentrix is clearly not blameless in this situation; its faults and mistakes are well documented. However, while the UK Government may solve the problems inherent in this contract by bringing it back in-house, we are still left with the wider problem of Government services being delivered by private companies. Private companies should never be in the position of delivering vital public services. Citizens and Governments should have a direct relationship with each other. Taxpayers contribute directly to the Government, but when the money is going in the other direction, it should not be filtered through a private company before it gets to the individual.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I agree that these human issues are far too sensitive for private companies to be profiting from them. Interestingly, when I first raised this in January with the Leader of the House in asking for a debate or a statement, I was told, “Just send me information about the problem with a case.” Why did it take eight or nine months and the involvement of the BBC to finally get a Minister to the Dispatch Box to do something about this?
Ronnie Cowan
The hon. Gentleman makes his point very eloquently.
Companies bid for UK Government contracts not on the basis of how they can deliver a fairer and more equal society, but of how they can save money for the Government. Companies are incentivised to deliver these results, and ultimately their first loyalty is to owners and shareholders. By off-loading services to private companies, the UK Government and HMRC are trying to absolve themselves of responsibility when there is a problem. We have seen these problems appear time and time again. G4S, Atos and Concentrix are not names that inspire public confidence in the delivery of high-quality public services. How many more disasters is it going to take before the UK Government realise that corporations should not be delivering public services? My constituents have no interest in Government reviews, PR exercises or ministerial statements about the issue—all they want is to be paid what they are due, on time, without the risk of its being arbitrarily removed.
The existing welfare system needs to be ripped down and replaced with something suitable for the 21st century. A couple of weeks ago, we had a debate in Westminster Hall about a universal basic income. There is support across parties for a serious investigation into this. We should stop treating the symptom and start treating the entire patient. Maybe, just maybe, the time for a universal basic income has come.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan).
We have heard many interventions and speeches. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) talked about a fishing expedition on the part of Concentrix. She enlightened us about the real Casanova of Scotland, R. S. McColl—I thank her for that—but more importantly, the cataclysmic effect of this flawed process. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), in a thoughtful contribution, gave us the experiences of his constituents and welcomed the Government’s actions in relation to the renewal of the contract.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) focused on the policy design that has led to single women, in particular, being affected or targeted, talking about the effects on their children and setting out a series of questions that went to the heart of the matter. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) discussed the relative value and efficiency of the contractor’s services, the role of HMRC, and the role of incentives in contracts of this nature. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) talked about a conflict of interest and the bad practice of Concentrix. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke of a series of constituents, usually single mothers, who have been distressed by the process, citing a catalogue of errors, and the need to fast-track these people’s benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) talked about the hardship caused to his constituents and the common factors in the contractor’s lack of understanding and of compromise.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) welcomed the personal intervention of the Financial Secretary, but questioned HMRC’s role in the process and spoke of the need for a change in its culture. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) gave a number of examples of how people are being pushed into poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) mentioned the influx of cases in August and asked what had caused that spike. She also talked about phantom tenants, the unreachable, and the harsh and inaccessible bureaucracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said that we want a system that supports people, not conglomerates, and a Government who will ensure that people, not corporates, are at the top of the agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about the effect on single mothers, but also asked the key question of how many others have been affected, have not been able to reach out to their MPs and have suffered in silence.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) suggested providing support for free communication with HMRC, and the hon. Member for Inverclyde said that the responsibility lies with the Government and that the citizen’s relationship should be with the state, not individual contractors.
I welcome the Minister’s mea culpa, but it does not go far enough. In last week’s Westminster Hall debate, I said that I, like other hon. Members, had been contacted by distressed constituents who had had their child tax credits stopped, with scant attention paid to due process. In effect, the plenipotentiary powers given by the Government to Concentrix to act as it saw fit to punish and penalise tax credit claimants were used with an alacrity bordering on the enthusiastic and manic. It has come to something when it is difficult to put a cigarette paper between the question of who, out of the Government and Concentrix, has been the bigger of the two culprits, but, following the principle of, “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune,” I opt for the Government.
As I said in last week’s debate, it does not take a genius to work out that, if a company is paid on the basis of bonus or commission to find tax credit error and fraud, it will start with the easy targets. In pursuit of a business model approved by the Government, Concentrix pursued people, mainly working women, to provide information. It was nothing short of overbearing state intrusion into private lives, but it was done under the guise of reclaiming taxpayers’ money from fraudsters and cheats, which is how many people felt that they were treated.
The plain fact, however, is that there was no evidence. In many cases, the victims of that intrusion were left penniless and had little capacity to fight back, as many Members have said. Meanwhile, the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, which is currently in Committee, encourages people to save money. One agent of the Government administers the giving away of taxpayers’ money while another takes money away, by diktat, from working women. What a topsy-turvy state of affairs.
The whole process was deeply flawed and, as has been said, operated on the presumption that people were guilty until proven innocent. Apparently, a claimant would be sent a letter by Concentrix indicating that they were not meeting the standards for a child tax credit claim, and requiring them to provide evidence of their occupancy arrangement. Some attempted to call Concentrix, only to find that the number was engaged, but if the company did not hear from the claimant, their tax credits were stopped summarily.
I do not know whether Ministers were consulted on, or asked to sign off, that process. I asked that question last week, but did not receive an answer, so I ask them to enlighten us. Even Atos did not have the power to withdraw benefits. Concentrix was given carte blanche to do so, in a licensed way, by the Government, who were in the throes of renewing the contract for a job well done, which is remarkable. Did Ministers ask why Concentrix had so many savings on its books, and did they listen to the complaints of many of our constituents at an earlier stage?
Last week, the Economic Secretary claimed, very creatively, that it was the Government who stepped in to get things back on track when they realised that the service being provided by Concentrix was not good enough. That rewriting of history would be risible if the matter was not so serious for thousands of mothers all over the country. In reality, it was the Opposition who originally asked the National Audit Office to investigate, and we pushed for oversight and demanded action for the thousands of families who have still not received payments from Concentrix. The Government took action only under duress and pressure from the Opposition and the national media.
Kevin Foster
Does the shadow Minister agree that, given earlier comments, it is important that the National Audit Office leads the investigation into what happened, because it is independent and answers, ultimately, to this House, not to the Government?
Peter Dowd
That is a statement of the situation as it is. The key thing is that we need an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this.
The Government have said that the contract will not be renewed beyond the end of May 2017, but that still leaves us seven months. I am pleased that staff have been brought into HMRC, and I would like to know what measures the Government are putting in place to ensure that there is total oversight of Concentrix throughout the period and to make sure that nothing else goes wrong. When all is said and done, this is a question of the performance management of a government contractor, and a clear lack of oversight by the Government.
I deduced from the Economic Secretary’s inadequate response to the Westminster Hall debate last week that HMRC handed over third-party data to Concentrix and left the company to it. There was no oversight and, in the Minister’s own words:
“Concentrix…then chose who to pursue from those data.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 261WH.]
The Government have given Concentrix a free hand to intimidate and falsely accuse hard-working mothers of fraud. The Opposition want to know who signed off that decision and why there was no accountability. The Government have announced a £100 hardship payment for those affected, but no amount of money can make up for the struggles that those women faced after their tax credits were wrongly stopped, and we need an apology. As many other Members have done, I ask the Government to give that apology.
Concentrix will have the contract for a few more months, but it does not seem to have suffered any sort of penalty for its actions. We would like to know what is happening in that regard. Can we have a precise figure for how many decisions Concentrix got wrong? In how many instances was payment reduced because Concentrix failed to meet its performance standards? Perhaps the Government’s refusal to answer such questions and release the relevant information is because even with deductions for poor performance, Concentrix has still made huge profits on the backs of desperate and vulnerable people. We need answers to these questions. Perhaps an independent investigation—maybe by the NAO—will give us those answers, but whoever gives them to us, we need them as soon as possible.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
This has been a thoughtful debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and efforts to support their constituents. It is right and appropriate that I thank MPs’ staff, who have worked hard to help constituents with their tax credit claims.
It is clear—there is no doubt—that mistakes were made in HMRC’s partnership with Concentrix. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, it is right that we take action to stop errors and fraud in the tax credit system. That was why HMRC entered into a contract with Concentrix to support that action, which—let us be clear about this—delivered millions of pounds of savings and achieved close to the lowest level of fraud and error in the tax credit system since it began.
I reiterate that this is all about people. It is about making sure that the most vulnerable people are paid appropriately and that errors are not made. It is often very difficult for the most vulnerable people to deal with overpayments.
Maria Eagle
Given the poor quality of some of the information that Concentrix has used—information about tenants, previous tenants, people who are dead and people who live in the same block but not in the same house—how can the Minister justify putting our constituents through the pain of having their payments stopped on such very poor information?
Simon Kirby
I will cover that matter later, but there are clearly lessons for all of us to learn.
Kevin Foster
Given the number of people affected, what work will the Government—the Treasury, working with HMRC—carry out to help local advice centres that, like Members of Parliament, may be approached by people for advice about what to do if they receive such letters?
Simon Kirby
I will certainly ask HMRC to look into that. The important point is that this is about helping people. It is easy to stand in the Chamber citing figures and trying to pretend that something is not what it is. This is about making sure that the most vulnerable people get the money that they deserve, and about clearing the backlog as quickly as possible.
This issue is about customer service. Everyone has a right to expect a good level of customer service. There is no doubt that the customer service provided in recent times was simply not good enough and not up to the standard clearly specified in the contract. As a result of that poor performance, a great deal of worry and distress has been caused to the often vulnerable people who claim this benefit. We heard lots of very good examples of that today. I do not think that any MP is in any doubt that vulnerable people have suffered worry and distress. I advise anyone who has been adversely affected to get in touch with HMRC, which will take all complaints seriously and provide compensation where appropriate.
I move on to specific issues that hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) suggested that Concentrix targeted people at random and engaged in fishing expeditions, which the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) also mentioned. That was not the case—Concentrix was not allowed to engage in fishing expeditions. It is important to note that when information was incomplete or suggested that something was wrong, customers were asked to provide further information to enable an informed decision to be reached.
Maria Eagle
Would this be an opportunity for the Minister to tell the House why the information used was so very poor?
Simon Kirby
Some of the information used was very poor—some of it applied to people who no longer lived at the address—but, at the end of the day, the review will provide lessons for us all to learn.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South said that the evidence was flimsy. HMRC sent Concentrix cases to review if it thought that they were worth checking because there was an indication that the tax credits claim might be incorrect. Concentrix and HMRC will never be able to screen out all cases that do not involve error or fraud through data analytics alone. That is why—this point is important—HMRC and Concentrix write to customers to ask for more evidence to inform decisions.
The hon. Lady asked for an apology. At a sitting of the Work and Pensions Committee on 13 October, the chief executive of HMRC apologised for the worry and distress caused to claimants. On behalf of the Government, I echo that apology today.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she thought that the letters were unconvincing and misleading. This is an area in which there are lessons to be learned. It was said that customers could not provide the evidence requested. Most people were able to provide the information asked for, but we want to make it easier and cheaper to supply information in the future, so we are looking at ways of improving the customer journey on tax credits.
Simon Kirby
I will keep going, if I may.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also asked whether the contract unfairly discriminated against women. It is important to note that as of April 2016, 88% of single claims were made by women, and 80% of single claims sent to Concentrix to check with regard to high-risk renewal were from women. I recognise this—
Simon Kirby
I will not—I have to respond to a lot of people.
I recognise that sensitivity is needed on tax credit claims and that claimants should be treated with dignity and respect. The hon. Lady also asked about penalties. The figures that will and have been deducted from payments, and the detailed calculations, cannot be disclosed at this point as they are commercially sensitive, but the amounts will be fair and appropriate.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said that Concentrix was getting a rap on the knuckles. I point out that it is actually losing the contract.
My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made particularly thoughtful and considered contributions. They have obviously given the matter great thought.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) asked whether the contract was ended only because of poor call handling. That was not the case. The poor call handling had an impact on customers and resulted directly in tax credits being stopped. She also mentioned the downsizing of HMRC. An extra £800 million has been announced for HMRC. Using a private company in this way offered a cost-effective method of reaching a large number of people.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) asked whether this situation spelled the end for outsourcing. This is about cutting down on errors and some fraud, but HMRC will evaluate each case on its merits to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. It is fair to say that the lessons learned from this situation will help to inform future contracts.
Louise Haigh
That is the central point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said, the information was duff, and was acted on incorrectly, because the contract was designed to incentivise Concentrix through profit to incorrectly target people and strip them of their tax credits. Will the Minister commit to reviewing payment by results across our welfare system?
Simon Kirby
I will not commit to that. The hon. Lady’s points will be picked up by the NAO. Not all the information was duff, but there are clearly lessons to learn from the exercise.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about the 30-day cut-off. Tax credit regulations require a claimant to be given a minimum of 30 days to respond to a request for information. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) mentioned training. I assure him that Concentrix staff are trained in the same way as HMRC staff.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about unresolved cases. I am not sure whether the Financial Secretary was in the Chamber to hear that, but if the hon. Lady writes to my hon. Friend, she will, I am sure, do her very best to help to resolve those cases. The hon. Lady also asked about the significance of August. August was a particularly busy time.
Mark Durkan
The Financial Secretary told me in a written answer yesterday that between 1 August and 31 August, HMRC automatically stopped 365,483 tax credits—in just that one month—as a direct result of customers failing to comply with the requirements of the annual renewal process. How many stoppages were made by Concentrix and how many were made directly by HMRC itself?
Simon Kirby
I am happy to commit to look carefully at that matter and to get back to the hon. Gentleman.
I clarify that hardship payments are effectively tax credits brought forward. Compensation, however, is not offset against tax credits and is a separate payment. That is an important distinction to make.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) mentioned the timeline. It is important to understand the timeline, and she makes valuable points about how we can ease the customer journey and introduce new measures. That is work in progress, and I do not think there is a lot of disagreement about some of her more sensible suggestions.
In response to the hon. Member for Bootle, I would say that a lot of issues have been raised in the debate. They will be looked at very carefully by the National Audit Office. We are giving careful consideration to the balance of the contract with Concentrix to make sure that nothing else goes wrong. This is about making sure that the most vulnerable people who need help get it, and that we move forward and learn from the exercise.
Although we recognise that the service provided was simply not good enough, it was right to review people’s claims for tax credits. That must go hand in hand with quality customer service that minimises distress and disruption to the people involved. Concentrix fell short of providing that standard of service in recent times, and, as a result, a large number of people were caused undue distress and worry. We have taken immediate action to restore a fast, fair and efficient service to anyone claiming tax credits. We will take further action in the days and months ahead. We will look at what went wrong, and at the NAO report, and learn from those lessons. We want to ensure that we provide the kind of quality tax and benefits service that the British public deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that Concentrix has not fully met the performance standards set out in its contract with the HM Revenue and Customs to correct tax credit claims, and welcomes the announcement that the services performed by Concentrix will be brought back in-house to HMRC next year; and calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the performance of Concentrix under its contract with HMRC, which includes a consideration of the potential effect on other HMRC services, take urgent action to compensate people who have erroneously had tax credits withdrawn by the company, and in doing so mitigate any adverse effect or reduction in service for claimants.
Yemen
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I inform the House that I have selected amendment c tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen, and notes that the country is now on the brink of famine; condemns the reported bombings of civilian areas that have exacerbated this crisis; believes that a full independent UN-led investigation must be established into alleged violations of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Yemen; and calls on the Government to suspend its support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in Yemen until it has been determined whether they have been responsible for any such violations.
When we discussed Yemen in this House last week, we did so in the hope that the 72-hour ceasefire negotiated by the UN envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ahmed, could lead to a lasting cessation of hostilities from all sides and desperately needed access for humanitarian aid. These hopes, unfortunately, were dashed almost immediately. Regardless of who was first responsible for breaking the ceasefire, it is the ordinary civilians of Yemen who will pay the price. It is distressing to learn that on top of all the other threats they face from air strikes, cluster bombs, acute malnutrition and the risk of famine, the Yemeni population now face an epidemic of cholera. I believe that, wherever any Member stands on the justification for this conflict, on the UN mandate for the Saudi-led military action and on the threat to regional stability caused by the Houthi uprising, the lives of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children are directly at risk if this conflict carries on in its present form—and none of us can tolerate that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right that the ceasefire was critical. The efforts of the Foreign Secretary, John Kerry and the Saudi Foreign Minister as well as the special envoy were vital to ensuring that we had that ceasefire. Does she agree with me that the involvement of the British Government and the American Government is crucial to ensure that we get a permanent ceasefire?
Emily Thornberry
I applaud my right hon. Friend’s commitment on this issue. I know that he was born in Yemen and that he feels very strongly about it. His approach is, of course, absolutely right: the British and the Americans have a very important influence, although most important of all is the fact that we support the efforts of the United Nations.
Emily Thornberry
Let me make a little progress, and then I will give way.
Let me make it clear that this debate and today’s motion are not about the causes of the conflict or whether it is justified. Today’s debate is about the grave concerns that many Members of all parties share about the way in which the conflict is being conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend has moved on from the point I wanted to raise, but I thank her for giving way. She said that whatever people think about the origins of the conflict, we can debate how terrible the situation is for Yemenis on the ground, and I agree entirely. Is there any debate, however, about the origins of the conflict or the UN Security Council resolution? I thought that we were pretty much agreed across the House that we should support that resolution.
Emily Thornberry
Of course no one is saying at this stage that we should not support the UN resolution. However, further action needs to be taken in respect of the conflict. For example, it has been suggested that the UN resolution of 30 September has already mandated UN experts to work alongside the joint incidents assessment team—perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to that.
The difficulty is that if we look at the history, we find that in August the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights
“called on the international community to establish an international independent body to carry out comprehensive investigations in Yemen”,
which is exactly what we are calling for today. When the compromise resolution was agreed on 30 September, the Commissioner’s Office said that it was disappointed at the outcome, stating:
“We did not have any say in the final text.”
If that resolution was not what the Commissioner’s Office wanted, I do not think that we should be satisfied with it either.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has received, as many MPs have, a letter from the deputy speaker of the Yemeni Parliament, in which he says that the
“demand for an independent UN-led investigation goes contrary to the United Nations Human Rights Council decision in September which called for the UN to support instead the Yemeni National Commission’s investigation into civilian casualties in the conflict.”
Would my hon. Friend like to comment?
Emily Thornberry
Yes, I would. I have seen the letter, and I think it is important to condemn any breaches on both sides. It is also important to note that the UN has stated that 60% of civilian deaths have been a result of actions by the coalition. In this debate, it is important for us to examine what it is that we are doing.
Emily Thornberry
I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, and I have already taken three interventions. I would like to make some progress before giving way again.
In view of all these grave concerns and dire consequences, the debate is about whether Britain should continue to support the Saudi forces leading one side of the conflict. The shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), will later address the humanitarian consequences in detail, but I want to focus on concerns about the way in which the conflict has been conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously by the Government or indeed properly investigated.
Last week, I said that there had been
“thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen”.
In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said:
“There are not thousands…—that is to mislead the House”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 667.]
Let us look at the facts. In August, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report on the conflict in Yemen, which stated that between 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016, 2,067 civilians had been killed in that conflict. On the basis of careful investigation of each incident, it said that 60% of those deaths—as I have said—had been caused by Saudi airstrikes. The report concluded—and this is important—
“In several of the…documented attacks, we have been unable to identify the presence of possible military objectives.”
In September, the independent Yemen data project went further. It examined more than 8,600 airstrikes that had been conducted between the start of the conflict and the end of August 2016, and found that 3,158 of them had struck civilian sites, while a further 1,882 had struck sites of undetermined use.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Emily Thornberry
I must make some progress. I know that many other Members wish to speak.
Emily Thornberry
May I just catch up with myself?
All those airstrikes took place before the recent devastating strikes on a wedding party and a funeral hall. So when I say that there have been thousands of airstrikes against civilian targets and thousands of civilians killed, I am certainly not misleading the House, as was suggested by the Under-Secretary. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps someone is misleading him.
Emily Thornberry
I will of course give way to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Crispin Blunt
The Yemen data project, which looked at the numbers, pointed out that the identification of the targets as civilian or otherwise referred to their original use. No further assessment was made of the time of the airstrike or the circumstances that led to it. We must try to be very careful with the use of data.
Emily Thornberry
I respectfully agree. Indeed, I think that that very good point supports the argument that we are advancing today about the need for an independent investigation, so that we can establish the facts rather than going on assumptions and presumptions. We must all be satisfied that whatever investigation takes place is independent and internationally recognised.
There is evidence of a further disturbing trend in the way in which the conflict is being conducted. According to Yemen expert and London School of Economics professor Martha Mundy, detailed examination of Government agriculture statistics has revealed hundreds of cases in which farms, livestock, water, infrastructure, food stores and markets were targeted by Saudi airstrikes. Her analysis suggests that the extent of the bombing in rural areas where there is little activity besides farming is clear evidence that Yemen’s agriculture sector is being deliberately targeted. Some Members will doubtless argue that what was effectively a blockade imposed on Yemen in 2015 has helped to exacerbate the starvation crisis that we are seeing today, but Saudi Arabia did at least claim some UN mandate for that action. There is no UN mandate for the destruction of Yemen’s agriculture sector, which, if it is indeed deliberate and targeted, represents a clear breach of the Geneva convention.
That brings me to the question of how alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen are being investigated. In September, the House discussed the fact that the Government’s position had changed from saying that, according to their assessment, there had been no violations of international humanitarian law to saying that they had made no such assessment, and that it was for the Saudi-led coalition to investigate any such incidents.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Saudi Foreign Minister was recently reported as saying that, although they do not play a role in choosing the targets, United Kingdom military officials in Saudi Arabia have access to the list of those targets. If that is true, does the hon. Lady share my bewilderment about how the Government can claim not to have reached a conclusion in respect of the very serious breaches of international humanitarian law that are taking place in Yemen?
Emily Thornberry
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I heard only half his intervention, because there is a certain amount of noise coming from behind me. Perhaps I will take another intervention.
John Woodcock
It is so gracious of the shadow Secretary of State to give way. I welcome the fact that this subject is being raised in the House today and I agree with her calls for an independent investigation into this matter. The coalition is precisely focused on training Saudis to be better able to be in compliance with international humanitarian law so that our interventions, if effective, will create fewer civilian casualties. Can she explain why she has insisted, despite a number of us asking about this, keeping in the motion the fact that the UK should withdraw support for the coalition, making it very hard for many of us to vote for it?
Emily Thornberry
I take on board what my hon. Friend says, and I considered that in advance of this debate. I read something said by California Congressman Ted Lieu:
“When its repeated air strikes that have now killed children, doctors, newlyweds, patients, at some point you just have to say: Either Saudi Arabia is not listening to the United States or they just don’t care,”
and I fear the same might be true for the advice we might be given.
A Pentagon spokesperson has said:
“Even as we assist the Saudis regarding their territorial integrity, it does not mean that we will refrain from expressing our concern about the war in Yemen and how it has been waged”.
I will talk later about why I believe there may be a particular reason why, although I hear what my hon. Friend says about advice that may be given in relation to some of the targeting, there may not be advice in relation to all of it, and if he has some patience he will get an answer to part of his question.
My concern is that we are therefore putting our faith entirely in the Saudis’ joint incidents assessment team to give us the truth on these alleged violations. I showed earlier that there had been thousands of documented airstrikes on civilian sites and thousands of civilians killed as a result, so we would expect JIAT at the very least to have published reports on hundreds of these incidents, but it has published just nine. That is less than 0.002% of all airstrikes documented by the Yemen data project up to the end of August.
And how credible are those reports? The United Nations protests that four World Food Programme trucks have been attacked; JIAT blames the officials in charge of the convoy. The UN protests that 73 civilians were killed and injured in a market in Sana’a; JIAT says there have been no direct attacks on civilians and no fault on the part of the coalition forces. The UN protests that another 106 civilians were killed in a market in Hajjah; JIAT disputes that there were civilians and finds no proof of fault. The UN protests that 47 civilians were killed and 58 injured at a wedding in Dhamar; JIAT says no such bombing took place.
In only two of the nine incidents it has reported on, and the thousands more it has not, has JIAT accepted there was any fault on behalf of the Saudi-led coalition: the bombing on a residential complex in July 2015 and the airstrike on the funeral hall in Sana’a this month.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that, despite the frank admissions over the funeral bombing, when we have met representatives of the Saudi Government they have refused to even give a timetable for giving information on these investigations, let alone answers that might be satisfactory? Does she agree that they must come forward as soon as possible and that there should be an independent investigation?
Emily Thornberry
I was at the same meeting and heard the Saudi Foreign Minister telling us he was not able to give us a timetable on the investigation and I share my hon. Friend’s grave concern about that.
When asked at the weekend about the latter incident, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, called it “a deliberate error”, by which I believe he meant at least one individual within the coalition forces was able to deliberately unleash this terrible attack killing 140 civilians without the authorisation of the coalition command in Riyadh.
This raises major questions. Members on both sides of the House have spoken to experts on this conflict who say that there are essentially two coalition forces operating in Yemen. One is run from the capital and carries out pre-planned operations based on strong intelligence under the direction of the Americans and UK advisers. There is, however, another centre operating out of southern Saudi Arabia, which carries out dynamic reactive operations, often based on sketchy evidence, often without thinking through the so-called collateral damage and inevitably often with significant civilian casualties. I hope that that answers the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has just raised.
If any coalition forces are acting in a reckless or indiscriminate manner in carrying out airstrikes on civilian areas, that would be a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and it should cause the whole House grave concern. The Minister’s explanation that the Sana’a funeral bombing was a deliberate error raises the prospect that there has also been intentional targeting of civilians by elements of the coalition forces, but he cannot tell us—because he does not know—how many of those thousands of airstrikes against civilian targets have also been deliberate errors.
That brings me to the crucial point of today’s motion: the need for a full independent UN-led investigation into all alleged violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen. There must be an investigation into all the thousands of attacks on civilian sites, not just nine of them, and into all the thousands of civilian deaths, not just a few hundred of them. We need to know whether Yemen’s agriculture sector has been deliberately targeted in breach of international humanitarian law. We need to know whether elements of the coalition air forces are routinely operating in a reckless and indiscriminate way. We need to know whether that deliberate error in Sana’a was a one-off or part of a more systemic problem. Finally, from a UK perspective, if there have been violations of international humanitarian law, we need to know whether UK-manufactured weapons and planes have been used to commit those violations. With all due respect to the individuals who make up Saudi’s JIAT, its output to date—whether in terms of volume, speed or content—gives no confidence that it can carry out this type of comprehensive investigation, let alone an independent one.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. In making the case for an independent UN-led investigation, will she make it clear that it should investigate alleged violations committed by both sides in this conflict?
Emily Thornberry
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right to suggest that there have been violations on both sides. I stated that at the outset of my speech, and it is important to make that fact absolutely clear to the House. It is also important that when we are giving support to one of the sides, we should hold that fact up to the light of day.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making the case very well for an independent investigation, but given all that we know, and what she has outlined, would it not be right to suspend arms supplies to Saudi Arabia while that independent investigation takes place?
Emily Thornberry
I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but let me turn that question round. At present, we are unclear—perhaps the Government will tell us definitively today—whether the weapons and planes sold to Saudi Arabia today will be used in Yemen tomorrow. Until we have an answer to that question, it is impossible for us to say what type of support we will be giving to the coalition. Should that support include the sale of arms that could be used in Yemen next month?
It is manifestly clear that we need a UN-led investigation. It is equally clear to me, and I hope to all Members, that until that investigation is concluded, it is right for the UK to suspend its active support of the coalition forces. That is partly a matter of our own moral protection, but, we should not be actively continuing to support those forces while their conduct of war is under investigation. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision—[Interruption.] If I can just finish this sentence, I will give way in a moment. It is partly about the pressure that such a decision would place on the coalition forces to avoid further civilian casualties, to engage constructively in peace talks and to allow full access for humanitarian relief.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am most grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for giving way. Will she explain her proposal to the thousands of people across the country who support our allies in the region? Does it mean, for example, that she is in favour of suspending all spares for the aircraft operated by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the other members of the coalition? Does it mean that she wants to withdraw the advice given by skilled British employees that helps our Saudi friends? If that is what she means, she is doing great damage to the British national interest.
Emily Thornberry
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The question is about whether it is right at this stage, given the impact on our economy, for us to be suspending our support for Saudi Arabia. Given the amount of arms and planes that we sell, is it right for us to suspend arms sales to Saudi if that is part of the support that we are giving the coalition? We have always complied with international humanitarian law when selling arms to our allies. We have regulations about who we sell arms to and in what circumstances. The Foreign Secretary himself said that the test for continued arms sales
“is whether those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious breach of international humanitarian law.”
We have rules on arms exports and we must make sure that we abide by them. We are a proud country that does our utmost to abide by international law. The questions that we are raising today are important because if our support means supporting a coalition that is acting in contravention of international law, we must reconsider that support. That is the right position.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I urge her to think for a moment about the impact that such a suspension would have on our credibility as an ally in this dangerous, fractured part of the world. There is a great difference between saying that civilians have been killed because terrorists are perhaps sheltering around what were civilian facilities and actually alleging that there is a deliberate programme of mass slaughter.
We have been doing an awful lot of historical commemoration and it is worth remembering the huge number of French civilians whom we killed in the build-up—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to make interventions, but many Members want to speak in this debate and we are not going to get there. The time limit could be three minutes, so short interventions, please.
Emily Thornberry
I refer the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to the earlier part of my speech in which I quoted one of his own Ministers saying that a “deliberate error” had resulted in hundreds of deaths in Yemen. He must bear that in mind when we are deciding whether to continue supporting the ongoing action in Yemen. I will answer the rest of his question in the rest of my speech.
This is about the kind of signal that we are sending to the rest of the world. On Syria, Members on both sides of the House have rightly protested the bombardment of eastern Aleppo by Russia and Assad, demanded tougher international action against Russia, dismissed Russian claims that civilians are not being targeted, and called for those responsible to be tried for war crimes if necessary—they must face justice.
Emily Thornberry
No, I am not giving way—26 people want to speak.
We have heard all those things strongly from the Foreign Secretary, so does he accept that when he says nothing about Yemen apart from unflinching support for Saudi Arabia, when he says that the Saudi coalition should be left to investigate itself, when his Ministers dismiss reports of thousands of civilians being killed as somehow misleading the House, when we say one thing about Russia and Aleppo but another about Riyadh and Yemen, what the rest of the world hears is hypocrisy and double standards?
Today’s motion gives us an opportunity to send the opposite message to the world: to show that we hold all countries, friend or foe, to the same high standards that we aspire to ourselves, and that although Saudi Arabia will remain a valued strategic, security and economic ally, our support for its forces in Yemen must be suspended until the alleged violations of international humanitarian law in that conflict have been fully and independently investigated, and until the children of Yemen have received the humanitarian aid they so desperately need. That is the right message to send to the rest of the world and that is the message that reflects who we are as a country. I hope that it is the message this House will vote to send today.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘crisis;’ to the end of the Question and add:
“and calls on the Government to continue to support the UN Special Envoy in his ongoing efforts to achieve a political solution to bring sustainable peace to Yemen.”.
I am grateful to the Opposition for selecting this vital subject for debate. The war in Yemen has reached a critical moment, and I welcome this opportunity to set out what Britain and our allies are doing to help restore the peace and stability that Yemen’s people so desperately need.
First I should remind the House how this tragic conflict began and, in particular, how Saudi Arabia and a coalition of Gulf states came to intervene, because, contrary to the impression given in some quarters, they did not act out of some spontaneous desire to invade Yemen and attack its civilian population. Saudi Arabia and its allies were responding to a crisis that was forced on them and that posed a grave threat to international peace and security. This round of the conflict began in September 2014, when Houthi rebels overran Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, in collusion with Ali Abdullah Saleh, the previous President, and with the reported backing of Iran. Their aim was to overthrow Yemen’s legitimate Government. In January 2015, President Hadi, the serving leader, was forced to flee his own capital for the safety of Aden, a move that availed him of nothing, because two months later the Houthis attacked the south, striking as far as the outskirts of Aden and forcing President Hadi to flee his country altogether.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that ex-President Saleh has also been asking for backing from the Russians?
Boris Johnson
The situation in Yemen is potentially disastrous, and it is vital that we stand by the people of Yemen and by the coalition that is trying to sort it out. The position when President Hadi was forced to flee was potentially disastrous. Yemen is a country of 26 million people, more than half of whom are under the age of 18. There is a long-standing presence of al-Qaeda in that country, which has a history of fratricidal bloodshed and chronic instability. At that moment, there was a clear risk that the country would fall into the hands of forces avowedly hostile to Saudi Arabia, which shares an 800-mile border with Yemen, one that is vulnerable and porous. It was against that background that the Saudis and their allies took a decision to intervene in Yemen in March 2015—a decision that was not only justified, but legally sound.
Several hon. Members rose—
Boris Johnson
I will give way in a moment.
President Hadi had formally requested military action to restore his Government, while the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council had both called for
“all means and measures to protect Yemen and deter Houthi aggression”.
Their fears have plainly been borne out: mortar bombs and rockets have frequently been fired over the frontier and into Saudi territory. Only two weeks ago, the Houthis launched a Scud missile which flew 300 miles into Saudi Arabia, exploding outside Taif, a city the size of Birmingham that has a population of 1.2 million and lies close to Mecca. The last time Saudi Arabia came under bombardment from Scud missiles, the weapons were fired by Saddam Hussein.
As the House will readily appreciate, this conflict has wider regional and global ramifications. Yemen sits beside the Bab el-Mandeb straits, running between the Red sea and the Indian ocean. On the same day as the Scud was fired at Saudi Arabia, the Houthis launched two other missiles at an American destroyer passing through the Bab el-Mandeb. On earlier occasions, they had fired missiles at civilian vessels plying this vital shipping lane. Every trading nation in the world, including this one—particularly this one—has a vital interest in safe passage through those straits.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is laying out his case in a forensic manner. Does he recognise that the argument from these Benches is not that there was not a legitimate political and strategic security crisis in Yemen, but that the reaction of Saudi Arabia and the coalition forces is out of all proportion to the crisis with which they were trying to deal?
Boris Johnson
It was absolutely right to support President Hadi and to recognise the scale of the crisis that Yemen faces. As I have been explaining to the House—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I am laying out the case in a forensic manner—Britain has important interests at stake. By the way, it is right that we should be discussing this subject this afternoon. Furthermore, I can assure the House that, over the past few months, this country has been leading the way in a sustained diplomatic effort to try to settle that conflict.
Boris Johnson
I will give way in just a second.
In my first week as Foreign Secretary, we convened a meeting on Yemen with my American and Saudi counterparts and others at Lancaster House. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, I brought together all of the Gulf Foreign Ministers along with the United Nations Special Envoy, Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. Together with the United States and other partners, we are doing all we can to support the efforts of Mr Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to mediate a political settlement—and there must be a political settlement. The only way forward is to get a political settlement. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is absolutely right that the first step towards achieving that settlement must be an enduring ceasefire, which is precisely what we are calling for. I welcomed the three-day cessation that occurred last week, and our efforts are now directed at securing a new cessation of hostilities.
Boris Johnson
I give way with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, the former Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.
Keith Vaz
I am chair of the Yemen all-party group, which is much more important to me.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way and commend him for the efforts that he has made. The critical date was 16 October when, together with John Kerry, Ismail Cheikh and the Saudi Foreign Minister, we achieved the three-day ceasefire. Next Monday, the Security Council will be discussing the issue again. What are the right hon. Gentleman’s instructions to our permanent representative to ensure that that three-day ceasefire becomes permanent?
Boris Johnson
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Like the hon. Lady, I recognise the closeness with which he follows this issue and his deep personal interest in the crisis in Yemen. What we are saying to our representatives in the UN and elsewhere is that it is the road map on Yemen that offers the route forward. As he knows full well, that road map has been presented to both sides of the conflict—both to the Houthis and to President Hadi and the coalition. It is up to them now to seize that opportunity. Of course they will not agree on every aspect of it, but it is that road map that offers the way forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Boris Johnson
I will make a little more progress.
I say to the Houthis and those loyal to former President Saleh who say they want peace—that is what they say—that their actions suggest otherwise. They promised to obey UN resolution 2216, joined the framework for the talks and turned up in Kuwait for the negotiations, but, at the same time, they have taken a series of unilateral steps that have gravely damaged the cause they claim to espouse. The Houthis have announced the creation of a Supreme Political Council and set up a shadow Government to rival the legitimate Administration of President Hadi, which is emphatically not the way forward.
Stephen Doughty
I do not find myself in disagreement with much of what the Foreign Secretary has said so far, but does he accept that the issue for many Members on both sides of the House is the conduct of the operation in Yemen by the Saudi coalition, and whether or not UK weapons and ammunition have been used, in violation of our legal obligations? Does he consider that we are acting legally under our obligations under the arms trade treaty, notably article 6?
Boris Johnson
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.
Let me conclude my point about the Houthis and the Saleh loyalists. It is very important that the matter is solved politically. The single most important thing they can do is withdraw their forces from Sana’a by agreement with the UN special envoy. That is where our diplomatic energies are currently engaged.
I come to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury also raised. I know that many Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the country have concerns about UK defence sales to Saudi Arabia. Let me say a few words about the general context. Saudi Arabia has been a key strategic and defence partner of the UK for decades, which is of immense value to this country, as Members on both sides of the House have rightly pointed out in this debate.
In the course of her contribution, the hon. Lady substantially retreated, I thought, from the text of the motion before the House in her name. Under questioning from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) as to whether she would support the immediate suspension of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and to the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces, as is specified in the motion in her name, she refused to say that she would. She was very wise. There is a wide measure of agreement, therefore, between our parties. The hon. Lady spoke very wisely about our export control regime and she was exactly right in what she said.
Emily Thornberry
May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the motion? That would help him, if he could take a moment—perhaps we could read it together. It states:
“This House supports efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities and provide humanitarian relief in Yemen”,
and goes on to say
“and calls on the Government to suspend its support for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces in Yemen until it has been determined whether they have been responsible”.
I hope I have given the right hon. Gentleman enough time to read the motion.
Boris Johnson
Most fair-minded Members of the House will recognise that under pressure about whether she would suspend UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the huge economic damage that that would entail, the hon. Lady retreated in the course of her remarks. I thought that was very striking and her judgment was entirely correct.
We take our arms export responsibilities very seriously indeed. This country operates one of the toughest control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the established criteria. The most relevant test is whether there is a clear risk of those weapons being used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We keep this under careful and continuous review.
Alex Salmond
I think the Foreign Secretary has confused the SNP amendment with the Labour motion. Why will he not accept the concept of an independent investigation? What will undermine our case against the Russians’ breaches of humanitarian rights in Syria—will it be newspaper columnists praising President Putin’s ruthless efficiency, as the right hon. Gentleman did earlier this year, or it is the thought that UK weapons are being used illegally in south Yemen? What undermines our case more?
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course we are pressing for a full investigation, particularly of the attack on the funeral hall in Sana’a on 8 October, which shocked so many people around the world. The following day I raised this country’s concerns with the Saudi Foreign Minister and pressed for a full investigation. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), to visit Riyadh to underline the strength of our feelings. An investigation is now taking place—the interim findings were announced on 15 October—and we look forward to its completion. I welcome Saudi Arabia’s public commitment to review their rules of engagement and their command and control system and to take action against those responsible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Boris Johnson
I am afraid that I must make some progress, as many Members wish to speak in the debate.
The Saudi Government have thus far approached the matter with the great seriousness it deserves—I think that those who have had the chance to interrogate the Saudi Foreign Minister in this House would agree. However, the House should be in no doubt that we are monitoring the situation minutely and meticulously, and that we will continue to apply our established criteria for granting licences with fairness and rigour and in full accordance with UK law.
Those who say, as apparently the Opposition now do in their motion, that we should simply disregard those legal procedures should be in no doubt that we would be vacating a space that would rapidly be filled by other western countries that would happily supply arms with nothing like the same compunctions, criteria or respect for humanitarian law. More importantly, we would, at a stroke, eliminate this country’s positive ability to exercise our moderating diplomatic and political influence on a crisis in which there are massive UK interests at stake.
To the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, who sought to draw ill-informed and inapposite comparisons, in what I thought was a singularly inappropriate analogy, between what is happening in Yemen and what is happening in Syria, I respectfully say that all wars are horrific and involve loss of innocent life, but important distinctions need to be made with the carnage taking place in Syria, where poison gas and barrel bombs are being used on the civilian population in a campaign of barbarism that has cost 400,000 lives and driven 11 million people from their homes. She should not let analogy replace analysis in what she says.
Britain is at the forefront of efforts to hold the Assad regime in Syria to account, and we are at the forefront of delivering humanitarian aid to the entire region. We can be proud of our efforts to address the humanitarian crisis in Yemen—the whole House can be proud of what we are doing. As the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, some 7 million people in Yemen face severe food shortages. Last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development hosted an event in New York that raised $100 million for the people of Yemen, on top of the £100 million contributed by the people of this country. We in Britain stand ready to do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of the innocent, and the best service we could perform would be to help them secure a peaceful settlement.
The Government’s position is clear: the conflict in Yemen must end; and a political agreement between the Yemeni parties must be found. I agree with the hon. Lady: for that, we need a durable ceasefire and a return to negotiations. I agree with what she says, in that we should do everything we can to support the UN envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. But in the end, it is the Yemenis themselves who must also compromise. Peace is what the Yemeni people need and deserve, and that can only come from a political and a diplomatic solution. In helping to bring about that political and diplomatic solution, I believe this country, once again, is helping to show the way.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
If I may, I would like to stick to what the motion actually says. Many points have been made on which we can agree, but it is important to drill down to what the motion is actually asking the House to do.
Of course we all agree that a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in Yemen. The responsibility we all have, as has been said, is to help restore peace and bring stability to the country and the wider region. There is no doubt that the crisis continues to grow. By June 2016, health facilities in the country reported that nearly 6,500 people had been killed, and more than 31,400 have been injured since March 2015. That is an average of 113 casualties a day. At least 7.6 million people, including 3 million women and children, are suffering from malnutrition, and at least 3 million people have been forced to flee their homes. So far, according to Save the Children, 747 children have been killed, and more than 1,100 injured. More than 2.5 million children have been displaced, and 3.4 million are out of school. This year, more than 848 children were forcibly recruited as child soldiers. More than 600 health facilities and 1,600 schools remain closed due to conflict-related damage.
The human stories behind those terrifying statistics are tragic and horrifying, so it is the view of the Scottish National party that the UK Government have a moral responsibility to act now and to do what they can to protect lives in Yemen. However, in addition to that inherent moral responsibility, which should put human lives at the centre of our decision making, the UK Government have legal responsibilities in relation to the conflict that they are failing to act on.
That is because of the actions of the coalition forces backed by the Saudi Arabian Government, which have faced serious and sustained evidence that they have acted in a manner that is at odds with international law. I understand that many atrocities have been carried out against Yemeni civilians by al-Houthi rebels, who have also shelled civilian homes, and deployed snipers who have targeted women and children. That is evil, wicked and wrong, and of course we do not agree with it. However, it is the actions of the Saudi coalition that concern me most today, because it is in that respect that the UK should be able to make decisions and use its influence for good.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I visited the air operations centre in Riyadh, where British air force personnel are helping the Saudis in their target planning. I have also talked to the pilots and the operational planners there. They assure me—and I believe them—that they are doing everything in their power to stop innocent civilians in Yemen dying. We should get that point across.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I will actually make reference to that work in a few moments. I simply cannot understand, though, why the Government are so averse to an independent UN-led inquiry into what is happening. What is the problem? What is there to hide if there is so much confidence on the Government Benches about how we are conducting ourselves?
It is clearly and undeniably the case that the Saudi-led coalition forces have bombed funerals, weddings and markets, and used banned cluster bombs on populated areas and on protected sites such as power stations. They have systematically targeted Yemen’s agriculture economy—as alluded to by the shadow Foreign Secretary—in what academics have called a programme for the destruction of the rural livelihood of Yemeni civilians. They have killed men, women and children who have been gathered at family celebrations, and they have specifically targeted bombs and missiles on sick and dying hospital patients.
The reason why that is materially different from the actions of the al-Houthi forces is that the UK does, indeed, train and support Saudi pilots. We have military personnel embedded in Saudi Arabian military command and control rooms giving advice on the selection of targets. We sell Saudi Arabia the weapons and bombs it is using and the jet planes that deliver them. We have a material stake in this disastrous conflict. We therefore have a responsibility to the people of Yemen to do the right thing. On this, the Government are failing—but do not take my word for it.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Let me make some progress, and then I will.
According to the January 2016 UN Panel of Experts report on Yemen, the coalition airstrikes have failed to uphold the cornerstone principles of proportionality and distinction in any armed attack, and have clearly failed to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties. In March this year, Amnesty International released new field-based research documenting the further use of cluster munitions by the Saudi-led coalition, including the first reported use of UK-manufactured cluster munitions in any conflict for nearly two decades.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
In a moment.
Amnesty found a partially exploded UK-manufactured BL755 cluster bomb munition—we discussed this in an urgent question—that had been used by the Saudi-led coalition forces. BL755 cluster munitions are known only to be in the existing stockpiles of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and are specifically designed for use by UK-supplied Tornado aircraft.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I just want to finish my point about the report.
Cluster bombs are an illegal weapon banned under international law since 2008, and the UK is a state party to the 2008 convention on cluster munitions.
So what does this mean for the UK? A legal opinion prepared by Matrix Chambers in December last year detailed how UK arms transfers to Saudi Arabia constitute a clear violation of our national, regional and international arms transfer obligations.
Wendy Morton
Does the hon. Lady accept that the final delivery of BL755 cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia was in 1989—almost 30 years ago?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Lady for that point, which was made during the urgent question. There is absolutely no definitive position on this, nor can any guarantee be given that these weapons are not being used. The question has been asked on a number of occasions.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
If I can make some progress, I will give way in a moment.
The legal opinion prepared by Matrix Chambers in December last year detailed these UK arms transfers.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Specifically, the opinion states that the UK is in breach of article 6.3 of the arms trade treaty because the UK Government ought to have had the necessary knowledge that serious violations of international law were taking place.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I know that the Government do not like hearing legal opinion, or indeed the opinions of experts, unless it suits their case, but I will continue to make my case. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am within my rights not to take interventions unless I so wish. I shall therefore proceed. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We all want to get through today’s debate. Shouting means that I cannot hear the hon. Lady. That is not helpful to me, and it should not be helpful to you.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The UK is also in violation—[Interruption.] For those who are clearly not listening, this is legal opinion. The UK is also in violation of article 7 of the arms trade treaty on the basis of a clear risk that future weapons supplies could be used to commit or facilitate serious breaches of international law.
What have this Government done to address and investigate these serious and widespread concerns? By their own admission, they have done nothing. After spending most of 2016 telling Parliament that assessments had been conducted and that they were confident that no breach of international law had occurred, they changed their story to declare that no investigation had been carried out at all, and now appear to have changed their mind again. On 4 January 2016, the then Foreign Secretary told this House—I am glad that I now have the Government’s attention—the following:
“I regularly review the situation with my own advisers and have discussed it on numerous occasions with my Saudi counterpart. Our judgement is that there is no evidence that”
international humanitarian law
“has been breached, but we shall continue to review the situation regularly.”
However, the written statement published by the Government on 21 July this year stated that it was important to note that the Government had not reached a conclusion as to whether the Saudis were guilty of international humanitarian law violations in Yemen. They said:
“This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 42WS.]
Then last month the current Foreign Secretary, who is in his place today, completely contradicted his own ministerial colleagues—a frequent occurrence—in an interview with “Channel 4 News”. He definitively stated that, after taking evidence from a “very, very wide” range of sources, the UK Government do not believe that Saudi forces have broken humanitarian law, despite the fact that his own Ministers withdrew previous similar statements to Parliament.
Who are we to believe—the previous and current Foreign Secretaries, who say that there has been a UK investigation, or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is in his place and has been sent out to defend the indefensible once again? Do they really believe the assurances given to them by the Saudis? Have this Government really not properly independently investigated the claims? Do we really have no idea at all, given the close links that clearly exist between our Government and the armed forces, whether our closest ally in the middle east is using our weapons in this conflict, as the Prime Minister herself suggested last week to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? This matters, because when the UK is presented with serious and widespread evidence of breaches of international law, we simply cannot take for granted the words of those who are accused of it.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady is right to mention the letter of international law and the question of knowledge and clear risk. Does she agree that it is absolutely incredible, not least in the light of the funeral bombing, that some claim that there is no knowledge or clear risk that actions may be taken against civilians? Does not that get to the heart of the matter?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Three Committees of this House—the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Business, Innovation and Skills—are of the uniform view that we cannot rely on the assurances of the Saudis and that there must be an independent, UN-led inquiry. Why are the Government not listening to the Select Committees of this House?
We agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose recent report, “The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen”, concluded, among other things:
“We do not believe that the UK Government can meet its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis.”
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am not giving way. The report continues:
“We recommend that the Ministry of Defence carry out its own investigation into the evidence of a UK-supplied cluster bomb found in Yemen.”
The Committee also believes that there should be an independent, UN-led investigation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There can be only one person on their feet. You have indicated that you want someone to give way, but if they do not, you must take your seat again.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We also agree with the joint report by the BIS and International Development Committees, which states:
“We do not believe that the UK Government can meet its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis.”
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I have indicated that I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. The report continues:
“In the case of Yemen, it is clear to us that the arms export licensing regime has not worked. We recommend that the UK suspend licences for arms exports to Saudi Arabia, capable of being used in Yemen, pending the results of an independent, United Nations-led inquiry”.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is critical that we see evidence of whether any stockpiles of cluster bombs have been destroyed?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
We have read tragic reports of cluster bombs being happened upon by children and of the terrible damage that they cause, so I welcome and agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention.
I agree with the proposition of all three Select Committees, which are unified in their view that there must be an independent inquiry and that we cannot rely on the Saudis to give assurances.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Through sheer generosity and kindness of spirit, I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Kevan Jones
I just want to help inform the debate. I put the point about cluster munitions directly to the Saudi Foreign Minister when he came here. He said that, yes, they had bought them, but that was 30 years ago; that they are not usable, because they are 30 years old; and that it would not be possible to use them anyway, because they cannot be integrated with modern jets.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I note the points that he has made and his questioning of the Saudi Minister, but does he not agree with the view of the Select Committees of this House that the UK Government cannot meet their obligations under the convention on cluster munitions by simply relying on the assurances to which he refers? I agree with the Committees.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I will not give way to him further. He has an opportunity to make a speech if he so wishes.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the views of Penny Lawrence, the deputy chief executive of Oxfam, who said a few weeks ago that the UK had gone from being an “enthusiastic backer” of the international arms trade treaty to being
“one of the most significant violators”?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I hope that hon. Members and the Government were listening to my hon. Friend’s point. This is a serious issue, and it should come as no surprise that people in this debate speak with such passion and concern about the loss of life and the Government’s inability to hold themselves to account. One wonders what the Government are afraid of.
There is a clear and overwhelming case for halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia. As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out, if the Foreign Secretary read the motion he would see that the amendment on halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia was ours. The amendment was not selected, but it remains our position that unless and until it can be confirmed categorically that these weapons are not being used on civilians, we should not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. There is a moral and a legal case for that position, and the Government should act now. We need full disclosure over whether UK personnel have played any part at all in the conflict in Yemen. We support calls for an international independent inquiry into violations of international law in Yemen. It is the duty of all of us—all states—to uphold international law, and we should not be afraid to argue for that. Let us be absolutely clear: the UK must immediately suspend all sales to Saudi Arabia.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I just advise Members that we are going to have to be very brief and very concise? I will be a bit more lenient with the first two Members; I have asked them to take only seven minutes. After that, the limit will be five minutes.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is probably essential that I follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) because she quoted extensively from the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on this subject. My critique is that she took the comments about the cluster munition incident and extended them considerably more widely, and that is at the heart of the problem with the assessment of this issue.
Although the Committee felt that there should be independent verification around the cluster bomb incident, and we did say that a
“United Nations-led investigation of alleged violations by all parties to the conflict is necessary to supplement the internal investigations of the Saudi-led coalition”,
it is standard international practice that the Saudis should be given the opportunity to investigate these incidents in the first instance; that is an established principle. We said in the report:
“We agree with the Government that it is appropriate for the Saudi-led coalition to investigate these allegations in the first instance.”
We went on to look at the detail of the operation of the joint incidents assessment team, saying:
“further progress is needed to ensure that JIAT is transparent, credible, and publishes its investigations in a timely manner. We recommend that the UK Government offer its support to the JIAT where appropriate so that it can meet these ends.”
In the rather limited time available, I want to refer briefly to the allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law. We have imposed on ourselves through the law the toughest set of conditions around arms licences. The proper place for those laws to be tested is in a court, and that is what will happen. More widely, in relation to our interests both in Yemen and the Gulf as a whole, the Government are charged with the responsibility of promoting our national interest and the international interest, as well as the wider promotion of our values.
No one will disagree when I say that there are, of course, challenges in this area. The Yemen conflict represents an immensely difficult challenge on a number of levels. However, as the Foreign Secretary said, the conflict did not come out of nowhere. We have to look at the issue of intent. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire when she says that the Saudis are targeting women and children. The judgment we have to make is whether the Saudi-led coalition, in executing a unanimous United Nations Security Council resolution to restore some kind of order to the recognised authority in Yemen, is trying to do so with the best of intentions. What is the Saudi interest in committing breaches of international humanitarian law while progressing a very difficult military campaign in the most unbelievably difficult geographical circumstances, given that the coalition is relatively immature and has never done this before? We should be thinking about what support to give our ally in picking up its responsibility for the delivery of regional security, because if it was not doing so, where would that responsibility sit?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman mentioned intent. Does he not accept that arms trade law is based not on intent, but on the clear risk of violations of international humanitarian law? Like me, he supports an independent inquiry. If that found that international humanitarian law had been violated by the Saudi-led coalition, what action would he support?
Crispin Blunt
As I have just made clear, that is a matter for the courts. It is a matter of law that should be judged in the courts. The judgments that we need to make are policy ones. As far as the conduct of the operation in Yemen is concerned, it is in our interests to give as much support as possible to the Saudi-led coalition, which is, in effect, acting on our behalf, so that the coalition is able to conduct the operation successfully and within international humanitarian law.
Would that aim be achieved by pulling all support from the Saudi-led coalition, as the Opposition’s motion proposes? Would it be assisted by suspending arms exports, as the Scottish National party’s amendment suggests? It is pretty clear to me that either of those actions would seriously damage the sensible and proper conduct of the operation in Yemen by making it more difficult for the coalition to execute the operation with the advice and support of both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Despite the limited time, I want to put this issue in the context of our wider relationship with Saudi Arabia. What lessons would the Saudis take, and what message would it send to Saudi Arabia if, in these circumstances, we pre-emptively—in advance of any legal challenge to the basis of the licensing regime—pulled support from Saudi Arabia? Whether they are acting under international humanitarian law will be tested in the courts, but I believe at least that their intent is to make sure that they progress the operation within international humanitarian law.
What is happening in Saudi Arabia today, and in what direction is the state going? We have had a long-term strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia, and I invite hon. Members to examine what is happening there. They should look at Vision 2030. They should look at the people who are now in charge. Anyone who has listened to the Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir—he has been to the House twice recently to give a presentation to MPs—will have seen how impressive a Foreign Minister he is. The deputy crown prince who is now leading economic reform in Saudi Arabia has put extremely impressive technocrats in charge of that process. It is all part of a wider modernisation process, not just economically but socially. It is absolutely in our interests that that direction for Saudi Arabia is supported and is successful.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Reigate—sorry Mark, because I am sure you want to come in shortly—that he has had eight minutes. I want to bring Keith Vaz in. When other Members have no minutes left, they are then going to wonder who to blame. Is the hon. Member for Reigate going to give way?
Mr Hendrick
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for giving way. I ask him quite simply: what is the alternative to the Saudi royal family as a Government—liberal democracy or an extreme Islamist Government? I think it is rather the latter. This country, and the west generally, must deal with the current Saudi Government whether we like it or not.
Crispin Blunt
We have seen the consequences of the uncontrolled loss of governance in the region, and they are pretty ugly. The truth is that the current leadership in Saudi Arabia is probably taking the country in a general direction that we can all approve of. The Saudi Government face huge challenges in doing that, but Saudi Arabia is the most important country in the Gulf. I believe that we should try to be alongside its Government on that extremely difficult journey, rather than making things more difficult. If they have to turn elsewhere for support, they will not be getting laser-guided bombs, but weapons that will not enable them to carry out operations in the Yemen in the way that they are or with the benefit of our advice. I am aware that I have now run out of the time you allocated me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Although my heart is breaking looking at the violence and humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, I am very proud of this Parliament. In the past seven days we have discussed Yemen twice, and 60 Members of the House are here today.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), the shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow International Development Secretary, for agreeing to hold this debate. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his pivotal role in ensuring that we got a ceasefire when he met John Kerry and the Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister on 16 October. I also thank the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), for the way in which she and her party have raised this issue over a number of months since the last election.
In the brief time that I have, I will concentrate on the ceasefire and the UN resolution that I hope will come on Monday. The ceasefire announced last week lasted only 72 hours. Fighting and bombings have swiftly returned at an intensity identical to that seen before the brief cessation of hostilities. The ceasefire had allowed food and humanitarian supplies to reach areas that had otherwise been completely inaccessible. The special envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, begged both sides for an extension to the ceasefire, but violations by both sides rendered those efforts fruitless.
We are now at a critical stage in the history of Yemen. We have said this so many times before, but now, more than at any previous time, Yemen is on the brink of disaster. That is why our concern in this House should be to bring about a permanent ceasefire in Yemen, and why all our efforts should concentrate on that critical UN meeting that will take place on Monday in New York.
I am sorry that we are going to divide on this subject this evening. I put forward an amendment that I hoped would be selected. If the House could only vote as one in favour of peace in Yemen, I would be very happy.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. Peace is absolutely essential. May I remind hon. Members of the various elements of the combat in Yemen and the situation regarding arms? We are talking about Saudi Arabia in this debate, but the Houthis are being backed by Iran, so Iranian weapons are going in there. Can we remember that there are two sides and two foreign parties involved?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—this is much more complicated. There are many sides to this, not just two. Anyone who has dealt with Yemen or lived there for a while will know that the tribal system is extremely important. It is important that we do not make this simplistic. What is very clear is the scorecard of shame that Members have talked about today: the 21.2 million people who require urgent humanitarian assistance, 9.9 million of whom are children; the more than 10,000 people killed in the last 18 months; and the 14.1 million people at risk of hunger, the equivalent of the combined populations of London, Birmingham and Glasgow.
I welcome what the Government and the International Development Secretary have done to ensure that more money has been pledged to Yemen, but it is critical that the money is used for supplies, and that those supplies reach the people who are hungry. Otherwise, all the money we raise will not be enough to deal with the crisis. Oxfam’s chief executive, Mark Goldring, who addressed the all-party group last week, called the situation in Yemen “Syria without cameras”. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who was born, as I was, in Aden; the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), another officer of the group; and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for all the work they have done.
On Monday, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is not in the Chamber, said to the Prime Minister that when 7,000 people were killed in 1995 in Srebrenica, the international community acted. That is why it is so important that we not only debate today’s motion, but follow through with a resolution that will be taken on board by the whole United Nations. Despite the incredible work of Islamic Relief, Oxfam, UNICEF, Médecins sans Frontières and many others, they simply cannot get the aid in. I hope that when the Minister, who has engaged fully with the all-party group, comes to wind up the debate, he will tell us more about what can be done to ensure that the aid gets through. He will say, I think, that unless we get the ceasefire, people will starve. I commend the international community for all the work that it has done to try to ensure that the ceasefire occurs. The issue of investigations has been raised, and while it is important that we get the investigations, we need to have the ceasefire. Once we have that, any investigations to deal with violations on all sides will need to be addressed, and we will need to address the question of what arms are being used.
What concerns me and what should concern the House—I know it concerns the Foreign Secretary—is what is going to happen on Monday. In my debate last week, we were told that Britain holds all the pens as far as Yemen is concerned. That is why the instruction that the Foreign Secretary gives to our permanent representative—the excellent Matthew Rycroft, who is leading for us in New York—will be so critical. I wish that the Foreign Secretary could go to New York on Monday and argue the case, but I do not manage his diary. I think that the presence of the British Foreign Secretary at the United Nations on Monday would be critical.
Members will raise all kinds of issues, all of them important, but unless we have a permanent ceasefire, Yemen will quite literally bleed to death while we discuss them. I beg everyone involved in the process to please move together in a united way, without dividing opinion, and concentrate on that one critical issue: getting the United Nations to back a permanent ceasefire. Then the people of Yemen can actually survive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I just remind Members that the time limit is five minutes.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I apologise to the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of her remarks.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak. Without covering all the ground, because there is so much to talk about, I would just like to say two or three things. I speak from the experience of having been a Minister who visited Yemen and understands a little bit about it, and who also had the responsibility of signing off arms control applications in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I speak as someone who I think on occasion got it both wrong and right.
The FCO has some incredibly difficult choices to make in dealing with any of these issues. The focus of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who made a typically excellent speech on this subject, was absolutely right. It is understandable that the motion is before us, and the sentiments behind it are well understood. Is it the most significant thing at the moment? Probably not, because ending the conflict was what the right hon. Gentleman focused on, and in getting to the end of a conflict, some incredibly difficult choices have to be made. The balance between our values and the practicalities of the issues surrounding decisions in the middle east has never been more finely balanced or more difficult.
I repeat that I understand the sentiments behind the motion, but I do not think that it is the right answer to the problems we have. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out well the complexities and some of the background that is essential to understanding where Yemen is today.
Two things about the kingdom of Saudi Arabia might be usefully known. First, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East and others know, Yemen has been in a state for a long time. It was the king of Saudi Arabia who picked up Yemen and sent money over a lengthy period of time. This friends of Yemen process was started by the Labour Government when they were in office. A lot of money was put into Yemen; it did not get through to the people because of the actions of the then President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, who is a constant factor in the difficulties created in the region. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been extremely generous in trying to support Yemen and pick it up.
Secondly, we need to be aware of the openness with which the Saudi Foreign Minister addressed the issue of the dreadful bombing attack on the funeral recently. That is relatively new, and it indicates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, a different approach in Saudi Arabia, which is of huge significance in the region.
With that in mind, we come to what we are trying to say and do today. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said that our values would come forward from what the House did. With all due respect, that is not necessarily so. It is not just our interpretation of our values that is important; other people’s interpretation of our values is important as well. I know from tough experience that what we sometimes say and do here with the best of intentions is not always seen in the same way elsewhere. Sometimes what we hold to be dear can be seen as naive misjudgment by those who are closer to the action and have difficult judgments to make themselves.
What is most important is that in a region where friendships have been changed in recent years—most notably by some of the actions of the United States leaving people wondering whose side they were on, and who was going to be a balance in the regional interests and conflicts—for the United Kingdom to be seen to make a similar judgment at this time would undermine the efforts being made for peace.
Let me quote from the letter sent to Members from the ambassador to Yemen before today’s debate. In respect of the peace efforts being made, he said:
“We hope the Houthi militia who control Sana’a may be persuaded to engage seriously in peace talks”—
which is obviously what we all want. He continues, however, by saying:
“They hope instead to weaken the Coalition by undermining relationships with its Western Allies”.
That is what we might, unwittingly, fall into.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not also appreciate that although the UK is doing good work by providing aid, we are undermining that good work by also selling bombs that are landing on the heads of people in Yemen?
Alistair Burt
No, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The great work that we are doing on humanitarian relief is well respected, but the issue of who is supportive in a situation that, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, is not of the Government of Yemen’s own making is a complex one. The undermining of a constitutional process that is absolutely vital to the further development of Yemen and the issues between north and south are further complicating issues. I went to both north and south and I went to Aden; I met the southern leaders; the constitutional process was getting somewhere—but it was undermined by the Houthi attacks and then the support of Ali Abdullah Saleh. Only when that is stopped can the constitutional talks continue and the efforts for peace be delivered, because that is what is most important for the people who are suffering in Yemen. With the best will in the world, this action by the United Kingdom would not achieve anything on the ground, and it might make the process more difficult. We want to see a ceasefire as quickly as possible, but I do not think that by withdrawing our support from one of the parties that can actually make that happen and by giving false hope to others to continue the conflict, we would be doing our best for the people of Yemen.
I greatly appreciate not only being given the opportunity to speak, but some of the difficult judgments that my colleagues have to make. Sometimes it is not easy to get the balance right. I think that on this occasion my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, above all, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), are doing the very best that they can for the people of Yemen, and that we should back them up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Unfortunately, because Members have been giving way, I shall have to reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes in order to accommodate Members. I am sorry about that. I call Kevan Jones.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is right for us to support the legitimately elected and UN-backed Government of Yemen. It is also important for us to work tirelessly to bring about the ceasefire to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred, because without it we shall not be able to get humanitarian aid into the country or advance a political settlement. However, I cannot support the motion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), concentrated on only part of the story, which she does quite a lot when it comes to this conflict. She condemned the actions of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but completely ignored what is being done by the Houthis, and the Iranian-backed weapons that are being taken into Yemen to fuel the conflict and help the Iranians to destabilise the region.
War is a horrible thing, and if there are violations on either side, I strongly believe that they should be investigated. It is sad that it was only in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said yes, we should investigate all sides.
Mr Jones
I will not, because time is limited.
The Iranians are fuelling the conflict with millions of pounds’ worth of weapons. That is not a sign that a regime wants a peaceful settlement. As for their involvement in the peace process, there is evidence that they undermined the ceasefire that was in operation in the past few days. That is not helpful.
I accept that there are people, in the House and elsewhere, who take a moral stance against either the manufacture or the export of arms. Do I respect those people? Yes, I do, but I do not agree with them. I take what is perhaps, in the Labour party, the rather traditional view that we should be able to manufacture weapons, and that individual countries should be allowed to protect themselves when that is possible. I am proud that our legislation on arms exports was one of the achievements of the last Labour Government. The Export Control Act 2002 was the first such legislation for 50 years. We have a robust system in this country, and we should not shy away from it.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) that if Members want to comment on certain matters in the Chamber, they should consider them in detail first. When the Saudi Foreign Minister came here, I asked him about cluster munitions. However, I did not simply take his word for it. I knew from my own experience that using a 30-year-old cluster munition would be unsafe—and, in any case, how could it actually be delivered? I entirely agree that those issues should be investigated, but I do not think that they should be represented as facts when there is evidence to show that it might not be possible for such munitions to be used.
The situation is complex, but I do not think that the motion does anything to support the peace process, which I think is what we all want to do. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that a united voice from the Chamber this evening would be the best way of achieving what we all want to achieve. I am thinking not just of peace in Yemen but of the need for us to support our allies in the region, who are important not just to stability in that part of the world, but to the prevention of terrorism and other threats to us at here at home.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I do not regard myself as an expert on Yemen, but I have had a long association with the region, both as a banker and as a Member of Parliament. I am a former Defence Minister who was responsible for defence exports, and a Member of Parliament for Aldershot. I represent the headquarters of the fourth largest defence company in the world, BAE Systems.
As we heard from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—and I agreed with everything that he said—it is important for us to understand that the United Kingdom has enjoyed a very long and mutually beneficial relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There have been occasional differences between us, but those are to be found in any relationship.
We have got to understand the big picture. The kingdom is a key player in a region currently facing massive challenges, not least from Iran. In the case of Yemen, the kingdom has assembled an Arab coalition to take action against Houthi rebels following the ousting of President Hadi by Houthis widely believed to be supported by Iran. The coalition is operating under UN Security Council resolution 2216 and is composed of a pretty formidable array of Arab states: Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Kuwait, the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar. That is a not-insignificant Arab grouping.
The coalition is also taking action against Daesh and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as demanded by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) when she was a shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, who said that the UK needs to
“work with the Saudis to ensure that we stop the flow of funding and support to ISIL/Daesh.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2015; Vol. 603, c. 122.]
The Saudis should be commended for what they are doing, not criticised.
As the hon. Member for North Durham said, the Houthis have a long record of atrocities, including recruiting child soldiers, using civilians as human shields and preventing aid groups from delivering medical supplies. Members should also know that the Houthi flag reads:
“God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam”—
a motto partially modelled on that of revolutionary Iran and almost word for word a translation of Ayatollah Khomeini’s slogan. So we should be doing all we can to support our key ally in dealing with these disreputable people.
So, what about the criticism of Saudi Arabia? There was indeed an attack on 8 October on a funeral party which tragically killed some 140 innocent people, but the Saudis ordered its joint incidents assessment team, a body formed of representatives from the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen as well as the kingdom itself, to undertake an immediate inquiry which established that the air operations centre in Yemen directed a close air support mission to target the location without obtaining approval from the coalition command to support legitimacy and without following the coalition command’s precautionary measures to ensure that the location was not a civilian one. JIAT concluded that action should be taken against those found to be responsible.
We all make mistakes. I have had responsibility for targeting, and the Americans are not without criticism in this regard; they attacked a hospital manned by Médecins Sans Frontières. To suggest that the UK should suspend defence exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is at best SNP grandstanding and at worst a kick in the teeth for an important ally, as well as doing a disservice to the hundreds of highly skilled workers at Raytheon and Leonardo plants in Scotland which supply equipment to the BAE-led Salam programme of defence exports to Saudi Arabia—but I suspect SNP Members do not care about the employment prospects.
Like the Al Yamamah programme before it, Salam has made a significant contribution to the maintenance of the defence-industrial capability of the UK, generating prosperity across the UK, including Scotland.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am sad to say that I will be unable to back the motion my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has introduced today. I think this is the first time I have not supported an Opposition day motion, and God knows I have backed some rubbish—only joking. There is much in the motion that I agree with, but I fear it is ultimately undermined by the abandonment of our commitment to the UN Security Council resolution, and I fear that while it may make us feel better, it will not make the situation on the ground better.
The situation in Yemen is appalling and is quickly becoming the greatest humanitarian challenge stalking the planet in what is a most difficult time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke movingly about the scale of the human catastrophe in Yemen and I agree with him that it is a shame that we are seeking to divide the House on this issue.
There are legitimate concerns about the actions of Saudi Arabia in the Yemen. There is little doubt that the recent bombing of a funeral in the Yemeni capital constitutes a war crime; it was an appalling act that sickens us all, and I am pleased that the Saudis have accepted culpability and that an investigation into this incident is ongoing. I hope that as the investigation continues those responsible for this awful incident will be brought to justice and tried by the International Criminal Court.
There are other allegations against the Saudis that should concern us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury referred to the reports of deliberate strikes against agriculture infrastructure and the bombing of recently besieged areas in which aid is being provided. For that reason, I support the call for an independent inquiry to establish what has been done, by whom and on whose orders. My hon. Friend is right to push the Government and the international community to do more to ensure clarity on this matter, and we should be attempting to use our influence to ensure that a legitimate UN-sanctioned campaign in Yemen is not undermined by inexcusable actions. She posed some important questions, but I have to say that I was not certain what support she was asking us to withdraw. The motion clearly does not refer to arms exports. So if I were to support it, I would not be clear exactly what I was asking for.
It is true that our relationship with Saudi Arabia is not an easy one, but we do wield some influence and our security is enhanced by the relationship. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, once a secretive, suspicious and insular country, now sends its Ministers here to be scrutinised by MPs in the Houses of Parliament. Other Members have referred to our significant economic interest in continuing to have positive relations with the Saudis, and to the fact that they have been a useful ally for our own security in the past and today. For years, the west has asked Saudi Arabia to take on more responsibility for what happens in the region, and it is now doing so. None of this means that we should ignore or underplay the significance of infractions of international humanitarian law, but we should think very carefully before isolating Saudi Arabia in the way that the motion suggests.
We should also be clear about the true threat posed to the people of Yemen, and indeed to the wider middle east region, by the Houthis. They are a terrorist organisation and they are unapologetic in their slaughtering of civilians. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) has just referred to the words inscribed on their flag, and those words tell us everything we need to know about the true motives of that organisation. It is for precisely that reason that, in April 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2216, which mandated military action. It would be a huge mistake for us to turn away from that. As everyone in the House is aware, thousands of Yemeni women, children and old people will sleep fitfully tonight, never knowing what horrors tomorrow might bring. Now is not the time to throw away the influence we have. It is time to use it to help to create a safer middle east.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I see that the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is on the Front Bench. I welcome the Government’s commitment to addressing the humanitarian situation in the Yemen, which has made the UK the fourth largest donor this financial year by committing £100 million to provide food, clean water, and medical supplies. However, those emergency supplies do nothing to abate the arguably more serious, yet still intertwined, threat to the humanitarian situation: the war crimes and human rights abuses of which the evidence speaks volumes. Such evidence has implicated all parties involved in the conflict in abuses of human rights.
Let me be clear. Even if you are a legitimate Government in exile struggling to reclaim your country from aggressors, or a foreign state charged with assisting in that recovery, and even if you have the backing of the United Nations itself, you are never exonerated from the duty to uphold human rights. Human rights abuses are always unacceptable, illegal and totally barbaric, and they must be called out and stopped. I am of course completely in favour of an independent UN-led investigation into the accusations of human rights abuses made against the Saudi-led coalition—one that can support Saudi Arabia’s own investigations—but to say that we should withdraw our support for the coalition until such investigations have gone ahead would be, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Sir Simon Mayall, a former middle east adviser in the Ministry of Defence, said when giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that it was likely that without Saudi intervention, groups such as ISIL would have gained a similar footing in Yemen as they have in Syria and Iraq. The Houthis would also have been able to expand throughout Yemen far more freely. Indeed, we would have seen an Iranian-backed militia having huge influence over the security of the vital Bab el-Mandeb shipping strait. With more Houthi territory under poor and unstable government, the opportunities for al-Qaeda to gain territory would have been greater still, adding to the substantial Yemeni regions it already possesses.
It could not be clearer that without Saudi military aid the situation would be far worse. Time and time again, Saudi Arabia has proved a crucial ally of the United Kingdom. We have worked together in Iraq and Syria, and in providing relief for Syrian refugees. The regional stability in the middle east that our close connection with Saudi Arabia has engendered is also of particular note. I ask the whole House to recall the first Gulf war and the location from which the then military coalition launched its offensive against Saddam Hussein’s illegal occupation of Kuwait. No Member of this House would disagree that it was illegal and that the offensive needed to happen. Saudi Arabia hosted the US-led coalition that liberated the country. It is staggeringly obvious that we would be less safe without our ties to Saudi Arabia, and so would the Yemeni people.
In the limited time remaining, I want to turn to the future, because the only way to resolve or alleviate the crisis is by reaching a political solution. In this conflict, and in so many across the middle east, the sectarian divide plays a huge part in the political process. Whether Yemen, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon, the Shi’ite tradition of Islam, spiritually led by Iran, and the Sunni tradition, led by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both need to learn to reconcile with one another. From my background in Baghdad, I know that Sunnis and Shi’as can exist harmoniously and that religious divides need not be exploited as they have been across the middle east. I hope with all my heart that such a future awaits the people of Yemen.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Last Saturday in Liverpool, I helped to organise a vigil for peace in Yemen, at which we launched the “Liverpool Friends of Yemen”. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is truly appalling. Thousands have been killed. Three million are acutely malnourished. As the motion says, it is a country
“on the brink of famine”.
More than 21 million Yemenis require humanitarian assistance—80% of the population. Over 1 million children are internally displaced. More than 14 million are in need of basic healthcare.
I pay tribute to DFID and the Government for their humanitarian relief work. This country has committed £100 million at a time when the UN appeal, according to my latest figures, is only 47% fulfilled. I also pay tribute to the many NGOs that are doing fantastic work in relieving the appalling crisis.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were more population flows towards this part of the world, we might be taking the crisis in Yemen more seriously?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many describe the situation as a forgotten crisis—although I welcome the fact that this is the second debate on Yemen in this House in the space of just a week.
The International Development Committee’s inquiry into the Yemen crisis reached a number of conclusions. The first thing to say is that the evidence is clear that appalling atrocities have been committed by both sides in the conflict. We heard not only that over 62% of the killings have been caused by the Saudi-led coalition, but that Houthis have recruited children to armed groups and have sieged towns such as Taiz, denying basic access to humanitarian aid and medicines. There is no suggestion in the motion or in my Committee’s reports that we are taking sides with the Houthis; this is about a balanced approach.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right, and we no doubt agree on where the responsibility lies for starting this conflict and for many of the atrocities. Does he agree that we are neither an ally of the Houthis nor selling arms to them?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear that negotiations and a peace process are needed, that we need a lasting ceasefire and that humanitarian work and civilian protection must be prioritised. The International Development Committee started with the view that this was a humanitarian crisis, but as we took evidence it became clear that we simply could not divorce the humanitarian position from the alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both sides. In turn, we could not divorce that position from the fact that we are arming one of those sides.
There are widespread reports of violations of international humanitarian law. The UN documented 119 abuses, and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented substantial numbers more. The Government, however, have been rather dismissive of the evidence from such organisations. Saferworld told the Committee:
“In other contexts, the Government will cite their reports. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty will be cited in Syria; they have been cited in Libya and Sudan in support of the Government position. Here, they are referred to as not good enough to be considered evidence compared with a reassurance from the Saudis, one of the belligerents to the conflict, that there are no violations of international humanitarian law.”
I welcome the fact that at the recent UN Human Rights Council the UK position did shift and we signed up to an EU common position that enabled there to be a greater independent element in the investigation of abuses, but I support what this motion says, which is that there should be a fully independent UN-led investigation into abuses by both sides. My Committee reached agreement that in the meantime we should suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The scale of arms sales—
Wendy Morton
I serve on the International Development Committee and, as one of its members, I think it is fair to say that we said the matter of arms sales should go before the Committees on Arms Export Controls; we did not say to suspend sales at that stage.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Lady is an excellent member of the Committee and she is right that in our earlier report we did indeed say that, but in the later report in September, after the CAEC discussions, we then agreed a report, jointly with the then Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, that advocated a suspension of arms sales while the independent investigation was undertaken.
I wish to finish on the following point—the clock seems to be being rather generous to me and I thank it for that.
Stephen Twigg
I am even more grateful to those human forces. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke about intent, and this issue is vital. What European Union, United Kingdom and international arms trade law says is that licences cannot be granted if there is a “clear risk” that the arms may be used in the commission of violations of international humanitarian law. This is not about intent; it is about there being a clear risk. That is the test we face, and my major concern is that the approach that the Government have taken is inconsistent with the UK’s global leadership role on the rule of law and international rules-based systems.
A point was raised earlier about reputation, which is very important. Our reputation as an upholder of international humanitarian law is very important. We can be proud of the active role this country played in the shaping of the arms trade treaty, and I simply do not believe that that test of “no clear risk” is the one being applied. I agree with colleagues on all sides of this debate who have said that we want a ceasefire and a political process, and that this conflict will be settled diplomatically, not militarily. However, crucially, the reason why I support this motion is that I really do believe that we need a fully independent UN-led investigation into all of these appalling alleged violations of international humanitarian law—on both sides.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow some very learned speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). Today’s debate comes after a recent Adjournment debate in this Chamber about humanitarian aid to Yemen and a number of other debates, including a Backbench Business Committee debate and a Westminster Hall debate, and after the report by the International Development Committee, of which I am a member.
All of this highlights the seriousness and complexity of the situation, but it also raises awareness of what is often described as the “forgotten war”. It is worth remembering that the conflict in Yemen has its roots in the failure of a transitional process that it was hoped would bring stability to the country. Following the uprising in 2011, that has, sadly, not been the case and now, despite nearly two years of conflict, neither side appears close to a decisive victory. The UN estimates that more than 4,000 civilians have been killed, with more than 7,000 injured, that 3.1 million Yemenis are internally displaced and that 14 million people are suffering from food insecurity. But this humanitarian crisis was going on before the current situation began. So in calling for humanitarian relief, we should recognise the tremendous work done by the Department for International Development in Yemen, as well as that of all the non-governmental organisations. This is a country in which the challenges of getting aid to those who need it most is great. Whenever and wherever UK aid is sent, the importance of an unimpeded passage cannot be underestimated, not just for those in need, but for the safety of those NGOs and DFID staff who work in-country.
On 21 September, the Secretary of State announced an additional £37 million of aid to support Yemen, which brings the UK’s total humanitarian funding for the crisis to £100 million this year. DFID and the UK Government should be commended for that. The UK is now the fourth largest donor, which shows that it certainly has stepped up to the plate. However, the aim above all must be to seek a political settlement and a cessation of hostilities. The Government must use their leadership role and influence as much as possible and remain fully involved in diplomatic efforts to bring about peace. The UK’s strong relationships with a number of important players in the region is vital. Our influence in the middle east must put us in a unique position to help bring about the lasting peace settlement that we all so desperately want.
There is no doubt in my mind that the security situation in Yemen is serious. This conflict is brutal. The UN has reminded all parties that they have a duty of care in the conduct of military operations to protect civilians. Yes, concerns and questions remain, particularly around the airstrike that hit a funeral hall in Sana’a on 8 October. It is for the Saudis to investigate and report back in the first instance. We must remember and recognise that, at the UN Human Rights Council in September, the UK supported a strong resolution, which included a commitment to increase the number of international human rights experts in the Yemen office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.
Surely a political solution and an immediate, unconditional ceasefire between Houthi rebels and Government forces must be the way forward—a way forward in the pursuit of a long-term solution to this conflict. As the embassy of the Republic of Yemen has pointed out, this conflict did not begin with the arrival of the Saudi-led coalition in March 2015. It began much earlier.
There is much more that I would like to say, but I appreciate that I am short of time. Let me end by saying that I will not support the Opposition motion, but I will support the Government’s amendment, because it is the right and proper thing to do.
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The situation in Yemen is appalling and indeed devastating to the population. It is right that we hold our friends to higher standards, but to withdraw our support from Saudi Arabia is to remove ourselves from being a critical friend and ally of a regime that we want to reform and that is going through a process of change which will only improve its governance and its prestige in the world. It is the world’s largest oil exporter in a region that is fraught with dangers and conflicts. Why would we want to abandon an ally in that situation, especially as they supply us with intelligence on al-Qaeda and ISIL and support us in our fight against terrorism more generally?
Stopping arms sales to Saudi Arabia will not end the conflict in Yemen. In fact, it could exacerbate it, because, obviously, it would no longer be listening to the sound advice of this country, its Government and its military. At the same time, it would also devastate many thousands of highly skilled people who are working in an industry in Lancashire that provides aircraft and systems that defend with great effect not just our borders, but the borders of our allies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
If the reported human rights abuses are taking place, are they accidental, are they planned, or are they being carried out by rogue elements of the Saudi air force? I do not know, and I welcome the coalition’s interim report and look forward to its final report.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the interim report, which was published on 15 October, stated that Saudi Arabia is reviewing its rules of engagement and will take action against those responsible for the atrocities. He also said that the House should not be in any doubt that the British Government are meticulously monitoring the situation. Having served on the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I would expect them to do that, and I expect them to do so again in the future.
As I said in an intervention, the alternative to a royal family governing Saudi Arabia is not liberal democracy, but extremist Islamism. Undermining one of our allies in the region is not an alternative to guiding them to abide by international humanitarian law and the standards to which we all in this House aspire.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The House should remember that the countries involved in the terrible war in Yemen do not have a history of intervention. Historically, countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar have not intervened in other jurisdictions, despite their location in a very difficult and volatile region. They have certainly never come together, as they have done on this occasion, collectively to enter another country—in this case to take on the Houthi rebels.
We ought to pause for a moment to think about the historic consequences and the unique situation that we find in all these disparate countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) listed the names of the countries that have come together because collectively they see the appalling consequences of what is happening in Yemen. My contacts in Saudi Arabia tell me that many Saudis are married to Yemenis and that there has historically been a huge amount of exchange between Yemen and Saudi, and the idea that they would deliberately target civilians is one that they find appalling and shocking.
Yemen is being destabilised by the Houthi rebels. As we heard from the Foreign Secretary, they are firing Scud missiles into Saudi Arabia and carrying out the most appalling brutality throughout that country. We have heard from the SNP about the civilian casualties, but the Emirates have lost more pilots in this conflict than in the history of their nation, so they have suffered a great deal as well.
I am concerned that the coverage of the situation by our own media in this country, the BBC and Newsnight in particular, is superficial, poor, and I would even go so far as to say biased, leading to motions such as that emanating from the SNP.
We met the coalition forces at the Royal United Services Institute. RUSI kindly organised a meeting for us at which we engaged with the head of the Saudi air force, who told us, “Every single plane has cameras on it. We can pinpoint exactly where the planes are at any one time. If you have evidence that any of them have deliberately”—that is the critical word, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) alluded to it—“targeted civilians, that must be raised directly with the Saudis.” They are doing everything possible to try to limit civilian casualties. There is a report in The Independent today that the Americans’ recent bombing in Syria has led to over 300 casualties. Of course, civilians are affected, regrettably, when there is a bombing campaign.
We take great pride in Shropshire in training many pilots from the Gulf states—Kuwaitis, Emiratis and Saudis—at RAF Cosford and RAF Shawbury. It is not just about selling the equipment to those Gulf states. We take great pride in training those pilots to the very highest standards. They are taught by their British counterparts not just about professionalism and about flying, but about the ethics of flying those planes and the importance of what they do. I am very proud of the contribution that we make and I regret that there are Members in this House who think that we would be party in some way to deliberately targeting civilians.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place, for his initiative in securing the Adjournment debate last week on the humanitarian atrocities in Yemen. We all look forward to the UN peace talks that will take place in a few days and I hope they bear fruit. That debate was well attended and there are even more MPs here for this debate. Government Members should take note of the growing discontent and unease in this House and across the country about breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen. This issue has not emerged just in the past week. I remind the House that the debate today takes place more than a year after the first evidence emerged of deliberate human rights violations by the Saudi regime in Yemen. It will come as no surprise to anyone here today that I opposed the granting of arms export licences to Saudi Arabia then, and I oppose it now. Although I am pleased to see many more Members gradually coming to that view in today’s debate, it astonishes me that there are still those who cannot see the contradiction in continuing to allow those arms sales while asserting that Britain is a force for good in the world.
With over 3 million internally displaced persons in Yemen and almost 15 million people experiencing food insecurity, the human cost of the conflict is all too clear. Last week the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen watched in silence as Krishnan Guru-Murthy introduced a Channel 4 exposé of the level of suffering we are releasing on the children of Yemen through our actions and inactions. We heard from Yemenis who told us that they welcomed the current ceasefire, as perhaps being a path to lasting peace, but that that peace could not be delivered while the civilian population was in danger of being bombed in school, at weddings, at funerals or at work in Yemen’s faltering economy. This is not grandstanding—but if it is grandstanding, I plead guilty.
We on the SNP Benches understand perfectly well that Saudi Arabia is an ally, that it is fighting on the side of the legitimately recognised Government of Yemen, and that atrocities have been committed on both sides, but the fact remains that the sale of £2.8 billion-worth of arms to the Saudi regime over the course of this conflict has undoubtedly contributed to humanitarian suffering. Surely those on the Government Front Bench cannot take a contrary view.
The most galling aspect, in my opinion, has been the blatant attempt to ensure that no independent investigation takes place that would put our Government in the inevitable position of having to request that arms sales be halted. In October last year, when the Netherlands sought to establish the first UN investigation into war crimes in Yemen, the UK Government supported a Saudi motion that would see it investigating its own crimes. I have met no one who seriously thinks that Saudi Arabia has the capacity to conduct a rigorous, independent and transparent investigation into itself. The Foreign Secretary knows that a Saudi-led investigation is worthless, I know that it is worthless, and this House knows that it is worthless.
Put simply, the UK Government must immediately support the establishment of a thorough, UN-led investigation into these crimes, and the continuing inability of anyone on the Government Benches to move that forward is to their immense discredit. As the Committees on Arms Export Controls found in their evidence, it opens Ministers—these Ministers—up to international criminal investigation, and that cannot be in our national interest.
The SNP’s position is that the Government must halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia immediately and ensure that a full investigation, under the auspices of the UN, now takes place.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I think most of us in this House would recognise that Saudi Arabia is a country in transition. It has come a long way in a relatively short space of time in order to address some of the concerns that we in this House have articulated. To deny that it has made progress is to deny the facts. I think we all share the concerns about what we have seen taking place in Yemen. No one could defend the bombing of a wedding party and the deaths of civilians. However, when we stand back and look at the conflict in its totality, and the crimes that the Houthis are responsible for, such as the capture and the killing of Saudi personnel and intrusions across the Saudi border, we have to recognise that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, like any sovereign state, has the right to defend itself.
As someone who has visited Saudi Arabia, I have not been shy about criticising aspects of its Government’s direction of travel, but neither should we be blind to the fact that the kingdom has made some great strides forward in recent years to address the concerns of many Members of this House.
I think that we would be wrong to withdraw support in an attempt to influence the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A withdrawal of support, which is implied in Labour’s motion and made explicit in the SNP’s amendment, relates to the withdrawal of arms sales. I unashamedly defend our right to sell defence equipment legitimately, with export controls, as we do, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In my constituency, 6,500 men, women and apprentices are employed by BAE Systems at Warton, 4,000 over at Samlesbury and another 1,000 over at Brough, working on Hawk trainer aircraft, Typhoons and Tornado upgrades. Without the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and without those arms exports, 16,000 people would be out of work.
It is all very well for people to sit as though they were at an Islington dinner party and, over their latest glass of Uruguayan wine, say “Let’s stop arms sales,” but let us look at one key fact: every single one of those people is a human being, not a number; they have mortgages to pay, they have skills and they have jobs. Twice in my time as a Member of Parliament I have been at the gates of BAE Systems in Warton when redundancies have been made. My goodness, when you see proud working people at the risk of losing their jobs, it is a humbling moment. So when I see people in this House tabling motions calling for those people to lose their jobs—that is what is happening—I question their moral judgment. These are supply chains. If we seek to suspend the sale of this defence equipment, these people do not just go somewhere else; they do not just switch to manufacturing for someone else—they lose their jobs; that is what happens. When people feel really proud that they have said and done the right thing, there are also people who will lose their jobs—tens of thousands of them up and down this country.
I am not going to sit and take lessons from the Scottish National party about what we are doing morally. I know what we are doing morally: we are controlling arms sales, and I support the Government’s actions on this issue. We are controlling arms sales through the rigorous approach taken by the Government, and anyone who seeks to deny that is denying the truth.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the official Opposition for securing the debate. I also thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place—he is by your Chair, Mr Speaker—for rightly putting the focus on the ceasefire, which is what we in the House would all like to see, although we will not be debating his amendment this evening, or indeed voting on it.
I shall focus briefly on the international investigation. Clearly, there are precedents for the UK Government pushing for international investigations—Sri Lanka, for instance, springs to mind. In the right circumstances, we would all support an investigation that covers both sides, because human rights abuses are potentially being committed on both sides. The Government’s position is that they are not opposing calls for an international, independent investigation, but I would like to press the Minister on the circumstances in which they would actually support such an investigation. He has referred to allowing the Saudis to conduct their own investigations, but at what point—using what test, what criteria and what timetable—do our Government say, “Actually, we think we’ve reached the point where we need an international, independent investigation”? I am sure the Minister is aware that the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that 93% of casualties from air-launched explosives are civilians. It is difficult to see, with such statistics, how civilians are not being targeted, certainly through the use of air-launched explosives.
An inquiry might also consider whether the use of cluster munitions is in breach of international humanitarian law. I know that the Minister’s view—or the legal advice that he has received—is that, provided those munitions are used in a way that does not contravene international law, and particularly international humanitarian law, their use per se is not necessarily unlawful. I hope that he will be able to set out on what legal judgments he bases that view that the use of cluster munitions in civilian areas is, on occasions, legal.
I certainly think that the Americans would be in favour of an international investigation. The Minister may be aware that US officials have looked at whether the United States might be a co-belligerent and could be pursued under international law for war crimes. I hope that our Government have investigated that.
I welcome the visit of the Saudi Foreign Minister. I agree that he was very open and frank, which is a good start in what is, perhaps, a developing relationship. He said that changes would be made to how the Saudis handle these issues as a result of the incident, or mistake, that they accept what happened in relation to the funeral bombing. We have heard that the Saudis will take action against those directly responsible, but what else does our Minister expect them to do? What additional measures does he expect them to put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen again? Perhaps he will say something about double-tapping, which we have heard is a war crime in Russia, but does not appear to be so in relation to Yemen.
There is, I am afraid, overwhelming evidence that breaches of international humanitarian law are taking place in Yemen, and that is why I shall support the motion tonight.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
The situation faced by the Yemeni people is grave, and I am pleased that our Government are the fourth largest donor of humanitarian aid there. I am dismayed, however, that while the international community has pledged $100 million of aid, Germany is still to commit to pay, and the EU has paid less than it promised. A cessation of hostilities is in the best interests of not only Yemen but the wider region, but I do not believe that the suggestions in the Opposition’s motion would in any way achieve that aim.
We cannot overestimate the importance of UK-Saudi relations to the British national interest. Our strong alliance, which spans decades, encompasses trade, security and intelligence. It has, over many years, provided us with crucial intelligence that has saved the lives of our constituents. We must not forget that, nor the fact that it has taken decades to build up that relationship of trust. This understanding comes from the fact that tens of thousands of British nationals, including many of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick), have lived and worked in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through their work in the defence aerospace industry. They realise that this fledgling state—we must remember that it was founded only in 1932—is not perfect, but that progress will be made only through experience, engagement and co-operation.
Stability in Saudi Arabia is in the British national interest. Chaos has ensued in the past few years since the so-called Arab spring, with a spike in terror meted out at home, and unprecedented migration to our own shores. The country does not have the perfect liberal democracy that we have here, but what it has is better than anarchy and terror. We must support Saudi Arabia in its drive towards reform in a peaceful fashion, because these are difficult times for that country. The falling oil price, and unemployment and underemployment, are creating a vacuum that could be filled with radicalisation, which, again, would have an impact in our constituencies.
It is unsurprising that Saudi Arabia will do all that it can to prevent the war in Yemen from spilling into its own territory. This is the country’s first experience of extended military action, as its Foreign Minister made clear when he came to Parliament last week and spoke frankly about that fact. It is through British intervention and guidance that the Saudis will learn about accountability and transparency. How would they do so without allies like the UK? If the UK were to suspend its support for the Saudi-led coalition forces, as the motion suggests, that would not expedite the publication of reports. Rather, Saudi Arabia would continue its campaign but without our influence as regards better targeting, transparency, accountability, and our understanding of international humanitarian law.
Moving on to the SNP’s position, I will not reiterate the arguments so ably set out by other hon. Members about our arms control policy and the importance of the aerospace industry to our country. This is not an either/or situation; the Government are not pursuing trade to the exclusion of human rights. We can have these conversations about human rights because we have strong trade and diplomatic relations. It is naive to think that if we suspended arms sales, Saudi Arabia would not buy from somebody else. The motion, and particularly the SNP’s position, misunderstand the realities of the region and our role in it, and the British national interest.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is almost five months since I successfully secured a Westminster Hall debate on human rights and arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Part of my speech focused on the situation in Yemen, and since then that situation has gotten progressively worse. There is a massive humanitarian crisis as the country heads into winter, and it is also careering towards a famine. Millions of people urgently need food assistance, but unfortunately they are not receiving it due to the lack of unhindered access.
I appreciate that the Government have been making efforts to ensure that aid starts to get through—that has certainly helped the situation—but the war-related damage to Yemen’s infrastructure means that essential supplies are still not getting into the country. Onerous restrictions on humanitarian access have resulted in 1.3 million children under five suffering from malnutrition. Is it going to require images of dead children to make us do more? There will soon be no shortage of them—that fact is heartbreaking and infuriating.
The Department for International Development will no doubt argue that we are already doing our fair share, and of course it is only right that we do so. I am afraid, however, that handouts cannot make up for us arming the forces that are causing a lot of the damage to the country’s infrastructure. Make no mistake: although we are not coalition partners, we are willing accomplices.
Margaret Ferrier
A lot of Members want to speak, so I am sorry but I am going to continue.
I have been calling for the suspension of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia for more than a year, and I have heard many excuses for not doing so. First, the Government insisted that the Ministry of Defence had conducted assessments of the situation in Yemen and determined that there was no evidence of breaches of international humanitarian law. That was as recently as June, when the then Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), insisted, in response to me in a Westminster Hall debate, that that was the case.
There was then a climbdown when the Government admitted that the MOD had not, in fact, conducted any assessments. The new refrain is that the Saudis should be responsible for investigating themselves, and that is what has started to happen. Although the joint incidents assessment team has investigated relatively few incidents, even it has been forced to admit that the Saudi-led coalition has indeed broken international humanitarian law. That still does not seem to be enough to shame the Government into action. Even the coalition airstrike in Sana’a on 8 October was not enough.
The UN panel of experts on Yemen has condemned the airstrike. It said that the coalition had “violated its obligations” under international law and that it
“did not take effective precautionary measures to minimize harm to civilians, including the first responders”
on the scene. When I tabled a written question to the Foreign Office in June to ask for an assessment of an extensive report published by the panel of experts in January, it responded:
“The UK has supported, and continues to support, the work of the panel of experts commissioned by the UN, but we do not always agree with their conclusions.”
What is totally shameful about that response is that not once have I seen any evidence whatsoever that the Foreign Office has ever disagreed with the conclusions of the Saudi authorities, let alone questioned them. Why is it that the Government seem content to take the word of a participant in the war at face value, yet disregard so readily the findings of the UN panel?
We need to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and we need an independent investigation. It is time for the Government not only to come clean about their role in the conflict, but to start putting things right.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. A number of issues have been touched on very ably by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The first thing we have to consider is that Saudi Arabia—I have visited the kingdom twice in the past three years—is itself on a journey. I first went there in 2013 as part of a delegation, when it was clear that one regime was coming to an end. I and a few colleagues went there earlier this year, and it was equally clear that the country had evolved. There were new programmes in place under the direction of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who spoke candidly about the nature of Saudi involvement in Yemen, as has his Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, very ably in many instances.
The Saudi action in Yemen is not coming out of the blue. It is not something that the Saudis are doing for the sake of it. They are doing it in response to UN resolution 2216, which other Members have alluded to, so in this instance they have the force of international law behind them.
I do not dispute that there have been incidents. I do not dispute that the Saudis have, at times, been overbearing and acted ultra vires, as we used to say—beyond their authority—and that civilians have been killed. That is greatly to be regretted, and it is an appalling violation. When there have been violations, they need to be looked at, but I do not believe that suspending the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia would help this country or the interests that are represented so ably by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) and other north-west Members. To do so would not help them or their constituents, nor would it be of any strategic value to the region itself.
In the past five years, there has been an appalling collapse of order right across the middle east. Libya has descended into chaos, and Yemen has been riven by this terrible conflict, in which right is clearly on one side. The Houthis are rebels and do not wish to conduct themselves according to international law as set out by the UN. There has been chaos in Syria. It is absolutely clear that, in this instance, Saudi Arabia is not acting unilaterally. It is acting as part of a coalition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) suggested. Many Arab countries—not just Gulf countries, but countries such as Morocco—are involved in the action. Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are all involved—[Interruption.] They may not be the shining democracies that you would like to see in Scotland, but they are functioning Governments that are a source of stability.
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not say anything about what I would like to see in Scotland.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I know that, Mr Speaker. I just had a rush of blood to the head when I saw the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) chuntering from a sedentary position.
It is quite clear that the countries I have just mentioned are sources of stability, and it makes absolutely no sense for us to turn our backs on them. On the contrary, we must work with them and make sure that where there are violations, the right people are held to account. It makes no sense for us to walk away. We have important strategic relationships with these kingdoms. To achieve stability in the region, we will need to be mature in our relations with them, and friendly and co-operative when we can be, but we can also be particularly critical if we feel that that is needed.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) accused the SNP of grandstanding and of denying Saudi Arabia the right to self-defence. Our argument is rather that the Saudi intervention in Yemen is disproportionate; that is the key. Several legitimate and well-respected human rights organisations have used open source material to try to count the number of airstrikes in Yemen since March of last year, when the Saudi coalition began the bombing. There have been at least 8,600 airstrikes, and that is disproportionate. There are not enough targets for the Saudi coalition to go on bombing as they have done. One of the findings from that open source material is that at least one third of the airstrikes have resulted in civilian casualties. That is the issue.
Dr Cameron
Does my hon. Friend agree that funding what appears to be indiscriminate bombing is undermining the excellent work that the Department for International Development is doing in humanitarian aid?
George Kerevan
I would not only accept that, but go further and say that it is undermining the Saudi case for trying to create a stable Government and a stable political position in Yemen.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) introduced a new doctrine: the doctrine of intent. He said that we should look at the intent of the Saudis and, since they say they are doing good things and they want peace and security, we should consider that to be enough. Let us look at the intent of the Saudi Government. They have not signed up to the international convention on cluster weapons. If they do not want to use them, I would have expected them to sign up to it. In fact, as we all know, they have been using them—air-launched and ground-launched cluster weapons. I know that the Houthis on the other side are using them as well, but we are talking about a massive, western-funded, western-armed coalition versus a small group of rebels. That is disproportionate.
If we look at which cluster weapons have been found by human rights organisations across Yemen, we can see that they are not just the BL755 cluster weapons manufactured in Britain, but the CBU-105s, CBU-87s and CBU-58s manufactured in the United States. They have been found to have been used in at least five provinces in Yemen. Here is the thing: the American cluster weapons were sold to Saudi Arabia 20-odd years ago. I do not know how they got there or who used them, but it is surprising that all the types of cluster bomb weapons supplied to the Saudis about 20 years ago—in the 1980s and 1990s—have been found to have been used comprehensively and across the whole of Yemen. That deserves an investigation, which is what our amendment asks for.
The test of what Saudi Arabia is doing is not intent, but whether there is on balance a risk that humanitarian law has been broken. I put it to the House that there is ample evidence of that. How do we get the attention of the Saudi regime? That is at the core of the proposal in the SNP amendment, which has not been selected, to call for an immediate withdrawal of current sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
To respond to the hon. Members for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) and for Fylde (Mark Menzies), our proposal is not to stop all arms sales in perpetuity. We are trying to get the attention of the Saudi regime, which cannot put its own ground troops into Yemen. The real secret is that the regime cannot trust to using its own ground troops—it keeps them at home to protect the regime, which has no democratic legitimacy—so it uses its air force, which has very close links to the royal family, in a consistently indiscriminate way.
Hon. Members have repeatedly mentioned the bombing of the funeral. It was the funeral of a leading Houthi Minister and a lot of Houthi Ministers were expected to be at it, so one suspects that it was not quite the accident that it has been made out to be. There have been repeated cases of civilians being killed in missile and bomb attacks in places where Houthi leaders were expected. My point is that calling for an investigation and for a halt to arms sales in the short term is a way of getting the attention of the Saudi regime to ensure a ceasefire and a permanent solution to this crisis.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The situation in Yemen is dire. As the House has already heard, nearly 7,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the conflict, and more than 14.4 million people are food-insecure. The recent ceasefire provided a welcome few days of relief, allowing much-needed humanitarian aid through to areas that simply cannot be reached while clashes are going on, as was passionately noted by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
A true and lasting solution to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen must come from a longer, stable ceasefire during which efforts are made by both sides to agree a long-term, balanced peace deal that the people of Yemen have invested in themselves. I strongly support the Government’s work at the UN and, through our ambassador, Edmund Fitton-Brown, in Yemen. We should be proud that we have contributed £100 million to the UN’s humanitarian response, making us the fourth largest donor. I am pleased that our ambassador was present at the Kuwait talks. Our support for the UN special envoy, both politically and financially, is also extremely welcome.
However, we must recognise that this is not about us and that we are just one player. It is very easy to moralise on foreign affairs, but the devil is always in the detail. History has taught us that it is not our role to dictate relations between neighbouring countries in a region in which, if we are honest, our record is not exactly perfect. I suggest that we show some humility in our role.
My reservations about how Saudi Arabia conducts some of its affairs, internally and externally, are known. To discuss those concerns would require a whole other debate in itself. But however critical we are and will continue to be about the involvement of Saudi Arabia in this conflict, that involvement is at the request of the legitimate Government of Yemen, to deter aggression by the illegitimate Houthi rebels.
The situation in Yemen and Saudi Arabia’s involvement are not isolated, but have to be seen in the context of the wider difficulties in the middle east and, once again, ongoing tensions between Sunni and Shi’a; in this case there is also the involvement of the Zaydi Shi’a, who are so extreme that even Iran at some points calls them out.
As regional power struggles continue between Sunni and Shi’a, Saudi Arabia and Iran are once again the players in the situation. Iran has allegedly been increasing the frequency of its weapons shipments to the Houthis via the Omani border. Will the Minister outline what the coalition and the UN envoy are doing about that?
As I draw to a close, I once again have to mention terrorism and extremism. We know the danger posed by failed states. It is the fuel that Daesh feeds on, allowing it to export its ideology and terrorism. As we continue to defeat Daesh, we must also recognise the role being played by Saudi Arabia within the Islamic military alliance, which now has 39 members. The organisation’s joint command centre is in Riyadh, and the role of the alliance in the future defeat of Daesh has been recognised by us, the United States and others. We cannot risk weakening that alliance or the willingness of its leading members to lead the fight against Daesh by attempting to undermine its role in the Yemen conflict.
As my time is running out, I put one further request to the Minister. In the context of getting lasting peace in the region and strengthening co-operation, I suggest that he pushes for some sort of inclusion of Yemen in the Gulf Co-operation Council. That would send a strong message of solidarity and sustainable economic co-operation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. When we consider that the war in Yemen is reported as the forgotten war, it seems even more appropriate that it is raised in this place, the highest seat of democracy, to ensure that our international obligations are being satisfied.
I support the legitimate Government in Yemen. I also put on the record that I support the peace process as we try to move forward. It is important that we do so, and to put that on the record when we are looking at these issues in this House. Indiscriminate bombing and the murder of innocents in Yemen—the destruction of property and the loss of life—are issues we are very aware of. We must condemn such actions, wherever they come from, and I have done so in the past. Amnesty International has said that violations of international humanitarian law have been committed by both sides with impunity, so it has said that both sides have been guilty of—dare I say it?—war crimes, in many cases. That has to be condemned by everyone in the House.
The Saudi-led coalition has been responsible for scores of airstrikes that have indiscriminately targeted civilian objects, disproportionately harmed civilians and attacked infrastructure indispensable to the civilian population, including hospitals, schools and humanitarian installations. According to the UN report on Yemen of 2016, the coalition airstrikes have failed to uphold the cornerstone principles of proportionality and distinction in any armed attack, and have clearly failed to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties.
There is a definite need for intervention. That is the reason for my highlighting this issue back in June in a written question, asking what assessment the Foreign Office had made of the UN Secretary-General’s report, “Children and Armed Conflict”, and its annexe, published in April 2016, in which the Saudi-led coalition is listed as committing grave violations against children in Yemen. I ask the Minister again, what is being done to provide the response there should be to a war of this magnitude? What aid has been sent, what diplomatic pressure has been applied and how are we attempting to bring an end to this forgotten war?
As other hon. Members have said, Yemen is a tribal society. Islam is part of the identity of the Yemeni tribes, and tribal leaders are likely to enforce punishments for those who wish to leave Islam. That can mean honour killings, house arrest or, for women, forced marriage. Those are human rights abuses that we cannot legitimise or support. I put on the record my concerns about those abuses.
In the power vacuum resulting from the conflict, al-Qaeda and Islamic State are trying to gain power. That alone should mean we do all in our power—we must act to stop another Muslim country turning into an ISIS-held country. The world can little afford more strongholds for those who despise our very existence, and passionately wish to stop any of us in this place having another breath.
We have a duty to help children who are being slaughtered indiscriminately. We must send aid to the support networks to provide the assistance that is needed. We have a duty internationally to stand with our allies and ensure that those who seek to tear down and destroy understand that we will not stand by and passively allow or, even worse, encourage atrocities to take place.
Finally, we have a duty to our constituents to prevent terrorists from having an even greater hold upon this world. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I do not want that to be said of this House in this debate. At a sensitive time of delicate diplomacy, let us support the UN initiative as it elevates this critical problem in Yemen and support a solution and a peace process that can last. Let that be the message from this House tonight.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), given that we regularly see each other at a range of debates in this House.
It is welcome that we are here again discussing Yemen. Having attended the recent Adjournment debate secured by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I share many of the comments he expressed earlier about the scale of the crisis gripping Yemen and the disaster that the conflict has proved to be for the Yemeni people. I think it was earlier this year when the UN highlighted that both sides were preventing the access of food aid. I know he shares my disappointment that the ceasefire has not held. Again, I share his hopes that the forthcoming UN discussions will bring what everyone here wants to see: a return to a system based on a constitutional structure for settling differences, not one based on armed conflict.
That said, we have to look at the choices and the alternatives, and at why the UN voted to support an intervention. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) talk about a small rebel group. It is perhaps worth quoting the House of Commons Library on this “small rebel group”:
“The Houthis have managed to gather dozens of tanks and plenty of heavy weaponry from these defectors and deserters.”
It also states:
“Yemen’s government and armed forces have long been weak and fragmented, and have had too many forces lined up against them to put up a strong resistance to the Houthis.”
This is not a small band of people who are incapable militarily; these Houthi rebels are former soldiers who are able to pose a direct threat of overthrowing the main Government. That is why the intervention is there. We then have to be clear about the alternative. If we did not have coalition involvement, the Houthis would overrun the whole country. We would have a failed state in Yemen, equivalent to the failed state we have had in Somalia for so long.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not only a large group. It is well armed with arms from Iran. There is also evidence that there are Iranian revolutionary guards acting on the ground in Yemen.
Kevin Foster
Let us be blunt. It is not a small rebel group that fires effectively a ballistic missile at a neighbouring country or attacks a US warship in international waters. That does not fit my definition of a small group of lightly armed individuals. This is a serious and coherent threat to the recognised Government of Yemen, any constitutional process, and, ultimately, to the security of one of the key trade routes of the whole world through what we once saw as the Straits of Aden, with shipping heading up towards the Suez canal. Ultimately, if we allow a failed state in Yemen we will all pay the price for it in the cost of shipping, and disruption to energy supplies.
The alternative to the Saudi coalition—let us assume it is not the Saudis and their allies who intervene—is western intervention to enforce a UN motion. The same people very busily attacking this coalition are the same people who regularly oppose any western intervention in the middle east. For a UN resolution to have any meaning it needs to be implemented and it is questionable who it would want to take the action.
Kevin Foster
No, I do not think I will as we are running short of time.
The argument that the support should be removed is wrong.
On the motion itself, it was interesting to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary telling us about the two command centres. That is what leaps out from the motion. She talks about the northern command centre in Riyadh, where our advisers are and where the strikes were not authorised. She then talked about the southern command centre, where our advisers are not, and says that that is where the problems are in terms of targeting. Well, it does say something that we are going to pull away from the site where it is not happening, which would not make any difference.
Emily Thornberry
The southern command centre has been identified, but who is in it has not been identified. Neither has it been identified whether it included anybody from any particular company—whether it be a British company or not; or indeed what British personnel, if any, are involved.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. However, I still do not see how pulling out our supporters and advisers from the northern command centre in Riyadh, as the motion suggests, would make any difference to what is happening there. It is therefore a rather interesting point that the hon. Lady has raised. Certainly for me, the Government’s amendment is far stronger than the Opposition’s motion. I nevertheless pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leicester East, who managed to come up with an amendment that showed a lot more understanding than his party’s Front-Bench motion. It might not agree with the view being presented on Russia Today, but it had a bit more understanding of the region and the area.
Let me move on to the potential or alleged use of cluster bombs. It must be clear—it might not have been clear from one of the SNP’s contributions—that the weaponry was last delivered in 1989. Whether or not that weaponry delivered in 1989 is being used will not change anything that we do today. That said, an issue on which I challenged the Saudi Foreign Minister directly was that the country’s signing up to and ratifying the international treaty is long overdue. Yes, I was told that Saudi Arabia was considering it, but I suspect that its consideration will be a lot longer than most of us would prefer. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about the work we are doing to encourage the country as one of our key allies to ratify that treaty and send a powerful message that it no longer intends to produce, retain or—crucially—use that type of weaponry.
Finally, I accept that the decision to be taken is going to be difficult for anyone. It is a complex situation and none of the outcomes looks particularly ideal. I accept that we therefore have to be realistic about the outcome. As with so many other situations in the middle east, we need to be careful what we wish for, because we might sometimes find that what we wish for turns out to be a lot worse than the devil we know.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
As mentioned in the debate, the Committees on Arms Export Controls has in recent months conducted an inquiry into the conflict in Yemen and the use of UK-manufactured arms in it. In a joint report of the then Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and the International Development Committee, following the inquiry that I chaired, the conclusion from the widespread evidence that we heard was that there have been violations of international humanitarian law, as reported by organisations such as the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. As a result, the joint Committee report has called on the Government to push for a UN-led investigation into the conduct of the Saudi-led coalition, and for the suspension of arms sales to the country while this investigation takes place.
Since the report was published on 15 September, we have seen further civilian casualties—not least on 8 October, which saw the most severe attack of the conflict yet, as mentioned by a number of colleagues.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I would like to ask my hon. Friend the same question as I put to the shadow Foreign Secretary. When he talks about suspending arms sales, what does that mean? Does it mean that he and his Committee believe that the United Kingdom should withhold the supply of spare parts and withdraw our advisers to the Royal Saudi Air Force, or does it relate just to future sales down the track?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We are running very tight on time, and if Members want to hear the concluding speeches from the Front Benches at their fullest, I suggest having as few interventions as possible and making them very short.
Chris White
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought I should grant my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) the chance to ask that question. We have a very short amount of time for this debate, but we deserve the opportunity to have a proper discussion of what a pause in arms sales would be. I would ask a more open question in response to those who have spoken on the same side as my hon. Friend: we were looking for a UN-led independent investigation, so what is preventing that investigation?
Saudi Arabia has described the airstrikes on the funeral as a mistake, while the Government continue to depend on Saudi assurances in relation to the conflict. The number of civilian casualties prompts me to ask whether every act that results in such loss can be considered a mistake. As Philippe Sands QC told the Committees on Arms Export Controls, the question of whether or not a state “intends” to commit a violation does not detract from the fact that a violation is committed by that state.
The United Kingdom’s legal obligations stipulate that the Government must suspend arms sales if there is a clear risk that there might be a violation of international humanitarian law. I suggest that that criterion has been met, and that arms sales to Saudi Arabia should therefore be suspended. I repeat our report’s recommendation that while such doubt and uncertainty about compliance with international humanitarian law in Yemen exists, the default position of the UK Government should be not to continue to sell weapons, but to pause until they are satisfied that allegations have been investigated properly.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I wish that there were more time for me to express my sadness at seeing a beautiful, seductive, complex country, which I have had the pleasure of visiting several times, laid low once again. When I last visited Sana’a, I was told about a speech made 100 years ago by Aubrey Herbert, who was then Member of Parliament for Yeovil, about the situation in the country. He said that it was
“like the dream of some haunted painter.”
He said that women and men were “skin and bone”, with
“begging eyes and clutching hands”.
That speech, made 100 years ago, could have been made today, and it fills me with great sadness to see the state of the country.
Let me turn briefly—for I have very little time—to the emotive question of arms sales, which has been the subject of our debate today. Let me make clear what those arms sales are about. They are about giving a nation that is under attack the arms that it needs to defend its territory. They are about giving an important ally the arms that it needs to re-establish, or try to re-establish, a legitimate Government who have been displaced by the Houthi rebels. We must not refrain—and we have not done so today—from expressing our views about the way in which the war in Yemen is being conducted, and we are very concerned about the large number of casualties.
It is right that this country has high standards. However, we must not forget the context, and that, I am afraid, is what some of the speeches missed, including the speech made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The context is that a Houthi-controlled, Iranian-backed regime would create a chaotic, unstable place, ripe for exploitation by Iran, by al-Qaeda and by Daesh. It would pose a risk to freedom of navigation in a geopolitically crucial part of the world, and would encourage terrorism there, across the Arabian peninsula, and in the horn of Africa. That is the context, and that is our strategic interest.
We must also not forget that this debate is more important than the sale of weapons, although jobs understandably depend on them. It is a message to our friends and allies, and it is a message to our enemies as well. If we as a nation want to help this desperate country, we must have an influential voice in the region. We must beware of simple answers to complex questions. We must be cautious about adopting a singular, anti-Saudi Arabia line. We must appreciate the context: the need to support a legitimate Government; to allow Saudi Arabia to defend its borders and territorial integrity; to try to resist the descent of a proud, great nation that I have had the pleasure of visiting into an Iranian-backed Houthi regime of chaos and destruction; and to retain some modest influence over the conduct of the war. We would have no influence were we to suspend our arms sales and walk away. Among our many security objectives and values should be keeping faith with old and important allies and being a reliable security partner, which we should consider essential.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
We have heard an impassioned and informed debate on the conflict in Yemen, to which there is no end in sight and which is rapidly turning into the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke with his customary passion and authority on this issue, and I believe he spoke for Members in all parts of the House. Likewise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has tirelessly pursued peace in Yemen, once again made a powerful case for a proper investigation of all these allegations. As an illustration of the cross-party concern on these issues, we heard forceful and eloquent contributions from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), who told us of the use of cluster bombs, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), who spoke of the atrocities in Yemen and the targeting of innocent children, and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoke about the international investigation that needs to cover both sides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) supports the call for an independent inquiry and spoke of other issues. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick), the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who has great insight and understanding of the region, and the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who spoke with passion about the conflict and its effect on the civilian population and how we should scrutinise the true threat in the region. We heard, too, from the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), and the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), who spoke of the airstrikes, the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), who spoke about the desperate need for humanitarian relief, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who supports the peace process and has a lot of experience. Many Members from all parties spoke powerfully about the need for a full independent investigation; I do not have enough time to mention them all, but I know that they stand with me on the comments they made.
I believe everyone who spoke today is united on one thing: wherever we stand individually on the causes of this conflict and how it must ultimately be resolved, and wherever we stand individually on Britain’s long-term relationship with Saudi Arabia as a military ally and trading partner, we share the common view that what matters above all else now is the need to tackle the humanitarian crisis that is gripping Yemen and to stop the thousands of civilian deaths turning into tens or hundreds of thousands as the country tips into famine and epidemic disease.
We have all been moved by the images of emaciated children and teenagers so weak with malnutrition that they are almost beyond help. The healthcare system in many parts of the country has been destroyed and humanitarian relief bodies are often physically unable to access those in the greatest need. We have also all been saddened by the stories of young goat-herders in rural areas picking up cluster bombs, thinking they are toys, with all too predictable and devastating results. But the true horror in Yemen lies not in individual images and stories, but in the sheer numbers affected, especially of children, and in asking what on earth the future holds for them.
Even before the war, 1.6 million children in Yemen did not go to school. Since March 2015, thousands more schools have been closed, and up to 600,000 more children are receiving no education. Even before the war, Yemen had one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world, but since March 2015 some 1.3 million children have now moved into a state of acute malnutrition. Their situation is getting worse. Muhannad Hadi of the World Food Programme said only yesterday:
“Hunger is increasing every day and people have exhausted all their survival strategies”.
The WFP director, Torben Due, explained the situation on the ground, saying:
“We need to provide a full ration to every family in need, but sadly we have had to…split assistance between impoverished families to meet growing needs”.
His devastating conclusion is:
“An entire generation could be crippled by hunger”.
On top of that, Yemen is now facing a cholera epidemic, with the number of cases growing and spreading every day.
According to the UN, the majority of those who have been killed have died as a result of coalition air strikes. Time and again, we hear from the Saudis that they are investigating. Indeed, what are the UK Government doing? We are told that the reports of civilian casualties from coalition air strikes are greatly exaggerated, and that those being hit are in fact Houthi rebels. Will the Government tell us how that squares with the fact that well over 1,000 of those casualties are children?
At the heart of this debate and today’s motion is a simple question, as set out by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). This is not about whether or not anyone agrees with the justification for the conflict or the UN mandate that underpins it. Given the concerns about the way in which the coalition forces are conducting the conflict and about the potential violations of international humanitarian law, given the clear inadequacy of the Saudi-led investigations into those alleged violations, and given the terrible and worsening consequences for the civilian population of Yemen as long as the conflict continues, it surely makes sense for the UK to suspend its support for the coalition forces until there has been a proper, full investigation into how the war is being conducted and whether international law is being broken.
Let me boil this down to one example. On 11 September, in the rebel-held Sa’ada province, coalition air forces attacked and destroyed a drilling rig building a major new clean water well. When local civilians and healthcare workers rushed to the scene to aid the workers who had been injured, the coalition air forces returned and struck the scene again. In total, 30 civilians were killed and 17 were wounded. That is why the motion makes a simple case, which we hope will command the support of the whole House. Let the UN investigate this and all the thousands of other incidents. Let the UN determine whether there have been violations of international law. In the interim, let the Government suspend their support for the coalition forces; and let the message go out from this House that we care about the children in Yemen who are at risk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate, to dispel some of the myths that surround the conflict, to put the background to the conflict in context and to clarify the UK’s role as we seek to resolve the challenges facing Yemen today. As we have heard, Britain has a historical relationship with the region. We are a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council and we work with our international colleagues. We also support the UN envoy and recommend his road map, which has been shared with stakeholders.
It is worth stepping back briefly to set in context the challenges that Yemen currently faces. It is a young country. The north and south were united only in 1990. The failure by its then President Saleh to strengthen the nation’s bonds created space for extremism in the form of al-Qaeda. He was then forced to stand aside in the Arab spring. Vice-President Hadi was then legitimately appointed President, and work began on trying to unite the country through the national dialogue conference, which took place in 2013 and 2014. The peace and national partnership agreement in September 2014 was signed by the Houthis themselves, yet in that very same month they moved south from their strongholds into the capital, took over key buildings and placed Cabinet members under arrest. Those actions prompted President Hadi to request international support. That was legitimised through UN Security Council resolution 2216, which includes the words “by all necessary means” and led to the formation of the Saudi-led coalition.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, the UK has an important relationship with Saudi Arabia—a strategic and defence partner for decades. We need to use that relationship to advance Saudi Arabia’s accountability. It is itself a new country, gaining independence in 1932, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). The concept of central government is relatively new. Its leadership is on the moderate side of a conservative population, a point made earlier. We want more accountability and transparency, and we need to get involved in pushing that forward. I welcome the Deputy Crown Prince’s “Vision 2030” which underlines where he would like to take the country. Is it in Saudi Arabia’s interests to test the resolve of the west and deliberately breach international humanitarian law?
The hon. Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) mentioned the visit by Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister. Where better to hold to account another Foreign Minister than in the mother of all Parliaments? He did a service to his country and to us by holding his hand up and talking about the challenges he faces and what role Britain could play in moving the situation forward.
Humanitarian issues were raised by several colleagues. DFID is at the forefront of that engagement. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who held a donors conference at the UN General Assembly that increased our aid package to £100 million and encouraged others to join us in providing support to tackle the humanitarian situation on the ground. We estimate that 80% of the population is in need of assistance.
Mr Ellwood
There is not enough time.
I stress the importance of the port of Hudaydah, where ships are queuing up to get in. I am pleased that DFID is looking at the situation to see what we can do to repair the cranes.
The licensing issues have been taken seriously, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary focusing on them. The Ministry of Defence monitors the incidence of alleged violations of international humanitarian law using all the available information to form an overall view of Saudi Arabia’s approach and attitude to international humanitarian law.
The Saudi evaluation process has been slow. It has taken time and there have been mistakes. Modern warfare is complex and difficult, but we must ensure that we work with the Saudis so that they can put their hand up, which is exactly what happened when I went to Saudi Arabia to ask what happened when the funeral attack took place on 8 October. This was a shocking and tragic incident. The Foreign Secretary expressed deep regrets about it when speaking to the Saudi Foreign Minister, and I travelled to the capital to express our concerns and to ask about the details of the investigation. It transpires that standard operating procedures were not followed in this particular case. At least one senior officer did not follow the agreed rules of engagement, and I expect him and others to face a court martial.
To conclude, this Government’s position is clear: the conflict in Yemen must end; a political agreement between the Yemeni parties must be found; and the humanitarian suffering and the economic situation must be addressed. Britain continues to play an important role and supports the UN envoy’s road map, which was recently distributed to all stakeholders. We continue to monitor the situation closely and factor any incidents of concern into our consideration of our continued export of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
The Government are not opposed to the idea of independent UN-led investigations, as I have said in this Chamber before, but first we want Saudi Arabia to investigate allegations—that is international convention. Unlike Russia, which is defying international concern in Syria, Saudi Arabia—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The petition relates to implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts and the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—Campaign. I want to place on record my thanks to Caron Fahy, Lynne Dorm, Rosemarie Phoenix, Janet Shefras, Julia Clay and Anne Tapp for collecting nearly 400 signatures in Alyn and Deeside.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Alyn and Deeside,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001966]
Birmingham Pub Bombings: Legal Aid
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I called this debate with the support and backing of all the Members of Parliament for Birmingham. Special credit goes to my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for joining me here today. I want to say a massive thank you to all Members from across the midlands, especially the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who have always supported the campaign. I also thank Northern Ireland Members who are here tonight to give their support. I wish to give a special mention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who recently gave voice to the issue in this place.
Today I will focus on two areas. I want to breathe life into a debate that has become about claim and counter-claim and a very famous miscarriage of justice. It is time that in this place and outside it the story of the 21 people who died became our focus. I will also cover some of the issues that the families of the 21 victims have faced in the fight to receive fair and equal access to our justice system.
I am sure that the Minister is poised to tell the House that yesterday the families were informed that they would be granted some form of legal aid funding. That was not the case when I called for the debate, so perhaps I will do a little less fist-waving—I do love to do that—than I might have. However, their treatment and the legal funding that has been granted still pose fundamental questions that must be answered.
For Brummies, this is a bit like knowing where you were when Kennedy died. Anyone from Birmingham has a story to tell about the night of the pub bombings. My parents were driving away from the city with my two brothers—then a baby and a toddler—in the back of the car when they heard the blast. My dad returned to work the following Monday to find that a young woman he taught had been killed. That young woman was 18-year-old Maxine Hambleton.
Twenty-one people died in the Birmingham pub bombings on 21 November 1974. Those 21 people have been largely forgotten in a story that for so many people became about six men. When I was a kid, the story of the Birmingham Six was everywhere. It is worth noting that it was not the justice system that acted to correct itself in these matters; it was the actions of a Member of this House at the time—namely, Chris Mullin—that led to their release. This House has had, and can have again, an important role to play in the story.
Along with similar miscarriages of justice at the time, the story of that fatal night became, for many, a story about the accused and the war in Northern Ireland. The lives and loves of the people who died got lost; today, we must remember them. They were: Desmond Reilly, Eugene Reilly, Maxine Hambleton, Jane Davis, Michael Beasley, Lynn Bennett, Stanley Bodman, James Caddick, Thomas Chaytor, James Craig, Paul Davies, Charles Grey, Anne Hayes, John Jones, Neil Marsh, Marilyn Nash, Pamela Palmer, Maureen Roberts, John Rowlands, Trevor Thrupp and Stephen Whalley. Their names are not enough. The people who died had lives and responsibilities.
That night, six friends stood around a bar at the Mulberry Bush—like we all do after a long day’s work—sharing a pint and a joke. It was Stan Bodman’s turn to buy a round of drinks. A larger-than-life character, the life and soul of the group, his mates included John Rowlands, an electrician, a father and a husband; and John Jones, a postman, who that day had returned from two weeks’ leave. Stan’s request for drinks saved the life of the barmaid, but ended those of him and his friends. When they were found in the rubble, they were positioned exactly where they stood, in a circle—friends in death, as they had been in life.
At the same time that Stan was ordering his last round of drinks, Paul Davies was walking past the Mulberry Bush. When the bomb went off, he and his friends died outright. He was 20 years old, with a young child and one on the way. His partner never got over his death, and she died in tragic circumstances a few years later, leaving her child an orphan.
Maxine Hambleton had popped into the Tavern in the Town to hand out tickets for a house-warming party that she was planning to give. That night, Maxine and Jane Davis, who was the youngest victim, at 17, both died, their lives extinguished before they ever had time to begin. I met Julie Hambleton, the sister of Maxine, five years ago. Until recently, we did not realise the connection between our families. Julie, her family and the families of many others who died that night have been campaigning for years to find out what happened to their loved ones. I want to stress today that the victims of these killings are not confined to those who died; they include those who were injured and the hundreds of people affected through the loss, grief and fear that followed.
Last week, Julie wrote to me:
“Maxine was our sister. She had an aura of such maturity that even now when I remember her, those memories are of a young woman who had a purpose and direction in life. My memories of Maxine are very few and far between, which as I’m sure you can imagine is hard…I would love to have…memories of her…I sit here at work, writing this to you, crying, fighting to try and remember more about my beautiful, kind, generous and funny big sister. I remember how we watched Thunderbirds together when we were living in Yardley in the old cottage opposite the Church. We used to sit and watch it every week…watching these programmes helps me to feel her…presence. Our love for her will never ever die for as long as we live and we will fight until our dying breath, because we know without any doubt, that she would have died for any one of us…to get to the truth.”
The families want to know who killed their loved ones. They want to know what happened in the investigation, which is still so shrouded in secrecy and questions. After years of individual battles, the families came together to form the campaign group Justice For The 21. Julie Hambleton, who was just a kid at the time of the bombings, leads this campaign with the same tenacity and emotion as if they had happened yesterday. I admire her resilience; she has fought this for longer than I have been alive.
And so to the issue today. In June this year, the Birmingham and Solihull coroner ruled that, on the basis of submissions made by the legal teams of three of the victims’ families, there was sufficient reason to resume the inquest. It is important to state that the legal support that has been offered to date has been provided completely for free to the victims’ families. Without the fight from the families, and the generosity of their lawyers, the inquest would never, ever have resumed.
Today is 26 October, and the day after tomorrow—on 28 October—submissions are to be made on the scope and process of the resumed inquest.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech; she speaks for all of us. I hope that the Minister will address the months since the inquest was granted in which the families have had to wait to hear about their legal aid. That simply shows a lack of respect, and an apology for that extra delay would be useful today.
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not agree more. The families involved were told only yesterday that arrangements will be made for their legal teams to work with another firm and receive legal aid. Does the Minister think that three days’ notice on this matter is sufficient?
I stress how much I welcome the progress that has been made since I called for the debate. At that time, the families still had no idea whether they would be granted funding at all, even though they applied for exceptional case funding from the Legal Aid Agency in January this year, and the resumed inquest was granted in June. In the meantime, the families also applied to the Home Secretary to seek the use of the Hillsborough funding and administration scheme. The families have been given messages of support all along the way from the former Home Secretary, who is now the Prime Minister, the new Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. However, those warm words proved to be little else. The legacy of what happened at Hillsborough marked for many a turning point in how the families of those bereaved or injured in large public disasters would be treated. Lord Wills, in speaking to his Public Advocate Bill in the other place, stated that when he met families of those that died in Hillsborough in 2009, one
“message that came through over and over again was that they wanted to find a way to prevent other similarly bereaved families suffering and having to endure in the way they had suffered and endured for 20 years.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 1519-20.]
The Prime Minister should rightly feel proud of her role in how the Hillsborough families finally got justice, but I am afraid that the systemic problems that these brave families fought against still remain. The current Home Secretary said that funding the Birmingham pub bombing families through the Hillsborough scheme would not be appropriate, but I take real issue with that judgment. Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have cited the way in which the inquests on the 7/7 bombings were funded, even though the scheme that those families used is no longer available, as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed it.
The bereaved Birmingham families feel that they were strung along by the Home Secretary on this matter, and ultimately let down. They tell me that she told them that she had written to the Justice Secretary to give her support for exceptional case funding from the Legal Aid Agency. When Julie Hambleton and I approached the Justice Secretary in Birmingham, she seemed to have no knowledge of the case. The families then received a letter from the Justice Secretary saying that neither she nor any politician could influence the outcome from the Legal Aid Agency, which seemed contrary to what they had been told by the Home Secretary.
With three days to go before the process is to begin, the families are informed of an arrangement that has strings attached. They feel they have been misled and fobbed off. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that these are families who lost their sisters, mothers, brothers, daughters and partners. They are just ordinary working-class people who are trying to fight for justice in the face of powerful actors whom they already do not trust. The appalling way in which the funding for their case has been handled pushes them—and, I have to say, me—into really doubting that those in power want to see justice done. As with Hillsborough before, this is a David and Goliath fight.
The former chief coroner, who will chair the resumed inquests, called for parity of funding in inquests where there is state involvement.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a valuable speech. On seeking parity, would it not be useful to know how much public money is being made available to fund the legal costs of the police and other Government agencies in this case, and how that compares with the help for the families?
Jess Phillips
I agree with my hon. Friend. The former chief coroner, who will chair the resumed inquest, called in his annual report for exactly the same level of parity. Parity of funding means at the rates available to other parties to the resumed inquests. West Midlands police has apparently set aside £1 million so far. Former police officers will be represented through the Police Federation, and Government Departments will no doubt be represented by lawyers from the private sector.
Tonight I ask whether the legal aid for the relatives of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings is appropriate or sufficient. I accept that it might be appropriate in many circumstances, but Hillsborough gives us a successful model, and there has been no explanation of why that cannot be replicated in this case or, in fact, in future cases of this kind. That is in the gift of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is speaking passionately from the heart. It is clear that the process lacks compassion for those who lost loved ones in the Birmingham bombing atrocity. Does she agree that the relatives should receive the same support that was given to the victims of Hillsborough so that they can find out the truth about what happened to their loved ones, who were murdered by IRA terrorists so horribly many years ago?
Jess Phillips
I think that this and other cases that will almost certainly be discussed in this place will require a specific mechanism for the future.
Will the Minister guarantee today that legal aid funding will provide the Birmingham families with parity? As a Birmingham tax and rate payer, and as a representative of Birmingham tax and rate payers, all I ask is that fairness is considered when our money is spent. Hundreds of my constituents and thousands of Brummies have signed petitions and written letters in support of the families. Without the certainty of parity, how can any of them—and, in fact, any citizen in this country—ever believe that if the worst were to happen to their relatives, those responsible would face justice? So many people in this country believe that powerful establishment figures act against them. The levels of disillusionment in the UK today should worry us all.
The Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that she would fight against burning injustice. She said:
“When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you.”
I stand here today to ask on behalf of the ordinary families in Birmingham whether this Government will help them to be mighty and powerful, or are those words worthless?
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for allowing me to speak briefly. Her speech was not just powerful, but, frankly, superb.
I am keen to demonstrate, by standing here today, that this is not a party political issue. Finding justice for the victims of IRA terrorism is a cause that unites Members across the House and the west midlands. The false conviction of the Birmingham Six meant that vital inquiries into what really happened in 1974 closed down far too early. The fact that the new inquiry might have unearthed new evidence only makes the mistake more obvious and tragic.
Four decades is too long to wait for justice. This Government have already proven themselves willing to confront difficult issues from the past, such as Hillsborough. I know that legal aid is independently run, but January is far too long a wait and shows that the system is not meeting the test of compassion in our society.
We have come a long way since 1974. We are a more tolerant and less deferential society, thank goodness, but we should not rest until past injustices have been faced up to.
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
May I join in the tributes to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and pay tribute to those who have supported her? We have heard tonight from the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight).
I was a young student when the bombings happened. Like others of my generation, I remember the sense of deep shock and horror at this event in November 1974—it was shortly after the general election when Harold Wilson won by a narrow majority—when bombs exploded in two public houses in central Birmingham. Twenty-one people were killed, and 222 others were injured. At the time, it was the deadliest act of terrorism that had happened in Great Britain since the second world war. It caused great shock, not only in Birmingham, as the hon. Lady has said, but right across the country. People were horrified by what had happened. I remember the deep national mood of mourning at the time. The Government express their heartfelt sympathy to the friends and the families of all the innocent people who lost their lives in that shocking crime, and to those who were injured and had their lives changed by this awful event.
There are inquests where families need more help than they would get in an ordinary—if one can call it that—inquest, which is a matter of finding out fairly simply what the situation was, with the coroner asking the questions. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which has been mentioned, enables the provision of exceptional case funding for representation in such cases if certain tests are met. The Legal Aid Agency decides legal aid applications entirely independently, which is why Ministers have said—rightly so, I think the hon. Lady would agree—that it is not for politicians to interfere in its independent decision making.
Two applications have been received by the Legal Aid Agency. So far, one has been granted and, as the hon. Lady said, a way has been suggested of finding the other application to be within the rules. Those applications do not cover all the families who have been bereaved, so there may be further applications. I welcome, as she has, the fact that one of the applications has been accepted and that a way has been found to proceed with the other.
The Birmingham and Solihull coroner, Louise Hunt, has decided to reopen the inquests into these deaths, because she felt that there was sufficient reason to do so. That is partly because of the campaign that has been waged to resume the inquest and to look at the new evidence, which she feels should be investigated. I do not know whether the hon. Lady would agree, but I take the view that there is a role for campaigners to get behind an issue, to press and to push, and for Members of Parliament to help them. She mentioned Chris Mullin, and it is true that he took part in such a campaign, as she is doing in relation to this.
The exceptional case funding scheme is not intended to provide a general power to fund cases that fall outside legal aid. Legal aid is fundamental to our system. Resources are not limitless, as we all know, and it is always necessary to make sure that public confidence—
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether the fund that the other actors in the inquest will have is limitless.
Sir Oliver Heald
That is a point that the hon. Lady has made. I will come to it in a second, but I think there is an issue here that needs examination. The decision about whether to provide legal aid funding in an individual case should not be a political one. It is solely for the director of legal aid casework at the Legal Aid Agency to decide whether a particular case is within the regulations and the laws, which we in Parliament have set.
On the overall position mentioned by the hon. Lady, I want to make it clear that we acknowledge there is a wider issue. It turns on the perception that, as she mentioned, families in very difficult circumstances with complicated cases have gone unrepresented while public bodies and individuals are represented at a cost to the public. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are rightly working collaboratively to consider that issue.
As the hon. Lady said, the families at the 7/7 inquest received legal aid exceptional case funding, which was under an earlier scheme. The issue related to the terms and conditions for receiving legal aid. In fact, it is obvious from what has happened in recent days that it is possible to receive legal aid under the current scheme.
Questions have been asked about other possible funding arrangements, and the arrangement used for the Hillsborough families—the Home Office made direct grants for representation at the hearing of inquest—does raise a question. The Hillsborough inquiry was expertly conducted by Lord Justice Goldring, who investigated the case in a very sensitive, effective and thorough way, but there are lessons to be learned about the tragic history of Hillsborough. As the hon. Lady may know, Bishop James Jones, who played a distinguished part in tackling the Hillsborough case, is preparing a report on how it was dealt with, and we want that report to inform how we take this work forward.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The Minister is addressing the points raised well. If, as he says, he is looking at the lessons to be learned, will he tell the House tonight that he agrees with us that there should be parity of funding for the legal costs in this inquest? Does he agree with the parity principle—yes or no?
Sir Oliver Heald
What is important is that there should be an element of equality of arms in the sense that the work that needs to be done for the families should be done effectively and in accordance with the funding arrangements put in place by the Legal Aid Agency. Let us be clear that for cases that involve an inquest for which exceptional case funding has been agreed, I have never heard the scheme described as not providing enough funding for particular items of work for lawyers. The point is that there are rules about how people can enter the scheme and, as appears from the decision that has been mentioned, such a case has led to funding.
I want to make the point that the coroner for the Birmingham inquest will be His Honour Judge Peter Thornton, the previous Chief Coroner, and I am sure that he will have the confidence of the families. I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, and I think we will all want to pay tribute to the way in which the families have campaigned.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
May I briefly draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, for 7/7, there was never any question of a problem with the investigation, but there was such a problem with Hillsborough and with Birmingham? Therefore, unless he now agrees to parity of funding, he will not be addressing the fundamental problem, which is that there was a difficulty with the police investigation. That is what the families object to.
Sir Oliver Heald
We may just be talking semantics. I certainly agree that it is important for families with legal aid representation to be able to do what their lawyers think is necessary to conduct their affairs at the inquest properly. If the right hon. Lady is simply saying that the amount of money must be exactly the same for all, I do not think the system would ever work in that way. My own experience of appearing at inquests, as I have in the past, and of appearing in cases is that different rates of pay can be given to different lawyers, but the important thing is that the lawyers should be doing what is necessary, in a competent and effective way, to represent their clients. From what I know of the solicitors who have been granted a legal aid certificate—I am not in a position to say who they are—I do not think that is an issue.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
First, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her outstanding speech—she spoke passionately about a grotesque injustice. As the shadow Minister for Policing at the time, I was involved in the discussions on the Policing and Crime Bill and the Hillsborough inquest. It was indicated then that there was sympathy for proper representation for the Birmingham families, based on the Hillsborough model. Why has it taken so long that, just three days before the process starts, there is at last movement? Why can the Minister not give the simple assurance that the Hillsborough principle will be replicated in the Birmingham case?
Sir Oliver Heald
As I have indicated, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are looking at the best way forward. We want to learn the lessons from Hillsborough and regard the report being prepared by Bishop Jones as an important part of that. The issue is not so much whether the funding is through the legal aid fund or through a Hillsborough-type approach as the fact that the families should be represented if the case requires. That is the system we are trying to create.
Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) order 2016
(8 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. I hope that the Committee approves the draft order, which will extend the Secretary of State’s powers in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 for a further five years.
The first and foremost responsibility of the Home Secretary is to keep the people of this country safe. As my hon. Friends will be more than aware, the threat from terrorism is ever present. The events in France, Belgium and other parts of the world in recent years bring home to us the very real danger posed by terrorists who would seek to do us harm.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are absolutely clear that the police and security services should have the powers that they need to disrupt terrorists. Of course we should always ensure that, wherever possible, we prosecute those individuals who would seek to harm the people of this country, to ensure that they are brought to justice. However, in a very small number of cases, that is not possible, so the police and security services need alternative powers to disrupt terrorist-related activity. That is why I am here today seeking parliamentary agreement to extend for a further five years the powers available to the Secretary of State under the 2011 Act.
The TPIM Act first came into force on 14 December 2011. The Act introduced a new framework for placing restrictions on individuals where it is appropriate to do so. TPIMs are civil preventive measures intended for use only when the prosecution, or deportation—in the case of foreign nationals—of individuals considered to be involved in terrorist-related activity is not possible. The Act allows the imposition of restrictive measures on an individual where the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Those measures include an overnight residence requirement; a ban on overseas travel and holding travel documents; exclusion from specific places; restrictions on the use of financial services; restrictions on ownership or transfer of properties; limits on the use of telephones and computers, including the internet; limits on association; restrictions on the individual’s ability to work and/or study; police reporting; and requirements to be photographed as required and to wear an electronic tag.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I fully support what the Minister is proposing. These are very important measures. However, in the past couple of years, a number of individuals have gone missing while on these orders, and statements have been made to the House by the Minister’s predecessor about the individuals who have gone missing. Can the Minister update the Committee on how many of those individuals have now been apprehended?
Mr Wallace
After the absconsion of two individuals—I think that that was the number—a review was done, looking at the operational failures that perhaps allowed that to happen, and that review was submitted to David Anderson, the reviewer of terrorism legislation. It would not be appropriate to give the details of the review, because obviously that might expose vulnerabilities in our capability, but certainly the lessons have been learned and addressed.
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman may not understand, but we do not comment on individual TPIM cases, for reasons, obviously, of operational security. However, he should take some comfort from the fact that the lessons from what led to those individuals absconding have been learned and measures are in place to do so. I can point him to the statistics for the number of people on TPIMs: there was one, and now we are at six for this year. I can certainly say that, where possible, we use them. We certainly do so as a last resort, but where we need to use them, we will. I think that we are in a better place than we were with control orders.
Under part 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, a TPIM notice can require the individual to reside in a property up to 200 miles away from their own residence without their consent, ban the individual from possessing certain weapons and require the individual to attend appointments arranged by the Secretary of State.
A key objective of the TPIM Act was to introduce a more focused regime that protected the public from the risk of terrorism but increased the safeguards in place to protect the civil liberties of those subject to the measures. There are several differences between the TPIM Act and the previous control order regime, including the strengthening of the legal threshold required to impose an order from “reasonable suspicion” under the control order legislation to “reasonable belief” for TPIMs. That threshold was strengthened even further to “the balance of probabilities” under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Additionally, control orders lasted for a maximum of 12 months, but there was no limit to how many times they could be extended. In a small number of cases, they lasted for more than four years. Under the TPIM Act, notices last for a maximum of 12 months and are extendable only for a further year. Evidence of new terrorism-related activity is required to justify a new TPIM notice.
An automatic right of appeal is built into the TPIM legislation. That allows individuals who are subject to TPIM notices to challenge through the courts the Home Secretary’s decision to impose them. However, unlike the previous control order regime, no TPIM has been quashed by the courts. In accordance with section 21 of the TPIM Act, the director general of MI5, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and the intelligence services commissioner have all been consulted, and they all recommend the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
This is my second outing as shadow Minister, although it is my first in Committee. The Minister and I faced each other yesterday, and he will be relieved to know that, as with the Criminal Finances Bill, the Opposition support the draft order.
The draft order will renew for a further five years the Secretary of State’s power to issue TPIM notices. Such notices are rarely used, but as was pointed out, they remain a vital last resort in ensuring our national security. As the Minister explained, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 enables the Secretary of State to restrict an individual’s freedom of movement, association and financial action where that person is under suspicion but cannot yet be prosecuted or deported. Those powers enable the Government to prevent and investigate terrorist activity and ensure that our security services never have to wait for a terrorism plot to be carried out before they act. The Secretary of State can use such powers by issuing a TPIM, with the approval of the High Court. As has been explained and the Committee is now aware, TPIMs, like all aspects of our counter-terrorism legislation, were reported upon by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2013. We have had all that explained to us.
I want to touch on the two fundamental things that were changed as a result of those 2013 recommendations. TPIMs were tightened up, so that the Government could restrict where an individual may reside, which had been part of the control order regime. In the original debate in 2011, the Labour party argued that because of Liberal Democrat forces, or something like that, the Government were softer than we were on that issue, but that has been rectified. That recommendation was important, because individuals might find it easier to abscond if they can keep in touch with their former networks and the usual gang. There are two examples of people absconding: Ibrahim Magag and—this is close to home for me—Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who, completely coincidentally, visited the mosque right next to our Labour party office in Acton on a Friday and escaped in a burqa. People in Acton still remember that.
Keith Vaz
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. She mentioned the so-called burqa case. She will have listened to the Minister’s reply to me that lessons have been learned from how that situation arose. We of course accept the Minister’s assurances that things have been tightened up, but does she agree that given that both cases resulted in statements to the House to inform Members that those individuals had gone missing, the Committee is entitled to know whether they are still at large or have been found? Does she agree that that would reassure the citizens of not just Ealing but the rest of the country?
Dr Huq
As always, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is true that we want to know what happened to Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who was disguised in a burqa, and Mr Magag, and it is right and proper that we know. My right hon. Friend anticipates my point a little. Although we support these measures, we do not want to give the Government a completely free ride and we believe that TPIMs could be made even better, so I will ask some questions.
The Minister pointed out that the balance of probabilities test replaced the previous one of reasonable belief of involvement in terrorist activity. That is all well and good. The higher legal threshold was enacted, which shows again that the Government were not getting softer; they were getting harder on some things. We are pleased about such changes, and he also pointed out other measures such as the extension of the sell-by date.
I am pleased that both changes I have touched on were acted on by the Government and that those recommendations were implemented under the 2015 Act. The changes to restrict where an individual may reside were accepted in full. The legal threshold was changed, so that the Home Secretary had to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities rather than just reasonable belief. That is not exactly what the independent reviewer asked for. He recognised, however, that that key change to the legislation increased the legal threshold.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister and I will be taking notes on whether he answers. Does he agree that the process was an example of the independent reviewer offering effective post-legislative scrutiny that as a result has made us all more secure and increased public confidence in our counter-terrorism laws? If so, does he also agree that we need that same model of independent post-legislative review if the Government move forward with their proposed counter-extremism legislation? Hon. Members will be aware that that recommendation was made by the independent reviewer to the Home Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend.
Section 21 of the 2011 Act allows the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers to be renewed every five years so long as she has consulted the independent reviewer, the intelligence services commissioner and the director general of the Security Service. We are now at that five-year date, which is why the draft order is before us. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State has indeed conducted those statutory consultations and that all recommended that the powers be renewed.
I note that the 2011 Act does not require the Government to publish the advice given by the independent reviewer, the intelligence services commissioner or the director general of the Security Service during the consultation. There may be national security issues here, but I wonder whether the Minister is willing to make that advice public, perhaps in redacted form so that nothing too sensitive slips out.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady concede that, particularly when counter-terrorism and national security are involved, the fact that some bits of information are put into the public domain and others are not in itself can give intelligence to the very people we are trying to protect the British people from?
Dr Huq
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is why, had he listened, he would have heard me use the caveat that non-sensitive advice with bits redacted could be published. One of the virtues of having an independent reviewer—not a Labour party person—is that it allows a degree of transparency and scrutiny in counter-terrorism legislation that is not otherwise possible in areas that concern national security. That builds public and parliamentary confidence in our laws. When the Government can be transparent, they should be transparent—the previous Prime Minister was always saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Therefore, although we support the draft order, I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the effectiveness of TPIMs. The security forces have been using TPIMs on fewer and fewer occasions. Between the first quarter of 2012 and the last quarter of 2013, between eight and 10 individuals were controlled by TPIMs at any one point, whereas three people at most have been controlled by them since 2013. In the last written statement to the House, the Minister revealed that there is now just one individual subject to a TPIM. I wish that I could say that that is a result of the terrorist threat having disappeared or receded, but throughout that time we have all seen the annunciator screens in our offices that say the threat level is severe. We have also seen a new wave of Islamist attacks on the continent. The Minister listed Nice and Brussels; there are loads of them, including Paris. The list goes on.
There is a danger that the security forces are using TPIMs on fewer occasions because they do not find them to be a useful tool for tackling terrorism. The previous independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, said:
“It is surprising and worrying that we are down to just one T-Pim given the situation appertaining all over Europe. We know that there is a severe risk of a terror attack. I hope that the Government is examining the possibility of increasing the use of T-Pims or toughening them up.”
As we have already heard, TPIMs have already been toughened up in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015—in particular, the security forces can now restrict where an individual resides. In the impact assessment that accompanied that Act, the Government anticipated that their changes to the TPIM regime would lead to an increase in the use of TPIMs. In fact, they estimated that there would be an
“additional five to 15 TPIM cases per year”.
At the time, there were two TPIMs in use; here we are a year later and there is actually one fewer.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I may have misunderstood part of what the hon. Lady is suggesting. Is she accusing the Government of being rather liberal on this issue and suggesting that they need many more TPIMs and to be much more strict?
Dr Huq
No, I did not say that. I said that, counter-intuitively, only one TPIM is in existence at the moment. The impact assessment said there would be between five and 15. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how this inverse square rule seems to have appeared when we are told that there is a severe threat. I am coming to the end. My question related to that observation is: do the Government still anticipate a substantial increase in the use of TPIMs as we move forward? If so, why are we yet to see an increase? If the Minister no longer expects to see an increase, are the Government working closely with security forces to ensure that TPIMs are drawn up in a way that allows them to control the threat of terror?
I really am ending now. I still have vivid memories of 7 July 2005, as most Members here probably do. I am a London MP. Many ordinary Londoners—people of all faiths and none; luckily, none of my constituents—were indiscriminately maimed and killed while on their way to work. Some 52 lives were lost at Aldgate East, Edgware Road, Russell Square and Tavistock Square. It was one of the saddest days in the history of our nation’s great capital. I know that every Member wants to give the security forces the powers that they need to prevent such attacks from happening again. That is ultimately why the Opposition supports the draft order. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to take seriously some of the criticisms on independent review and making advice public and to say what he thinks about TPIMs and their declining use. He should work with Parliament to offer an honest and transparent assessment of their continuing utility.
The Chair
It would be very good if Members who wish to catch my eye bobbed in their seats, as I can see being beautifully demonstrated over there.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. Many of the points that I intended to make have been adequately made by the Government and the Opposition speakers, so I will try to keep my submission as brief as possible.
We agree that the police should have powers to fight terrorism, which is the great threat that our generation faces, and that the primary role of the Government is, among other things, to keep its citizens safe. We welcome the changes that have been alluded to by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, which came as a result of recommendations made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation only a couple of years ago. We support the changes that she took us through, so I will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon.
Of course, we do have concerns. The first is about the effectiveness of the orders. I was expecting—perhaps naively, as a new Member—to be taken though how TPIMs have worked over the past five years and how effective they have been in achieving the objective of fighting terrorism. Unfortunately we have not heard that; instead, we have heard a substantive debrief of what the orders can achieve in theory, and while I welcome that, it would have been nice to have a debrief of what has happened over the past five years, so we could assess their effectiveness. Sadly, that has been lacking.
It was my understanding that there was only one TPIM order, but if I am wrong about that I would be grateful if the Minister explained that when he sums up. On the accusation that, because there is only one order, our making that point means that we want things to be more liberal, that is absolutely not the case. We are making that point because these orders can be made only if it is necessary and proportionate to do so, so the inference is that it has not been necessary and proportionate to do so more than once in the past three or four years. If that is the case, that calls into question the effectiveness of the orders. I echo the hon. Lady’s point about the statutory consultations and I hope the Minister can clarify that requirement.
The former Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, who is no longer in his place, talked about individuals who have absconded. I accept that these cases are sometimes very sensitive and that we must not prejudice the effectiveness of the orders by releasing into the public domain information that could aid the bad guys, but I cannot help but think that if those two individuals were caught, the Government would be very quick to tell us. Surely, if they were caught, telling everybody that they had been caught demonstrates that this process is effective. It is difficult for me not to conclude the opposite—that they have not been caught. I struggle to conceive of anything sensitive unless they have not been caught, because clearly that would make the public think that the orders have not been effective. It is very difficult to escape that conclusion, but any clarity the Minister can give would be very welcome.
I will be grateful if the Minister can address those points. I reiterate that we will not divide the Committee, but we urgently require clarification on those points.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. I strongly support the continuation of these powers, but I invite the Minister to say a bit more about the circumstances in which TPIMs are used and to clarify the numbers. Will he assure the Committee that the use of one of these measures does not mean that the police or the agencies are giving up on a successful prosecution? In other words, will he assure us that they do not amount to an admission of failure to prosecute, which must surely be the authorities’ intent?
A concern has been raised in some quarters that the restrictions placed on an individual subject to one of these measures—for example, they can be removed from their home community, their associates and forms of communication—could undermine efforts to gather information and evidence that could lead to a successful prosecution. Will the Minister say something about how the twin aims of preventing terrorism and pursuing successful prosecutions are brought together in the use of these measures?
Mr Wallace
We should all recognise that we do not take TPIMs lightly and that they are not our first preference. Our first preference is to achieve a prosecution, but very often in counter-terrorism it is necessary to make a decision about the prosecution and, if that is not possible, the disruption of individuals who place a threat. Sometimes TPIMs are placed on people released from prison, and sometimes that they are placed on people about whom we have intelligence to indicate they pose a threat but we do not have the criminal prosecution level that we require at that time. It is not easy for either this Government or the Government who bought in control orders to decide to go down that path. Nevertheless, it is something we have all felt that we have to do as the threat has increased over the past 15 years.
As long as safeguards are in place and as long as people can appeal to the court and test the case that is put before them, the courts will uphold the legislation. I think that, in the change from control orders to TPIMs, it was right to have a higher threshold. Good counter-terrorism action has to keep communities onside. We cannot look like we are bending the law for a specific group of people. We have to keep people onside to ensure their support.
TPIMs serve a role in counter-terrorism in this country and they are successful in a number of areas. Size does not matter. The number of TPIMs is not necessarily the issue. What matters is that they are one of the tools in the toolbox that we can use to ensure that we protect the public. We cannot decide whether the policy is successful based on the number of TPIMs issued a year. One individual subject to a TPIM could wreak large amounts of damage to the community if we did not have some level of supervision. Six is the current figure, and that was released today. Two reports—a written ministerial statement and a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee—were published at 1 o’clock today, and they indicate that there are between one and six active TPIMs. We cannot grade the total number with the threat posed.
Richard Arkless
I accept what the Minister is saying. My point was that if orders are not granted, one has to assume that it is not necessary and proportionate in those circumstances. If six orders have been granted, the inference is that it has only been necessary and proportionate to do that in six cases. I am trying to get an outline of the effectiveness and whether the number is justifiable in terms of effectiveness. It all boils down to necessity and proportionality.
Mr Wallace
If we look at the toolbox to stop someone making or being a threat to the public, there is a broad range of tools—it does not just have to be TPIMs. For example, if someone was trying to leave the country and we suspected that they were going to fight with ISIS in Syria, we could remove their passport. Legislation is in place for a Minister to remove that individual’s passport and prevent them from travelling. That is an alternative that could be used. We use a range of powers and tools to disrupt and deter and, if necessary, to restrict people’s ability to threaten society.
Moving to the points raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, and the right hon. Member for Leicester East, the former Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, I agree that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been a good post. They have done a tremendous number of reports—both open reports and reports that are more sensitive. They inform Government, along with the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is a cross-party, independent committee. They challenge Government policy and inform us of changes. The post has been a great success. It has also been successful in providing reassurance that people are not too quickly interpreting intelligence into evidence. I am perfectly open to the hon. Lady’s suggestion about whether we should have an independent reviewer for counter-extremism. There is an open consultation on counter-extremism, and I recommend that she and her Front-Bench colleagues contribute to that and put forward her ideas. Discussion will take place once consultation is closed.
Do I anticipate an increase to more than six TPIMs? We should not forget that we have approximately 850 people who we think have gone to fight in Syria. Some of them will come home and it may be a challenge to deal with some of them in another way, so we may see an increase in TPIMs. We may, however, use other tools to ensure that we deal with such individuals. We are pragmatic. The professionals who deal with this issue—the security services and the police—should be free to make those decisions and recommendations. I will not interfere with their professionalism in deciding the appropriate measure or power to use.
On whether we would publish the advice to Ministers from the director-general of MI5, the police and other people, I will certainly reflect on the hon. Lady’s point. I would have to satisfy myself that that would not undermine or threaten national security. I suspect that the Intelligence and Security Committee—it could request to see that advice; it has much more powers thanks to the legislation we passed a few years ago—would have the ability to look at the advice. I would not dare to anticipate the Chair of the ISC, but the ability is there. I am open to the point that the hon. Lady made, but I have to check whether we can do that.
I was asked why we will not tell, say, reveal or publish what has happened to those two individuals who absconded from TPIMs. It is an ongoing police investigation, and we have to be careful when commenting on such things. Let me outline some possible scenarios that are not in any way linked to those individuals: they could have been found, and be abroad or under surveillance; they could have already been dealt with and relocated; or they may not have been found at all. However, publishing that information may threaten our operational capability. If we had people under surveillance abroad, we would want to know who they were mixing with and talking to, and we might not be able to go and get them. If I were to start doing a running commentary on the operational nature of a police investigation, it would seriously undermine the point.
We do not publish the names of individuals who are subject to TPIMs and we do not say if they have relocated or where they have relocated to. The TPIM is as much a tool for us to disrupt terrorist activity as it is about ensuring that we put a protective shield around certain individuals to protect the public from the threat that they may pose. It is easier said than done to say, “Let’s tell you what has happened.” I am not informing the Committee of what we know; I am just giving some scenarios to show that it may not be in the best interest of the police and the people charged with investigation to make those details public.
Overall, I am grateful for the Scottish National party and Labour party Front-Bench support for the measures, which are not done lightly. They are an important tool in our toolbox to ensure that we deal with the threats posed by terrorism, and they are constantly reviewed. All I can say is that we take such matters very seriously. The Home Secretary and I get advice from the professionals who are out there every day on the frontline, dealing with the dangers that many of us are often a long way from. I take the professionals’ views seriously, as do many around the House. That is why TPIMs should be extended, so I urge the Committee to support the order. The measures will be reviewed again as the legislation requires.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2016.
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
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
Libya
(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
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British engagement with Libya.
It is a great pleasure to introduce a debate of such importance—it is a wonderful privilege as a Member of Parliament to have the opportunity to raise subjects of international importance. We all know, given where we have come from with the debates on Brexit, Heathrow and all the rest, that we focus a lot on domestic issues. We particularly focus on European issues, but the situation in Libya is of enormous importance for the country and the wider picture in the middle east. The waves of migration we are seeing in Europe are in many ways a direct consequence of the total collapse of order and civic administration in Libya. I do not want to exaggerate that and suggest that Libya is in a complete state of anarchy, but there is no doubt that there have been many failures of omission in Libya, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and his team have pointed out.
We have had five years in which it has been unclear what the future political make-up of the country will be in terms of its institutions. Muammar Gaddafi saw his end five years ago, in October 2011. It is disconcerting to see that there is no single constituted political entity or Government in Libya. Instead, there are two Governments and various militias. The country is divided geographically between the east and the west, with their respective centres of power in Tobruk and Tripoli. The Government of National Accord have been backed by the United Nations, by us and by the international community, yet when we read reports on what is happening on the ground in Libya with the militias and military activity, the striking thing is that the GNA’s forces do not seem to be making much impact. In fact, I rarely read about what they and their military forces are doing.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this timely debate. Does he agree that Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar would possibly be a better person to lead security in Libya at this time?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I want to address precisely that point in my remarks. There seems to be a complete disjuncture between what we want to happen with the people we want to back for our own reasons—they could have a legitimacy or legal primacy—and what is happening on the ground. That has been a constant feature of the western approach to the area. We have our own ideals and beliefs about the process, the rule of law and what we think should happen, but when we look on the ground at the instrumentalities, as Woodrow Wilson used to call them, we see a complete mismatch. The people whom we want to be in charge—the people whom we believe have legitimacy—have very little capacity to enforce their will and ensure that their writ is run through the country we hope they can rule. That fundamental problem always comes up.
Haftar represents Operation Dignity. He has set himself up as an anti-Islamist strongman. There is no doubt that he is a controversial figure, but it is difficult to envisage a stable Libya without his active participation. He simply has a lot of muscle and many forces. He controls a significant portion of the country, particularly in the east. A few weeks ago we discovered that his forces took over a lot of the oil installations at the beginning of September. He has to come round the table if we are to reach a satisfactory solution.
There have been dark rumblings in regard to Haftar. We have read many times that the French secret service is supporting him. They are rumours, but it is important that we know what is being said. We also know that allies, including our friends in Egypt and the Egyptian Government, are openly supporting Haftar. The United Arab Emirates is broadly in support of his objectives. Many of our allies are openly or covertly supporting General Haftar, yet we stick to this idea, perhaps rightly, that the GNA is the legitimately constituted Government of Libya.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is spending time talking about General Haftar. Our Government’s line has repeatedly been for the past five years, “We must wait for a Government of National Accord and national unity.” It is clearly evident after five years that that will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it. We should support General Haftar to bring peace and stability to the country.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am trying to say—in many ways, it is the crux of this debate and nearly any debate about the middle east—that we have our own ideals and our own sense of what the rule of law and due process are, yet the realities on the ground in many instances bear no relation to the theoretical aspirations and structures that the international community constructs. I am trying to grope towards some way in which we can accommodate or harmonise our intellectual construct and method with what is happening on the ground.
The reality is that there are something like 1,700 militias. General Haftar is probably the biggest military presence, and many of our allies openly support him. My hon. Friend asks an interesting question: why do we not just support General Haftar? I do not propose to answer that definitely today. It is a difficult question and there are lots of balancing factors. The fact is that General Haftar is not universally popular. We have big issues with militias in Misrata. A number of other tribes on the western side have said openly that they are not prepared to tolerate rule by him. Their belief is that, if we support Haftar, we will be substituting one military dictator for the former military dictator, Gaddafi.
Be that as it may, I want to talk about my hon. Friend’s suggestion. Our strategy has not moved the country forward in five years. The financial situation is such that whatever oil reserves Libya had are rapidly dwindling. Libya’s GDP was something like $75 billion in 2011 and is now something like $41 billion—it is roughly of that order; that figure is from a couple of years ago, but it is the latest we have. We are talking about an economy that has essentially halved in five years. GDP per capita was something like $12,500 in 2011, at which point Libya was one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. It was seeing some degree of material progress. Today, GDP per capita is about $7,000. No country in Europe has seen such a diminution of its wealth, including Greece. That has huge implications for the security situation in the region and outside.
Not only have people become a lot poorer, but the political institutions in many instances have broken down. Whatever Gaddafi’s strengths and weaknesses were—let’s face it, he was a tyrant—he had a degree of control over the country’s borders. Those who know geography will know that Libya is an enormous country with something like 4,000 miles of borders. To stem the flow of migration, it was very important that a centrally constituted Government—a central authority—could control the borders. That has now completely collapsed, which is why hundreds if not thousands of people come from very poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa through Libya and find themselves on boats in the Mediterranean going to Italy, in many instances ending their lives there.
I did not want to talk about the EU—we have had plenty of debates in this place about it—but one of the failures it needs to address is the lack of a co-ordinated plan for Libya. There is no point pretending it is going to go away, because it is not. The problem will get worse.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this timely, topical debate. Does he agree that, although focusing on Libya’s coastline is very important to prevent the tragedy of human trafficking, it is also important to look at Libya’s southern borders, where people are coming up from sub-Saharan Africa? Perhaps we could be doing more to understand what is going on there and to tackle trafficking at its source.
Kwasi Kwarteng
As is often the case, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That goes to the heart of the question. There is no centrally constituted Government or central power to hold the country together and control the borders that she talks about, which are pretty porous.
I secured the debate because I have spent time in Europe speaking to German colleagues and MPs and politicians from other countries, and I am struck by the fact that there does not seem to be any real plan of action. Nothing has happened for five years. The country is not in a state of chaos—that would be an exaggeration—but it is certainly not stable. Its oil reserves are dwindling. It is still fairly rich by African and developing country standards, but its wealth is being depleted, and if it diminishes further the problem will get worse. It is no use pretending it is simply going to go away, because it is not.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
One of the biggest problems is that when the United Nations or outside organisations such as the European Union try to help one side or the other, they are regarded with the deepest suspicion by a large number of people in Libya. That is one of the reasons why the latest plan seems to have failed.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I am told that one of the reasons why the Libyans view western involvement with such scepticism is that 2011 was not this country’s finest hour. I agree substantially with many of the findings in the Foreign Affairs Committee report. We went in there, but we did not have a plan or a follow-through. Given that context, it is not surprising that Libyans are sceptical.
Our ideals—what we want to happen—and what we can actually do are often completely different. I completely understand the support for the Government of National Accord, but it is difficult to see how we can empower them to take control of the country. None of the militias that one reads about—Haftar and Operation Dignity, Libya Dawn, ISIS and various al-Qaeda militias—are GNA forces. They are not under the control of the Government of National Accord, yet we carry on in a fantasy world in which they are the official, legal Government and we are going to support them. I totally understand those pious words, but nothing is happening on the ground.
We can go on like this. I am sure that in five years’ time I, or some new MPs, will take up the issue. We can go on forever and a day talking about what is going on, but in this debate I want to say, “Look, this is a big problem. What are we going to do about it?” I do not propose any definitive answers, but it is highly important that MPs have the opportunity to speak and think about these issues. We do very little thinking in this place; we do a lot of talking, posturing and virtue-signalling, but as parliamentarians we need to engage our minds critically with these problems.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend said that 2011 was not our finest hour. May I remind him—I am sure he remembers this very clearly—that only one Conservative Member of Parliament voted against military action: our colleague from the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)? Does he agree that we need to learn from that terrible mistake? We saw on our television screens constant coverage of the alleged bloodbath that would ensue if Gaddafi was not stopped. We reacted quickly without thinking about the consequences and without the follow-through that was needed.
Kwasi Kwarteng
That is a very timely intervention, because that is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. For far too long, we have had emotional responses to situations. I remember the debate very vividly, although I was a new Member of Parliament and less experienced and less versed in issues relating to the middle east then. We talked a lot about the humanitarian crisis and what we needed to do to intervene to stop the potential bloodbath. All of that was well understood, but we did not stop and think.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate to hear what the Minister has to say in response. May I gently remind my hon. Friend that simply to dismiss our intervention in Libya as an emotional response and to say that the Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not think through the consequences is not fair? That does not adequately describe the work that went into Libya afterwards, which included intensive work with politicians to create the opportunity for elections. In recognising what happened, which is immensely difficult, he might pay tribute to the work of the Foreign Office, our diplomats and our ambassador, who worked so hard to try to create something. He must not assume that it was simply an emotional response without regard to the consequences.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I fully appreciate my right hon. Friend’s point. He was at that time a Foreign Office Minister largely responsible for the middle east, and he served in that post with considerable distinction. I fully appreciate his efforts.
My phrase “emotional response” might be a little dismissive. It is very brutal and horrible to have to say this, but we have to look at the consequences of what happened. We have to look at the situation, put our hands up and say, “This is not a good situation.” I appreciate that there were lots of motivated, highly skilled diplomats, and that lots of thought went into the intervention on the ground. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO Secretary-General said that, if we just look at the means by which we carried out the intervention, it was effective, but I am afraid that the judgment of history is that it was not particularly successful, based on the consequences of our actions. At some point we have to be hard on ourselves and look at the outcomes. We can say, “We discussed this endlessly, we met all these committees, we had all this planning and we got votes through Parliament”, but—to use that old phrase—the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the pudding does not taste very good, something has gone wrong, and we have got to accept that.
Alistair Burt
While we are looking at our intervention in Libya in 2011, perhaps we might also look at the consequences of the vote on Syria in 2013. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree that deciding whether to intervene or not is very difficult. The same consequences can arise from both because we are not fully in charge of all the circumstances.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The conclusion—one does not require the brains of an archbishop to reach this—is that when we intervene, we should have a plan for the follow-through, perhaps for up to 18 months. I am not one of those people who is against all interventions, but I am against interventions the consequences of which have not been properly considered, or properly planned for. That is not a radical thing to ask.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, which is the latest in a number of debates on Libya, in this Chamber in particular. I agree with a lot of what he is saying. One of the consequences of the chaos in Libya and the lack of any centralised Government is the failure, or inability, to get to grips with getting justice and compensation for the victims of Libyan-inspired IRA and other terrorism. That is a major problem. Many of the victims are getting older and they wait in great frustration for our Government to do more, and to get what they are entitled to. Does he agree that that is another aspect of what is happening?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. For those who study the outbreak of the second world war, the question then was always, “Who do you call in Berlin?” or “Who is actually responsible for the action?”, and that is exactly the kind of question that we need to ask about Libya. If we want to start the compensation process, who on earth do we call? Yes, the GNA is in control of the central bank, but they are not in control of the oil production or the generators of wealth, so it is a legitimate question.
To wrap up, our foreign service’s capabilities in diplomacy are second to none, as a country, but once in a while we have to admit, “We might not have done this very effectively. We might have got things wrong.” After all, President Obama, our closest ally, said that Libya was the worst mistake of his presidency. He had the honesty and candour to put his hand up and admit that and, if we are to proceed as a more effective player or counsellor in the politics of the region, we have to have the courage to admit when we get things wrong.
The report from the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate did that—although perhaps it cast blame too narrowly and was not overly generous in its interpretation of what happened—but we have to recognise when we get things wrong. We have to be more realistic about what we can achieve when we intervene. We also have to be realistic about the kinds of players involved and with whom we have to deal. My hon. Friends have mentioned General Haftar, and he is clearly an important figure. There is no point pretending that he will disappear because he does not constitute a legitimate authority, so he can be ignored—he cannot be ignored. He is a fact in the Libyan scene who needs to be dealt with.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I am interested to hear what colleagues have to say about the situation and, if I were to summarise the kind of conclusion that I want to reach, the kind of thought that I want to stimulate, it is to ask how we are going to marry our ideals with what is happening on the ground. How will we do that? We have endless debates, but perhaps we have to shift our ideals and to compromise if we cannot reach a solution. There is no point sticking our heads in the sand and saying, “Well, this is the legitimate Government”, but then nothing happens. That is a complete waste of time.
I beg for consideration of this. I beg right hon. and hon. Members to spend time thinking about how to move forward and to marry ideals with what is happening on the ground in Libya, and about what we as parliamentarians and broader supporters of the Government and of our country can do to bring some degree of stability and order to a country that for far too long has lived with a level of chaos that none of us would accept in our own lives and in our own country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
The wind-ups will start at 10.30 am, but there is quite a lot of interest in this debate, so I hope Members will tailor their remarks accordingly. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Chope. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on his excellent contribution, which set the scene so well. No one in this Chamber should be under any illusion about the fragile situation in Libya. The Foreign Affairs Committee reported on the situation in Libya in September 2016, and the report was eye-opening. The summary alone is enough to demand a reconsideration of the Libya situation and our involvement.
I am known to be someone with a positive nature. Rather than focusing solely on a problem and apportioning blame, I like to see what the solution is—in other words, I like to see a glass half full. I cannot, however, skip past a part of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report that needs to be addressed. I will quote it, because it sets the scene clearly:
“In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi. This policy was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element…The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa. Through his decision making in the National Security Council, former Prime Minister David Cameron was ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy.”
In response, the Minister will emphasise that we have a new Prime Minister—we are glad to see her in place and the changes that she has brought and is bringing—but that cannot take away from the fact that the Government are failing in their engagement with Libya and that things need to change. I respect President Obama, even if I largely do not agree with his policies, and Parliament and the Government must address his damning accusations with regards to Libya.
The USA cannot be absolved of all responsibility for the situation. A sore point for me is that the US Government were actively working hard to secure compensation for their citizens for Libyan-sponsored acts of terrorism, but our Government have all but refused to do that for our citizens.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that with all the ongoing conflict and diplomacy, there is still a major problem for the people of Libya, especially the women and children? We can argue all day about the rights and wrongs of conflict and intervention, but something more needs to be done to help the people of that country.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend and colleague says. In an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned IRA terrorism and the sponsorship of the Libyan Government. That issue is close to our hearts in the Democratic Unionist party, the second largest party in this Westminster Hall debate, and we are pleased to make that case.
If our friends across the pool were able to achieve compensation for their citizens, one must wonder why they are unable to step in and make a difference in the current climate. It is incumbent on me as a representative of the Democratic Unionist party, on behalf of the victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism, to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office again for an update on the situation since it was last discussed in the House. I trust that steps have been taken to make a stand for our victims and to see their pain acknowledged in a tangible way.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is elaborating on the distinction between the success obtained by the American Administration for their victims of terrorism and the unfortunate lack of success by our Government in getting compensation for victims of terrorism in the UK, many of them in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we need to see progress in Libya, for the people of Libya, but that in return we need to see those legacy issues resolved, so that people here are more satisfied with our Government’s input than they have been to date?
Jim Shannon
I am coming on to some of those things, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need the Government to be responsive and to help our people.
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Gentleman is referring to the legacy issues affecting many people in Northern Ireland. I join our colleagues in Northern Ireland in campaigning on such an important matter, and I am very disappointed that the Government have not made more progress. May I ask him to support action on the other key outstanding legacy issue, which is the murder of a serving British police officer, PC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot outside the Libyan embassy? To this day, we have still had no indication of who her murderer was, and he has not been brought to justice.
Jim Shannon
It is good to be reminded of that case, which has never been resolved from an investigative point of view and for which no one has been held accountable. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We want that issue, as well as other outstanding legacy issues, to be addressed. It is such a major issue that I will not do my constituents the disservice of ignoring it and failing to take the opportunity to call for the wrong to be righted as far as possible, which is what the Government appear to have done. I hope that they will not continue to do so.
The IRA terrorist campaign led to the deaths of 3,750 people, not only in Northern Ireland but in Brighton, London, Manchester and other places. Libyan involvement is undisputed. Compensation has been paid to the families of Americans who lost their lives as a result of that involvement, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to, but the loss of British lives has not led to similar aid or support. I have said before in this place that our citizens are not second-class citizens and that they deserve the same justice as the Americans, and I stress that essential point about British engagement on behalf of my constituents.
Chaos reigns in many parts of Libya. I am aware from the Library briefing that in August, the Royal Navy supported the removal of potential chemical weapons materials from Libya. There are a lot of issues to be addressed there. This is not about winning a war; it is about seeing how we can influence the country and help to rebuild it from a dictatorship into a democracy. However, many external factors are taking control, and we must decide what the appropriate action is in that scenario.
The United Nations has brokered the formation of an inclusive Government of National Accord, but as seems to be the norm, the people the UN seeks to support have no regard for its regulations. There is substantiated evidence of the GNA having been undermined by people flouting the United Nations arms embargo and using Libyan militias as proxies. I have some good friends who work in security in the middle east and have been in Libya, and they have informed me that Libya is awash with illegal arms, some of which have made their way to terrorist groups in Europe. If we want to address terrorism in Europe, we must address the availability of arms in Libya.
Libya has descended into lawlessness since the fall of Gaddafi in 2011, giving groups such as the self-proclaimed ISIS free rein to attack Christians. The Minister would expect me to make this point, because I take the opportunity to do so whenever one comes my way. We all know that Libya has a deep Islamic culture, so Libyan Christians must keep their faith completely secret. Churches for Libyans and Christian literature in Arabic are forbidden. Although migrant Christians are allowed to practise their faith in Libya, many have paid the ultimate price: in 2015, dozens of Christians from Eritrea, Ethiopia and Egypt were kidnapped or killed by extremists in Libya. Several of those cases have been well expounded upon and were in the papers and on TV at the time. For example, a brief search for links to news stories related to Christian persecution and Libya returns the following headlines: “Christian woman in fear for her life”; “IS kidnaps 86 Eritrean Christians”; “Islamic State capture more African migrants”; and “IS kill 30 Christians, destroy churches”. Those are just some of the things that happen. Continued persecution is an important factor that must be considered in any discussion of our role and involvement in Libya.
I am conscious of the time and your direction, Mr Chope, so I will conclude with this comment. We face a massive problem. We must first determine our role in solving it and working with others who seek to absolve themselves rather than help solve the issues. We must try to bring stability to an area that desperately needs it, for the benefit of Christians, citizens and neighbouring countries, simply for the fight against terrorism, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) referred to, for the ordinary people of Libya—the mothers, families, children and hard-working people. We must be wise and effective. Our actions must be co-ordinated to ensure that there is a global response that is felt by those who continue to seek to bring the country to its knees. We in this House have a duty, but we are not alone in that, and we must ensure that all the key players have a role in bringing stability to Libya.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). People always refer to debates as timely, but this debate has special merit because it shines a light on an area that is often forgotten in the shadow of the atrocities in Syria, but that has a huge role in the region’s stability.
I did not vote for a no-fly zone in Libya in 2011; I abstained. I wondered then whether that was to my shame. Sadly, on balance, I do not think that it was. Back then, as a new MP, I was not sufficiently confident that there would not be mission creep, I could not see a concrete plan for what Libya would look like were there to be mission creep, and I looked at the west’s track record of removing nasty dictators, and it was not good. It is easy to be wise after the event and rehearse mistakes that were made. We can say that lessons will be learned—that cliché is often used—but we can perhaps best demonstrate that we are going to learn the lessons by tackling the situation properly and realistically now.
I am often surprised that Libya does not feature more in the media and political discussion, particularly on compassionate grounds. Libya is well known as a haven for people traffickers, who often traffic people to their deaths in the Mediterranean. When I was in Sicily last year helping to redecorate and renovate a migrant hostel, some young men from Africa told me that they were kept locked like animals in storage containers in Tripoli for two weeks and were basically forcibly starved. One man speculated that that was to ensure that they were smaller so the traffickers could fit more people on the boats. Those are the kinds of human atrocities that are happening, but they do not seem to be attracting Twitter hashtags commensurate with appalling human rights abuses. What are we doing on Libya’s southern border to prevent such atrocities from happening at source? Once people are at the coast, it is in a sense almost too late, although we must of course take action there too.
Libya is obviously of strategic importance. We know that it has become a fertile breeding ground for IS and other violent Islamist groups. It would be a mistake to limit our attention solely to Daesh. We might eradicate Daesh, but the ideology that it espouses will be articulated in another way. Let us not be simplistic and attach ourselves to defeating just a name and not an ideology. The chaos—some call it chaos; some call it deep instability—in Libya is deeply destabilising for neighbouring nations. The last thing that we want is a destabilised Egypt, which has its own challenges. Having a neighbour in such a situation as Libya is in is deeply destabilising for Egypt. As a nation, we are partially responsible for creating that situation, so we have a responsibility to engage energetically in trying to return some form of stability to Libya.
I am far from an expert, and I am aware that I am in the company of far greater experts, so I will make a few observations and then ask some questions of the Minister. We backed a revolution, which is always a risky business. Revolution is very different from reform. In many ways, having taken the actions that we took, we cannot be surprised that we are where we are in Libya.
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend mentions that we backed revolution. That is precisely the point: we had no idea what was going to come after the revolution. We simply thought that things would right themselves on their own, and that once we had destabilised the situation, Humpty Dumpty would somehow just come back and reform almost spontaneously.
Charlotte Leslie
My hon. Friend refers to a nursery rhyme; I was going to say that we have a slightly short attention span and in many ways a fairytale view of foreign policy—“It’s all going to be fine and everyone will live happily ever after once we’ve done the nice thing that the Twitterati will approve of.” We are where we are.
We in the west in general—I do not intend to label any one person as responsible—make two mistakes. First, we tend to see situations in a binary way. We are quick to call the good guys the good guys and the bad guys the bad guys. That has led us to be allies with questionable people just because we want to defeat Daesh. Does that really mean that we should align ourselves with Islamists who perhaps have ideas not that different from Daesh? The reason that they are anti-Daesh may be that they see it as a competitor in the region, not that they share our values.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I remember that those who advocated attacking Iraq back in 2003 pointed to an atrocity that Saddam Hussein had undoubtedly perpetrated against the Kurds in Halabja some 15 years or so before as a pretext for launching strikes. Do we not have to be clear that there is an ever-present opportunity in the middle east to make a horrendous situation full of human rights abuses even worse?
Charlotte Leslie
Absolutely. A theme that has arisen again and again in this Chamber is the tension between stability and freedoms, and the extent to which we match our concern with alleviating human rights abuses with a concern with maintaining stability. Once stability goes in a country, there are an awful lot more human rights abuses, however many there were beforehand.
Daniel Kawczynski
My hon. Friend was far too modest in her analysis of her abstention in 2011 when she was a new MP. I was not aware that she had abstained; I focused on my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who voted against the no-fly zone. I pay tribute to her for effectively scrutinising the situation. Does she agree that we must learn from the mistake of the speed with which we reacted to the crisis and intervened in the country at that time?
Charlotte Leslie
I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention. Yes, we must learn lessons, but we do that not by sitting in this Chamber saying that we will learn lessons, but by doing things better, starting from today.
The second mistake that we often make, which feeds into the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to nursery rhymes and fairytales, is that we forget that the middle east is not Tunbridge Wells, if hon. Members will forgive me for labelling that area of the country. The models of democracy and methods that would work in the home counties will not work in the middle east. It is a very different scenario. We seem constantly to make the mistake of putting ideology and our own ideals of how the world should be ahead of how it actually is.
I have just a few questions for the Minister that are based on observations. I am not an expert on this subject at all, but it seems to me that pursuing a 100% inclusive settlement for a Libyan Parliament is fantasy. It will not happen. I worry that, in failing to realise that, we risk making the best the enemy of the good. How possible does the Minister think it is for a sustainable majority to be gathered to govern—I am talking about bringing in recalcitrant Islamists and those in Misrata—such that Britain can then engage in maintaining the human rights of the minorities that are left outside?
It seems very hard to play the active role that we want to play in helping to reconstruct Libya if we have our diplomatic service based in Tunis but making forays—flying visits—into an occupied Tripoli. Is the Minister looking at putting an expeditionary diplomatic presence back on the ground in Tripoli, so that we actually have skin in the game, and so that we can perhaps stand alongside a Libyan Parliament in the same way as we did early in 2011, which is what we should do if we really want to see it gain traction and force?
What assessment has the Minister made of the effects of our efforts to displace Daesh from Sirte on the wider political situation in Libya? Has he made any assessment of the risk of our efforts on the ground boosting one side—the Misratan militias—and the potential effect of that, if it is happening, on the Parliament and the army? It would be a shame if unintended consequences from our efforts to displace Daesh from Sirte contributed to the destabilising situation that gave birth to it in the first place.
I am aware that we have limited time, but in the absence of clear and effective practical leadership in the country, I would value the Minister’s thoughts on our relationship with General Haftar. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne rightly said that we cannot just ignore him and airbrush him from the picture because he does not fit in with our ideal of a GNA-led democracy. Whatever we think of General Haftar, he is really the only man who has managed to keep the army in one piece against an array of Islamist attacks. As my hon. Friend said, he is a controversial figure, but I struggle to think of any figure who has maintained any stability in the middle east who is not controversial. If we are looking for an uncontroversial leader to provide stability, we may have a very long wait.
To start to wrap up, I will borrow words reported to me by the former head of the British embassy office in Benghazi, Mr Joseph Walker-Cousins. He recalled words uttered by Salwa Bugaighis, a leading Libyan human rights lawyer. She had represented Islamists oppressed under the Gaddafi regime and had previously disagreed that Islamists posed a significant threat to Libya. Mr Walker-Cousins recalled how, shortly before she was assassinated by the Islamist militia group Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi on the day of the general election in June 2014, she said of Haftar: “I hate that man. I hate everything he stands for. However, I have come to understand that he is the only one capable of containing and then destroying the extremists.”
Under threat of death, Salwa Bugaighis returned to Benghazi to take part in the elections and tweeted a picture of herself with an inked finger at the polling station. Her last tweet was of a convoy of Ansar al-Sharia breaching the gates of her villa compound. She was found the next day murdered in her kitchen, and her husband, a leading pro-democracy politician in Benghazi who was in line to be elected leader of the Benghazi local council the next day, was missing, presumed dead.
I ask the Minister what our vision is for Britain’s role in Libya. Will we regain skin in the game back on the ground with expeditionary diplomatic engagement and perhaps push for UN pro-consul level international engagement? Will we seek to work with General Haftar and the army, which are realities on the ground that we cannot ignore, or will we seek to step aside and create space for Russia to step in and start making decisions in Libya in the same way as it is now calling the shots in Syria? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
I will finish with a quote attributed to Churchill:
“United wishes and goodwill cannot overcome brute fact”.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am grateful to my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for getting this debate going. I take issue slightly with the comments on the decision in 2011. I felt that we had no choice but to save the people of Benghazi. We did not think of the consequences; we had damn all time to look downstream. I felt that the decision was quite right. My experience of watching people die when there is military inaction was why I supported military operations against Gaddafi.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) raised this matter. It is very sad that, throughout the middle east, stability and safety and a normal society so that children can go to school often seems to require a strong person, normally or even always a man, to be in charge of the country. Democracy such as we have in this country is only a serious long-term wish.
Alex Chalk
Is there a lesson from British history? If we go back to a time before there was a civil service, before there were all the organs of the state, it required a strong man in the form of the King to keep the King’s peace. That is a lesson from our own history that we would do well to observe.
Bob Stewart
I entirely take that point, which in fact reinforces the point I was making. It seems, therefore, that people such as Saddam and Gaddafi sometimes work for the majority of people in a country. For some, of course, they do not. Libya is seemingly ungovernable at the moment. Some say that there are two Parliaments, and huge numbers—thousands—of militias and generals running around. It is a ghastly place. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned 1,600 militias—goodness, that is a heck of a lot. However, with apologies to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, I shall concentrate on Daesh and what it could do in Libya.
I have no intelligence information on this—it is all open source—but I am told that Daesh started moving into Libya in about 2014, when it was looking for an alternative place. It found that in Sirte. When we talk about Sirte, I, as a military officer, am always reminded of David Stirling and his SAS raids on Sirte airfield, which other hon. Members are nodding about, and the gallant actions of those young men, who were mainly from New Zealand, in those days. [Interruption.] I am so sorry: the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminds me that the Irish were there, too. We are always reminded of the Irish, Mr Chope, because they apparently have more Victoria Crosses than the English, the Welsh and the Scots put together. Mind you, I have to say, just to add a lighter note, that I am quite sure they were a bit pickled when they won them.
According to open sources, there are about 4,000 to 6,000 Daesh people operating in Sirte and around there. What is the threat? What threat are these guys going to make against us? I think it is not as bad as it could be. They are stuck in an enclave in Sirte. Perhaps they are being hellish inside it, but if I were a Daesh commander, I would not put my operatives into a leaky boat full of migrants or refugees, with scant chance of making it across the Mediterranean. I am also sure that when they do get to Europe the security forces of the country check them out thoroughly before they get ashore.
I would not take that course of action, so how else do they get into Europe? To the east they would be going into Egypt. President Sisi is adamantly determined to wipe out terrorist groups such as Daesh, and has set the armed forces and security forces firmly against them. Again, he is a strong man in the middle east. Tunisia, after the tragedy of Sousse and Tunis last year, has decided to put up a great barricade across the border. That is being done fairly effectively, although it is not complete. Algeria is 1,000 miles away, but the Algerians too are effective at chasing down Islamists trying to cross into their territory. It is not easy to get into Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West mentioned going south across the Sahara, but that is a pretty dodgy route to try.
I am thinking about the threat to us from the people in question—being a member of the Defence Committee, of course I am thinking in that way. They are holed up, but it is quite clear that we have to eliminate them. We will support anything that helps with their elimination. The objective of eliminating Daesh and other terrorist organisations in Libyan society is crucial, but, as other Members and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West have suggested, Daesh is just one. If it is squashed, it will come out in some other form. Somehow, politically, Libya has to find a way. Whether that involves a strong person or not, I am sure of one thing: it took us 800 years to get to our imperfect democracy, and it cannot be imposed quickly. As others have suggested, there will be a Libyan model. I hope it comes quickly for the sake of the decent, normal people of Libya.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing the debate, which has given us time to think. I heard a remark of Henry Kissinger’s about a month ago; he said that the problem these days was that when politicians came to see him they asked what they should say, not what they should think. My hon. Friend has provided us with an opportunity to think, and in the time available to me I want to deal with just one issue. I want to take on the slightly concerning chorus of voices saying that General Haftar—or Field Marshal Haftar, as he has now been styled by the House of Representatives—might somehow be the solution.
Given the enthusiasm for strong men in the middle east, my colleagues might do well to reflect that such men both create and perpetuate the conditions that make them necessary. I was slightly surprised at the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who was, of course, with us on the Select Committee visit to Tunis, when we sat down with Imhemed Shaib, the first vice-president of the House of Representatives, and a number of his colleagues. At that time, in March, they were trying to put together a House of Representatives vote to support the Government of National Accord. Our brilliant ambassador, Peter Millett, and the team of other international diplomats there have worked hard on that, to try to create what the Committee concluded was the only show in town to avoid the descent into civil war.
It was clear from the discussion that the Members of the House of Representatives had been intimidated and practically prevented from gathering together to vote so that they could support the new Government of National Accord. The House of Representatives had no votes between January and August this year, and indeed by May or June the United States had decided to sanction the Speaker, Aguila Saleh, as an obstacle to putting together support for the Government of National Accord, which all nations are formally signing up to as the best vehicle to take things forward.
It is undoubtedly true that Field Marshal Haftar commands the most substantial military force in Libya, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne mentioned, he is getting aid of one sort or another, covertly from the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere, and almost overtly from Egypt, where a degree of air power of course gives him military superiority. In the end, the solution is in the hands of Khalifa Haftar: will he place himself under the civilian authority of a Defence Minister appointed within the Government of National Accord? If that were to happen, we would begin to see the possibility of Libya finding its way through the appalling crisis that it has been in since our intervention in 2011.
The international community should be making sure that all our allies are not playing a double game in their own interest. They should instead be playing a game in the interest of the whole international community and the people of Libya, to find the best way of getting a Government who will bring all the people of Libya together. To my hon. Friends who are contemplating what I might describe as a Haftar shortcut, I would say that it would be a shortcut to civil war. The people of Libya have suffered enough. We should do everything in our power to try to prevent such an outcome.
Kwasi Kwarteng
It is all very well to say that things will descend into civil war, but in a country with 1,700 militias at the latest count, and two Governments, there is effectively civil war now.
Crispin Blunt
My hon. Friend is correct, but if there is to be a unification of the forces of the west against the military forces under Field Marshal Haftar, we shall see civil war on an even greater scale, with a greater scale of human misery, than we have now.
The issue for us and our interest is the collapse of central authority in Libya. That is why there is no control of the littoral, and why there is now uncontrolled emigration out of Libya and the appalling trafficking of people from the south up to the north. I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) on what is happening on the Libyan southern border. Some of the migration trails need to be interdicted at that point, but that will be immensely more difficult if we cannot establish a decent central authority in Libya. It was the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Government of National Accord was the only game in town. In my judgment, we should all be focused—including through our leverage over other members of the international community—on supporting its efforts. All the alternatives are far, far worse.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing the debate. He gave a substantial and comprehensive introduction to it. I do not know whether he remembers that we first crossed paths in 2010, at a young person’s “Question Time” broadcast on the BBC. He was considerably more successful in that election than I was, but I am delighted to have begun to catch up with him, at least.
Barack Obama has admitted that military intervention and the mishandling of the aftermath in Libya was the worst mistake of his presidency. In many ways that is a brave and admirable statement to make, and is evidence of a politician willing to learn from his mistakes. Unfortunately, when our previous Prime Minister has been offered the opportunity he has not been willing to show similar contrition. More worryingly, the Government still seem unwilling to learn lessons from a situation that they have helped to cause and that continues to unfold.
I will look briefly at some of the findings of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the opportunities for the UK Government to take responsibility, to learn lessons and to work for a peaceful solution in Libya, and perhaps to address some specific questions about Government policy going forward. The contribution of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), was substantial. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) thoroughly welcomes the opportunities he has had to contribute to the work of that Committee, but its membership is predominantly made up of Government Members.
The Committee’s report is pretty scathing with regard to the actions of the former Prime Minister. It found
“no evidence that the UK Government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya.”
It also found that they had no defined strategic objective, which meant that a
“limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into a policy of regime change by military means.”
Furthermore, it found that there was no attempt to pause military action when Benghazi was secured, and that
“the UK Government focused exclusively on military intervention”
at the expense of stabilisation and rebuilding.
We have heard some more substantial and thoughtful ways that we could move forward from the hon. Member for Reigate and other Members, but the biggest example of failure came in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife, which revealed that the UK Government had spent 13 times more on bombing Libya than on rebuilding it post-war. The eight-month UK military intervention cost £320 million, but the money set aside for rebuilding totalled just £25 million. The consequences of that are there for all to see and have been outlined by a number of Members. The hon. Member for Spelthorne outlined the impact on GDP, infrastructure and the general collapse of governance. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) spoke quite movingly about human rights abuses that she has witnessed.
The Government must support the UN’s efforts to mediate a political solution and dramatically improve the effectiveness of the EU’s practical support to the interim Government. There are still opportunities for the UK Government, working with the international community, to make a positive contribution to the outcome in Libya. The Scottish National party condemns the recent coup attempts by opposition factions in Tripoli and urges all factions to work constructively with the interim Government and the UN to end the fighting, reach a lasting political settlement and build stable state institutions that serve the people of Libya.
In the midst of ongoing military intervention in the form of airstrikes by the US, Turkey, Egypt and other regional actors, the UN has taken a lead in working with the various competing factions in an attempt to reach a viable and lasting political agreement. It must receive all possible support in doing so. The SNP urges the UK Government to channel their efforts in Libya in that way. Instead of wasting any more time or energy planning further ill-conceived or poorly planned military intervention, they should seek to work with the international community—notably the European Union—to provide proper support to the capacity building of the Libyan state institutions and police force.
There is a particular lesson that needs to be learned from the experience in Iraq, which is the need to support the interim Government in ensuring that oil revenues are not misappropriated and are instead used for the benefit of the people of Libya. Libya has been granted an exemption from cuts in oil production by OPEC, and as competing factions within the Government seem to have reached an agreement, however fragile, on resuming oil exports, the mistakes from Iraq must not be repeated. The UK and the wider international community must work with the interim Government and the private sector to ensure that oil revenues are properly invested in rebuilding infrastructure and in supporting stable state institutions for the benefit of the Libyan people, rather than lining the pockets of corrupt Government officials or unscrupulous businessmen. In that way, perhaps at least one lesson from the debacle in Iraq will have been learned.
There are ongoing questions about the possibility of the deployment of troops. I understand that the proposed Libyan international assistance mission is on hold, but the Government need to confirm that, if UK troops were ever to be deployed in Libya, it would not happen without parliamentary approval. I am also interested in something that happens in a number of conflict situations: the continuing mismatch between Home Office guidance on the settlement of refugees and asylum seekers, and Foreign and Commonwealth Office guidance on traveling to the country in question. The FCO advises against all travel by UK citizens to Libya; the whole country is shown as red on the FCO guidance page. However, section 2.3.10 of the Home Office guidance issued in June 2016 for people seeking asylum or making their way here says:
“In general conditions across the country are not so poor that removal would be a breach of Article 2 or 3”
of the European convention on human rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am conscious that I have only limited time at the end of the debate to cover everything, and this is an important issue. The advice from the Home Office deals with Libyans who need to go back. There is a different set of circumstances in place for westerners and Britons, who are a target for extremism and so forth. The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples and pears.
Patrick Grady
I am afraid I must disagree with the Minister. This is a matter of basic human rights and of our responsibility for the safety of individuals who have made their way here through some horrific situations.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that there is a massive difference between the guidance given to nationals going to their country and the ability of another country to absorb migrants. For example, it is perfectly understandable for the Government to advise people not to go to Egypt, but that does not mean that everyone coming here from Egypt should be granted asylum.
Patrick Grady
I am afraid I simply do not accept that. If people have made their way here through really horrific situations, as we have heard from other hon. Members, for the UK Government to say it is safe to deport those people back to a country that they are not willing to advise their own citizens to travel to is, frankly, rank hypocrisy. I thank the Minister for his intervention and for making the Government’s continued position clear, but we will have to agree to disagree.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland raised the issue of compensation for victims of terrorism. Again, a peaceful and diplomatic solution to that must be found.
In short, the UK Government must take responsibility for their failure to plan for the aftermath of their military intervention in Libya, and they must demonstrate a willingness to learn lessons from that failure. Sadly, there is little evidence of that so far, given that the objectives for military action in Syria do not appear to have materialised. Later today the House will discuss the situation in Yemen, where the Government refuse to admit any complicity, despite Saudi troops being trained in the UK, being accompanied by UK military observers and allegedly using weapons manufactured or sold in the UK. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, we have debates such as this and Select Committee reports for a reason. It is not too late for the Government to follow the example of Barack Obama, admit to their mistakes and set out how they intend to make amends.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is the Scottish National party’s spokesperson on foreign affairs and international development.
Back in 2005 I had the opportunity to visit Libya with the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was very different in those days. Gaddafi reigned supreme, and I found, as we all did, the country to be a paranoid place, covered with posters of Gaddafi—“the father of Africa”—with his portrait stemming out of a map of the whole of Africa. It was a deeply disturbing place; there were no street signs or even road markings because they were so scared of invasion. We did not have the opportunity then to meet Colonel Gaddafi—I never met him, thankfully—but we met his deputy, Musa Kusa, who was one of the most sinister people I have ever met. During the revolution he “defected” to the west and came to live in Britain. I do not know if he is still here, but he gave us a portrait of Libya in 2005 that was worrying to say the least, given the human rights abuses and the absolute authority of Gaddafi and the way he dealt with opposition.
Daniel Kawczynski
My understanding is that Musa Kusa did not come to live in the United Kingdom. I believe he is currently living in the middle east.
Fabian Hamilton
That is interesting to learn; he certainly survived, although he was clearly Gaddafi’s henchman and de facto deputy.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on raising a really important issue in the debate. It is something Parliament has not paid sufficient attention to, and the Government have not paid sufficient attention to it either; I am sure the Minister will contradict that when he winds up the debate in a few minutes’ time. I also commend the Foreign Affairs Committee—I served on it for 10 years—under the leadership of the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt)—I think he is a right hon. Member now.
Fabian Hamilton
No? I am baffled by that. In the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, he showed his detailed knowledge of the current machinations of Libya’s internal politics and said quite clearly that the British Government should not support General Haftar, otherwise the country will descend into civil war. It is hard to see how much worse it can get, given some of the things we have heard today.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne made some important points about the two Governments, about the GNA being backed by the international community—something that the Foreign Affairs Committee certainly agrees with—and about the economic situation, which is very alarming indeed. In fact, the United Nations human development report ranked Libya as the 53rd most advanced country in the world, with a GDP per person similar to a number of European countries. That was in 2011. Five years later, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that has halved, and it continues to fall precipitously. That is extremely worrying for not only the people of that country but Libya’s place in the region and the rest of us, including in terms of migration, which the hon. Gentleman pointed out clearly. He asked in his conclusion how we can marry the ideals of what we would like to happen and what is actually happening on the ground. I am sure the Minister will address that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly wanted an update on the lack of success in getting compensation for victims of Libyan terrorism from the Government of Libya, though we do not know who the Government of Libya really are at the moment. He said that chaos reigns in many parts of Libya and pointed, as he often does—rightly so—to the continued persecution of Christians in that country, as in so many other parts of the world.
One of the best contributions today was from the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie)—not just Bristol North; I often get called the hon. Member for Leeds North, not the hon. Member for Leeds North East. She displayed an extraordinary knowledge of the area, with some extremely pertinent observations and questions that I will leave the Minister to answer.
One point that has come through in this debate is the proliferation of small arms in Libya, as in so many other parts of Africa, which fuels death and destruction and the different militia groups roaming the country trying to claim territory and their superiority, or the superiority of their particular ideology. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that out of a total Libyan population of 6.3 million, half have been impacted by the armed conflict, with 2.4 million in need of some form of protection and humanitarian assistance. More than 400,000 people have been displaced since the conflict started.
Reference has been made to our British ambassador, Peter Millett—a man who I have come to know well in his former roles in Jordan and Cyprus. He is one of our best diplomats. If anybody can do the work of the British Government in Libya, it is Peter Millett and his excellent team. However, as the hon. Member for Bristol North West pointed out, the team is based in Tunis. I spent some time in our embassy in Tripoli. We have some very good buildings and a very good estate there. I appreciate that it is not a safe place to be right now. It did not seem that safe under Gaddafi, to be honest. Constant threats were being made against the British mission there, even at that time, but I share the view that some kind of mission needs to be based in Tripoli. Is the Minister prepared to comment on the possibility of that happening soon? As I say, if anyone can do it, it is Peter Millett and his team.
It is estimated that there are more than 3,000 Daesh fighters in Libya at the moment. That is what the then Foreign Secretary, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his report in 2016. The US intelligence agencies believe that number could well be considerably higher. It continues to increase, as many of the fighters go to Libya, instead of Iraq and Syria, to join Daesh.
The Minister has stated that the international community needs to rally together and be ready to “provide service and support” to the GNA. The UK Government have stated that the security agenda in Libya must be “owned and led” by the GNA, but how do we actually make that happen? The British Government have also discussed the deployment of approximately 1,000 ground forces as part of an Italian initiative with Spain, France, Italy and other nations, but only at the invitation of the GNA. The previous Foreign Secretary, the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, said on 19 April:
“Libya has Africa’s largest oil and gas reserves and a population of…six million”—
—the population that existed before the civil war. Currently, only 200,000 barrels of oil per day are being produced. The UK is assisting Libya, I understand, in attempting to bring that number up to 700,000 barrels a day, but oil is the main source of revenue and international finance in that country. The country did, of course, have a sovereign wealth fund—the Libyan Investment Authority —that used the proceeds of oil revenues prior to 2011, but those funds have been frozen ever since the conflict started.
Reference has been made to removing chemical weapons still in existence in Libya and the risk they may have to the population of that country, to the wider region and to Europe. The current Foreign Secretary said in August this year:
“The UK, in close co-operation with our international partners, is taking practical and effective action to eliminate chemical weapon risks in Libya”.
Will the Minister tell us a little more about what is being done to neutralise and remove those very dangerous chemical weapons that could be a threat to so many? I understand that in August the Royal Navy assisted in the removal of a batch of known materials that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons, but what more are we doing?
The Minister has quite a lot to follow up on, so I will wrap up. Let me quote something that President Obama said earlier this year, which has already been quoted this morning but is worth saying again:
“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up.”
He went on to say that the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, was
“distracted by a range of other things”.
Can the Minister tell us what, in practical terms, the Government are prepared to do to try to reduce the flow of weapons and weapons currently in circulation in Libya, and to bring about further concerted support for the GNA, which, as many Members have said, is really the only hope for rebuilding Libya?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to respond to what has been an important debate. I will put out a written ministerial statement on this matter. It is clear there is an awful lot of information that the Government are aware of, but there is also a lot of disinformation and confusion. I will also make a recommendation to the Foreign Secretary that, as with Syria and Iraq, an oral statement is made to the House on a regular basis, updating colleagues on what is happening here. Today’s debate is pertinent and it is a pleasure to respond to it.
Many discussions on Libya go straight into the details. That needs to be done, but I want to step back for a second and look at the context in which this is playing out. It is often seen through the prism of Gaddafi and the consequences of his removal. Seeking solutions to today’s challenges requires a deeper understanding of what is happening and the character of this north African piece of land. Going back to the 7th century BC, Libya has been occupied or run by the Venetians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Arabs and the Ottomans, each of them carving their own personality unto the three regions of Libya: Fezzan, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.
During the interim war period, it was occupied by Italy, and then by us and the French after the second world war. Then came independence in 1951, under King Idris, who was removed in the coup that we know led to 40 years of misrule by what started off being Lieutenant Gaddafi—talking of promotions, he promoted himself to Colonel because he was trying to emulate Colonel Nasser further to the east. That 40 years of misrule destroyed any tribal relationships that existed. It stifled any political representation and undermined the development of institutions. That all came about and was laid bare in the 2011 revolution.
Sadly today—we have heard a little of this in the Chamber this morning—some people are attempting to rewrite recent history, linking the 2011 decision for the west to intervene with the very difficulties we face today. That glosses over important events in between. We must not forget that the decision to intervene was international and supported by UN Security Council resolution 1973 and by the Arab League. We took action to prevent attacks on civilians that were about to take place. There would have been a bloodbath if we had not intervened. Even before Gaddafi went into hiding, more than 60 countries, with the African Union, recognised the National Transitional Council—the body of Libyan people based in Benghazi who were looking ahead to a post-Gaddafi world.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am sure my hon. Friend’s skill will enable him to make a more concise speech than the one written for him, or that he wrote himself.
Why would President Obama say this was the worst mistake of his presidency if everything were as hunky-dory and rosy as my hon. Friend suggests?
Mr Ellwood
First, I confirm that I write my own speeches and I am happy to place that on the record. Secondly, if I may, I will come to the aftermath and what is happening in relation to international views later.
I stress the point about the context in which things happened in 2011, which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), a former north Africa and middle east Minister, who is no longer in his place. There were elections in July 2012 and the General National Congress was formed. Libya was starting to take charge of its own destiny. In 2014, there were elections for the new Council of Deputies.
It is recognised today that perhaps we did not do enough. Perhaps the west could have done more, but many agencies, including UN agencies, were asked to leave Libya because the Libyan people wanted to take ownership of the path they wanted to pursue without interference from the west. Could we have done more? Of course we could have done more. That is what President Obama is looking at and why he is making those comments.
I certainly believe that, with the disparate society we are dealing with that had 40 years of misrule, not enough happened during Gaddafi’s reign for society to develop. I politely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that nothing has happened over the past five years. Elections have taken place, there is a Prime Minister in place and there is a structure, including a Government of National Accord, a Presidency Council, which needs to be confirmed and put in place, a House of Representatives and a State Council.
Those important infrastructure institutions must be given the opportunity to work. It is right to say that they are not working as efficiently as they should, because there are spoilers and stakeholders who are choosing to follow their own agendas. The challenge facing us today is getting them to realise who benefits if they do not support that infrastructure—the criminal gangs that move the migrants through and the extremism that flourishes in that vacuum.
The Skhirat process helped to empower the moderates and the Khartoum process brought together countries around Libya to ensure that they secure their borders and provide support to Libya—that was raised as a concern in the debate. International countries have come together. I have sat in many meetings discussing how better to co-ordinate our international aid and our work to improve governance, and to ensure that that happens. The issue came to the fore in December 2015 with the agreement that rolled into Security Council resolution 2259 formally recognising the Government of National Accord as the sole legislative body to take Libya forward.
I will pose a question, but I do not want to go down this rabbit hole. Which countries can intervene when something very bad is happening in another part of the world? I take hon. Members back to Rwanda and what happened there. The world blinked while a travesty took place. Is it right that the international community glosses over things and asks who in the world can step forward and which nations have the ability and commitment to do that? There are very few and they can be counted on one hand, but we are one of them. What would colleagues do if they were in No. 10 and Benghazi had tanks on the outskirts that were about to roll in? Would they have a plan for what happens next? They would have to think about that, and also about our duty as a permanent member of the United Nations interested in supporting international security and stabilisation and decide whether to act. That is exactly what David Cameron did and I believe it was the right decision.
Libya’s governance structure today is not as strong as it should be, but we must give our support to Prime Minister Siraj. I believe that the Libyan political agreement is the framework to enable things to move forward and make that happen. We want the Libyan Government to submit promptly a revised list of Ministers which the House of Representatives must endorse and we need a more unified command structure under General Haftar. He is a general and he needs to answer to civilian governance structures. That is very important indeed.
We must address the challenge of Daesh and people traffickers. If there is time I will come to that.
The conflict is unique and very different from all the others. There is a lot of plate-spinning in the middle east and north Africa, but this is different because there are working institutions. Oil is flowing—there are up to 500,000 barrels a day—and that money is going into the central bank. It is paying people who, ironically, are fighting on both sides of the argument. The salaries of teachers, doctors and nurses are being paid because those basic structures are in place. However, we certainly need to do more and that is why we have allocated £10 million to provide technical support for the Government of National Accord.
Operation Sophia was mentioned a couple of times. It is important to stem the flow of migrants choosing to make an horrific journey in an attempt to get to Europe. Unfortunately, we can work only in international waters. We cannot get into territorial waters at the moment because the Government are not fully in place to give us that permission and Russia is denying us the ability to use military capability in that space. We must answer that, otherwise we are encouraging people to come here. When ships pick them up, which British ships have done, those people are taken to Italy, so we are still not breaking the chain. We are now working to train a local coastguard to break that chain so the boats never leave Libyan soil in the first place.
Several hon. Members mentioned Daesh. It is absolutely right that we are concerned about the vacuum. Its numbers are down to 200 or 300 in strength and many are indigenous local people choosing to join that gang because that is where the money is. That is where the guns come from and where the success seems to be. That is why it is important that the Government offer something different to fill that vacuum of governance. It is important to recognise what we can do, but also where things are in the country. It is not as bleak as some of the comments today have suggested, but we are not there yet in any sense whatever.
In conclusion, Libya is extremely complex, as has been highlighted by colleagues today. It is dynamic and certainly challenging. The process of building trust between communities, confidence in political institutions and willingness to compromise for the common good will not be easy. It is up to the political leaders of Libya—I stress this—to make this work. We remain committed to supporting them, but also to working for peace and security in Libya, not just for the sake of stability in the region where the UK has important interests, but for the sake of the Libyan people.
I very much welcome this debate and look forward to the closing comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I will seek to provide a full and regular oral statement so that the House is informed as progress moves forward.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. We have covered many of the issues that bedevil Libya and have a huge impact on our safety and security here in Europe, with particular regard to the question of migration. I conclude by saying this is not the end of the matter, but the beginning of a fruitful and, I hope, effective engagement with many of the issues that have been raised this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered British engagement with Libya.
A34 Safety
(8 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered safety on the A34.
I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. This is an important opportunity for me and my colleagues to describe the importance of improvements to the A34, which is a major arterial trunk road that runs from the south coast up through Hampshire, west Berkshire and Oxfordshire to the midlands. It is a vital economic route that is also used by many thousands of commuters—in fact, some 79,000 vehicles a day use the road.
May I put on record my gratitude to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who as a Back Bencher campaigned vigorously on this issue and secured £50 million towards road improvements in the previous Parliament? She cannot be at the debate today, and as a Minister she would not be able to speak in it, but I know she will continue to work and lobby on this issue of importance to her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who also unfortunately cannot be with us today, has been extremely active in campaigning for improvements. Many of my hon. Friends and colleagues in the Chamber will no doubt wish to intervene or make remarks in the course of this short debate.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It will be useful for my right hon. Friend to note that the A34 runs through a bit of the north of my constituency, near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). My right hon. Friend can rely on me to help campaign for the changes he wants to see on the road, which I am sure he will come on to shortly.
Mr Vaizey
I am grateful. My heart always lifts a little when I am on the section of road that runs through my hon. Friend’s constituency. Given his track record in working for his constituents I know that he, too, will play an important part in a campaign that, although I expect it to be long-running, we hope will lead to some significant improvements.
The central point of my remarks, and no doubt that of colleagues, is that the A34 is no longer fit for purpose. It is a dangerous road, and the delays and accidents that happen regularly on it are having a significant economic impact on one of the most economically productive areas of the country.
The road is dangerous: there were almost 2,000 accidents on the A34 between 2010 and 2014. On the stretch of road that runs between the M4 and the M40 through Oxfordshire and west Berkshire, 32 people have unfortunately been killed. In the past four months, there have been two fatal accidents and numerous injuries both serious and less serious. I am sad to say that one recent fatal accident claimed the lives of four people, including three children, and the most recent accident resulted in the tragic death of a three-year-old child. Action is therefore long overdue. The urgent need to improve road safety alone would justify a significant investment of money and time from the Department for Transport and Highways England.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate in what seems to be a sauna this morning. Will he acknowledge that while the statistics he outlined are alarming, they are even more alarming if we add in the accidents that take place at intersections with other roads? For instance, I am concerned about the junction of the A303 and the A34 at Bullington Cross, which by about 100 yards is not in my constituency but which is used nevertheless by my constituents. A significant number of accidents there are reported as A303 accidents but relate to the junction between the two roads and could be attributed to either road.
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I focused solely on the accidents on the small section of the A34 that concerns me as the constituency MP, but he is quite right that if one takes the statistics along the whole of the A34 and for accidents attributed to other roads in close proximity, I am afraid the toll is higher. That again leads to the central point about the need for a clear strategic plan for the whole of the A34, to improve road safety.
Having started with the most important issue of keeping people safe on the A34, it is also important to highlight the economic impact that the delays and accidents are having on my constituency, and no doubt the whole of the region. For example, I am privileged to represent Harwell Campus, which is the one of the world’s leading scientific research centres. Its director, Angus Horner, wrote to me recently and said:
“I often witness dangerous conditions on A34…Immediate term safety improvements will be strongly supported by thousands of us at Harwell Campus…The A34 is operating far beyond its designed capacity and major infrastructure investment should be allocated right now to substantially improve its capacity.”
He continued:
“In a broader context, it is essential that the UK maximises the potential of its world leading knowledge economy…UK hotspots must be properly connected….Better vehicle flow along A34 would have a substantial positive impact at Harwell by facilitating even more collaboration with our neighbours at University of Oxford, plus tens of thousands of other regular research visitors and hundreds of companies who use A34 to access Harwell’s ideas and £2 billion of international labs.”
I also have the pleasure of representing Milton Park. On that business park there are 250 companies employing 9,500 people. The park is located right next to the A34, and its productivity is being severely affected by delays on the road. Its director, Philip Campbell, wrote to me and said that
“the A34 is central to maximising future success of this unique and vibrant area. A safe, free-flowing A34 is critical, for our area’s future growth and prosperity and for the resilience, health and wellbeing of residents.”
He signs off with a flourish:
“The A34 needs an A1 plan!”
Our local enterprise partnerships are closely involved in campaigning for improvements. Oxlep, the Oxfordshire LEP, and the Thames Valley Berkshire LEP have written a joint letter to me and my hon. Friends in which they say:
“As a key transport artery through our respective areas we believe it critically important to address the capacity issues of the A34 now; to help mitigate the serious and all too often tragic incidents that have taken place over the last five years and to support economic growth.”
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the A34, and its economic impacts in particular. Does he agree that another impact— I am interested in whether he experiences this as well—is that when there is the slightest delay on the A34, the alternative routes, which are more rural in nature, become completely jammed with lorries trying to avoid the traffic? In my constituency those routes include the A343, which runs down from Highclere through Hurstbourne Tarrant to Andover.
Mr Vaizey
That is an excellent point. All too often I have witnessed the A34 at a complete standstill. Sometimes I am lucky and I am witnessing that from a distance when I am not actually on the road. As my hon. Friend points out, one then witnesses the traffic overspill that naturally results from that, with large lorries and a lot of commuter traffic using rural roads that are clearly unfit for purpose and go through villages and small towns.
The Oxford local transport plan, which is part of the county council’s initiative to look at improving transport in the area, notes:
“The A34 is particularly congested and adversely affecting journey time reliability. This is particularly due to its high proportion of HGV movements, which account for above 20% of daily trips.”
The Road Haulage Association has written to say that it is
“constantly hearing complaints from members of deliveries failing booking times and the cost of delays with drivers running out of their legal driving and duty hours, due to delays on the A34.”
It cited the case of a small company whose 15 vehicles get stuck in traffic for 30 minutes every morning and evening. It loses about 4,000 man hours a year, which it has calculated costs about £150,000. With that comes an environmental cost, which is the third element that should enter our thinking when looking at improvements to the A34.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
My interest in today’s debate is that I use the A34 a lot, and have done over the past five years, because I have an interest on the south coast. From my constituency in Coventry, it is one of the main routes via the M40 down to the south coast, especially Bournemouth and the surrounding areas. I have witnessed a lot of accidents and been in a lot of traffic jams on the A34. In the right hon. Gentleman’s opinion, is over-capacity the only reason why there are so many accidents?
Mr Vaizey
Over-capacity is the reason why there are so many accidents. In this case, over-capacity means that the road itself—being a dual carriageway and not a motorway—does not have any capacity to deal with accidents. We have not so far had what we need, which is what the Government are now considering: a strategic plan for the road network for the whole area, particularly the links between Oxford and Cambridge, which will have a knock-on effect of improving the A34. If that strategic study goes ahead, it will have an impact.
It is important that I mention the work of the A34 Action Group, which is a group of my own and my hon. Friends’ concerned constituents, including those who have lost loved ones and people who regularly use the route to commute. It put forward a manifesto that encapsulates some of the small, immediate improvements that can be made, specifically focusing on safety. They include a full risk assessment of the road; evidence-based—that is important to emphasise—traffic-calming measures, such as average speed cameras or chevrons in the right places; and improved flow mechanisms, such as a crawler lane or, in particular parts of the A34, no-overtaking areas. We are not saying that there should be a blanket ban on lorries overtaking, but there are certain parts of the A34, in particular on steep inclines, where no-overtaking areas would be suitable. The suggested improvements also include refuge and rest areas and a hard shoulder. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), because when there is an accident on the A34 there is nowhere for anyone to go. If there were a hard shoulder where people could pull over or HGV drivers could rest, that would have a massive impact.
Improved junctions, which I know are of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—we were discussing it earlier today—are also important. There has been a fantastic improvement at the junction with the M4, and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon secured £50 million to help improve junctions at places such as Pear Tree, Hinksey and Botley, as well as East Ilsley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. What is needed is, for example, longer slip roads for easier access to and from the M4. The Botley and Pear Tree junctions have already been redesigned as a result of that funding. A driver information system to alert commuters to problems ahead, a number of CCTV cameras and other technology improvements, such as detection loops, are also being introduced with that funding.
Measures are under way, and we now have the Oxford-Cambridge expressway strategic study, which was published this summer. It calls for a “strong case” for “strategic transport interventions” and identifies the A34 as a key part of the jigsaw in improving east-west links between Oxford and Cambridge. It notes, as so many have done, that the problem is not going to go away and is simply going to get worse. There are 100,000 new homes planned for Oxfordshire in the next 15 years and a prediction of 85,000 jobs being created there over the next 10 or 20 years, so the strain on roads and infrastructure is simply going to increase.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister no doubt has a desk full of the many proposals to improve strategic road networks. Only today, I saw that a group of my colleagues from Kent had been to the Chancellor to seek improvements on the A2. I know that money is limited, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to look at the case of the A34. In post-Brexit Britain, where we are looking for infrastructure investment and it is a matter of national debate, we need strategic infrastructure investment that has an immediate impact on our economic prospects. We could not find a better area in which to make improvements than the south-east around Oxfordshire, west Berkshire, and Hampshire, where we have such a concentration of innovative, future-looking companies that need that investment in order to keep growing.
I know that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) wants to make some short remarks, so I will conclude. I look forward to his remarks and to hearing from the Minister. May I also put on record how grateful I am that he has agreed to meet me and colleagues at the end of November? I am also going to meet Highways England with colleagues in November to discuss this issue.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my colleague, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), on securing this debate and on his speech, and I thank him for providing time for me to make a brief contribution.
Although the A34 does not touch my constituency, it is used by thousands of my constituents and local businesses every day. It is, indeed, not fit for purpose and is dangerous, as the recent horrific record of traffic accidents shows. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the problems are the volume of traffic—in particular, heavy lorries on what is a national strategic route—limited capacity and the speed of vehicles. Like other Oxfordshire colleagues, I have been pressing for safety and capacity improvements and I, too, call for the measures that he mentioned today.
The problem we face is that the A34 is fulfilling a motorway role without motorway capacity or safety features. Last month, in response to my written questions, the Minister assured me of A34 scheme improvements between Chievely and the M40, including vehicle detection loops to inform electronic traffic signage, CCTV and driver information systems. Those would be welcome, as would distance separation chevrons, safer stopping places and further junction improvements. Perhaps the most significant thing the Minister told me, however, was that Highways England intends to start work by March 2020 and that his Department is not minded to carry out a further review of the route at this time. That simply is not good enough, and I urge him to think again. Measures need to be started now if the risk of further accidents is to be reduced, and there needs to be a major review of the whole route.
John Howell
I fully support all the measures that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned and think they would be extremely useful, but will they not come to naught unless the A34 is turned into a motorway?
Mr Smith
That is the logical conclusion of what I said: it needs to be motorway standard to guarantee the safety and capacity that we all want to see. The problems are only going to get worse as the economy grows in the future. As well as a major review of the whole route, we need to look at options for getting traffic across from the A34 to the M40 south of Oxford, to address the additional problems caused by the A34 being both a strategic route to the midlands and the north and a local access road and Oxford bypass.
I feel sure that the Minister will want to reflect on the points made today. I am glad he has agreed to a meeting at the end of November, and I would very much like to be part of the delegation meeting him.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Chope, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on securing it. He is a doughty champion of his constituents and a great friend of mine.
As my right hon. Friend described, the A34 has been of concern for a considerable length of time. He was right to draw attention to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who raised and discussed this issue with me just this summer, following the tragedies that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage drew to the Chamber’s attention. It is absolutely right, at the outset, that I offer my condolences and sympathies to all those affected by those dreadful events he has highlighted today. Sympathy matters, but support matters more. It is really important, for those people and others, that we show that support; I think Disraeli said that
“justice is truth in action.”—[Official Report, 11 February 1851; Vol. 114, c. 412.]
We need action, because it is just and right that we give proper consideration to the A34.
First, let me deal with a matter that the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) raised—I have lots of notes here but I will refer to them only fleetingly, because I do not want to lecture people who already know more than most about details relating to the A34. However, I want to say, following his remarks, that I will review safety on the A34. I will take a close look and commit to a study of safety on the road. I have been thinking about the issue for some time; discussing it with my officials, given that this has been a matter of detailed concern, as I say, for a considerable time; and I have reflected on representations that have been made to me by Members in this Chamber and others and feel that we now need to look at safety on the A34.
Secondly, I am absolutely committed to the meeting that has been mentioned twice. It needs to be with all interested parties—by that I mean not only all colleagues who have a direct involvement and interest in these matters because of their constituency responsibilities, but Highways England and my officials. This round-table meeting should involve a genuinely open-minded debate about what more can be done.
A series of steps can be taken, so let me rehearse those in detail. I have no doubt that further technological improvements that we can make to this road will make a difference. Having looked at the map of the area, I am particularly conscious of the problems in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage because of its topography. This is a relatively small road with hilly terrain, carrying a large number of HGVs, not least to and from the port of Southampton and the south coast. For that reason, it is sometimes a difficult road to navigate.
There may be further technological changes we can make. I am happy to write to hon. Members following this short debate to rehearse in detail some of the improvements that have been made. Many safety improvements have been made over the last five or six years by the Government, Highways England and prior to that, the Highways Agency, as hon. and right hon. Friends and Members know. However, we may be able to go still further with technological changes, by which I mean such things as interactive signage, gantries, and more information being provided to drivers that will compensate and mitigate some of the challenges associated with the topography that I described.
That being the first thing, the second thing was referred to by my right hon. Friend. We are, of course, looking at the Oxford-Cambridge expressway, which is part of the Government’s roads strategy. He made clear that the provisional study—the interim report—was published in August and he will know that the final report is due to be published later this year. Inevitably, that will include considerations about this stretch of road and will give us the opportunity to think through what more can be done in a reasonably short time. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Oxford East about 2020 and know that hon. Members, local authorities and others will want more urgent work. When we have that report, I am prepared to look, on the back of the round-table discussions, at what more urgent work could be committed to as part of the road investment strategy phase 1 and consistent with the Oxford-Cambridge expressway report.
However, I want to go further. The call has been made for a still more strategic piece of work—my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) described this as “a motorway”—and I think we need to think that through. I suspect that would be part of the road investment strategy as it moves into its second and third phases, because it requires a different scale of work, but none the less, the significance of the road is not lost on me. We may be able to look in the road investment strategy as it moves forward at that still more fundamental piece of work on this stretch of road.
Safety and congestion are the two issues that have been raised in this debate, and they relate closely to each other. A road that is congested does not only cause inconvenience to the local traffic, and hon. and right hon. Members will know that we are committed to a number of local schemes in Oxford. We are working with the LEP, which I emphasise is absolutely at the heart of making representations on this matter, and alongside local authorities to ease congestion around Oxford. However, the safety issues are there and further south on the road, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and beyond. Looking at the separate but related issues of safety and congestion requires the lateral, innovative thinking that I have tried to illustrate and outline in this brief response.
In summary, we will continue to work with all the interested parties concerned and continue to invest in the local schemes that ease congestion around Oxford; I agree to the round-table, open-ended meeting of the kind that I described to seek views from all those who know and care about this road; I am happy to review safety on the road—there are criteria for that, but I have never been a man who is constrained by criteria imposed by others, as you know, Mr Chope. I am prepared to say that I have made the decision and announce now that I will institute that safety review. I am also prepared to look at further technological change to improve safety on the road; happy to consider what can be done in the road investment strategy in its first phase to mitigate some of the risks associated with this route; and prepared to consider what more strategic changes might be made at a later stage of the road investment strategy as it moves to phases 2 and 3.
I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing these matters to my attention once again. I hope he feels that the debate has been worthwhile in pressing a Minister who is not reluctant to use these kind of debates to reconsider Government thinking, and in pressing this Minister to take action necessary not only to avoid the tragedies that I mentioned, in amplifying my right hon. Friend’s words of sympathy at the outset, but to improve the wellbeing of the people in this part of our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Disclosure and Barring Service
(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
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of the Disclosure and Barring Service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
I sought this debate because, since being elected last year, I have been approached by a significant number of my constituents who have experienced serious personal consequences as a result of delays in the processing of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
When I asked written parliamentary questions on the subject earlier this year, two things happened. First, the answers to my questions did not provide any comfort or confidence that the problems were in hand. Secondly, many more individuals, voluntary sector organisations, care providers, public sector employers and others got in touch with me to say that they had had problems, confirming my view that there is a significant problem with far-reaching impacts. Today I will discuss the nature of the problems with the DBS, the impact on individuals, the reasons behind the poor performance, the Government’s response, and the key issue of the current non-portability of DBS checks.
The DBS is a vital part of the safeguarding process. The process began under the Criminal Records Bureau established by the Labour Government, and I support it wholeheartedly. It is absolutely right that the checks take place and that anyone who, because of a previous conviction, is not a safe person to work with children or vulnerable adults can be prevented from doing so. However, the service must be run in an efficient and effective way, and it is clear that there are major problems in many parts of the country. Performance levels depend on the DBS itself and on the relationship between the DBS and the police forces across the country that are charged with delivering 25% of checks that come through the police character inquiry centres. The DBS and the police must work hand in hand to deliver a good service.
I will discuss that in further detail shortly, but I want to be clear about the impacts that the current delays in processing enhanced DBS checks are having. In November 2015, I was contacted by a constituent who was a student nurse and who needed a DBS check to be completed so that she could take up her student placement. She made the original application in August 2015. She did not receive her DBS clearance until December 2015, as a consequence of which she missed the first term of her nursing placement.
In March 2016, I was contacted by another constituent, who was seeking to complete six months of clinical experience in hospital and voluntary sector settings before enrolling on a programme of doctoral study in clinical psychology. He had submitted three applications for the three settings in which he was undertaking placements. That is an issue in its own right, to which I will return. The first application was made in October 2015, with two subsequent applications shortly thereafter. In anticipation of beginning his placements six months ahead of the commencement of the doctoral programme, my constituent resigned from his job only to wait several months for his DBS checks to be finished. That happened only in July 2016, far too late for the placements to be completed in time for the start of the course in September. My constituent has been forced to claim jobseeker’s allowance and to delay the commencement of his studies by a whole year as a consequence of the delays.
I have also been contacted by a healthcare worker who was unable to take up a job offer for five months; a parent-run nursery that is in breach of Ofsted regulations because it cannot appoint the required number of trustees until they have all been DBS cleared; a care agency that is unable to recruit a sufficient number of careworkers quickly enough to meet demand; and schools and hospitals experiencing frustrating delays in being able to fill vacant posts.
There are harder cases, including my constituent who is an ex-offender and has found it very difficult to find work. In May 2016, he was offered a job that he was keen to take up. He contacted me about the delay in processing his enhanced DBS check. Despite my office contacting the DBS a number of times and receiving assurances on three occasions that the case had been escalated, my constituent is still waiting for his DBS check more than five months later and the rare offer of employment has been withdrawn. When people are doing their very best to do the right thing and to turn a corner in their lives and move on, it cannot be right that the Government are placing an unnecessary barrier in their way.
The Criminal Justice Alliance—a coalition of 110 charities working across the criminal justice pathway—contacted me to say that, in recent months, the performance of the DBS, particularly in London, has been having a severe impact on its capacity to deliver services, delaying rehabilitation work for many prisoners. The Local Government Association is concerned about the national impact of DBS delays on the social care sector.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is unable to attend the debate, contacted me with examples from her constituency of people who have been forced to claim benefits and use food banks, and who have even been issued with eviction notices, because they have been unable to take up employment as a consequence of DBS delays. In Sheffield, as elsewhere in the country, taxi drivers must undergo annual DBS checks. That is particularly important given the links that there have been between the taxi trade and child sexual exploitation in some parts of the country. However, the DBS is so slow in Sheffield that taxi drivers are sometimes unable to work for a third of every year as they await their certificate.
My point is that the consequences of the poor performance of the service are far-reaching, can be devastating, and can result in additional costs to the public sector and important posts in our public services and elsewhere remaining unfilled. I have sought to illustrate the impact on individuals, but what do we know about the bigger picture? The Government have not published any official data on the performance of the DBS since July, and have published no data at all on the most severely delayed cases, meaning those delayed beyond 60 days.
In July, of 51 police forces, only 32 had achieved the target of processing 85% of applications within 14 days. At the Metropolitan police, only 14% had been processed within that time. In North Yorkshire, the figure was only 12%, and in Nottinghamshire, it was just 7%. There is enormous variation in performance. Also in July 2016, the average time taken by the Metropolitan police to process an application was 128 days, while the average time taken in Norfolk was 1.8 days.
The Government website acknowledges that there are delays and states that action is being taken to address them but, in my view, the lack of comprehensive performance data, including the absence of any data at all on the most severe delays, combined with the lack of any substantive or detailed information about the plan for recovery, is not acceptable. The Government owe it to the many people suffering the severe adverse consequences of DBS delays to be much more transparent about the scale of the problem and the action being taken to address it.
I have spoken with the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents 12,000 members based in the Home Office, including those working in the DBS, and more than 6,000 members in the Metropolitan Police Service. The PCS told me that, in February this year, the Metropolitan police character inquiries centre had a backlog of 70,000 applications waiting to be processed, with an average weekly intake of 6,000 new applications. That amounts to a 12-week backlog. The problem got so bad that DBS customer services staff were provided with guidance on what to do when they received calls from customers who were suicidal, which were becoming a more frequent occurrence.
The PCS acknowledges that some management action has been taken, including changes of leadership in the Metropolitan police team responsible for the character inquiries sector; increases in staffing; an increase in the number of permanent employees over agency staff; and streamlining of the process. That action led to some reduction in the backlog but it is clear that some of the problems are structural. Those include long-term understaffing and the short-term nature of the funding provided by the DBS to the police, which results in high levels of temporary staff and job insecurity, and means that experienced staff often find more secure work elsewhere. There are also problems with computer software.
Although I am strongly supportive of the role of the DBS, it is important that progress is made towards delivering a fully portable certificate. In my constituency, as across the rest of the UK, people move jobs, often work for more than one employer, or use valuable skills from their day job as a volunteer in the evenings or at weekends. All those circumstances lead to multiple applications that add to the workload of the DBS. I place on the record my support for the many employers and voluntary sector bodies calling for the development of a fully portable certificate.
Finally, I have personally been very disappointed by the responses I have received from the Government and the police when I have raised the issue of the poor performance of the DBS. Although they acknowledge that there is a problem, their responses across the board have failed to reflect the serious impact that the poor service is having on my constituents and on residents across the country. They have failed to convey any sense of responsibility for the failures. It simply cannot be the case that a system designed to protect our most vulnerable residents has the effect of punishing many entirely innocent citizens. That situation must be addressed.
In closing, I ask the Minister to answer the following questions. Will the Government publish full performance data for the DBS, arranged by individual police force, including data on the most severely delayed applications? Will they publish the recovery plan for the DBS, including the performance targets it is working towards? Will they consider bringing the DBS back within the Home Office? Will they review the funding arrangements for the police, with a view to providing a more stable funding environment to enable the police to resource DBS checks properly?
Will the Government commit to compensation for those who have lost earnings as a consequence of DBS delays? Will they publish plans to progress fully portable DBS checks? Finally, will they commit that, in situations where someone’s offer of employment is in jeopardy as a consequence of a DBS delay, their application will be escalated and dealt with within a fixed timescale of no more than three working days to prevent further hardship and cost to the public sector through the benefits system?
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate. This is an important matter and something that we perhaps come across even more in London than elsewhere. I am a barrister and have dealt with a number of cases where the police have resisted challenges to DBS refusals. I have also gone through a DBS check myself as a school governor—I am pleased to say that the check was negative.
Like the hon. Lady, I have received correspondence about DBS checks in my postbag and inbox. Teachers, nursery workers, care providers, charity workers, taxi drivers and even members of the police and the security services have to go through these checks and have suffered delays. Some people, particularly those who have been offered short-term or temporary work, have had their offer of work disappear because they simply have not received their clean bill of health from the DBS quickly enough.
DBS checks and the DBS system are, of course, vital, as the hon. Lady recognises. There are two elements: the DBS has to issue the certificate, and the individual police force has to feed in the information for the DBS to assess. That leads to two potential areas where delay can creep in and, as she says, that is not acceptable for people who make such applications.
There were problems with the Metropolitan police when the hon. Lady and I were first elected, and the Government posted a statement on their website in October 2015 acknowledging that there were problems and that there was a backlog where the service standard of 60 days had not been met. Steps have been taken to reduce that backlog, and every application that went over the 60-day service standard is automatically escalated. I have seen a reduction in the number of cases that have come to me as a local MP, but the problem plainly has not gone away. The cases are still coming, just not in the same volume. I am sure the Minister will be able to update the House on the steps that have been taken.
A twin-track application process that allows for urgent applications where there is a job offer on the line or where someone is starting work early should be considered, but in most cases the guidance is that people should make their application well in advance, knowing that it will take a long time to process.
There are cases where individuals want to challenge a refusal by the DBS, and they will either make that challenge to the DBS via judicial review or they will try to challenge a police force for providing the information, which can sometimes slow down the process. Overall, this is an important area that police forces and the DBS have to get right because of the potential consequences for the vulnerable adults and children who use the services provided by employees who are required to have DBS checks. The checks are also important for employers of people who want to work in these sectors, and whom we need to work in these sectors, because we do not want people to be turned away by an overly onerous and lengthy process.
This issue has frequently come up in my postbag, and I commend the hon. Lady for bringing it to the House’s attention. I commend the Government for the steps they have taken to expedite the process, particularly with the Met police, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what further steps can be taken and what options there might be for expediting the process, particularly where there is a time-sensitive application.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate on an important issue that probably affects many more people than today’s turnout suggests.
I have a few short remarks—I will not speak for long—about my constituents’ experience of the Disclosure and Barring Service over the past year, which has not been good. The delay in issuing DBS certificates is not just an administrative problem; it can cause people to turn down work or to lose an income on which they previously relied. It is vital that the delays in processing applications are brought under control.
Like other hon. Members, I have had many cases in Manchester, Withington of people who are ready to work but who are left waiting, sometimes for months, for their DBS certificate to be processed. These are people who have worked hard to find a job and have been successful at interview but who find themselves in an administrative limbo that means that, in the worst cases, they cannot take up the job. I will highlight a couple of cases that show the impact of such delays.
The first case is of Nazim Uddin, a taxi driver in my constituency who submitted his DBS renewal application on 4 June, well in advance of the September date when his hackney carriage licence expired. He eventually received his certificate on 28 September, 120 days after his application and after his licence had expired.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate. My constituent had a 94-day wait. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) agree that that is an awfully long time to wait and could have a detrimental impact on this individual’s financial situation?
Jeff Smith
I absolutely agree. The case is similar to that of Nazim in my constituency. Despite my office raising the issue both with the DBS and with the Government, he became unable to work because his licence expired, which understandably caused him and his family a huge amount of stress and some financial hardship.
The second case is of Angela Gallagher, a constituent of mine who lost a job as an occupational therapist because her DBS certificate was so delayed. She spoke to me about her constant phone calls to the DBS for updates only to be told to be patient and that the DBS was working through the backlog. She could not understand why, after she had been offered a job, the system was putting such obstacles in her way. She described how it affected her family’s finances—at the time, she was forced to sign on to out-of-work benefits—and how her mental health was affected by the stress caused by the delay and by her inability to access the job.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point and an excellent speech. One of my constituents told me how, although she knew there was nothing in her background that could possibly come up, the stress of waiting made her worry that somebody had made something up about her that was going to come to light. Waiting for weeks and weeks for a resolution added to her mental ill health.
Jeff Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an extremely stressful process for a person stuck in this limbo.
James Berry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the DBS to give an accurate estimate of the time the process will take, even if it is a very long period of time, so that people do not suffer the additional stress that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lynn Brown) just mentioned?
Jeff Smith
I agree absolutely that in principle we should be trying to do that. I appreciate that the DBS itself is not always the cause of the delay, because the backlog is often at the police checking stage, and that the DBS often cannot give a proper estimate of the delay with any real accuracy. Even for people who live in Manchester, the backlog is often down to delays from the Metropolitan police, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood pointed out. Constituents of mine who have lived in London have come to me with real problems with the Met’s performance. Let us face it: the Met does not have a good record on processing the system properly.
The Met backlog is a real problem. Government cuts to the police have left the Met unable to cope with the increase in demand; since 2010, it has lost 1,300 staff. That is not as many as the Greater Manchester police—we have lost more than 1,800 since 2010—but it is tough all the same. Those cuts have clearly affected the internal flexibility that the Met needs to deal with changing demands on the force. Ministers have said that the Government are training extra staff to cover the gaps, but there will be a significant time lag before we see quicker turnaround times. In the meantime, people across the country who rely on the Met to process DBS checks will suffer delays, leading to the problems I have outlined. Those problems have shown that cuts to police funding are a false economy because their consequences have been felt right across the public sector. It is not just about police forces; those police forces are struggling to complete the necessary checks on people whose job is to safeguard children and the vulnerable.
Care home associations have said that delays are forcing care homes to recruit expensive agency staff. The Royal College of Nursing has reported students turning down places because of the delays, as we heard earlier in the debate, or losing their bursaries for the academic year. We have all heard examples from schools, hospitals and childcare providers that show that the delays are making already difficult recruitment issues even more difficult. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it is that the Government cannot just cut police numbers without expecting problems down the line, not only for the police but across the public sector, for businesses and services, and most importantly for constituents such as Nazim and Angela who have experienced these problems through no fault of their own.
I ask the Minister to think about several things. First, will she give serious consideration to how to stop these delays? Secondly, we have not fully discussed how constituents can get redress for their difficult experiences; as I understand it, redress is available if the DBS is at fault for the delay, but if the police force is at fault, there is no redress or compensation for the people who suffer. Surely that situation needs to be rectified. Thirdly, I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood about the possibility of a portable certificate; obviously it would need safeguards, but it would be a major contributing factor to a solution. Finally and most importantly, a process must be put in place to escalate cases in which jobs are at risk and to get them dealt with very quickly to ensure that our constituents around the country can access the jobs they need in a timely fashion. I thank Members for listening.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech on behalf of her constituents. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) for joining the debate and for again representing his constituents with such clarity and integrity.
As my own mailbag can attest, delays occurring in the Disclosure and Barring Service are making life exceptionally difficult for many workers in this country. Frankly, Minister, we need to sort that out. As we know, the DBS enables employers to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain types of job. The service plays a vital role in keeping our young people and vulnerable adults safe. Having access to DBS certificates is essential for people who want to pursue careers working with vulnerable people and groups, and for organisations such as hospitals and schools, which need to recruit staff.
One of my constituents, a qualified teacher working with children with special educational needs, informed me that her DBS check had been stuck with the Metropolitan Police Service for three months, despite the fact that it has a target of 18 days. Since her DBS expired in February, she has been offered a number of roles but has been unable to start work because of the delay. Without work, she is now in arrears with her rent, her car insurance and other monthly bills.
In May 2016, it was reported that 10% of the staff of one primary school in north London were unable to fulfil their roles because of the delays. The headteacher said:
“Under official guidelines you can do a risk assessment based on the DBS from someone’s previous job, but they have to be supervised at all times…In one case we had to wait four months for a check to come through. There’s already a teacher shortage in London so this is a headache we could do without.”
That is the real impact of the delays: schools with teacher shortages are unable to recruit staff, unemployed teachers are falling into debt and employees are left waiting anxiously for months. That is simply not good enough.
These delays cause real anxiety, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington attested. Employees are expecting to hear back within eight weeks, and as the weeks pass they become really anxious that the delays are the result of a complication with their check. The problem is made worse by the fact that application processing times seem to be entirely arbitrary. People in that situation understandably fear that their job offer will be withdrawn. I also know from my constituents that people from the same area who apply at the same time will sometimes get radically different response times.
James Berry
The hon. Lady will be probably aware that in some of these cases, the fact that an individual has moved a number of times and a number of different police forces have to be contacted can explain the longer delay, even if they have applied at the same time as another constituent. Six police forces having to do checks will involve a much longer process than just one.
Lyn Brown
I accept that point, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that that is a symptom of living in London. My constituents have not all lived in West Ham all their lives; they have travelled from all over the country, and yet they are still given an arbitrary response time. I would really like the Minister to explain whether there is a system for prioritising some checks over others—or does she have another explanation, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) does, for the vastly differing response times that constituents experience?
The DBS states that it aims to deal with 95% of applications within eight weeks. It is currently at 93.8%, which is below that target but not far off. However, that figure masks what is actually a deep problem in some parts of the country: the severe delays that kick in when some police forces get involved in the process. As we know, there are five stages to a DBS check. The majority of delays occur at stage 4, when individual police forces check their records to make sure that the potential matches are not missed.
Police forces have targets to process 85% of applications within 14 days and 90% within 18 days. In July 2016, the Metropolitan Police Service hit its 14-day target just 14% of the time. Things do not get much better for its 18-day target, which it met just 19% of the time. In April 2016, the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), revealed in a written answer that the Metropolitan Police Service took on average 85 days to carry out stage 4 of the DBS process.
Let us recap: the whole process from stage 1 to stage 5 should take eight weeks. However, the Metropolitan Police Service is taking an average of 85 days to do its part of the process—that is just over 12 weeks. In those circumstances, it is literally impossible for the DBS to meet its eight-week target because one of the five stages is taking longer than the total target time. No wonder I, as a London MP, receive so many complaints about the service from my constituents.
Having researched the details, it is of little surprise to me that the Metropolitan Police Service is struggling. Just look at what has happened to its support staff, which have been cut by a third since the Conservatives came to power: down from 14,179 in 2010 to 9,521 in 2016. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood rightly said, those cuts have had consequences. Under the strain of falling staff numbers, a substantial backlog of applications has emerged. All police forces have a target of having no more than 12 days’ worth of work on DBS checks at any one time, meaning that if no new applications were received, police forces would be able to deal with all existing applications within 12 days. The most recent figures available show that it would take the Metropolitan Police Service 60 days to complete the pile of DBS applications it is sitting on, and only if no more came in. That is five times the target.
This is not only a London issue. In Nottinghamshire, the 14-day target for stage 4 of the process is currently being met just 7% of the time, while in North Yorkshire the target for both 14 and 18 days is being met just 12% of the time. In fact, according to the Government’s July 2016 red, amber or green assessment, 17 of the 50 forces were judged to be providing a second-rate service or worse. Something has to be done to improve the situation, and fast. We cannot have potential employees and potential employers waiting for so long. I want to know what the Government will do about it. It is unfair on both sides and it is causing financial damage.
This is not a new phenomenon. Research by the House of Commons Library revealed that the Met has not hit its 14-day target since February 2008. That is more than eight years for which my constituents, and other people living and working in London, have had to put up with a substandard service. For six of those years, the Minister’s party has been in government. A Government press release from earlier this month stated that they have been
“working very closely with the Met to help improve performance and good progress is being made to reduce applications in progress.”
If that is true, it is very welcome, but I am yet to see any evidence that good progress is being made. The most recent figures show a service struggling to keep up with demand, and people having to wait far longer than they should to have their applications processed.
Will the Minister inform the House of precisely what steps the Government have taken in the short term to help police forces to clear their backlogs? Will she also tell us how long she anticipates it will take for the service to return to an acceptable level? Some undefined time in the future is simply not good enough when people’s livelihoods and careers depend on their being able to get these checks carried out promptly.
The police missing their time targets is not the only problem. The DBS has failed to meet its accuracy targets in each of the last three months as well. I am told that the failures are administrative, such as spelling a name wrong or placing an inaccurate date of birth on the form, but that is not clear from the DBS business plan, which explains the performance indicators, because an inaccurate check is not defined. I am not told that it is administrative; I am not told that it is a small issue; and I am not reassured that inappropriate people are not getting DBS certificates, or that people who should be given certificates are not being refused. Will the Minister assure us today that the accuracy failures are largely administrative? Can she give us a figure for them, or a percentage? Can she give us any reassurance whatever? Will she prove to the House that inappropriate people have not been receiving DBS certificates to which they are not entitled?
I do not want to downplay the importance of administrative failures. They need to be rectified because they really do have knock-on effects. Take another of my constituents, who contacted me earlier this year about her DBS check. She informed me that after waiting six months for her application to be processed, her certificate, when it finally arrived, was inaccurately filled in, as it failed to include a previous name. As a result of delays and inaccurate information, my constituent was unable to take up employment as a childminder and has lost significant earnings. These are legal documents and they need to be filled in as accurately as possible so that people can use them.
Will the Minister inform the House of the steps the Government have taken to make sure that the accuracy of barring decisions improves in future? I really would like to be reassured that she takes this matter seriously. My hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood and for Manchester, Withington asked a number of pertinent questions in the course of their contributions. They asked for detail, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide it today, but, if not, will she commit to answering us in writing within the next week or so?
Let us face it: the longer delays to DBS checks are the result of cuts to our police services. The Metropolitan Police Service and other struggling police services are simply overburdened with the number of applications they are receiving. They do not have the resources they need. We know that since 2010 the Met has seen police support staff cut by 33%, and today we have heard about the reality of those cuts: poorer services and people missing out on jobs. That is, I am afraid, the Government’s record on the DBS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate. There is no doubt that the Disclosure and Barring Service is vital, but we have heard powerful speeches about the impact on people’s lives and on employers if it is not right. I welcome this opportunity to address the issues that have been raised and I hope that, by the end of the debate, Members will be assured about the progress we are making. If not, and if I am not able in the time I have remaining to address all the points that have been made, not only will I of course agree to answer them in writing, but I am happy to invite Members into the Department to meet me and my officials and go through in more detail the important issues that have been raised.
Protecting the public is certainly a priority for me and for the Government. We will not compromise on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. The DBS plays a vital role by enabling organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make better-informed and safer recruitment decisions. It provides proportionate access to criminal record information, allowing employers to determine whether an individual is unsuited to certain kinds of work. It also manages two lists of those barred from working with children or vulnerable adults.
I maintain a close interest in the DBS’s performance and receive regular reports. I visited the DBS office in Liverpool earlier this month, and it was clear to me that the staff are professional, effective and passionate about their role in protecting the public. I saw an organisation with a culture of continuous learning and improvement that seeks to put its customers, and protecting the public, at the heart of everything it does.
On the barring side, the DBS makes complex, evidence-based decisions, weighing a person’s rehabilitation against the need to keep the public safe. More than 61,000 people are now prevented from working with children, vulnerable adults, or both.
Most people come into contact with the DBS when it issues disclosure certificates, which have been the subject of most of the discussion in the debate. Certificates can be applied for by people in a range of occupations, including teaching assistants, doctors, taxi drivers and social workers. Last year the DBS issued more than 4 million certificates, with nearly 95% provided within the eight-week timeline. It is important to focus on that.
The DBS asked customers how happy they were with the service, as we would expect of any arm’s length Government organisation. In the year to May 2016, 89% reported that they were satisfied with the service they had received. However, I am aware from the letters that I have had, and from today’s debate, that some people have experienced very long delays in receiving their enhanced disclosure checks. I do not underestimate for one minute the impact that that has on the lives of not only those individuals but the organisations affected, and I agree that it is totally unacceptable.
Although I recognise that disclosing criminal records information is complex and that checks must be thorough, I am clear that delays absolutely must be addressed. The DBS works with various partners, particularly the police forces that provide the data on which checks are based and assess what non-conviction information from their locally held information should be disclosed as part of the enhanced check. That may require the DBS to send search requests to more than one police force. The vast majority of checks should be completed within two to four weeks, and the DBS monitors performance closely, assisting any forces that are not meeting their targets.
It is important to make it clear that police disclosure units are fully funded by the DBS, so the issue is not about the general funding that police forces receive. Each year the DBS agrees budgets and expected numbers of disclosures with police forces and funds them. Where police forces run into difficulty, as the Met indisputably has, the DBS will provide extra resources.
Helen Hayes
The issue that has been raised by the PCS and others is that of annual funding settlements, which mean that there is a great deal of insecurity for staff working on DBS disclosures within police forces. Temporary contracts and insecurity are part of the problem. What is needed is a fully staffed, professional service with some continuity and longevity in the length of time people stay in their jobs.
Sarah Newton
I completely understand that if there is job insecurity, that makes it difficult to retain good-quality staff. I visited the Metropolitan police unit only a few weeks ago and witnessed the training process. The decision-making process is complex, and it takes time to train staff. Even when the DBS sits down with the Met or any other police force that is having difficulty and agrees extra funding, it takes at least six months to train someone so that they can carry out the checks.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is right that the PCS union has acknowledged that there has been a change of leadership at the Met. The Home Office has provided considerable support to help improve processes, and the DBS has funded more than 100 new staff, so there has been a huge amount of effort. The hon. Lady understands, as I do, that more of the staff have now been given full-time contracts. The DBS sits down with the police forces each year and agrees the contracts based on the anticipated number of checks. If the number of checks requested goes up, more staff have to be recruited. Sometimes it is efficient and right to have temporary staff; on other occasions we need more full-time staff. Such contractual decisions are made between the DBS and the police forces. I have also seen that no stone is left unturned. The Met has asked for support from other police forces that have a surplus of staff with the right expertise to help. So I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that every effort has been made between the DBS and the police forces to get the necessary resources in.
Only two police forces are not meeting their timeliness performance targets: the Met and Surrey. In the case of Surrey, a relatively small number of people are affected and a recovery plan has been agreed with the DBS, which is going well. I can share that information and be certain about it because the DBS regularly publishes the data on its own website. That addresses one of the issues that the hon. Lady raised, about the transparency of data. Opposition Members have quoted extensively from performance data, so there is not an issue of transparency here. Those data are on local police force performance as well as the DBS’s own organisational performance, and the next data will be published later this month. I look at such data on a daily basis.
Lyn Brown
I am struggling with what the Minister is telling us. First, we know there has been a problem in the Met since 2008, which is a long time. We know that the delays in the Met are massive. If the DBS has been placing money in the Metropolitan Police Service so that it can get the checks done, then it must have been significantly underpaying the Met for several years in order for us to have got to the current situation. I am afraid I cannot accept what the Minister is saying about that.
The Minister also tells us that only two police forces are not meeting the timescales, but in the Government’s own assessment, on the red, amber and green scale, 17 of the 50 forces were judged to be providing a second-rate service or worse. It is not only two police forces; by the Government’s own admission, it is more.
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady raises a couple of points. The data I am referring to are the most recent. We will get another tranche of data this month, so she will be able to see for herself what the information is.
On how the Metropolitan police or any other police force is funded, the fact is that the DBS funds police units to do police checks. Whether they have received adequate funding over a certain period of time is a fair question. I have been to Liverpool and had conversations with the DBS, and I am monitoring the situation on a weekly basis. I will go back to the DBS to make sure that all the recovery plans we have discussed are implemented. I can say no more to reassure the hon. Lady about how seriously I take this issue. I and my officials are focused on it, and I am regularly involved with the DBS to make sure we tackle it.
As I have said, I visited the Metropolitan police unit recently. The hon. Lady has acknowledged that significant extra resources and changes in leadership have been put in place, and the unit is processing 20% more applications than it receives. That gives me some confidence that it will reduce the backlog over time. If the unit was processing only the number of applications that it was receiving, we would not have any confidence that it was dealing with the backlog, but it is, and 20% is significant. I am therefore confident that it will make significant progress.
It is important that the DBS continues to work closely with the Metropolitan police and any other police forces that are having difficulties to make sure that they are given the necessary resources to do the job. I know that the Metropolitan police take the matter seriously. I have been to Sidcup and spent time with the team there, and they talked me through what they were doing about it. They know full well that I will be back again to personally check up on their progress.
I will go through the range of other questions that hon. Members asked me on issues from portability to escalation and redress.
James Berry
Although DBS checks are clearly a weak spot for the Metropolitan police, I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing personally to ensure improvements. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that, over the past six years, we have seen a sustained fall in crime in this country, largely due to the fantastic work of our police forces, particularly here in our capital, including in Kingston, which is now the safest borough in London.
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Getting the checks right is an incredibly important crime prevention measure. The top priority is to deal with the possibility of people doing harm to vulnerable children and young people. Frustrating as delays can be, the safety of individual people must be uppermost, and it must have played its part in those cheering results showing a drop in crime.
To return to the questions that were put to me, employers and individuals are encouraged to use the update service. An online subscription service allows individuals to demonstrate that their DBS certificate is up to date. That would prevent their having to make multiple re-applications. With the applicant’s permission, organisations can check a certificate online, free of charge, which allows them to see whether any relevant information has been identified since the individual’s certificate was last issued. There are more than 800,000 subscribers to that service. I encourage the hon. Lady to ask constituents to register for the online service at the same time as they apply for DBS checks. If they move jobs, they will not have to go through repeated checks, because once they sign up for the service the employer, charity or wherever they were working could freely go online to see whether any information needed updating.
I may have got the wrong impression, but the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) seemed to be telling me that the certificate of one of her constituents had expired. It is simply not possible for certificates to expire because they do not have a set period of validity. If that constituent were signed up to the updating service they really would not be affected. It is important to set the record straight.
When there are delays, employers can, during the wait for DBS check results, consider whether it would be appropriate for an individual to begin work, with appropriate safeguards, depending on the nature of the role and the assessment of potential risk. For example, DBS Adult First can be used in cases where, exceptionally, and in accordance with the Department of Health terms, a person can be permitted to start work with adults before the certificate is obtained. There are appropriate ways of safeguarding while people are waiting so that they can avoid the dreadful situations that have been described today, where they cannot take up jobs, and where they incur financial hardship, and where organisations miss out on good employees.
Customers can track their application online and call the DBS helpline for support. There were questions about how the DBS prioritises applications. It does so in date order, but if an applicant can make the case that there will be undue hardship and they will suffer in some way, the DBS will do everything it can to expedite an application. It will contact a police force and do all it can to reduce the time.
I want to clarify the point about redress, which was mentioned. The DBS will consider cases. If there has been hardship and the DBS can be proved not to have acted appropriately, there is a system of redress. There is not a nationwide system for the police, but individual police forces can be held accountable. If they have not acted in a timely and appropriate way, redress can be considered.
I hope I have covered all the questions. I am not at all complacent. Getting the service right is central to protecting the most vulnerable people in society, and I am determined to do that. I understand that we need an efficient process to enable people to take up the sorts of jobs we need them to do. I shall continue to monitor what happens on a regular basis. As I have said, if any colleague wants to come into the Department and go through the matter with me in more detail, they are welcome to do so.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for their contributions to the debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for her response and for the interest she shows in the matter. She has clearly set out the steps she is taking to address the problem.
I should be grateful, however, if the Minister could follow up in writing on my questions. I do not consider that all of them were fully answered today. I was in particular a little disappointed that I did not hear much from the Minister in acknowledgement of the distressing cases I raised, and the serious impact of delays on my constituents and those of my hon. Friends. We brought up several specific examples of shocking hardship and distress as a consequence of delays in the service. The Minister set out some aspects of the service that are in development, and steps being taken to deal with the problems, but I do not feel that she properly addressed the seriousness of the consequences. I should be grateful for some further information in response to my questions.
My hon. Friends’ points about cuts in police resources were pertinent and well made. There is more work for the Minister to do to make certain that the police are being resourced on the necessary basis for them to undertake their important work. On the question of annual funding settlements from the DBS to the police, the context in which, as the Minister explained, it takes six months to train someone to do the job when they may have job security only for another six months, sounds like a false economy in the public sector. It also sounds like a context in which it is difficult to recruit and retain high-quality staff. I welcome assurances that the Minister is considering the issue, including how more staff can be put on a permanent, secure footing in their employment, and how the DBS and police can plan for the longer term.
The advice that the Minister gave about the helpline for employers, and steps that employers can take, puts too much emphasis on employers in the process. It is the Government’s role, through the DBS, to undertake the checks, and employers should not have to take steps to compensate for delays in a process that should work efficiently and effectively. Finally, the Minister did not address my point about the need for rapid escalation to a secure and committed timescale for individuals whose employment is at risk as a consequence of DBS delays.
Sarah Newton
I am sorry that I did not adequately communicate how seriously I take the impact on individuals. I thought I had. This is a further opportunity for me to underline the fact that the cases I heard about are clearly very distressing for the people concerned. However, I pointed out that individuals as well as employers can call the DBS, which will make every effort to deal with a case. If there is hardship, distress or concern, that service is available.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister. As I pointed out, my office called the DBS on behalf of a constituent on several occasions. On at least three of those occasions assurances were made that the case would be escalated and dealt with, but that did not happen until the offer of employment had been withdrawn. Processes may be in place, but they do not always work—I assure the Minister of that. There is a need for a service standard in the DBS, guaranteeing that, if an offer of employment is contingent on receiving a DBS disclosure in a given time, the DBS will meet that requirement. We cannot continue with people’s employment being put at risk as a consequence of delays in the service.
I am grateful for the interest that the Minister has shown and the work she is doing on the matter, and I look forward to following up on it in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of the Disclosure and Barring Service.
Highways England Compensation: Broadway in Chadderton
(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 McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Highways England compensation payments for residents of Broadway in Chadderton.
This is my first Westminster Hall debate, Ms Dorries, and it is a pleasure to speak in it under your chairmanship. I will set out why I felt it was necessary to call for this debate, and the history of the scheme, before asking the Minister to respond to the concerns expressed repeatedly by residents living in the area. The issue has been going on for some time, and was previously dealt with by the right hon. Michael Meacher, before he passed away. I have come to it towards the end of the scheme. I am hoping that my speech will be received positively. People affected by the scheme might be watching the debate, and they are hopeful of some conclusion to a long-standing issue.
To provide some context, Oldham is a young town, and demand for school places is significant. A determined effort by the local council has seen many new schools built, with the support of Government. The John Henry Newman College is one of them. It was formed from Our Lady’s School in Royton and the St Augustine School in Oldham. The new school is now home to 1,400 pupils.
The new school site at Broadway was selected after a thorough assessment and, despite legitimate concerns about the impact on traffic and highway safety, local people by and large supported the project. The issue has been long and drawn out, however, with delays over site selection, the possibility in 2010 of funding being cancelled and, after the eventual building of the school, the ongoing fight for compensation payments by residents living near the site.
The scheme consisted of the construction of a signalised junction to create a new access to the site of the school that was being built. To facilitate that, the road needed to be widened with additional lanes, and a cutting had to be made into the parapet where the properties are in a significantly higher position than the road. The scheme required dedicated turning lanes and new signalling works, lighting and road markings. However, no measures to reduce noise or the visual impact of the scheme were put in place. As we can imagine, for example, the headlights of cars exiting the site shine directly into the windows of the house opposite, where previously there had been no road junction.
The road, to put it into perspective, is the A663, a busy trunk road that becomes the A627(M) motorway, which in turn connects the M60 Manchester orbital motorway to the M62. The road carries about 30,000 vehicles a day and, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs noise chart, the location under discussion has prevailing road noise levels in excess of 70 dB both day and night.
The properties in which my constituents live have been the subject of previous compensation claims. Those properties are predominantly brick-built, semi-detached houses with pitched slate or tile roofs, usually dating from the post-war period. As the House will appreciate, where properties are so close to the road and at a higher level, they are particularly affected by noise, including the noise of cars standing at the traffic lights with their engines idling. That noise travels up—a problem in addition to the headlight problem I mentioned.
Those affected by the scheme rightly sought compensation under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Evidence was supplied of previous Lands Tribunal decisions by professional experts highlighting similar schemes, including two that were agreed with the solicitors of some Broadway residents and the Highways Agency working with other residents. Evidence of other schemes for which property devaluation agreements were in place was supplied.
I had hoped to meet Highways England staff, but I am afraid that I was put on a Bill Committee because of my new Front-Bench responsibilities, which did not allow a meeting to happen. Notwithstanding that, a long series of correspondence took place between the highways body and Michael Meacher, when he was here. Local councillors who have been leading and supporting local people have been involved.
In similar schemes, the loss of value of properties has been accepted. No two schemes are the same, and any assessment of compensation payment will always look at the individual scheme on its own merit—I accept that completely—but it is important to highlight nearby schemes in which A-class roads have been widened and traffic lights installed, resulting in compensation payments. The Lands Tribunal decision on a new junction for the Parrs Wood scheme in Manchester returned a maximum of 7%; on a road widening scheme just up the road at Hunt Lane, Broadway, the maximum was 5%; further on again, on a road widening towards Middleton Road, Broadway, the maximum was unknown; and on the new junction improvements on the A56 Chester Road at Helsby, the maximum was 7%.
Given the location under discussion, clear evidence suggests that properties have reduced in value as a result of the road widening scheme. I will refer to two properties in particular—properties A and B. Property A is an extended and substantially modernised four-bedroom, semi-detached house, which sold for £175,000 on 20 March 2014. The same property sold for £200,000 on 14 August 2007. Between 2007 and 2014 that property had decreased in value by £25,000—that is a matter of public record. Property B, also on Broadway, is a three-bedroom, semi-detached house, which sold on 18 October 2013 for £156,000. On 6 January 2008, it was purchased for £165,000. That property too was sold for less than its purchase value only a few years earlier as a direct result of the market conditions following the road widening.
Moreover, the residents applied for their council tax to be re-evaluated to take into account the change in the neighbourhood. In 2012, the valuation office made the decision to reduce the council tax banding. The Highways Agency was aware of that, but refused to acknowledge any relationship between the road widening and that decision, which is contrary to the correspondence that took place at the time.
To conclude, I am hoping that the issue is straightforward. The scheme should have been really positive—a brand-new school was constructed, which provides a fantastic educational facility for local children, with 1,400 of our young people benefiting, but it required engineering that has affected people who live nearby. Local people accept that the school is a positive contribution to the town, but if their property value has been affected as a result, clearly compensation payments should be made.
The school and the necessary engineering works required public investment of about £30 million and, given that context, the compensation payments requested are minor, but for someone whose property value has been affected the amount is significant. The issue has gone on for far too long. Today, I would like to make progress and to get some resolution so that residents can get on with their lives instead of entering a drawn-out tribunal process, which will cost them quite a lot of money and take even more time, when this is a straightforward matter.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
It is, as ever, a delight to be in your presence, Ms Dorries, and to serve under your diligent chairmanship. It is also a delight to welcome the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), as a newish Member, to his first debate in the Westminster Hall Chamber. I congratulate him on securing the debate, which follows the work of his predecessor, a distinguished Member of this House who served his constituents for a very long time.
Ms Dorries, might I offer the hon. Gentleman, through you, some advice that he seems already to have followed, even if he has not heard it? When approached by constituents about these kinds of things, you and I try to put ourselves in their position. We try—I know that this is true of the way that you serve your constituents, if I might say so, and it is certainly the way that I serve mine—to imagine how we would feel in similar circumstances. We ask, “What would we feel like if this were our home, our community and our family’s interests?” That is precisely what he has done in bringing this debate to the Chamber, and I commend him for that. It seems that he did not need my advice, but I offer it anyway, as a more experienced Member to a newer one.
Given the overtures that were made by the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, this case is familiar to Highways England and my Department. As he says, it concerns the A663 at Broadway, a busy urban trunk road linking the M60 with the A627(M) and the M62. It is an important link between Oldham and Manchester and forms part of the strategic road network, for which Highways England is responsible.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the local authority, Oldham Council, constructed a new school, the John Henry Newman College, on previously disused land close to the road-widening scheme. It is wonderful that the college should be named after that great man, who by the way is one of my heroes—we do not have time to discuss that at length. None the less, the council, having agreed in response to local demand to construct that new school, was obliged to make changes to the road, and those changes are the alterations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The changes were designed to allow safe access to the site, and the council took powers under section 6 of the Highways Act 1980, which allows local authorities to make such changes to the strategic road network where such a development is taking place.
It is worth listing the improvements that were made. They included the construction of a new signalised junction, giving access from the A663 to the new school; the widening of the carriageway and the construction of a new footpath; the creation of dedicated turning lanes into the school from both northbound and southbound directions; and the construction of central islands to help pedestrians cross the road. Improvements were also made to the road itself. The junction between Broadway and Foxdenton Lane further south of the school was improved, including by widening the carriageway on all four arms of the junction and improving pedestrian refuges. As the hon. Gentleman will know, all those alterations were completed by around September 2012.
Following the completion of those works, a formal submission was made by a land claims agent representing the interests of 32 households. Compensation was claimed under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 for residents living close to the new access to the school. On that occasion, Highways England did the proper thing and sought advice from a valuation consultant on the changed property values. Indeed, it went further than that and sought advice from two experts in that field, because it felt that that was the right thing to do.
Jim McMahon
The Minister is quite correct in his assertion that two separate experts were selected, but can he confirm that those experts were both in-house, not independent of Highways England?
Mr Hayes
They were valuation consultants, who are accustomed to dealing with these things and in so doing adopted the appropriate empiricism—indeed, that is their stock in trade—to gauge whether the changes in the values of the properties that the hon. Gentleman has suggested took place could be attributed to any of the environmental factors that would entitle the 32 households to compensation, such as increased vibration, increased noise or even light pollution from headlights shining into homes. Those experts would have taken those things into account, though he will have some good news at the end of my short but fascinating speech along the lines that he has just implied.
The problem is that when those tests were applied, the claim was found wanting. The hon. Gentleman has made the case that the value of the houses has fallen, and I am not in a position to dispute that.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. If anyone in the room would like to take their jacket off, they should feel free to do so. The heating is apparently broken. The temperature is about 25° and I think it is going to get hotter, so please feel free to disrobe.
Mr Hayes
Ms Dorries, I never remove my jacket, except in the most extreme circumstances. One of those is playing competitive sport, and as I am not doing so, I will not remove my jacket, but I am grateful for your typical generosity and indulgence in giving me permission so to do should I wish to.
As I said, the valuation that was done does not necessarily contradict the hon. Gentleman’s assertions. He has provided evidence that values have indeed fallen, but I suppose the point that I was making—for the sake of emphasis, I make it again—is that according to the expert analysis, the criteria on which compensation could rightly have been paid, according to the basis that applies to all similar schemes, were not met. In essence, that means that there was no loss in property value as a result of the physical factors—I described them earlier as environmental factors—arising from the alterations to the A663. The question is really whether any loss in value met the necessary terms and conditions set out in the Land Compensation Act 1973. In truth, the A663 was already a busy urban route, and a signalised pedestrian crossing was already in place on that road before the roadworks were undertaken. The new access to the school is not in constant use but is used largely at the beginning and end of the school day, as can be expected.
The hon. Gentleman understandably made a point about council tax banding. I was aware of that point. However, it is clear from the council tax decision notice issued by the local authority that the rebanding was due to the presence of a new school rather than the road improvement scheme. Highways England fully accepts its obligations under the 1973 Act and never seeks to deny the payment of compensation that is due, but it has no power to pay compensation that it does not consider to be payable statutorily. Highways England has accepted the views of its valuation consultants and no claim has been paid with regard to the A663 junction improvements, and he will know that the claimants were advised accordingly in March 2015. He made reference to the possibility of appealing, and he will know that the Act allows a claimant who disagrees with the amount of compensation offered by the relevant authority—in this case Highways England—to refer their claim to the lands chamber of the upper tribunal for independent determination. Claimants have until 25 September 2019 to make reference to the tribunal in this case.
As is my wont, I am going to go a little further than I have been advised to do. As I said at the outset, I have been impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s diligence in bringing this matter forward, and I was an admirer of his predecessor, as I have also made clear. If I—like you, Ms Dorries, and the hon. Gentleman—put myself into the place of those affected, I feel a duty to share his and their perspective as much as possible. My second piece of advice to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, is that he obtains a further independent assessment of whether the alleged loss of value can in any way be attributed to the work that has been done and therefore fits the criteria laid out in law. If he brings that to me directly and personally, I will commit to looking at the matter again. That would not oblige the residents to seek a tribunal hearing, which I appreciate is expensive, and it would give him an opportunity to take the matter further. If the criteria cannot be met—or if evidence cannot be brought that they may be met—it will clearly be difficult for me to help him or those residents.
The hon. Gentleman wants to do the right thing by those residents, and I do, too. These debates must have a purpose in holding Ministers to account and encouraging them to go the extra mile to support colleagues from across the Chamber in representing the wellbeing and interests of their constituents.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Minister for giving way. Given that I do not get to come back at the end of the debate, I should take the opportunity to say that I find that very constructive. I am thankful on behalf of the residents of Chadderton for the opportunity to present that assessment at a future date.
Mr Hayes
It is my willingness to be constructive that has built the solid reputation I enjoy on the Opposition Benches, in which I take such great pleasure. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks and look forward to hearing from him further on this important subject for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
AEA Pension Scheme
(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
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the advice given to AEA pension scheme pensioners.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is indeed honourable and a friend and a Minister. As I mentioned to him outside the Chamber, the gist of what I want to say is more directed towards the Cabinet Office than his Department, but it is useful to have this opportunity to put a flag in the ground. I should say right away that the purpose of the debate from my point of view, and I think that of those Association of Accounting Technicians pensioners who have been affected by what I am to describe, is to lay the grounds for an amendment we will need to move to the forthcoming ombudsman Bill to remedy a particular problem to which I shall come.
For the sake of anyone who happens to read Hansard in due course, I should begin by telling the story in brief. Incidentally, this is a story that has been told by many hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) held a debate on a connected subject. Others who have taken a great interest include my right hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey)—the latter is in his place: he has been particularly active on this recently and I have corresponded with him—my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and indeed former Members such as Ian Bruce, who represented South Dorset.
I think the story is well known to all present, but, in brief, in 1996 when the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was spinning off what became AEA Technology, a new pension scheme was created for that company. The employees concerned had been employees of UKAEA and had benefited from a Government-backed pensions scheme there. They were offered the choice either to remain in the existing scheme or to transfer, on two possible bases, to the AEA Technology scheme.
The sequel, which is also well known to everyone present, is that unfortunately the AEA Technology final salary scheme, like many other such schemes, came a cropper and, when AEA Technology went bust, the scheme turned out to be in massive deficit, so my constituents, and I suspect those of other hon. Members present, found themselves in the hands of the Pension Protection Fund, which—thank goodness—had been set up to deal with such matters. In that respect, they are in no different position from many other people who have suffered a similar fate.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in the debate. He is summarising his case exactly right. Is it not the case that, when the pension holders transferred to the new scheme, they were given strong assurances that they would continue to enjoy benefits identical or “very close to”—that was the wording in some of the literature that they were given—those they had under the Government-backed scheme?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), with whom I have dealt on various occasions in even more vexed circumstances. He is absolutely right. The gist of what I am talking about is the advice these pensioners were given at the time they decided to make the transfer. I will go into that in some detail in just a moment.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thought I would get this in now before my right hon. Friend gets into his flow. My constituent, Dr Keith Brown, wrote to me quite some time ago, saying:
“Our main complaint is that official information provided to us at the time of privatisation did not tell us that the new pension scheme was at a much greater risk of failure than our old UKAEA scheme.”
That seems to be the nub of the problem: what they were and were not told.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is the nub of the problem—and the nub of the solution is related. It is a good idea to have solutions that relate to problems, and I am going to propose a solution to that particular problem, but let me first enlarge on the point both of my right hon. Friends have just raised, because this is where we get to an extraordinary sequence.
At the time when the pensioners in question were choosing whether to transfer their existing accrued rights from the Government-backed UKAEA scheme into the commercially-backed AEA Technology scheme, they were offered advice by all sorts of people. They were told various things by AEA Technology, the new firm. Needless to say, AEA Technology said the new scheme was wonderful because it wanted to attract people into it. It wanted to do that because anybody who knows about final salary schemes—there are people here who are genuine experts on that—knows that it is necessary to have a large number of employees in such a scheme to make it remotely viable, so AEA Technology had an interest.
I do not know, and I do not suppose we will ever find out, but I suspect that the UKAEA employees—who are not just any old set of employees, they are highly skilled professionals; some of them are extraordinarily clever people—would quite easily have been able to account for the undoubted bias in the advice coming from their prospective employer, so let us forget about that piece of advice. They were also, I think, given a certain amount of steer by UKAEA itself. This is where it gets a little trickier, because UKAEA is a Government body and it had some kind of duty to give people dispassionate and neutral advice. However, UKAEA was in the course of trying to spin off AEA Technology, so it had an interest, too. I genuinely do not know the extent to which the employees did or did not pay attention to whatever they were told by UKAEA. Luckily, for the purposes of the debate, I do not want to dwell on that either, because there is a much more serious issue at stake.
The third set of people from whom the employees received advice—we do not have to speculate about this because it was written, and I am going to describe exactly what it said—was from none other than the Government Actuary’s Department. That is not just any old body. It is the most august body, so far as advice on pensions and pension matters is concerned, in our country. It is exactly what its name says on the tin; it is the Government Actuary’s Department.
The Government Actuary’s Department now has a statement of practice, but at the time it issued that advice it did not. It issued a paper, a copy of which I have in my hand, that discussed transfers from the UKAEA superannuation scheme to the AEA Technology pension scheme. In section 3 of that paper, particularly in subsection 3.2, the Government Actuary’s Department listed what it describes on the contents page as “Advantages of preserving”, which means the advantages of remaining in the UKAEA scheme. Another section describes
“advantages of taking a special transfer value”—
namely, the advantages of moving from the UKAEA scheme to the AEA Technology scheme.
The first strange thing about that is, in section 3, in which the Government Actuary’s Department lists the
“Factors to consider in making the decision”,
and was in particular describing the advantages of preserving the UKAEA scheme benefits—looking at what might influence the employees to remain with the public sector scheme—it said:
“Whilst it is unlikely that the benefit promise made by either the UKAEA Scheme or the AEAT Scheme would ever be broken—”,
and it went on to say that it is even more unlikely that both promises would be broken.
The important point is that not just any old person but the Government Actuary’s Department said it was unlikely that the benefit promise would be broken by either the Government-backed scheme, UKAEA, which is undoubtedly true, or the AEA Technology scheme. I have no doubt that, so far as it went, that statement was accurate, if looked at from the perspective of the date on which the Government Actuary’s Department wrote that it was “unlikely” that the benefit promise would be broken by AEA Technology. Incidentally, I hope the Minister and others will trust me; I am sure the Minister has read the whole thing because I know he has been assiduously preparing for the debate.
What is clear is that nowhere in the rest of the document does the Government Actuary’s Department say what was also patently true—that the risk of the pensioners losing a large part of the value of their pensions if they remained with their accrued rights in the UKAEA scheme was zero, or as near to zero as human beings get. A triple A-rated guarantee from HM Government attended that scheme. No such security was available under the AEA Technology scheme. Commercially-backed schemes do not have a triple A-rated Government-backed guarantee that pensioners will get their money as promised. That is a material difference between the two schemes, and the Government Actuary’s Department, in offering advice to pensioners, had a clear duty to bring out that difference in risk. It did not, and that is the starting point for the compelling argument I will make.
Stephen Crabb
It is true that pensioners were encouraged to seek the advice of a qualified independent financial adviser, but that adviser could never advise on the overall risk of company failure and, therefore, the failure of the scheme, so my right hon. Friend’s point is exactly right. There was nothing in the documentation that pointed to the risk of the scheme failing altogether.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am glad that my right hon. Friend raised that point. It has been said in previous debates and in correspondence with successive Ministers that the point about the availability of independent financial advice is material. To the argument I am making it is not material, because even though the pensioners could have sought independent financial advice, and even if it were the case—as a matter of fact, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire is right that it would not be the case—that the independent financial adviser had advised them about the overall risk profile of the two possibilities, we would still have to ask why advice was given by the Government Actuary’s Department. If the pensioners were meant to rely exclusively on independent financial advice, the only appropriate posture for the Government Actuary’s Department would have been to say, “We’re not offering you any advice. This is not for us. Go to an independent financial adviser.”
On the contrary, the Government Actuary’s Department very unusually constructed a paper, of which we all have copies, and handed that to highly intelligent people with the intent of persuading them that it described the situation, which is the only presumption we can make. Why else would the Government Actuary’s Department give someone such a paper?
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in effect, what the Government Actuary’s Department has done is to give a subtle inducement to those who were in the UKAEA scheme to move across? At the end of the day, the Government should have some responsibility for exposing those pension plan holders to risk as a consequence of what has happened.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree that there was probably a subtle incentive, but I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. At this stage of the argument, all I am saying is something that I think is unchallengeably certain: the Government Actuary’s Department gave advice that did not bring to light the material difference in risk between one situation and another. That is fact. Beyond that, one can speculate, but that is fact.
When I say that the Government Actuary’s Department had a duty to highlight that difference of risk, I am again not speculating. Although at the time it did not exist, the Government Actuary’s Department now has a statement of practice. I have a copy of it in my hands. Under the heading “Security”, the statement of practice—essentially a code of conduct—says:
“It is recognised that the security of a private sector scheme cannot be provided in the same form as that applying in the public service”.
It is practically impossible to imagine that the Government Actuary’s Department would offer advice now in the form it did then, because it would be guided by its own code of practice. If it were not, I imagine rapid action would be taken to correct it, because if a Government Department issued a code of practice and then did not follow it, that would lead a Minister quickly to do something. Therefore we know that the Government Actuary’s Department had a duty, which unfortunately was not at that time written down in the code of practice, that it did not observe to bring to light the difference in security between the two positions. It did not do that.
It is important to make one last point about what the Government Actuary’s Department did. A freedom of information request has revealed an interesting sequence of events about which I intend in due course to write a little monograph, because it is very instructive about what happens inside Government and agencies when they engage in commercial transactions. The FOI revealed that there were exchanges of drafts between the Government Actuary’s Department, UKAEA and AEA Technology. The drafts went back and forth, and the various parties commented.
When the draft of the very section to which I am referring, which was at that time labelled 3.1.1 instead of 3.2.3—I will come on to that point, but it is ipsissima verba—was sent to AEA Technology, the person looking at it from AEA Technology noted in handwriting, “Delete”. So even an observation that it was possible the AEA Technology scheme might conceivably go bust, or that the UKAEA scheme might not deliver, was objected to by AEA Technology. It tried to get that deleted. To be fair to the UKAEA people and the Department then in charge of them, which is effectively now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that did not get deleted.
I mentioned, however, the numbering, which is also instructive. Section 3.1.1 became section 3.2.3 because UKAEA supported the AEAT proposition that the advantages of preserving—in other words, staying in the public sector—should not be presented before the advantages of transferring, as it was in the original draft, but vice versa. Indeed, that change was made. That whole sequence of events illustrates very clearly that AEA Technology and UKAEA had a joint interest in trying to get as many pensioners as possible to transfer into the AEA Technology scheme—not because they were evil schemers, but because they wanted that scheme to be viable. They were putting as much pressure as they could on the Government Actuary’s Department, to get as close as they could get it to go to telling the pensioners that that was a good thing to do.
To be fair to the Government Actuary’s Department, it did not say that that was a good thing to do, but it also did not illustrate the fact that if we looked at the risks, it was a very bad thing to do. That is a very important point. The Government Actuary’s Department did not just fail to point out the risks; it failed to point out the risks under conditions in which some pressure upon it was being brought not to reveal those risks in full.
I want to make one last point about the advice from the Government Actuary’s Department before I move on to the law. The role of the Government Actuary’s Department, which comes out clearly in the whole of its advice, was to look at the benefits of the two possibilities—remaining or transferring the accrued rights—and to see whether, on an actuarial basis, one was superior to the other or the other to the one. The Government Actuary’s Department concluded that there was not really anything to choose between them. That was translated into the view that all in all, the benefits were as good in the one case as the other. Of course, for a particular individual—this was pointed out—it might be different, but by and large, people got the same kind of benefit in the two cases.
We have the word of the Government Actuary’s Department that there would be no financial difference for pensioners, by and large, whether they stayed or went to the AEAT scheme—except, of course, that there was a huge difference. In the one case, they were getting the same benefits guaranteed, and in the other case they were getting the same benefits not guaranteed, because they were supported only by a commercial firm that could have gone bust and did go bust, and whose pension fund could have been in deficit and was in deficit—and lo and behold, they have indeed suffered.
Under pressure from those responsible for the transaction, the Government Actuary’s Department assessed the two schemes as being of equal value to employees without taking account of the difference in risk. It failed to point out that difference and therefore led the pensioners to believe that there was nothing particularly wrong with transferring their accrued rights to the AEAT scheme. They could have had the benefits guaranteed permanently had they remained in the UKAEA scheme, but they did not ever realise that great difference in risk.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has pointed to advice from the Government Actuary’s Department about a privatisation. There was a period when many other Government businesses were being privatised. Has his research identified whether the advice was similar in other cases, or was this piece of advice unique to the circumstances of AEA Technology?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not know whether my hon. Friend brilliantly waited until this moment to ask that pertinent question, but he has asked exactly the right question at exactly the right moment. It was generally the case that undertakings were given—I was involved as a financial adviser in many privatisations—about the solidity of the pension scheme that was going to be available for pensioners if they transferred to the new undertaking. I strongly suspect, although I cannot prove, that many of the AEA Technology pensioners who later suffered imagined at the time, not least because the Government Actuary’s Department did not say anything about a difference of risk, that such undertakings were available.
Moreover, the pensioners were probably led to have greater faith by the accident that the provisions of the law that gave rise to the transfer of the undertaking suggested—although did not say, if we read them carefully —that it would be just as good a pension scheme as the one they were leaving. In fact, in this case there were no such undertakings, and therefore there was a difference between this and many other privatisations. That was never brought out in the documentation, and the Government Actuary’s Department did not refer to it. That further strengthens, to my mind, the point that the Government Actuary’s Department advice served to mislead the pensioners.
I apologise, Ms Dorries, for the fact that that was all just the shaggy dog story, and now I am coming to the actual point of the debate. Everything I have described is a series of allegations by a Back-Bench MP—namely me—about what I think the Government Actuary’s Department did, and who the hell cares whether a Back- Bench MP thinks the Government Actuary’s Department behaved well, badly or indifferently? There is another body that judges these things that is much more important than a Back-Bench MP for these purposes, and that is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. That body gets to judge whether a Government agency—the Government Actuary’s Department is certainly one of those—has acted in such a way as to maladminister. That is the task of the ombudsman.
It is well established in the case law surrounding the ombudsman that if a Government Department misleads people, that is a form of maladministration, and if it causes them loss, that is a form of maladministration that the ombudsman can rule requires remedy. That is a perfectly well established chain of thought. We might think, therefore, that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman would be able to rule on whether I am right in asserting that the Government Actuary’s Department misled these pensioners and therefore engaged in an act of maladministration.
If we look at the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967—although it has often been amended since—and its original description of what the ombudsman should do, our heart lifts to begin with, because section 4 says clearly that the Act applies to
“government departments, corporations and unincorporated bodies”
listed in schedule 2. If we turn to schedule 2 of the Act, lo and behold, one of the bodies listed is none other than our friend the Government Actuary’s Department. We might therefore think that we do not need to speculate about this; we just need to write a letter—I have written letters, as a matter of fact—to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to ask it to investigate the Government Actuary’s Department action in this case.
Alas, it ain’t so, because schedule 2 is subject to the notes to schedule 2, and in those notes—I do not know how this happened—the Government Actuary’s Department is specifically included in the purview of the ombudsman only
“relating to the exercise of functions under—
(a) Part 2 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, or
(b) any other enactment relating to the regulation of insurance companies within the meaning of that Act.”
I will not trouble the Chamber with what goes on in the Insurance Companies Act 1982, but I assure hon. Members that I have been through it—it is incredibly boring—and there is absolutely nothing that would in any way enable the ombudsman to look at the Government Actuary’s Department’s action in this case.
I imagine that the underlying purpose of that massive exclusion was that someone at the time—in 1967 or later—wanted to ensure that the parliamentary ombudsman would not be able to second-guess the actuarial calculations of the Government Actuary’s Department. I thoroughly sympathise with that. As a former Minister, I would certainly not want to see the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman trying to be an amateur Government Actuary’s Department No. 2. That would be mad, and I am not asking for that.
In this case, we are not talking about an actuarial calculation. I am assuming, as I have done throughout my remarks, that Government Actuary’s Department calculations of the value of the two schemes to the pensioners, if they had been of equal risk, were perfect. My problem is what the calculation did not bring to light. It was not an actuarial calculation. It was a failure of a duty to point out the obvious in an extremely important way to people who may not have known it was obvious.
It is arguably clear that that is maladministration that the parliamentary and health service ombudsmen should be able to adjudicate on. It would require only a small amendment to section 4(1) of the 1967 Act in the forthcoming parliamentary ombudsman Bill to remedy that. We would then be able to go back to the ombudsman and say, “Now you have the power to look at what the Government Actuary’s Department did, whether it constituted maladministration and whether in your view that maladministration was material in having an effect on the pensioners, the choices they made, and hence the losses they incurred.” Then, as with Equitable Life—I threatened to go on hunger strike if the then Government did not bring in the ombudsman and agree to follow its ruling—it would be possible to introduce a scheme with compensation proportionate to the extent to which the losses to the pensioners were caused by the maladministration.
We all know that the Equitable Life scheme is not perfect and does not fully compensate the pensioners, because much of the problem was due to the directors and not the regulators. However, to the extent that it was due to the regulators, there has been a compensation scheme exactly like my proposal. We could do that in this case if we changed section 4(1) of the 1967 Act.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I, too, have constituents who are affected by this issue. My right hon. Friend set the problem out in detail and helpfully, and is now getting to the solution. Is there not a difficulty, in that it would have to be retrospective, or are there ways around that to help his constituents and mine?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted that my hon. Friend raises that point. I do not think it would be retrospective in any noxious meaning of the word. The decision that the incoming coalition Administration made on Equitable Life in 2010—to implement commitments that the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats had entered into in opposition that we should follow the ombudsman’s ruling—was post facto. It was after all the damage had been done to the pensioners, and it was not regarded as retrospective. We implemented the scheme, and many Equitable Life pensioners have received compensation.
The case I am talking about is exactly the same. The ombudsman could rule ex post—not retrospectively, but simply with a ruling about what occurred. That ruling would undoubtedly be followed by the Exchequer in constructing a proportionate scheme. That is what we need to achieve.
I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) wants to take part in the debate, and I welcome that. I will sit down, because I have made the points I wanted to make.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate, Ms Dorries. I have never had such an immediate effect on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and I relish the moment. I think I missed the announcement about a third runway in west Dorset. I am slightly disconcerted to see him wearing a red jumper and sitting on the Labour Benches. I hope he will return to the Government side of the House as soon as possible.
I praise my right hon. Friend for calling this important debate on the plight of pensioners in the AEA Technology scheme. There are many in my constituency and, as he rightly pointed out, there was an important debate on the subject a year ago in this Chamber. This is the second debate. The number of hon. Members, not just those here today, but those who took part in that debate, shows how widespread the concern is in the House. Around 3,000 pensioners are affected and although at the moment some have lost about 10% of their pension, the cumulative impact for many of them will be that their pensions decline by between 30% and 50%.
At the heart of what is a clear injustice is that it is as plain as a pikestaff that my constituents were misled 20 years ago in the advice they were given about whether to retain their accrued benefits in what was effectively a Government pension scheme, or whether to transfer them to a private scheme. As my right hon. Friend said, the advice given to them in 1996 was that the private sector scheme would be no less favourable than the public sector scheme.
My constituent, Derek Whitmell, has been assiduous in digging out information from various organs of Government. He has a letter from the Government Actuary’s Department dated 14 November 2014 which states:
“We have found no specific record on file of the underlying justification for the statement that ‘it is unlikely that the benefit promise made by either the UKAEA scheme or the AEAT scheme would ever be broken.’”
My constituents were told that a transfer would not be detrimental to them, and that it was unlikely that being in the private sector scheme would have any impact on them, yet the then Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, when responding to the debate a year ago, put forward various hypotheses and said:
“Let us suppose the trustees of a hypothetical privatised new scheme invested recklessly and generated a huge deficit, resulting in insolvency. Would the taxpayer be responsible for the trustees’ actions?” Similarly, if investment returns went badly for that private company or other private companies, would the taxpayer be indefinitely on the hook for any deficit?”—[Official Report, 18 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 289WH.]
I am not saying the Government should be responsible for the investment decisions of AEA Technology, but the very fact that such risks were hidden from my constituents says something.
My right hon. Friend referred to the drafting of the original advice in the 1990s. Again thanks to FOI requests from my constituent, Derek Whitmell, we have seen what emerged. One paragraph that my right hon. Friend did not quote but is very telling comes from AEA Technology. It states:
“We believe the general tone of this note is likely to discourage people from transferring to the AEAT scheme”—
the private scheme—
“while recognising that the note must be as neutral as possible we do not think this is the case and have suggested a few places where the tone could be modified. In section 3”
which my right hon. Friend referred to,
“we would like to see the advantages of transferring put before those for preserving.”
In plain English, to me that means, “Slant the advice to encourage people to transfer.” That is why 90% of pensioners transferred to that scheme.
I will be as brief as possible because I know the wind-ups are about to begin. We have been pushed from pillar to post. I went to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Pensions Minister before the last election. I went to the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and was told to go to the ombudsman. A full complaint was made to the ombudsman, who decided not to take any action. A case worker in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s office, Oliver Forrester, wrote back—he has since moved on and there is no one to talk to—and stated:
“By law, we cannot investigate complaints about superannuation (including public sector pensions) in relation to employment under any authority to which our legislation applies…Nor can we look at service in any office of employment or any contract for services…As this complaint is wholly regarding the advice you were given by these two organisations about your pension options, unfortunately, we are legally barred from looking at it further.”
I am not sure I agree with that, but I note what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset says: in any event, there is scope to amend the law in order to have clarity.
At the heart of this is a plain and simple fact: my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members were clearly misled in the advice that they were given. They were in effect given cast-iron assurances that their pension would be as secure in a private pension scheme—the accrued Government pension, I hasten to add. We are not arguing about the private pension from the moment they became employees of a private company. They were told that the accrued Government pension would be as secure when it was transferred to a private pension scheme. None of the risks was flagged up to them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, these are highly professional men and women, working in a very skilled environment. There seems to be absolutely no redress for them from Government—no willingness from anyone in Government to take on board what has happened and to have a reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful conversation about how we can right what is clearly a wrong.
I welcome the new Pensions Minister to his post. He has an unparalleled reputation in the House. I will now sit down, hear what the Opposition have to say and look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on winning this debate. He has provided a detailed analysis of the issues impacting on the lives of many people in Scotland and elsewhere who are AEA Technology pension scheme members.
We know that AEA Technology was formed in 1996 as a privatised offshoot of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Crucially, we also know that the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995 detailed the conditions for AEAT’s creation, including specific provision for the pension arrangements of transferring staff. Those specific arrangements included a statutory reassurance and statutory duty to provide a pension scheme that was “no less favourable” than the UKAEA scheme. In November 1996, the Government Actuary’s Department issued a note outlining the choices available to members of the UKAEA scheme: to leave their preserved benefits in the UKAEA pension scheme, which as we have heard was a public service pension scheme; to transfer them to the AEAT scheme; or to purchase a personal pension. According to evidence submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman Service, the Government Actuary’s Department not only highlighted the three options that I have just noted, but specifically stated at the time that it was unlikely that
“the benefit promise made by either the UKAEA scheme or the AEAT scheme would ever be broken.”
Sadly, the companies that made up the AEA Technology group did fail and went into administration in November 2012. At that time, the AEAT pension scheme entered a Pension Protection Fund assessment period. The PPF was set up under the Pensions Act 2004 to provide compensation to members of defined-benefit pension schemes that wind up underfunded on the insolvency of the employer. Unsurprisingly, because of all this, AEA Technology pension scheme members now feel very aggrieved and misled by the advice that they were given by the UK Government.
It is clear that the UK Government are now abrogating their responsibilities towards the AEA Technology pension scheme members. It is equally clear that the circumstances surrounding the information provided by the Government Actuary’s Department at the time of the transfer, or the lack thereof, warrant thorough investigation in the light of AEA Technology being unable to meet its commitments. That could perhaps be undertaken by the ombudsman, as suggested by the right hon. Member for West Dorset.
Sadly, this affair is another in a long line of pension crises facing UK taxpayers in the last few years. They range from BHS, through the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers’ Federation and the civil nuclear constabulary, to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and more. Indeed, many people affected by the AEA pension scandal are also affected by the arbitrary changes in the retirement age. That is a completely different take on the “pensions triple lock” of which the UK Government have boasted.
It would be helpful and honest for the UK Government to reinstate AEA Technology pension rights as promised by the Government at the time of privatisation and to launch immediately a thorough investigation into the pre-pack insolvency of AEA Technology that will scrutinise the roles of interested parties, including the Pensions Regulator, the PPF and the trustees. Pensions are a contract, not a benefit. Those who pay in deserve to receive their promised entitlement, and it is the responsibility of the UK Government to secure that entitlement and provide dignity in retirement to AEA Technology scheme members.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on bringing this—
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Blackford, I should have said that there is five minutes each for you and the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister, so if you could limit your remarks to five minutes, that would be great. Thank you.
Ian Blackford
I will do so, Ms Dorries, as I was intending to.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset on securing this important debate. He has been assiduous in pushing the case, and his suggestion this afternoon of looking at amending the law as it affects the ombudsman certainly has some merit.
I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He has very accurately shown what happened with the advice that was given, some of the deficiencies that were there, and the possible interference from AEAT in that process and the advice that was given.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) said in his concluding remarks, we need to remember that pensions are a contract, not a benefit. Those who have paid in to pension schemes deserve to get their due entitlement. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to ensure that there is confidence in the pensions industry throughout the UK. We all look forward to a time when people can save in pensions, secure in the knowledge that they will get their due entitlement. We need to have that confidence, and it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the Pensions Regulator and the ombudsman discharge their obligations to ensure that the consumer interest is protected.
It is clear that pension scheme members in this case, as we heard last week in a debate in the main Chamber on the BHS scheme, are not fully protected—they are not protected to the extent that they should be. Lessons must be learned and appropriate action taken. Whether that is done through the ombudsman or the regulator is a moot point and we can come back to it in due course. What needs to be remarked on today is that, with the AEAT scheme ending up in the Pension Protection Fund, those who worked for the company when it was in the public sector have, among others, lost pension entitlement. The Government cannot walk away from their obligation to what were public sector workers. That is not acceptable.
It is clear from its conduct that the UK Government Actuary’s Department has ducked its responsibility to the AEAT pension scheme members. Liability has to lie somewhere. As discussed in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic in March last year, the Government Actuary’s Department was the author of a leaflet designed to inform pension scheme members of their next course of action in the light of the creation of AEAT. According to evidence given to the Pensions Ombudsman Service, that leaflet suggested three options, but also said that it was unlikely that the UKAEA scheme would fail or that
“the benefit promise made by either the UKAEA scheme or the AEAT scheme would ever be broken.”
That was in my book an inducement and assurance to the scheme members. Who will stand behind the scheme members who were made those promises? Will the Minister accept that the Government at least have a moral and ethical responsibility?
Richard Fuller
I heard the hon. Gentleman make these points in the British Home Stores debate last week. Does he not think that it will be very difficult for the Government to take action on employer behaviour that seems to fall below the norms that they would expect if they do not keep their own ship in order?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. I argued last week and argue again today that we must learn the lessons of the failure that has taken place. We have to ensure that we create confidence in pensions—that is what emerges, whether we are talking about BHS, the AEAT scheme or many others. We have to look at the responsibility that the regulator and the trustees have, but it is a responsibility, ultimately, that we all have as legislators.
The pensions ombudsman said that the scheme’s post-privatisation survival, and hence scheme benefits, were not guaranteed:
“AEAT was a private sector company and so there was a risk of the company getting into financial difficulties or failing altogether.”
It is clear that the circumstances surrounding the information provided by GAD at the time of the transfer, or the lack thereof, warrant thorough investigation in the light of AEAT being unable to meet its commitments. If it is the case that vital information was left out of the leaflet, it is a serious matter and must be treated as such.
This would certainly not be the first time that a UK Government Department has been found guilty of misinforming pensioners. The shambolic handling of the notification process for the WASPI women has meant that thousands of women born in the 1950s face hardship, having unexpectedly to push back their retirement by years. The members of the AEAT scheme deserve a full and thorough investigation that incorporates the timelines from the creation of UKAEA to the present so that mistakes can be identified and those responsible held to account. When hard-working employees are promised a pension and it is not delivered, there should be a concerted effort to establish a thorough and independent investigation to determine accountability and all avenues that can be explored to protect pension rights.
The Scottish National party has long called for the establishment of an independent pensions commission to build the architecture to ensure that employees’ savings are protected, and that a more progressive approach to pensions is taken. Will the Minister commit the Government to doing that today? There are far too many issues affecting pensions policy and they need to be addressed in a holistic manner. Establishing a pensions commission would be an important step in ensuring fairness in pensions policy, dealing with problems such as this one and building confidence in pension saving.
In summary, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For the first time in his capacity as Pensions Minister, I welcome him to the debate, and also welcome the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on securing the debate. I am told he is quite a champion on these matters.
As others have mentioned, the AEAT scheme is a defined-benefit final salary scheme set up when AEA Technology was floated on the stock exchange in 1996. At that time, under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995, a condition of the privatisation agreement ensured that the benefits received by the scheme members were “no less favourable” than those they would have expected to receive from the UK Atomic Energy Agency pension scheme, set up when the Government were their employer. A month or so later, in November 1996, the Government Actuary’s Department issued the note that has been mentioned, outlining the options available to scheme members. However, those scheme members believe that they were actually encouraged to transfer into the new scheme. Sadly, as we know, in 2012 AEA Technology entered into administration and the pension fund was entered into the Pension Protection Fund.
It is worth adding that the pension benefits accrued before 1997, which would have been for all those who acted on the basis of the Government’s original commitment in the 1995 legislation, are not eligible for index-linked uprating. That is why pensioners believe they have been misled and, as a result, will be worse off. In effect, that means that those scheme members who decided to transfer their pensions following advice that their benefits would be “no less favourable” back in 1995 suddenly find themselves with a smaller pot, the real value of which is eroded by inflation every year. The campaign estimates that some members could lose half their pension pot.
Despite that, a determination by the pensions ombudsman found that the original commitment to ensuring that benefits were “no less favourable” did not amount to a guarantee against future changes to the pension benefits owing to financial difficulties. Surely the Government have responsibility to ensure that promises made to members of the UKAEA pension scheme were fulfilled, and have serious questions to answer about whether the Government actuarial note amounted to impartial guidance. Furthermore, in a Westminster Hall debate last year, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) raised important questions as to whether the scheme received sufficient funds from its mother scheme properly to protect it against later risk of deficit. That mother scheme was apparently operating at a surplus, and some of that money disappeared into the Treasury—I wonder whether the Minister knows how much it was.
We have heard that the Government actuarial note actively encouraged members to transfer their funds to the new scheme. Although the pension scheme group notices and recognises that the note certainly did outline arguments both for and against the transfer, it believes that it dismissed all of the arguments against. That was best highlighted by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, particularly in relation to the fact that they were leaving behind a scheme that was backed by the Government.
In future, we have to ask whether scheme members can be expected to take responsibility for moving their pension savings on the basis of what has been described as impartial advice. Has the Minister examined the evidence in question? If it is apparent that amendments were made to obscure the risks of changing the offer and moving the scheme, will he agree to take action? Last year, the then Pensions Minister argued that the Government could not possibly act without setting a precedent for other formerly state-owned enterprises. I do not see that that needs to be the case. Given the points made about alleged amendments to the note from the Government Actuary’s Department at the request of the UKAEA, surely these pension fund holders are in a unique position.
Clearly, pre-package administration deals are sometimes necessary to ensure that the process of insolvency can be managed quickly and effectively in a rapidly evolving insolvency situation. As we have seen recently, for example in the case of Bernard Matthews, there are instances where pre-package deals have negatively affected employees’ pension entitlements while allowing parent companies to walk away from insolvency with very large sums of money. What plans does the Minister have to look more closely at an expanded role for the Pensions Regulator to intervene earlier in the process when a number of warning signs are triggered? How will the Minister ensure that pre-package administration deals are not used as a vehicle for employers to reduce their pension responsibilities?
Given the promise made by Government to ex-Government scheme members that their benefits would be protected, the criticisms made of the guidance offered by the Government Actuary’s Department note, and what many believe to be the failure to properly resource the new scheme to ensure it would be put on a sustainable footing, will the Minister agree to consult scheme members to explore all avenues for redress? Will he also agree to strengthen the governance of defined-benefit pensions schemes to ensure that scheme members’ pensions are better protected in future cases of insolvency? I recognise that this may not be a simple matter, but if the advice that was given to the pensioners was flawed, someone needs to take responsibility for the members’ losses. I hope the Minister will now do that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
As a junior Minister in Government until July, I recall that one of the great fears we all had, for very good reason, was of being summoned before my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). When he applied for this Westminster Hall debate, I realised that it was an issue to be taken very seriously. I hope that after my remarks he will agree that the Government have indeed done so. In the first instance, it is clear that no Minister—or indeed anyone else—could have anything but sympathy for the constituents who have suffered in these circumstances. There is absolutely no question about it; that is reflected by the morality of the issue and by the fact so many people have come to hear this debate and other debates that have taken place.
I hope to shed some light on the Government’s position, but I am not in a position to answer the questions in the way that my right hon. Friend and other contributors to the debate might expect, which is to provide a solution to the problem. The Government do not believe that we should compensate members of the AEA Technology pension scheme above what is being provided by the Pension Protection Fund. That is very clear. I would rather not be grey about it; that is the Government’s position. We do not accept that the loss of the pensions was the Government’s fault.
As my right hon. Friend said, the note has been widely circulated. I read it. Whatever it may or may not be, the note clearly states at the beginning that it was a note by the Government Actuary’s Department on the options available in respect of accrued benefits. It states that clearly. I do not wish to be pompous about the word “advice”, which means different things in the financial services world than in the general context of conversation between people and in guidance, but it was not designed to be advice. It provides three options and outlines the main factors that people should take into account when reaching their decision on which option to accept.
I accept that on behalf of the Government I may select particular pieces from the note, and other right hon. and hon. Members may select pieces that suit their argument. That is natural and I have tried not to be like that when considering these comments. However, the note specifically and explicitly said that it did not intend to suggest that one course of action was better than another, and that if anyone was in doubt, they should seek independent financial advice. It stated that very clearly in the final note. It said that the intention was not to suggest one option was better than the other.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I entirely understand that the Minister needs time to reach the rest of his argument, but he has hit the nub of the question. Does he accept that if the Government Actuary’s Department calculated on an actuarial basis that the two schemes were equivalent financially, and if it stated, as he rightly said it did, that it was not suggesting that one was superior to the other, but if it was, in fact, the case that one was risk-free and the other was risk-bearing, it follows as a proposition of business logic and economics, as taught in any business school, that the thing that is financially equivalent but is risk-free is superior to the thing that is financially equivalent but risky? Therefore, it should have suggested that one was superior to the other—namely, that remaining was a superior option, because it was.
Richard Harrington
I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. It is certainly true to say that the area of risk is not discussed explicitly and it is reasonable to argue that there should have been a box with a health warning saying that one piece of advice—or not advice, but information—was different from another because of the risk element, but it is also fair to say that the note does not attempt to assess risk. It may imply by default that one was less risky than the other, but it certainly does not say anything that could be interpreted as misleading the people who received it, in my view.
I understand the position of constituents in the Public Gallery today, some of whom are understandably shaking their heads, given their views about what I have just said, but it is very easy, years later, to pick pieces out of documents. If it said that this was advice, that would be one thing, but it clearly says that people should take independent advice.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said that independent advice would not cover the risk of transferring. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not saying that I have no reason to believe him, but I cannot understand why an independent financial adviser would be more or less likely than anybody else to comment on the risk or the lack of risk in giving advice. As I said, I accept that it is easy for us to say things all these years later, but the note does not seem to me to be intended to cover every eventuality. It was eight pages long and it was not intended to cover everything. It does not completely ignore the subject of insolvency.
Richard Fuller
I am struggling with something that the Minister said. He indicated that the advice of the actuary was able to be second-guessed by someone then going to an independent adviser. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) talked about the role of the PHSO and said that it did not investigate the rulings of the actuary so that it could not second-guess the advice the actuary gave on liability. So which way should we have it?
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend knows very well that I did not say that. I said that an independent adviser is no more or less likely to consider the idea of risk. I was actually referring to the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that suddenly Government advisers did assess risk, but independent advisers could not possibly do so. I will have to make progress, because we are running out of time. I believe that the note was intended as a helpful starting point but did not constitute advice for members.
I will move on to the parliamentary ombudsman—I must deal with the ombudsman service generally and the choice of ombudsman, because they are so important in this case. It is correct that the actions of the Government Actuary’s Department fall generally outside the parliamentary ombudsman’s remit. I understand, however, that is only one of the reasons that the parliamentary ombudsman gave for deciding not to investigate. I hope I am not misrepresenting what she said—I have tried to look into this in some detail—but it seems to me that her decision was made partly on the basis that the complaints were not about the actions of a Government Department in relation to a citizen, which is what the ombudsman service is for. She has concluded that the complaints are about information provided in relation to employees and employees’ pension rights. That is why it is not the concern of the parliamentary ombudsman. If that is a correct interpretation of her opinion, changing the legislation to allow her office to have greater oversight of GAD would not solve the difficulty raised in this debate.
Richard Harrington
I really think I should make progress.
As for the pensions ombudsman, which I have some responsibility for and some knowledge about, members of a pension scheme can complain to the pensions ombudsman, who has the power to investigate, and does investigate, public sector pensions schemes as well as private sector schemes.
The pensions ombudsman looks at maladministration —for example, when a trustee or a manager has been given incorrect advice or information. The previous pensions ombudsman investigated a complaint last year concerning the AEA Technology pension scheme. GAD was not a party to that complaint. In the determination, the ombudsman specifically said that he was not ruling on whether the actions of GAD came under his jurisdiction and that no inference should be drawn from his comments about whether it did or did not, or about the likelihood of a successful complaint about GAD.
I understand that the current ombudsman has since considered some AEA complaints and the ombudsman’s office has decided not to investigate. I cannot comment on any particular complaint, but I have been informed that, in accordance with the usual procedures, all the complaints were looked at individually. Many reasons for not investigating the complaint were given, but they did not include that GAD was outside the pensions ombudsman’s remit.
It is possible, of course, to challenge the pensions ombudsman’s decision through the courts by judicial review or by appeal. I would briefly like to mention the Equitable Life case, which has been discussed during the debate. The parliamentary ombudsman did an investigation and asked the Government to expand the jurisdiction for this case alone. She informed us that public sector pensions are beyond her remit, so it seems to me that it is in the pensions ombudsman’s remit. He has looked at these two cases but has said that GAD was not a party. As far as I can see, however, there is nothing to stop people from going to the pensions ombudsman and naming GAD as a party to the case. If they are still not satisfied, there is the system of judicial review in the Court of Appeal, because the pensions ombudsman is a quasi-judicial body. I meet the pensions ombudsman regularly, and I am prepared to bring the subject up straightaway and ask whether he has difficulties within the scope of his existing jurisdiction in dealing with complaints brought to him.
Richard Harrington
I am afraid there is not time. I am really sorry, but I only have three minutes left.
The Government have announced their intention to bring forward a draft Bill to create a new public service ombudsman, the focus of which remains the resolution of complaints from individual citizens who claim to have suffered injustice. The response to the consultation said that the ombudsman should operate a “no wrong door” approach, which is referring individuals and possibly transferring their complaints when they fall wholly or partially within the jurisdiction of another body. As for whether GAD should be included in its remit, the Government’s commitment at the moment is that it should take on just the jurisdiction of the parliamentary, health service and local government ombudsmen, but if right hon. and hon. Members believe—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) does—that there will be gaps, the Government are willing to listen to their concerns. After I found out about this debate, I spoke at some length with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), and he would be pleased to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset to discuss this and other relevant issues.
I realise, Ms Dorries, that you are about to tell me that my time is up. I am sorry that I do not have more time to go into details, but I hope that I have given some indication of the Government’s thinking.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am very grateful to the Minister. I will indeed pursue that question with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and perhaps the Minister’s question about the pensions ombudsman. Eventually, I am sure we will find a solution.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the advice given to AEA pension scheme pensioners.
Written Statements
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 August 2016) 6 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 August 2016) 5 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 3 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 3 The number of current subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (as of 31 August 2016) 6
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The TRG met on 7 June 2016. The next TRG meetings will take place on 20, 27 and 28 September 2016.
During the reporting period one individual was charged in relation to offences under section 23 of the Act—contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice without reasonable excuse. This individual is not currently subject to a TPIM notice, the notice having been revoked in the last reporting period.
The case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. EB [2016] EWHC 1970 (Admin) was heard at the High Court between 11 and 15 July 2016. In a judgment handed down on 29 July 2016 Mr Justice Mitting upheld the decision of the Secretary of State to impose a TPIM notice against EB. This judgment can be found at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/1970.html
[HCWS220]
English Votes for English Laws Standing Orders
(8 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
Today I am launching a scheduled technical review of the current English Votes for English Laws Standing Orders.
The previous Leader of the House of Commons committed to a review of the Standing Orders 12 months after their introduction and I am now honouring that pledge.
In October 2015, English Votes for English Laws was introduced to address the West Lothian question. It provides for the consent of English (or English and Welsh) MPs to legislation that solely applies to England (or England and Wales), while maintaining the important principle that MPs from all parts of the UK should continue to be able to deliberate and vote on all legislation before the House.
There will be a consultation period to inform the review which will come to a close on 2 December 2016, with publication of the outcomes of the review due later this session. The review will be available online only. Details of the review can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-votes-for-english-laws-review.
The terms of reference for the review are outlined below:
The impact of the Standing Orders on the legislative process.
The operation of the certification test.
Any suggestions for how the process could be further improved, or how understanding of the process could be further supported.
[HCWS219]
House of Lords
Medical Students
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to review the number of students studying medicine.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, declare an interest in that my wife is a retired full-time GP practitioner.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Health Secretary announced on 4 October that the Government plan to increase the number of medical school places by up to 25%. From September 2018, the Government will fund up to 1,500 additional medical school places each year. Students will be able to apply for the extra places from 2017 in order to take them up from the academic year 2018-19.
Lord Naseby
Is my noble friend clear that the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on beginning to grasp this nettle? In the last three years, we have lost 3,500 medical students, but the problem goes deeper, does it not? Today, 56% of the intake of medical students is female. Furthermore, 70% of female GPs today work part-time, and a recent survey by the King’s Fund says that 90% of all medical students in training want to work part-time. Given that it costs £200,000 to train anybody as a medical practitioner, surely the time has come to consider a minimum full-time commitment of at least four years after qualification, similar to what they do in Singapore and, indeed, in our own Armed Forces.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend is absolutely right that more than 55% of those who go to medical school are now women; that is a fantastic change that has happened over the past 20 years. It is true that more women than men tend to work part-time, as they have children and bring them up, and that is taken into account in the planning done by HEE. When my right honourable friend the Health Secretary made his announcement, he said that we will be looking in our consultation at requiring people whom we have paid to go through medical school to give at least four years back to the NHS, which I think is reasonable. The figure is actually six years if you become an Army doctor, so four years is not unreasonable.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, although there may be enough people wanting to apply to medical school, many of the brightest and the best are now completely turned off doing medicine because of the relationship with the Secretary of State for Health? This is a very serious mistrust and, whether they are male or female, the brightest and best are often not applying. There is increasing evidence for this in most medical schools, and indeed in schools as well.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I respect the views of the noble Lord but I have looked very carefully at the number of applications coming into medical schools in 2016 compared with the previous year. In 2016, there were 20,100 applications for all medical schools, including in Scotland. The previous year the figure was 20,390, so there is no firm evidence to support the view that the noble Lord expresses. There were some rumours that St George’s was having trouble filling its places. I have investigated that and understand that it was a result not of any lack of demand but of the fact that it wanted to wait until A-level results had come through so that it could choose the best candidates based on those results. So I do not think there is any evidence to substantiate the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, one of the objectives in Health Education England’s mandate is to reduce our dependency on temporary staff. However, the National Audit Office tells us that we are short of 50,000 clinicians, and that HEE is failing to be sufficiently proactive in addressing the,
“variations in workforce pressures in different parts of the country”.
Is the noble Lord’s department monitoring how well HEE is responding to these challenges?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, predicting the future requirement for doctors is extremely difficult. It is more a matter of prophesy than science. The fact that we are now going to fund an extra 1,500 doctor places a year, which is a 25% increase, should make a huge difference.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners. Beyond undergraduate medical education, do the Government believe that there are sufficient opportunities for the established workforce to continue to develop itself to meet the changing needs of the population of our country?
Lord Prior of Brampton
That is a very big question, which is hard to answer. My personal view is that I do not think that the training we give to our young doctors in management, leadership and how to structure new models of care is sufficiently broad. You could argue that the curriculum at medical school is too narrow and should be broadened.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Can the Minister tell me how many overseas doctors, particularly Commonwealth doctors—if he has a figure for that—are working in our National Health Service? On a separate topic, what can be done to encourage people to go into some specialties that we are told do not attract doctors, which is why there are not sufficient numbers in them?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, overseas doctors account for about 25% of the total number of doctors employed by the NHS, which is a very high number. I do not have the breakdown for the Commonwealth countries but it is an interesting question; I will research it and write to my noble friend. She is absolutely right that there are shortages in particular specialties. General practice and psychiatry are probably the two areas where there is the biggest shortage. HEE is determined to increase the intake in those areas. Certainly, the number of doctors going into GP specialty training this year is just over 3,000. That is an increase on last year but is still not enough.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the increase, but is it sufficient to meet the problem? I understand that about 100,000 overseas doctors, including European doctors, work in the NHS. Given an extra 1,500 places a year, it will take many years to reach the target. Why do we not make a gesture to those overseas doctors working in the health service and offer them permanent residence here?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I think it will be helpful if I quote from the Health Secretary’s speech at the Conservative Party conference, talking about overseas doctors. He said:
“They do a fantastic job and the NHS would fall over without them. When it comes to … EU nationals, we’ve been clear we want them to … stay post-Brexit”.
Let us be absolutely clear: we want overseas doctors from the EU or elsewhere to stay here post-Brexit.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, how many medical students drop out during training? How many, when qualified, do not take up medicine and go into other specialties?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the attrition rate for students at medical school is about 5%. Some of those leave for medical reasons and come back subsequently, so the figure will be less than 5%. I do not have the drop-out rate for doctors who are further advanced in their training but I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.
Industrial Strategy
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have prepared their industrial strategy; and, if so, what it is.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, we are in the process of developing an industrial strategy that will embrace the opportunities of our new global role and upgrade our economy so it works for everyone. We are working with the breadth of British industry, local leaders, innovators, employees and consumers to deliver a successful strategy and create the conditions for future success.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
The Prime Minister, too, has called for an economy that works for everybody and for business to be more responsible. Does the Minister agree that Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which requires directors and managers to have regard to the interests of employees, customers and suppliers, as well as shareholders, does just that? However, this section has never been enforced, so will the Government include enforcement of Section 172 in their industrial strategy and so carry out the policies of the Prime Minister?
Baroness Mobarik
I assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister has made it clear that this new industrial strategy will work for everyone. We are looking at exactly those kinds of issues, such as increasing the scrutiny of our large public and private companies and enabling more informed corporate decision-making. We need to give employees and stakeholders a stronger voice in company boardrooms and we will consult fully with business investors, employee representatives and other stakeholders on the best way to do this. We will welcome your Lordships’ input.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on her appearance on the Front Bench. It is the second time she has taken a Question and nobody was able to thank or congratulate her last time. Will she discuss with her ministerial colleagues the substance of this Question and say that, while we appreciate the general statements, we look for some detail soon?
Baroness Mobarik
I say to my noble friend that something like this cannot be done overnight. The Prime Minister is absolutely determined to get this right. She wants to lay out a proper industrial strategy, engaging with stakeholders across the country and making sure that we deliver a strategy that makes a difference, and that takes time. We have already started the process and we will develop it over the coming weeks and months. We plan to publish a Green Paper alongside the Autumn Statement which will consult widely with business, local leaders, investors and so on. As I said before, I encourage noble Lords to engage with this Green Paper.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and then we shall hear from the Labour Benches.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I declare an interest in GKN and Smiths Group. At this week’s Science and Technology Select Committee, the Science Minister from the other place was unable to describe to us what the intention of an industrial strategy would be. Given that the last Parliament put in place a long-term industrial strategy, what role will that play in this long-term industrial strategy, and can the Minister explain to us what it is?
Baroness Mobarik
As I said, we are consulting on it just now, and it will not happen overnight. However, I can say that we will focus on our strengths. That does not mean to say that we are just picking out winners. We are tailoring our approach to the needs of different sectors and looking at our proven strengths—a cornerstone of good strategy—and this country has no shortage of those, such as our world-beating aerospace and automotive industries. We recognise that we must continue to support our successful industries and build upon the significant progress that has been made through the existing sector strategies. However, we need to create an economy where new entrants can come in, new businesses can be created, and new companies can challenge incumbents.
Lord Monks
My Lords, in a recent statement, the Prime Minister specifically mentioned worker representation on company boards of directors, and she is receiving support from some surprising quarters—not just the TUC but Legal & General, Aberdeen Asset Management and others in the investment community. Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further to say exactly how and when this particular exercise will be carried out, with the Government giving effect to the Prime Minister’s wishes.
Baroness Mobarik
This will be part of the Green Paper. However, I do not want to pre-empt public debate on the discussion document that we will be publishing later this year inviting views on a range of options for strengthening corporate governance, including strengthening shareholder powers on executive pay and giving a stronger voice to employees and other stakeholders on company boards.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend realise how welcome it is to many of us to find that we are reverting to the well-proven means of producing good policy, which is to have a Green Paper and a White Paper and then to do it?
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, following the more than 250 job losses in Yeovil, I recently wrote to the Secretary of State asking whether the preservation of Britain’s only stand-alone production capacity for helicopters in Yeovil would be part of a national strategy. He has not yet replied. Can she tell me whether it will be or not?
Baroness Mobarik
I cannot give any specifics on that, other than to repeat that we are looking at all our sectors and at the whole industrial strategy. We are looking at various methods of improving how we do things to build an economy that works for everyone the length and breadth of the country.
Royal Yacht
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to commissioning a new Royal Yacht.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no requirement for a royal yacht and are therefore giving no consideration at the current time to the commissioning of one.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, that is a very disappointing Answer. When I was Secretary of State, I hosted a dinner on the royal yacht in Toronto to which we invited the top industrialists, who flew thousands of miles to be there. I did not think they were coming to see me. Given that more than 100 Back- Bench Conservative MPs, the present Foreign Secretary and a former Foreign Secretary have all expressed support for a privately funded royal yacht, will my noble friend not at least agree to spend the money raised by the Daily Telegraph on a privately funded cost-benefit analysis? What possible objection could there be to the Government giving their full support to that?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend underestimates his pulling power. If private enterprise, however defined, believed that there was a business case for a new royal yacht, we would of course look at it, but we would still be left with the question of who would pay for the vessel. Given that no government department has a need for a royal yacht, it is hard to see how any public funding could be justified.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, a number of Conservative Members in the other place have made the interesting suggestion that the costs of a new royal yacht should come out of the aid budget. Will the Minister reject that immediately?
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government agree that it would be totally wrong to adopt such a measure, given that the Royal Navy has no ships, and those that we have keep breaking down? Would that not give the wrong message to the country?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord’s premise. The Royal Navy has a fleet of ships that bears comparison with any in the world for cutting-edge technology, and we can be proud of that. However, to come back to the noble Lord’s central point, I believe that there are other ways of marketing the UK abroad.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, has the noble Earl considered crowdfunding for this ship? There are a great many people interested in having a new “Britannia”, and they would all feel a bit of ownership, even if only of a rivet.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, in that case, would the Government be interested in manning the royal yacht and what objections would there be to not having the Royal Navy do it?
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend said that we have no requirement for a ship. That may technically be correct, but it sends a somewhat negative message. Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I had the privilege of entertaining on the royal yacht European businessmen who were attracted to the prospect of doing business with this country as a consequence of being there. That this country is “open for business” is one of the very strong and very welcome stories that the Government are putting out. Should not the Government at least take a more open view on this given that no one is suggesting that any primary funding should come from the public purse?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I suggest to my noble friend that times have changed in the past 20 years. There is a variety of ways in which we can promote UK business around the world: we do it through members of the Royal Family, our many excellent embassies and high commissions, the Red Arrows, by using our Royal Navy warships as a backdrop for events and via the GREAT Britain campaign, which is very successful. We surely need to ask ourselves in that context whether, in the 21st century, a royal yacht would add significant value.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the proposal seems to be that if a royal yacht were to be commissioned, it would come from private funding. However, I note that the Question has gone to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as Minister for Defence. I wonder whether it could be thrown back at the Department for International Trade, because it seems wholly inappropriate that something intended for trade promotion should take away from the resources of the Royal Navy.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure there are many who see merit in commissioning a new royal yacht—for my part, I do not care one way or the other. However, I do care about the morale of our Armed Forces. The latest attitude survey revealed that 61% of all ranks serving in the Royal Navy say morale is low. Is it any wonder? We have no aircraft carriers; our Type 45 destroyers are plagued by technical difficulties and spend much of the time in port; we have almost twice as many admirals as we have warships; we are selling “RFA Diligence”, our only at-sea repair vessel; and the Royal Navy is short of recruits. Given this state of affairs, will the Minister reassure the House that if in the future there is some change of view on the Government’s part on this matter, there will be no question of the defence budget being used to fund the yacht, as it is a rather peripheral matter to defence?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, given that the Royal Navy is already short of manpower, it is quite likely that any royal yacht would have to be manned by people recruited from abroad. Does the Minister consider that we would do better to recruit them from within the European Union, or given that this is a more traditionally imperial matter, from Calcutta and Hong Kong?
Prevent Strategy
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to set up an independent inquiry to evaluate the operation of their Prevent strategy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Prevent is a key part of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, Contest. Since 2011 we have expanded Prevent to take account of the changing scale and nature of the terrorist threat. Prevent is working; it is safeguarding people from being drawn into terrorism. The statistics on Prevent delivery are reported in the Contest annual report. We have committed to updating Contest in 2016 and Prevent will be included as part of that refresh.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I think that what the Minister said was no, the Government have no intention of supporting an independent inquiry. Am I right in that? Could I also ask her whether she is aware that my Question is being asked not just by me but by two Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation—my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and David Anderson QC—the Joint Committee on Human Rights and last week by the Open Society Justice Initiative in its report? I should declare an interest as a former board member of that organisation. Is she aware therefore that many more people than I think that it is now urgent to restore mutual trust and confidence by having an independent inquiry?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord was speaking on behalf of others because his was the only name attached to the Question—but I take his point. My Answer was not actually “no” in the sense that we review how effective Prevent is being all the time. The previous Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, commissioned an internal Home Office review of Prevent which concluded that it should be strengthened, not undermined, and made 12 suggestions on how to do so. Those suggestions are being brought forward as part of the Contest strategy review this year.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, inquiry or not, universities need to be trained in how to ensure that extremist speakers are challenged and to be reminded of their public sector equality and diversity rights? It has been responsibly recorded that many extremist speakers are coming on to campuses—people who preach what is anathema to our human rights and equality law. The campaign against Prevent is masterminded by the National Union of Students, whose own leader has been accused of associating too closely with terrorists.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that we have to tread a very fine line in protecting what is a great freedom in this country—the freedom of speech—without creating an environment of the kind she outlined.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, do not university authorities and staff in fact find the Prevent strategy more of a hindrance than a help? It can make Islamic students, for example, more isolated and perhaps therefore open to radicalisation. It also spreads distrust in the student body much more generally. Should not the Government steer clear of these freedom of speech issues and leave them to universities, which understand them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think that freedom of speech should be ignored in that sense—and Prevent should not be seen as a threat to universities. What Prevent is not trying to do is curtail freedom of speech. What it is trying to do is protect those people who might be targeted by the terrorist recruiters who threaten this country.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that within much of the Muslim community Prevent has now become tainted and discredited? It risks alienating the very communities it needs to engage with in order to be successful in defeating terrorism. Is she aware of the harmful effect in particular on children who are being targeted and referred by schools, often wrongly, under the legislation? On average one child a week under the age of 10 is now being referred, and that is harming their health, education and well-being. How is this engaging positively with communities to defeat terrorism?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will not repeat the previous answer I gave—but, far from trying to target people, Prevent tries to protect people. As to children being dealt with inappropriately in schools, there have been some of the most ridiculous stories you might hear of children being targeted. The Government have recognised the need for much-enhanced training in this area. Since 2011 we have significantly stepped that up, training more than 600,000 front-line staff in how to spot the subtleties the noble Baroness talks about, which are often being missed.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the difficulty with Prevent is that it is very vague. Words such as “extremism”, “fundamentalism” and “radicalisation” all leave us none the wiser—and “Islamist” is a positive insult to the Muslim community. Would the Minister agree that the real target of Prevent is the out-of-context use of religious texts to justify the abuse of human rights and the cruel treatment of women and people of other faiths? Will she try to engage with faith leaders to ensure that they interpret religious texts in the context of today’s times?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord, as always, makes very wise points. So often in the case of religion, religious texts are misinterpreted to the extent that they are completely out of context with the actions of those who would seek to undermine the true tenets of those religions. Islam is one such example: it is a very peaceful, loving religion, but you would not think so sometimes from some of the actions of some people.
Wales Bill
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Wales Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 4, Schedule 3, Clauses 5 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 and 22, Clause 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 23 to 53, Schedule 5, Clause 54, Schedule 6, Clauses 55 and 56, Title.
Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 11 and 13 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 October.
Policing and Crime Bill
Wednesday 26th October 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 55-II(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 62KB) - (26 Oct 2016)
Lord Rosser
“Statutory duty on flooding
The Secretary of State shall make provision for the fire and rescue services in England to lead and co-ordinate the emergency service response to—(a) rescue people trapped, or likely to become trapped, by water; and(b) protect people from serious harm, in the event of serious flooding.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to make a statutory provision for the fire and rescue services in England to lead and co-ordinate the emergency service response to serious flooding.
Part 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 sets out the statutory core functions of fire and rescue authorities: fire safety, firefighting, and rescuing people and protecting them from harm in the event of road traffic accidents. The 2004 Act also gives the Secretary of State the power to give fire and rescue authorities functions relating to other emergencies, including outside the fire and rescue authority’s area. This is an order-making power and does not require primary legislation.
There is thus no statutory duty on the fire and rescue services for emergencies arising from flooding, yet flooding is on the increase. Government figures show that in 2007 there were 14,000 flooding calls; in 2011-12 there were 16,000; and in 2013-14 there were 18,000. I also sense that the extent of flooding is becoming more serious. The Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service said that on Boxing Day last year it deployed two-thirds of its available resources on flood response. The 2008 Pitt review into the 2007 floods said that a statutory duty would be beneficial and recommended that the Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with fire and rescue authorities playing a leading role underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.
The case for a statutory duty on the fire and rescue services is now stronger than it was in 2008, with more and more flood calls but fewer staff, less equipment and fewer fire stations. In parts of the United Kingdom there is already a statutory duty on flooding, namely in Scotland since April 2013 and Northern Ireland since January 2012. A statutory duty would assist in adding to the resilience of fire and rescue services when faced with flooding, assist with strategic planning between fire and rescue services and local resilience forums, and underscore the need to resource fire and rescue services specifically for flooding.
The Government’s approach to date appears to be that there is no need for a statutory duty because the fire and rescue services will turn up as necessary anyway even though it is not a statutory core function. On the basis of that argument one might as well remove all the existing statutory core functions of the fire and rescue services on the basis that they will turn up anyway. The reality is that additions are made to statutory functions to reflect changing circumstances.
The fire service has been rescuing people from road traffic crashes for decades, but it was felt that a statutory duty was needed and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 addressed that. The fire service had been providing fire protection for centuries, but a statutory duty was introduced in 1947. Now is surely the time to introduce a statutory duty on flooding to reflect and recognise the vastly increased role of the fire and rescue services in this area of emergency provision. The Government talk about the need to reform our emergency services and bring them up to date. Perhaps the Government need to do the same for the statutory functions of the fire and rescue services. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on a statutory core function or a statutory duty on flooding for the fire and rescue service, we are a little concerned about the wording of his amendment which reads:
“The Secretary of State shall make provision for the fire and rescue services in England to lead and co-ordinate the emergency service response”.
It is accepted practice among all the emergency services that the police co-ordinate during the emergency phase of any emergency, whether flooding or anything else, partly because there is a duty on the police to investigate. For example, one can imagine a scenario where flooding is caused by a criminal act. It is generally accepted practice and has been for many years that the police service should lead and co-ordinate in every emergency situation. That is slightly different from what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is saying in terms of the fire and rescue services having a statutory core function or duty but we do not believe that that should be to lead and co-ordinate in the case of flooding.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I know nothing about this but a question suddenly occurred to me. If this is a statutory duty that these services are undertaking, will this help them secure funding to do it properly?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I recognise the sterling work and professionalism of the fire and rescue authorities in providing a brilliant service to the various communities during the significant number of flooding incidents, especially in December and January. The noble Lord talked about the Greater Manchester FRA, to which I pay full tribute. When I visited some of the affected areas, such as Rochdale, Salford and Bury over the new-year period, there was clearly effort from not just the community and police but the fire and rescue service. It provided fantastic input into what was a very successful operation in clearing up various areas.
It is clearly important that a timely and co-ordinated response is provided at these critical incidents. A number of agencies are involved generally in rescuing people from floods, particularly in coastal areas, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as well as fire and rescue authorities and the local charitable organisations that play a vital part in many communities. However, direction rests with local resilience forums for local responders to work out the arrangements that work best in their area. Often, this will be the fire and rescue authority but there may be many valid reasons—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined—why they might choose a different responder in different circumstances and if that works locally. We do not want to reduce this flexibility with a one-size-fits-all approach as there may be good reasons why, in some areas and on some occasions, it makes more sense for a different responder to take the lead. The fact that two noble Lords have slightly different views on how that might be is proof of that.
I will give an example. During and in the direct aftermath of serious flooding, it has been vital for other agencies including voluntary groups to provide services to protect people from serious harm and to distribute clean water to those affected. Depending on the extent of the incident, it may be necessary for the Royal Air Force to take a major role, as with the flooding in 2007 when it deployed Sea King helicopters from as far afield as Cornwall, Anglesey and Yorkshire for the rescue of 120 people. There are advantages to a permissive, multi-agency regime where responders have broad powers and local discretion rather than a prescriptive duty for flooding or indeed any other type of critical incident we can identify. There is no question that fire and rescue authorities have the power they need to respond to floods. They have responded to all major flooding events and usually provide the most resources.
I welcome the scrutiny that this amendment provided of the arrangements for the emergency services’ response to flooding. To answer the brief question from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in terms of something being on a statutory footing, yes, it would necessitate a funding stream. However, for the reasons I have given and from the experiences I have had, I believe that the existing regime with broad, permissive powers gives both fire and rescue authorities and local resilience forums the flexibility they all need. On that note, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank noble Lords who contributed to this short debate, and the Minister for her response. I think she said that the fire and rescue services did respond to all major flooding events, which is certainly my understanding of the situation.
It seems a little odd that even if there may be objections to the precise wording of our amendment, there is no willingness to write in a statutory duty and function in respect of flooding for our fire and rescue services. We know that they play a key role. If I understood the Minister correctly she indicated that, if this was on a statutory footing, the fire and rescue services would of course have to be provided with the resources to carry out that activity. Bearing in mind the issues that fire and rescue services face over resources, one has a suspicion that one reason for the reluctance of government to go down this road may be that it would require that commitment of resources, even though the Government have acknowledged that the fire and rescue services do respond to all major flooding events. Obviously, I am disappointed with the Government’s reply but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, as the way in which policing is delivered evolves, it is important that the powers and remit of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary also evolve to ensure that it remains able to inspect and report on the totality of policing.
As forces rightly place an increasing emphasis on collaboration between emergency services, certain policing functions, such as answering 999 calls, may be delivered by employees of other emergency services without any formal contractual arrangements in place. HMIC must be able to require access to information and premises from these other services when they are related to the delivery of policing functions. That is what these amendments will achieve.
Amendments 165 and 166 extend the definition of a police force for the purposes of an inspection to include non-policing bodies delivering policing functions, even where there is no formal contract in place. In keeping with the scheme provided for in the Bill, such other persons delivering policing services would not be able to appeal against an information notice served on them by HMIC. Amendments 123 and 164 give HMIC and the new inspectors of fire and rescue authorities access to premises in which other services are delivered alongside those that they are inspecting; for example, HMIC would be able to access premises shared by a police force and a fire and rescue service.
I trust the Committee will agree that these are sensible refinements of the inspection provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, if I say this at the beginning of the afternoon, I hope I will not have to repeat it, but I declare an interest as having been a member of the police service for 30 years. In moving Amendment 124, I will also speak to the other amendment in this group, Amendment 127.
Clause 12 allows a police and crime commissioner—or the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime in relation to the Metropolitan Police district, or the Common Council in relation to the City of London police area—to choose to take on direct responsibility for receiving and recording complaints against the police and keeping the complainant informed of progress.
The problem here is that this may further confuse the public about who they should complain to. People are already unsure whether they should complain to a local police station, to the IPCC or to a third party. This change will inevitably mean that in some parts of the country, the complaint needs to be made to the police and crime commissioner—the local policing authority, to use a generic term—who will then deal with the complaint and keep the complainant informed. In other cases, it will be the police service itself, depending on whether the local policing authority takes up the offer provided by the legislation to take on the handling of complaints.
The idea of giving local policing authorities responsibility for complaints against the police, as opposed to the chief officer, is a good one. It will introduce a further element of independence into the police complaints system, but allowing local policing authorities simply the option—and indeed allowing local policing authorities to be persuaded by their chief constable not to take responsibility away from her or him—appears to me to be a fudge. Indeed, the more a chief constable tries to persuade his or her PCC not to take away the responsibility, the more the PCC should resist such pressure, in my opinion. This amendment would require the local policing authority to take over these statutory responsibilities, to ensure independence and clarity for the public.
I turn to Amendment 127. Clause 22 inserts into Section 23 of the Police Reform Act 2002, titled “Regulations”, a new paragraph which gives local policing authorities the power,
“to delegate the exercise or performance of powers and duties conferred or imposed on them”,
in relation to the handling of complaints against police. In a subsequent subsection, which inserts new paragraphs into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the expression used is to “arrange” for another person,
“to exercise a function that the police and crime commissioner has”.
Although the Explanatory Notes give reassurance that liability remains at the top, Amendment 127 is intended to probe why there is a difference in the wording between the two different subsections and to ensure that the delegation of powers and duties does not include delegation of responsibility. I beg to move Amendment 124.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a police and crime commissioner, for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I will say a few words about this very interesting amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, neither to praise it nor to condemn it, but just to tell the Committee something that it is probably aware of anyway. I suspect I speak for other police and crime commissioners as well when I say that as we speak here, we are considering which way to go, given the possibilities that the Bill opens up for us in terms of complaints. It is very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests that we should not have that option but should be compelled, as it were, to take all complaints at a low level and consider them. I am not so sure he is right—I do not know. I think there may in the end be a tendency among a number of police and crime commissioners, once the Bill is an Act and this legislation is law, to not take full responsibility for all complaints. I am not quite sure what the Government would like in this case: it may be that they really do not have a preference, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether they do or not.
I have to tell the noble Lord that the chief constable in my patch has done absolutely nothing up until now to try and persuade me not to take the full gamut, but it may be different elsewhere. It is an interesting debate and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say. I suspect, if the Bill remains as it does up until it becomes an Act, then police and crime commissioners around the country will be doing different things.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and Parliament’s only living breathing PCC, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for an insight into their views and the opportunity for your Lordships’ Committee to debate the provisions in the Bill that seek to give more responsibilities for handling complaints to local policing bodies.
The Government are committed to reforming the police complaints system so that complaints made against the police are responded to in a way that restores trust, builds public confidence and allows lessons to be learned. The reforms also increase the independence and accountability of the complaints system by enhancing the role of police and crime commissioners and their equivalents in London. The Bill seeks to strengthen local accountability by giving PCCs explicit responsibility for the performance of the complaints system locally and the responsibility for those appeals currently heard internally by forces.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has tried to tease out of the Government, Clause 12 gives PCCs the ability to choose to take on the additional complaints functions of handling low-level customer services issues, the initial recording of complaints and communicating with the complainant throughout the process. Amendment 124 to Clause 12 would remove this ability to choose, instead giving PCCs the mandatory responsibility for all these complaints functions. However, the Government’s intention is to ensure that PCCs can choose the model that would work best for them in their local area. As the noble Lord says, this will look different across the country in future as that local choice is made.
PCCs are very well placed to listen to the concerns of their constituents. The reforms will provide PCCs and forces with the flexibility to deliver a complaints service that responds to the needs of their local area rather than trying to operate within some sort of rigid system that does not reflect operational or community differences. For example, a PCC might wish to give his or her force the ability to deliver a more customer- focused complaints handling system before making a judgment on taking on additional responsibilities. However, the Government have acknowledged the concerns raised with regard to different models operating across the country. This is why the Bill enables PCCs to choose to take on only specific duties within a reformed and streamlined framework. Responsibility for the formal handling of complaints will remain with forces or, in the more serious and sensitive cases, with the IPCC.
Lord Bach
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should have mentioned this and asked her the question in my earlier remarks. A lot of police and crime commissioners want to know, if they decide to extend their powers—I know they will be extended to some extent anyway, but if they are fully extended—whether resources will follow. That is quite an important issue for them, and I wonder whether the Minister can help us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will correct this if I am wrong. While I am not guessing, I am assuming that, particularly where you have the model with a mayoral PCC as well, the mayoral precept will enable some of those mayoral functions. On the additional resources, I would like to write to the noble Lord before Report as I would not want to say something to the Committee now that simply was not true.
Amendment 127 to Clause 22 relates to the ability of PCCs to delegate their complaints-related function. The amendment seeks to clarify the difference in language in the subsections of the clause, and I am happy to do that.
The reason for the difference in language between the subsections is that it aims to replicate the language already used in the corresponding Acts. Although subsection (1) uses different language to that in subsections (2) to (4), the policy intention and result is the same. Local policing authorities should and will be able to delegate their complaints-related functions. Regardless of whether any complaints-related functions have been delegated, the local policing body will retain ultimate responsibility for the complaints performance in its area. This follows the same model as chief constables delegating their complaints responsibilities to more junior ranks, where the chief constable is still ultimately responsible for the outcome.
I hope that those comments have reassured noble Lords and that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation on Amendment 127, which is a probing amendment. I am not as enthusiastic about her response to Amendment 124, and I am grateful that we have the noble Lord, Lord Bach, here as a living, breathing police and crime commissioner who can bring his experience to this. I have to say that, bringing my experience as a police officer, I believe that there would be great benefit if there was one system that members of the public knew and could rely on. For example, it would be of great benefit to the public if the decision on whether complaints were investigated was taken out of the hands of the police.
The Minister said that the purpose of the new provision was to restore trust. If the purpose is to restore trust and a PCC decides not to take up the offer, what are the constituents in a PCC’s area to think about that? However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I fear it will be like this for the rest of the afternoon. Amendment 124A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and I shall speak to the other amendment in the group, Amendment 124B.
Clause 14 amends Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 in relation to keeping complainants—people who have complained about the police—informed of the progress of the investigation of their complaint. Subsection (3) substitutes the matters contained within it for those matters that subsection (3) of the 2002 Act required the complainant to be kept informed about. Basically, subsection (3) sets out what the complainant needs to be kept abreast of. One of the matters in the 2002 Act was to keep the complainant informed of,
“any provisional findings of the person carrying out the investigation”.
This requirement is no longer listed in the new subsection (3), and the amendment is to probe why it is no longer a requirement. Amendment 124B relates to the substitution of subsection (9) in Section 21 of the 2002 Act made by Clause 14(7), which again omits “any provisional findings” from the requirements in the 2002 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I understand absolutely the objective of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I have a lot of sympathy with what he is trying to get at. However, perhaps there is also need to look at the extent to which the public who have been victims of crime are also kept informed of the progress of investigations into those crimes. In exactly the same principles that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has outlined in terms of complaints against police officers, ought they perhaps also be applied to people who have been victims of crime?
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
I am slightly concerned about the phrase “provisional findings”, because it does not define when that is in an investigation. I should declare an interest that I was head of the complaints investigation branch of the Metropolitan Police Service, the subtitle for whom was the “Prince of Darkness”. One knew the provisional findings, but one had that word “provisional” in front. It slightly worries me that we are pushing a process forward where the complainant is given information that new information then changes. It feels an odd thing to be doing. I would like to know why it has been withdrawn in this Bill, as it may have been withdrawn on quite sensible grounds.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, the current process for keeping complainants and other interested persons updated on the handling of their complaint is overly complicated, with Sections 20 and 21 of the Police Reform Act 2002 heavily prescriptive on what exactly a force, or as the case may be the local policing body or IPCC, must do and when. This often results in a box-ticking process and perverse outcomes rather than any genuine consideration of what is best for the complainant.
The Bill simplifies this process. Clause 14 amends Sections 20 and 21 of the 2002 Act to create a broad statutory duty on forces to ensure that they keep relevant parties updated on the progress of the handling of the complaint, the outcome of the complaint, and any right of review. This allows for many of the various notification duties on appropriate authorities currently scattered throughout Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act to be consolidated into one place, and for Sections 20 and 21 of that Act to be extended beyond just complaints where there was an investigation.
This broad requirement is in line with the wider changes to the complaints system where the various routes for resolving a complaint—for example, disapplication, discontinuance and local resolution—have been replaced with a general duty to consider the reasonable and proportionate response to a complaint. Greater discretion for forces in deciding how to keep the relevant parties updated on progress reflects the wider intention to trigger a culture change in forces in the handling of complaints. We want a system that encourages proper consideration to be given to the needs of the complainant, rather than officers simply following a very set procedure regardless of the nuances of the case.
I want to reassure the noble Lord that the Government fully expect that where there has been an investigation into a complaint, updating complainants on the progress of the handling of the complaint will include forces informing them of any provisional findings of that investigation. In keeping with the overall intention to simplify the complaints system and to empower forces in how they deal with complaints, this is not something we consider is necessary to prescribe in primary legislation. Instead, it is for the IPCC to consider whether what is meant by updating on the progress of the complaint is better explored in IPCC statutory guidance. Guidance may be able to better reflect best practice and the principle that all cases need to be treated slightly differently.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about keeping victims of crime informed on progress. He makes a valid point about victims of crime, but this is not a matter for these clauses. We have a later amendment about the rights of victims of crime.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton. It could be that giving “provisional findings”, which are not the ultimate findings, could create a false sense of expectation in the complainant and so forth. However, the question was around not whether that should be there but the reason for it being there. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said, there may be a sensible reason for taking it out in the new legislation, but I failed to hear a sensible reason for why it was formerly in primary legislation but will no longer be. Perhaps between now and Report we may be able to unearth that reason. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“(aa) the complainant (who must be questioned as to whether he wishes the complaint to be recorded) does not indicate a wish that it not be recorded, or”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendment 125 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I shall speak also to Amendment 126. In Schedule 5, Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2000 is amended after sub–paragraph (6) by inserting a new sub-paragraph (6A) in relation to when a complaint against police must be recorded. It states that a complaint must be recorded if,
“at any time the complainant indicates a wish for the complaint to be recorded”.
Our amendment adds a requirement that the complainant must be asked whether he wishes the complaint to be recorded and states that unless he positively indicates that he does not wish the complaint to be recorded, it must be recorded.
From a wealth of personal experience in this area, I know that it is very easy for a complainant to be misled, albeit unintentionally, about whether his complaint will be formally recorded or even to be dissuaded from having a legitimate complaint recorded. The current wording gives the police or the local policing body, if it takes over responsibility, the ability not to record a complaint unless the complainant specifically asks that it be recorded. If the police inspector at the front counter tells the complainant not to worry but to leave it to him as he will have a word with the officer concerned and there is no specific request that the complaint be recorded, it could result in a complaint not being recorded when the complainant believes that it has been. This amendment is designed to reduce the chance of that happening.
Amendment 126 relates to a different issue: the conduct of chief officers of police. Part 3 of Schedule 5 is intended to require the referral of all complaints and matters concerning the conduct of chief officers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission by inserting new paragraphs into Part 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. They provide new powers to enable the Secretary of State to specify in regulations that the IPCC must independently investigate all complaints, recordable conduct matters, and deaths and serious injury matters which relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police wear the same badge of rank as, and are considered to be at least the equivalent of, chief constables or chief officers. In fact, they are paid at the highest rate of chief officer, with the exception of the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Met, a salary equivalent to that of the chief constables of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Police Scotland, the West Midlands Police and Greater Manchester Police. The assistant commissioner of the City of London Police wears the insignia of, and is considered equivalent to, a deputy chief officer and is outside the scope of this provision and the amendment. Will the Minister explain why assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police are not included with the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as officers complaints about whom must be referred to the IPCC? Our amendments would add assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police to the list of compulsory referrals. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining the purpose of the two amendments. The handling of complaints about the police must be customer-focused, simple to understand and transparent throughout. It is widely accepted that the current system is confusing, complicated and, in many cases, unclear. Through the reforms made in the Bill, we are ensuring that cases are dealt with quickly and effectively, for the benefit not just of the public but of officers who have done nothing wrong. Many forces already currently operate customer service teams through which all complaints about the force are filtered and whereby they try to resolve quality-of-service issues as soon as possible. The reforms in the Bill explicitly provide for that sort of model and try to make it as bureaucracy free and straightforward as appropriate.
The evidence is that this approach works. In Derbyshire in 2014-15, for example, 47% of issues raised about the force were handled outside of the formal complaints system. In Northumbria, where the triage team sits in the office of the police and crime commissioner, 36% of issues raised about the force in the first six months of 2014 were handled in this manner, with 92% of complainants happy with how their issue was handled—and this is increasing. The Government want to encourage forces and local policing bodies such as PCCs to adopt this more customer-focused approach and to resolve as many complaints as possible quickly, simply and to the complainant’s satisfaction through this route. Amendment 125 would require complainants explicitly to confirm that they were content for the force or PCC to seek a customer service solution to their issue outside of the formal complaints system. I put it to the noble Lord that this approach risks limiting what forces can achieve through informal resolution.
The Government believe that this confirmation process would lead to fewer issues being dealt with in this way and, contrary to the policy intent, increase the number dealt with in the formal system. We think it right that, unless the complainant has offered an alternative view or the complaint falls into one of the categories outlined in the legislation for why this form of resolution is inappropriate—I shall discuss the safeguards shortly—the force or PCC should first have the opportunity to draw on their experience to seek to resolve the matter through its own customer service processes. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill includes extensive provisions to ensure the complainant is in control in this process and that forces can resolve issues outside of the complaints system only when it is appropriate to do so.
There is a clear expectation on PCCs, with their new explicit responsibility for oversight of the complaints system locally, as provided for in Clause 21, to ensure clear communication is provided to complainants about their rights when they make a complaint and how the process will work. This includes explaining that, if at any point a complainant wants his or her complaint to be recorded, it will be recorded. If the force pursues a customer service solution that falls short of the complainant’s view on what constitutes a satisfactory resolution, they can request that the complaint be recorded and handled formally. There is a statutory duty at the outset of a complaint to contact the complainant to understand how the complaint might be best resolved. Statutory guidance will also make clear that, 10 days after receipt of a complaint, it should be formally recorded, even if a customer service approach may have been proportionate. This is to ensure that this form of resolution is limited to only those issues that can be resolved quickly. Beyond that, if there is any indication that the complaint might result in disciplinary or criminal proceedings, or might meet the criteria for mandatory referral to the IPCC, it must be recorded.
Finally, there will also be a requirement on forces, to be detailed in regulations or secondary legislation, to keep some information on the issues they resolve outside of the formal complaints system—the name of the complainant, the issue, and how it was resolved. This will allow PCCs locally to scrutinise those data and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to inspect the robustness of the decision-making of forces in deciding what is suitable for an informal resolution. Given these safeguards, we are satisfied that there is no need for an explicit requirement that the complainant must agree at the outset to an issue being resolved informally. Ultimately, the priority for most complainants is that their complaint is dealt with to their satisfaction and as quickly as possible.
I turn to Amendment 126. The complaints and discipline system is designed on the premise that, unless matters are of exceptional seriousness and sensitivity and are therefore referred to the IPCC, they should be dealt with—in accordance with the legislation—within the force’s chain of command. The exception is where there is no ultimate senior officer, such as would arise where a complaint is made against a chief constable. In these cases, most complaints are investigated by the IPCC but some may end up being investigated by chief constables of other forces. In his independent review of the police disciplinary system in England and Wales, Chip Chapman recommended that all such investigations should be undertaken by an independent body. The Government agree with this recommendation and that is why the Bill introduces a new regulation-making power that will require complaints regarding the conduct of chief officers to be referred to the IPCC to determine whether it should conduct an independent investigation or direct an investigation. However, although the rank of Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service is one of the highest ranks in England and Wales, there is no need to include it in the proposed measure because it can be reasonably expected that the commissioner or deputy commissioner will oversee any investigation. I hope that this clarifies the matter and that, on the basis of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As far as Amendment 125 is concerned, I have no issue with a complainant being offered the option of informal resolution or a “customer service solution”—I never heard of that when I was in the police service; it shows how things have moved on—or a formal complaint. The problem we keep encountering in this House is the Government saying, “Well, it’s going to be be in statutory guidance and of course, in practice, if it’s a serious complaint or something that should be recorded, it will be recorded”. Unfortunately, the real world is not quite as ideal as the Minister makes out.
As far as Amendment 126 is concerned, I was with the noble Baroness until she said that matters needed to be referred to the IPCC where there was no ultimate senior officer. Quite clearly, in the case of the Deputy Commissioner of the Met, which is a specific rank for which any complaints have to be referred to the IPCC, there clearly is an ultimate senior officer: the Commissioner of the Met. Unfortunately, the explanation given by the noble Baroness does not help me to understand why the Deputy Commissioner of the Met is specifically mentioned.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps I can explain a bit further. While new paragraph 5(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill, does cover the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, this is because, in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012, the deputy commissioner is treated in the same way as the commissioner. The Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the investigator of any conduct matter relating to both the commissioner and deputy commissioner. There is no mechanism to allow investigations into the deputy commissioner to be conducted internally. I hope that I have not confused the noble Lord further; I am just seeking to clarify the position.
Lord Bach
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for asking the noble Baroness about something that she said in her summing up a little while ago about the position of chief constables. She said that any complaint against them would automatically go to the IPCC. There is a view that says that this is slightly harsh and is not necessary and will mean more work for the IPCC in some cases than is necessary. What is the view of the IPCC on that proposal? It seems to some of us that the IPCC is overburdened and overworked. Does it really want the most trivial complaint against a chief constable—they do exist, it has to be said—to have to go to the IPCC without investigation? Is that not too extreme a measure?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I said in my summing-up—if I missed it, I apologise—that most complaints are investigated by the IPCC but some may end up being investigated by chief constables from other forces. I am guessing that those will be the more low-level investigations. Therefore, not absolutely everything has to go to the IPCC. I do not know the IPCC’s view on this but Chip Chapman has recommended that all investigations should be undertaken by an independent body.
Lord Blair of Boughton
Perhaps I may intervene again—and again I declare my interest as a former commissioner. The mailbox of the Metropolitan Police is pretty large and contains lots of complaints about the fact that the commissioner has failed to do something. The commissioner is probably blissfully unaware of thousands of complaints. Is it being suggested that, every time somebody says, “I wish to complain about the Commissioner of Police of the metropolis because Constable Such and Such did not put a ticket on a car outside my house”, that is a complaint against the commissioner? It would be the same for chief constables.
There is a sense here that we are losing sight of the scale of the mailbox. There is a famous story of one of my predecessors who came from outside the force finding out that not all letters that were addressed to the commissioner came to his office. A week later, he realised why—when the mailbags fell in through the door. There has to be a level of reasonableness and, at the moment, I am not hearing that reasonableness. I am hearing the idea that everything will be sent to the IPCC or investigated by another chief constable. We could block the entire system unless we get a degree of reasonableness—and I am not sure where that is going to appear. I put that surmise to the Minister.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
Will my noble friend look at the practicality of the matter, which has been so well explained?
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate and to the Minister. As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, my reading of this is that it concerns complaints against the commissioner himself rather than vicarious liability responsibility—which, of course, the commissioner carries for all his officers. The clue lies in the fact that the legislation goes on to talk about “death or serious injury” matters—not that the commissioner is known for using physical violence against people.
Lord Bach
I am so sorry to interrupt again. I wonder whether there is a proper distinction between a complaint per se and a complaint that may be laid vicariously at the commissioner’s or chief constable’s door. Who will make that distinction when the complaint comes in? It will add to the existing bureaucracy and is another reason for listening very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blair, suggested a minute or two ago.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and I will leave it to the Government to respond. The deputy commissioner of the Met was, at least at one stage, considered to be a first among equals among assistant commissioners. I will have to read the second part of the Minister’s explanation on that issue. As regards the other matter, again, I will want to read carefully what the Minister said—but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, in moving Amendment 126A, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I will speak to Amendment 165A in this group.
Clause 18 deals with sensitive information received by the IPCC and restrictions on disclosing that information. It amends Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 by inserting new Clause 21A, subsection (3) of which defines sensitive information as including,
“information obtained from a government department which, at the time it is provided to the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator, is identified by the department as information the disclosure of which may, in the opinion of the relevant authority … cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.
When this House recently considered the Investigatory Powers Bill, where matters were considered to be related to the economic interests of the United Kingdom it was made explicit that these were only where the economic interests were directly linked to national security. Amendment 126A would insert the wording,
“so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”,
to make it explicit in this Bill as well as in the Investigatory Powers Bill. Amendment 165A makes a similar change to the term “economic interests” in Clause 35, which amends Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996 in relation to the restriction on disclosure of sensitive information acquired by Her Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Clause 18 increases the protections afforded to any sensitive information that is obtained by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in the course of its investigations or by a police or National Crime Agency investigator conducting an investigation under the direction of the IPCC. Clause 18 ensures that where the IPCC or investigator receives “sensitive information” it must not disclose that information without the consent of the “relevant authority”, as defined in the clause. To assist the IPCC or investigator in fulfilling this requirement, Clause 18 places a duty on the person providing the information to make the IPCC or investigator aware that the information is sensitive and to provide enough detail to permit the identification of the appropriate “relevant authority”. Clause 35 does likewise in respect of sensitive information received by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
“Sensitive information” in this context means: first, that provided by or that which relates to the security and intelligence services; secondly, information derived from interception; and thirdly, information provided by a government department which may, if disclosed, cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the country or any part of it. In such instances, the government department must identify it as such when it provides the information to the IPCC or investigator. Amendments 126A and 165A seek to narrow the third part of this definition by carving out information which may cause damage to the economic interests of the UK or part of the UK, unless there is a national security link. In effect, this would mean that the IPCC, investigator or HMIC would not need the relevant authority’s consent to disclose certain economically sensitive information that could, if disclosed or handled inappropriately, have a negative economic impact on the country. The drafting approach taken in the Bill in relation to the definition of “sensitive information” is not new. The drafting simply replicates the existing definition in paragraph 19ZD of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, which these provisions replace.
I stress that the primary purpose of Clauses 18 and 35 is not to prevent sensitive information being provided for legitimate reasons, such as to the CPS in the event of criminal proceedings, but, rather, to protect that information and ensure that it is handled appropriately. Simply because a piece of information falls under the definition of “sensitive information” in Clauses 18 or 35, the relevant authority cannot unreasonably withhold its consent to its disclosure; it is a matter of public law that decisions made by the relevant authorities must be both reasonable and rational. The Government are simply closing a gap to provide additional certainty and reassurance around the handling of sensitive information, not to prevent any greater disclosure than is absolutely necessary.
I hope that that has clarified the matter for the noble Lord and that he is content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the Minister for that lengthy explanation, but it does not answer the question that I asked. The drafting may not be new but my understanding is that it is inconsistent with the Investigatory Powers Bill. We sought clarification and the Government agreed to put it on the face of the Bill that economic interests meant economic interests that are likely to impact on national security. It may be consistent with previous legislation but my understanding is that it is not consistent with the most recent legislation. That is the question that I hoped she would answer. I understand and accept everything that she has said; it is what is missing that is key.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps I can provide further clarification, although I am not sure that it will clarify matters much better. Clause 18 talks about,
“the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.
Clause 62 of the Investigatory Powers Bill says,
“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.
There is a variation in the drafting of the two Bills because the provisions serve entirely different purposes. It is right that where authority is being sought to obtain communications data or to issue warrants for the purpose of the economic well-being of the UK, it should be done only where it is also relevant to the interests of national security. In Clause 18 of this Bill, the definition of “sensitive information” is intended to provide a safeguard to ensure that, whenever the IPCC handles particular types of information that originate from the security services or from government departments, it checks with the relevant authority before disclosing that information. The noble Lord does not look convinced but I hope that that has provided further clarification.
Lord Paddick
I need to improve my poker face skills. I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I will read it to see whether I can get the answer to my question from what she has said, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, in moving Amendment 128 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee I will speak also to the other amendments in the group—Amendments 129 and 130. These are probing amendments that relate to which bodies can be designated as being eligible to bring super-complaints against the police.
Bodies are to be designated by the Secretary of State through regulations. Clause 25 inserts a new Section 29B into Part 2A of the Police Reform Act 2002. Subsection (5) of new Section 29B states:
“The Secretary of State must, before making regulations under subsection (3) or (4), consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
However, it does not require the Secretary of State to consult on subsection (1). Adding in reference to subsection (1) means that the Secretary of State would have to consult before making the regulations that designate which bodies should be capable of bringing super-complaints. Those regulations presumably will set out the criteria referred to in subsections (3) and (4). That means that there will be consultation on those as well.
Amendment 129 lists the three bodies—the Law Society of England and Wales, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, and Citizens Advice—that, along with others as specified by the Secretary of State, would be made “authorised” persons for the purposes of subsection (2)(d). That gives them a role in designation, as they are likely to know the territory and issues involved, know their members and know which the good non-governmental organisations are, and so on.
Amendment 130 is intended to ensure that the first regulations made under subsections (1), (3) and (4) of new Section 29B are subject to the affirmative resolution process. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this section of the Bill gives the power to designated bodies to make super-complaints to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary. The complaints can be made where, in the opinion of those bodies, a feature of policing is harming the public and needs to be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, listed three organisations to make these super-complaints to be put on the face of the Bill. I have some sympathy with the amendments that have been put forward, but I understand that they are probing amendments. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she can give us some indication of the organisations likely to be designated to make these complaints under the regulations. It is important that, when creating these new powers, we have some idea of what the organisations are likely to be. Are those listed in the amendment likely candidates to be designated when this comes into force, or are there others?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, for the opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill that will create a new system of policing super-complaints.
There are currently three extant super-complaints systems, having been originally created in the Enterprise Act 2002. These systems exist in the commercial sector, the financial system and in payments regulation. All relate to systemic issues affecting consumers relating to private sector organisations. The police super-complaints system, although based on the success of these antecedents, will be the first such system to address issues in the public sector.
A super-complaint is defined in Clause 24 as a complaint that,
“a feature, or combination of features, of policing … by one or more than one … force is, or appears to be, significantly harming the interests of the public”.
Only bodies designated for the purpose of these provisions will be able to make a super-complaint, but any body can be designated if it meets the relevant criteria. Those criteria for designation will, following consultation, be laid out in regulations. The system will be “owned” by the HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, so as to be sufficiently independent of government. Ultimately, this system will allow charities and advocacy groups to raise systemic issues they identify in policing in a more effective way, leading to the improvement of policing in England and Wales.
I turn now to the noble Lord’s amendments which focus on the regulations relating to designated bodies and the designation process contained in Clause 25. The designated bodies able to make a super-complaint will be set out in regulations. Amendment 128 would require the Government to consult on such regulations. We have provided in Clause 25 for consultation on the regulations setting out the criteria for designation, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to consult each and every time a new body is given designation status. Any body that is so designated will have been assessed as meeting the criteria for designation. The Government believe that the criteria are the key to getting the right bodies involved in the system. This is why it is the criteria rather than the bodies themselves that will be subject to consultation. Following consultation on the criteria, further consultation on the resulting list of designated bodies would be unnecessary and, if conducted every time a body is designated, would be burdensome.
On Amendment 129, the Government agree that the nature of the bodies involved in the super-complaints system is key to its success. That is why we shall be consulting widely on the criteria for designation. Furthermore, the Government intend to include a requirement in the criteria for designated bodies to act as umbrella bodies for smaller organisations. This will ensure that any bodies that notice a systemic issue with policing, but are not designated, are still able to raise an issue through another organisation.
We have engaged with a number of key bodies, including Citizens Advice, in the development of this policy. We will continue to work with these bodies throughout its implementation to ensure that the system works in the public interest. It will of course be open to Citizens Advice, the Law Society and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to apply for designated body status, but that decision is a matter for them. The Government would welcome the input of your Lordships on any particular bodies or organisations that may work towards the improvement of policing through becoming designated bodies.
Amendment 130 would require the first regulations made in relation to designation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government set out the rationale for applying the negative procedure to these regulations in their delegated powers memorandum. That memorandum has been considered by the Delegated Powers Committee which did not take issue with the application of the negative procedure whether on the first or subsequent exercise of these powers. The negative procedure is consistent with the legislative framework applicable to existing super-complaints systems and I see no good case for departing from it here.
Having given these provisions in the Bill the airing they deserve, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Baroness has talked about consultation on the regulations. Is there a timescale for when that will take place because obviously the Government will complete their consultation and make a decision before the regulations come into force? Can she give us some idea of when it will be?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
If there is a timescale that we know of, I will write to the noble Lord, but I do not have it here in my notes.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, it is clear that the Government have given a great deal of thought to the concept of super-complaints. Have they made any assessment of how many such super-complaints might be presented and what proportion of the time of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is likely to be devoted to looking into such matters?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
We do not know how many super-complaints will be made because it is difficult to judge that. The point about the super-complaints is that they will make an enormous difference to the way things are done. It was interesting to note that in March this year the then shadow Home Secretary, Andy Burnham, held a seminar with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, which brought together groups that are still campaigning for justice, such as the Shrewsbury 24 campaign, the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, and Justice 4 Daniel. A common thread runs through all of these groups but the way the system works at the moment forces them all to plough their own furrow; it does not allow them to join forces. The super-complaint proposal will rebalance the system in their favour and mean that they can join together.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the point about the regulations one more time. The noble Baroness has said that there is no timescale but that she will write to me if she can find out if there is. I should say to her that this issue is very important to the campaigns she has just listed. If this legislation gets on to the statute book without us knowing where we are with the regulations, of course it cannot come into force. I hope that she will take back to the department and her ministerial colleagues that the consultation should be done with the utmost urgency. There is no point in passing the legislation if people cannot actually make their complaints.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I do not have a timescale. I do not want to give the noble Lord false information, so it is only fair that I write to him.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, and for the response given by the Minister. I have a confession to make: I did not write the amendments. I am glad to see that everyone fell into the same trap I did. The intention of Amendment 128, whether or not it would be the effect, is for there to be consultation on the regulations, not each time an organisation is designated. It could be that it is a mistake in the drafting—I can say that because I did not draft them.
The organisations listed in Amendment 129 are suggestions as to who authorised persons should be under the Act, not who the designated bodies should be. The authorised persons are those who can make representations to the Secretary of State to have a particular body designated or removed from the list of designated bodies. That is what I believe I explained when I introduced the amendment. The list that includes the Law Society and so forth is not a list of bodies that we think should be designated, but a list of people who should be authorised persons who can then ask the Secretary of State to add or remove people from the list of designated bodies.
I will read again the view of the Delegated Powers Committee so far as Amendment 130 is concerned, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 128.
Lord Rosser
“Police complaints and the media
(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Prime Minister must commission an independent inquiry into the operation of the police complaints system in respect of relationships between the police and media.(2) The matters that are the subject of the inquiry shall include, but shall not be limited to—(a) how adequately police forces investigate complaints about police officers dealing with people working within, or connected to, media organisations;(b) the thoroughness of any reviews by police forces into complaints of the type referred to in paragraph (a);(c) in those cases where a complaint of the type referred to in paragraph (a) led to a criminal investigation, the conduct of prosecuting authorities in investigating the allegation;(d) whether any police officers took illegal payment to suppress investigations into complaints about relationships between police officers and people working within, or connected to, media organisations;(e) the implications of paragraphs (a) to (d) for the relationships between media organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies, and recommended actions.(3) The inquiry may only start once the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would not prejudice any relevant ongoing legal cases.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the amendment would provide for the Prime Minister to commission an independent inquiry into the operation of the police complaints system in respect of relationships between the police and media. It also states that the inquiry may start only once the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would not prejudice any relevant ongoing legal cases.
The objective of the proposed new clause set out in the amendment is to seek to hold the Government to their promise to the victims of press intrusion to hold a second stage of the Leveson inquiry to look at the culture of relations between the police and the press. In November 2012, the then Conservative Prime Minister reminded the victims of press intrusion that when he set up the Leveson inquiry he had also said there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police, and that his Government remained committed to the inquiry as it was then established. He then went on to say:
“It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/12; col. 458.]
However, real doubts about the Government’s willingness to honour that promise have arisen. Ministers have subsequently used language that suggests it is no longer a question of when the inquiry will go ahead, but rather of whether it will go ahead.
Police-press relations is a significant area still to be addressed. We have yet to start to make changes to properly put right, once and for all, the kind of wrongs that have now come to light, for example, following the Hillsborough tragedy. Briefings by the police in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy had a profound adverse impact, not just on the families who had lost loved ones, but on thousands who had been at the match and returned home in a state of some trauma, only to read a few days later that the police were blaming them for the deaths of their friends and family. It surely cannot be right that a police force is able, unattributably or otherwise, to brief damning and unproven information to a newspaper. The extent and reasons for such practices, both previously and more recently, must be investigated independently and openly and those practices brought to an end.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The second stage of Leveson is a very important stage of the investigation into the conduct of the police and the media. It is essential that it is carried out as soon as possible, bearing in mind that there may be outstanding criminal cases that need to be dealt with first.
It is understandable that a slightly one-sided picture has been given of the relationship between police and press. There are many entirely appropriate relationships between the media and press which are beneficial to the public interest. For example, appeals for witnesses to a serious crime can receive the wide publicity sometimes required only with the co-operation of the media and local press. There are searches for missing persons, where an appeal needs to be made nationally to try to identify where a vulnerable person might be. Clearly, there are examples of the opposite. Hillsborough is one. Another rather common example is where, sadly, the police brief the media casting doubt on the character of those who died at the hands of the police.
I am not saying that it is entirely a positive relationship but it is necessary for the police to have a relationship with the media. It is important to differentiate between positive and appropriate relationships and negative and entirely inappropriate ones, particularly, as happened with the phone hacking case, where there was at least the opportunity for critics of the police to suggest that their lack of enthusiasm initially to investigate phone hacking by the media might have had something to do with that too-close relationship. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I very much support the police. They do a fantastic job for us and put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.
The noble Lord is right when he talks about the need for an appropriate relationship between the media and the police, and how important that is. Equally, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, there are obviously times when things go wrong. Clearly what happened at Hillsborough was an absolute tragedy. Can you imagine losing a loved one on that day and then having to endure the abuse in the media which has clearly now been shown not to be true? We should pay tribute to the steely determination of the Hillsborough families to get justice for their loved ones. They not only lost them but saw their names dragged through the mud.
It is important that we get to the point where the Government can clarify that they will proceed with the second stage of Leveson. There are some nuances between the statement we had from the previous Prime Minister and what we had from this Dispatch Box more recently. That difference might just be a few words which mean nothing at all, but we need to be clear that this should go ahead and that the Government are determined that any prosecution dealing with this will proceed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, which took place not far from where I live.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained, this amendment would require the Prime Minister to establish what is colloquially referred to as the Leveson 2 inquiry into the relationships between the police and the media. It is worth noting that the drafting of this amendment goes beyond the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. Part 1 examined the culture, practices and ethics of the media; if it goes ahead, Part 2 is to examine wrongdoing in the press and the police, including the failure of the first police investigations into phone hacking and the implications for police and press relations.
This amendment would, for example, extend the remit of Leveson 2 to cover how the police investigated any complaints about their dealings with people connected to the media, and to the conduct of the CPS where complaints led to criminal investigations. This is well outside the scope of the current inquiry terms of Leveson 2. The Government are of the view that it is not necessary to legislate to require Leveson 2 as it is already set up under the Inquiries Act 2005. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are still ongoing criminal cases relevant to the subject matter of the Leveson inquiry. I welcome the fact that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause recognises the importance of not prejudicing those outstanding criminal proceedings. We have always been clear that these cases, including any appeals, must conclude before we consider part 2 of the inquiry. Given this, and the fact that we already have an appropriate legal framework in the Inquiries Act, it is not an appropriate matter for further legislation. There is an established process in place for taking this matter forward. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
The Minister referred to subsection (3) in the amendment, which states:
“The inquiry may only start once the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would not prejudice any relevant ongoing legal cases”.
She also made reference to Leveson 2. Is it the Government’s position that once ongoing cases have been determined, the second stage of Leveson will take place, or—as I think the Minister said on behalf of the Government—that once outstanding cases have been resolved, the Government will only consider whether to proceed with the second stage of Leveson? Can the Minister clarify what she said? Are the Government saying that once outstanding cases have been resolved, Leveson 2 will take place, or is the Minister simply confirming what now appears to be the Government’s stance—unlike the promise that was given—that they will only consider whether to move to the second stage of Leveson?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is the latter. We will make a decision on Leveson 2 once the outstanding cases have been concluded.
Lord Rosser
Can the Minister say why the position has changed from the very clear and specific commitment given by the previous Prime Minister that the second stage of Leveson would take place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, both the current Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister were very clear that all the cases of Leveson 1 should be concluded before Leveson 2 is considered.
Lord Rosser
Is the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that the previous Prime Minister did not give a commitment that the second stage of Leveson would take place? Is she really saying on behalf of the Government that the previous Prime Minister gave a commitment only to consider whether the second stage of Leveson should take place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I would have to look at the exact words that the previous Prime Minister used before I contradicted the noble Lord. I certainly do not want to contradict the noble Lord. In terms of the process, both the current Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister were clear that Leveson 2 could not proceed until Leveson 1 was concluded.
Lord Rosser
I find the Government’s response most unsatisfactory but at least the Minister has confirmed that there has been a complete shift in the Government’s stance. I will say what I think: the Government have now gone back on the very clear undertaking that was given by the previous Prime Minister that the second stage of Leveson would take place.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hope I did not make it clear that we have gone back on the decision but we will make a decision on Leveson 2 once those outstanding cases have been concluded, which is rather different from going back on what was said.
Lord Rosser
The promise that was given was that there would be a second stage of Leveson. If the Government are now saying that once the outstanding cases are concluded they will only consider whether they should move to a second stage of Leveson, that is going back on the promise that was given. It is no longer specific. Does the Minister not agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think we are going to have to agree to differ that we have not gone back but we will consider it once those cases have concluded.
Lord Rosser
I accept that the Committee will not want me to continue with an argument over the difference in wording, but I will simply restate my stance that for the Government now to say that they will only be considering a second stage of Leveson is not what the previous Prime Minister said in the promise he gave to the victims of press intrusion. I strongly regret the answer that we have received from the Government today, but nevertheless beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, in moving Amendment 132 I will speak also to our Amendments 135, 136 and 137 in this group and in support of Amendments 133 and 134, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Clause 27 relates to investigations by the IPCC of concerns raised by whistleblowers and inserts a new Part 2B into the Police Reform Act 2002. If we were asking for this clause to not stand part of the Bill, it would be a case of 2B or not 2B—but that is not what we are asking for. I am just checking to see whether noble Lords are awake. New Section 29D of the 2002 Act defines a whistleblower as a person who,
“raises a concern … about a police force or a person serving with the police”,
and who is,
“under the direction and control of a chief officer of police”,
at the time. However, it does not cover cases where the whistleblower is currently under the direction and control of a chief officer. One potential scenario is where the whistleblower is a witness to an incident that happened before he or she joined the police service, and wishes to draw the matter to the attention of the IPCC. Our Amendment 132 would legislate for that scenario.
I move on to Amendments 135, 136 and 137. New Section 29I of the 2002 Act allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set out the circumstances where the identity of the whistleblower may have to be disclosed. This may be done only for permitted disclosure purposes, one of which is,
“the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings”.
Our concern is that a whistleblower may not realise that his or her identity may be revealed if the investigation turns into a criminal one, and that the whistleblower should be informed at the outset that this might be the case, so that they can withdraw the concern if they are worried by that prospect. Amendment 135 addresses that issue.
New Section 29E of the 2002 Act sets out the actions of the IPCC if it chooses not to investigate, including making recommendations in the light of the concern. Subsections (4) and (5) allow the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to such a scenario, including, in (5)(a), to,
“describe the kinds of recommendations that the Commission may make”.
Our Amendment 136 is aimed at ensuring that the IPCC is not restricted as to what recommendations it can make by adding that the Secretary of State,
“may not specify an exclusive list of recommendations”.
In new Section 29L of the 2002 Act, the Secretary of State is required to consult various bodies before making regulations about whistleblowers. We believe that organisations representing police officers and staff should be included in the list of groups who must be consulted. Our Amendment 137 makes this change. We also support, as I mentioned, Amendments 133 and 134, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I beg to move Amendment 132.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this section of the Bill deals with whistleblowing and investigations by the IPCC. It provides a new power for the IPCC to investigate matters raised by a police whistleblower without the matter having to be raised with the police force concerned, and provides further powers to protect the identity of the individual or individuals concerned. All the amendments in this group are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the exception of Amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser.
Amendment 132 seeks to provide as much clarity as possible and allows for the eventuality that the person making a complaint could still be under the direction and control of a chief officer of police. This amendment raises an interesting point, which was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, when he presented his scenario to the House a few moments ago. I hope that when the Government respond they will be as clear possible in their reasoning if they do not think the amendment is necessary.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend seek to add clarity to this section of the Bill by making clear that these provisions cannot be used if the matter is subject to an ongoing investigation. Amendment 134 would allow for whistleblowing protections to be applied to police witnesses. These are good amendments that would strengthen what is proposed by the Government.
When reading and thinking about Amendment 135, I was not completely convinced that it was either necessary or should in fact be there. Having said that, I listened to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I think that he persuaded me on those.
I am not sure what Amendment 136 adds to the Bill as it would not put in the Bill an exclusive or exhaustive list. Amendment 137 is completely correct: organisations representing police officers and staff must be consulted before regulations are made concerning this section of the Bill. It is not good enough to rely on the subsection that talks about other organisations that are deemed appropriate. Those organisations deserve to be in the Bill when it leaves this House.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, for the opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill that will strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. The Government are committed to ensuring that those working for the police have the confidence to come forward to report concerns of malpractice and misconduct within the service.
Forces should, and do, provide channels for staff to raise such issues in confidence. However, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has found that the quality of reporting arrangements and support offered to whistleblowers varied considerably by force, and a key concern was a lack of trust in confidential reporting. That is why, through Clause 27 and Schedule 6, we are creating a specific power for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate whistleblowing allegations. If the IPCC decides to investigate, it does not have to refer the matter to the force unless the concern is about a conduct-related matter for the purposes of Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Even if it decides not to investigate, it will have to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the whistleblower’s identity is protected. These changes will give officers and staff much greater assurance that their concerns will be considered objectively and discreetly.
I have listened with interest to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, and on two points I have some sympathy—I see that I have surprised the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The first is dealt with in Amendment 132, which seeks to modify the definition of a whistleblower to include those raising a concern about matters that occurred within a police force prior to them joining the police. The legislation as currently drafted allows for existing and former members of a police force to raise concerns about matters that occurred while they were serving. It is evident that some cases of police misconduct and malpractice can go unreported for some time, and it may be appropriate that there be some scope for this to be brought to light, as prescribed under new Part 2B, by a whistleblower who had joined the force at a later stage.
Amendment 133, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, addresses the concern that there is a risk under the new provisions that a police officer or staff member interviewed as a witness in connection with a Part 2 investigation by the commission could be deemed a whistleblower, and that this could lead to confusion and complexity. Amendment 133 would prevent the IPCC having to start a new investigation where one is already under way in relation to the concern that has been raised. I am sympathetic to that point.
However, it is not the intention of the legislation to capture those providing factual information in an existing investigation. Rather, the aim of the legislation is to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and capture those concerns that are not being investigated but, in the public interest, should be considered independently by the IPCC and subject to its recommendations.
For this reason, I have less sympathy with Amendment 134, which would allow the IPCC discretion to confer whistleblowing status on any individuals providing evidence in existing investigations. We do not wish to create an expectation among police witnesses that the IPCC could offer them protections in return for giving their evidence. I understand that the IPCC has concerns about the protections available for those who provide it with evidence, but this is a much broader issue which needs be considered in the longer term, beyond the narrow confines of the whistleblowing provisions and in consultation with all relevant policing stakeholders.
Amendment 135 would impose an express duty on the IPCC to inform a whistleblower that his or her identity may be disclosed in the course of any criminal proceedings and to give the whistleblower an opportunity to withdraw the concern. The legislation is quite clear on the protection of anonymity and the circumstances in which a whistleblower’s anonymity might cease to be protected. As well as criminal proceedings, such circumstances could, for example, include the interests of national security and allegations of misconduct against the whistleblower him or herself. It is not practicable for the primary legislation to include every possible prescription. We would expect the IPCC to do its best to ensure that police officers were aware of the limitations of anonymity before they raise their concern, as I do not believe that it would be practical or desirable to provide for a concern to be withdrawn or unsaid by a whistleblower.
Guidance will support the new provisions, including an update of the College of Policing’s Reporting Concerns guidance, to promote awareness and understanding of these important reforms for whistleblowers. The protections offered by the new process that the Government are providing for whistleblowers can only go so far, and certainly not at the expense of allowing criminals to escape justice.
Amendment 136 would restrict the power of the Secretary of State to stipulate the matters on which the IPCC can make recommendations to a police force in cases where it has decided not to investigate a whistleblower’s concerns. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the intention is not to provide the Secretary of State with the power to prescribe an exclusive list but merely to describe the kinds of recommendations that the IPCC may make. The purpose of the provision is to assist the IPCC in those cases where it decides, with the whistleblower’s consent, to refer the matter to the appropriate authority.
Finally, in response to Amendment 137, the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult on the whistleblowing regulations with police staff associations as members of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. This matter was discussed in the House of Commons and subsection (5) of new Section 29M to the Police Reform Act 2002 was inserted on Report there to provide for this requirement.
On the understanding that I will consider further, in advance of Report, Amendments 132 and 133, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I was pleased that the Minister was sympathetic to the point I made on Amendment 133; that is certainly progress. My noble friend raised an important point. We do not want it not to be addressed in legislation on the suggestion that it will come back as guidance, and then we have as an unintended consequence when the guidance is not strong enough that someone makes a complaint and what we thought could not happen does. We need to reflect on that, and perhaps the Government could come back on Report, because I think my noble friend has identified an important issue: we would not want a conflict there to cause problems in future.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation and for admitting the concern of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that support for whistleblowers at present is patchy. We welcome the changes that the legislation brings in terms of reassurance to whistleblowers. I am grateful that the noble Baroness has undertaken to take away our Amendment 132 to see whether anything can be done.
I am not sure that whistleblowers will be reassured by the noble Baroness’s response to Amendment 135, that the IPCC will do its best to keep their identity secret. Again, we are discussing whether something should be in the Bill or in statutory guidance, and if in statutory guidance it will be adhered to in the real world.
On Amendment 136, we understand that it is not the intention to restrict the recommendations that the IPCC can make in response to an issue of concern raised by a whistleblower that is not investigated by the IPCC. However, perhaps the Minister might consider putting in statutory guidance the fact that it is not the intention of the legislation to restrict the number or type of recommendations that the IPCC can make. I will reflect on what she said about Amendment 137, which appears to be a reasonable explanation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 132.
“(c) condition A, B or C is satisfied in relation to the person. (3AA) Condition A is that the person ceases to be a member of a police force after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a).(3AB) Condition B is that the person had ceased to be a member of a police force before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) but the period between the person having ceased to be a member of a police force and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) does not exceed the period specified in regulations under this section.(3AC) Condition C is that—(a) the person had ceased to be a member of a police force before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a),(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a member of a police force and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) exceeds the period specified for the purposes of condition B, and(c) the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, the person could have been dealt with by dismissal if the person had still been a member of a police force.(3AD) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) as they apply in a case where condition C is satisfied in relation to a person must provide that disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness only if the Independent Police Complaints Commission determines that taking such proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate having regard to—(a) the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness,(b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and(c) the public interest.(3AE) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) may make provision about matters to be taken into account by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the purposes of subsection (3AD)(a) to (c).”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the important amendments in this group relate to the circumstances in which disciplinary action may be taken against former police officers and former special constables.
Clause 28 will allow for the extension of the disciplinary regime to former officers where an allegation arose before they resigned or retired, or arose within a period of time following their resignation or retirement. The relevant period will be specified in regulations and we have made it clear that we intend to specify 12 months. On Report in the Commons, the then Policing Minister undertook to bring forward amendments which would set aside the 12-month time limit in exceptional circumstances. The government amendments in this group make good on that commitment.
I start by recognising, as the whole House does, that the vast majority of police officers and special constables conduct themselves with absolute integrity. They serve our communities with distinction and loyalty throughout their careers and, in doing so, demonstrate the values set out in the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics on standards of professional behaviour. Nevertheless, and regrettably, a small minority do not meet the high standards of professionalism that the public rightly expect. The public also expect those suspected of serious misconduct to be subject to formal disciplinary proceedings and that, where officers are in the wrong, they are held to account for their actions. Indeed, that is what both the public, and the majority of decent, dedicated and hard-working police officers in this country deserve.
The Bill already contains significant reforms to increase the accountability of former police officers. As I have indicated, the provisions in Clause 28, and the accompanying regulations, will ensure that where an allegation that could have led to dismissal had the officer still been serving comes to the attention of a force within 12 months of an officer’s resignation or retirement, or where an individual resigns while an investigation is ongoing, this can be investigated or continue to be investigated and that, where appropriate, disciplinary action can be taken to hold the officer to account for serious wrongdoing. Where a case is proven, the new police barred list will ensure that the individual concerned is prevented from future service in policing.
These are important steps, but we need to go further, particularly in the wake of high-profile cases where there is a perception that retired officers suspected of committing the most serious acts of gross misconduct have not been held to account where such acts cause serious harm to public trust and confidence in policing. In these cases, which can emerge long after individuals have left policing, there is more to be done to prevent the perception that officers who have left policing are able to evade accountability. We recognise the strength of feeling in relation to such cases and, in particular, the public concern that police officers who commit the most serious acts of wrongdoing should be held to account for their actions. The Government also recognise the importance of ensuring that the measures introduced are proportionate for policing as a whole and fair for individual officers.
The amendments that stand in my name achieve this important principle of accountability and do so in a way that is robust, fair and proportionate. In effect, these create the new exceptional circumstances test, which will be applied by the IPCC and, in due course, by the director general of the Office for Police Conduct, following the reforms to the IPCC. In our view it is right that the decision as to whether the exceptional circumstances test is met is taken by an organisation independent of government and free from any politicised decision-making. The IPCC carries out its role and functions in a way that is well established within the sector as the independent watchdog for policing.
It would be only in those cases where this test is met and the IPCC has determined that it would be reasonable and proportionate to do so that disciplinary proceedings could be instigated. In deciding whether the exceptional circumstances test is met, the IPCC will have to have regard to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police and the public interest. We will set out in regulations the matters to be taken into account by the IPCC in making such a determination.
This will mean that disciplinary proceedings can be brought in relation to the most serious matters which are considered of an exceptional nature where serious and lasting harm has been caused to public confidence in policing as a result of the wrongdoing. As with the original provisions set out in Clause 28, the exceptional circumstances test will not operate retrospectively. As such, these provisions will apply only to those officers who are serving on or after the date that they come into force. Where there is a finding that the former officer would have been dismissed at a subsequent misconduct hearing, the individual will be barred from future service in police and other law-enforcement agencies.
Amendment 138 gives effect to these changes in respect of former police officers, Amendment 140 in respect of former special constables and Amendment 144 in respect of former MoD police officers. Amendments 139, 141 and 145 clarify that, in cases where the investigation or disciplinary proceedings concerning the former officer, special constable or member of the Ministry of Defence Police arise from a decision to reinvestigate a matter previously closed, this can lead to disciplinary proceedings only in cases which either meet the exceptional circumstances test or where the reinvestigation commences within the specified time limit. Amendments 160, 161 and 162 are consequential on the main amendments and the changes to the governance of the IPCC. They provide that, in future, these determinations will be made by the director general of the Office for Police Conduct.
Amendments 149, 150 and 151 clarify the operation of the police advisory list. The amendment makes it clear that the duty on chief officers and others to report officers to the College of Policing applies only in the case of officers who at the time of leaving the force are under active investigation. The amendments will mean that in circumstances where an officer was previously under investigation while serving but the investigation concluded with no disciplinary proceedings being brought and subsequently the officer leaves the force, the duty to report the officer to the college shall not apply. This eliminates potential ambiguity in the legislation and makes it clear that reports are required only when an individual is subject to an ongoing investigation.
Amendments 142 and 143, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, are directed at the same end as the key government amendments in this group. I hope that, having heard my explanation of the government amendments, the noble Lord is satisfied that they deliver a similar outcome. I commend the government amendments to the Committee and I beg to move Amendment 138.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, we broadly welcome the government amendments in this group and, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has to say on the Labour amendments, they seem to cover similar ground.
I have some questions, but I agree with the Minister that the overwhelming majority of police officers are honest, decent people who want only to do their best to protect and serve the public. However, if an officer has left the service and, within 12 months, an investigation takes place which, if the officer was still serving, could have resulted in that officer being sacked, what sanctions would be available against such an officer, other than their name being added to the banned list?
I understand that “exceptional circumstances”, in terms of the most serious acts of wrongdoing, needs to be defined by an independent body. We will come later on in our considerations to talk about the Independent Police Complaints Commission and whether it is truly independent. It is slightly concerning that one criterion that the IPCC would have to look at, in deciding what action to take, is the impact on public trust and confidence in the police, because it could take the decision that the impact of exposing serious misconduct through an investigation would have such a detrimental impact on that trust and confidence that it would use it as a reason not to investigate rather than an obligation to do so. So we have to be very careful about the grounds on which the IPCC should or should not consider something to be exceptional wrongdoing.
Clearly, many members of the public will be very concerned, or disappointed, that the legislation will not be retrospective, particularly with regard to those involved in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. The concern is not with the rank and file officers in that case; the concern is with what happened in the aftermath, and the leadership exercised at Hillsborough. However, as I say, we are generally supportive of the government amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, first, I associate myself with the comments made by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in paying tribute to the police and how they conduct themselves. They are a fantastic group of people, who protect us every day, and we are very lucky to have them looking after us.
As we have heard, this section of the Bill concerns disciplinary proceedings against former police officers and former special constables, and the amendments in this group are to both the relevant clauses and schedules. Generally, I am content with the government amendments, and supportive of them. My noble friend Lord Rosser tabled Amendments 142 and 143 before the Government tabled their amendments, and we are very happy with what the Government have proposed.
I accept entirely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made about “exceptional circumstances” being defined by an appropriate body. Could the Minister give us some idea what the Government’s thinking is on that matter? Having said that, I support the government amendments.
Lord Condon (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the start of this grouping; I intended to speak but I was slightly delayed. I want to add my support to the Government, to the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving these amendments. It is vital for public confidence that there should be no sense that police officers, once retired, can somehow escape the consequences of actions that, in other circumstances, would have been dealt with by discipline. Certainly, as a former commissioner, I accept that until I draw my last breath I should be accountable for everything that I did during my time as a police officer. I say that with a clear conscience but, if there were any aspect that could have led to a criminal case or disciplinary case, I would of course want that to be tested and examined with the full rigour of the law or disciplinary process, and I would want the same to apply to other people who had retired.
My only reservation—it is not even really a reservation—is that, for more junior officers in particular, a line can never be drawn under their service and what they did as police officers, and they should be held accountable. I think that they and their relatives would take comfort—when looking at an incident that was, perhaps, 20 or 30 years old, where the law, public morality around an issue, or cultural issues may have changed—that there is some test that prevents vexatious or frivolous complaints from that earlier time being put into a process. I take enormous comfort that in, for example, Amendment 142 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, there is a pretty high bar that the Secretary of State has to determine that investigating and, if appropriate, hearing a case is both necessary and proportionate. Those words will be of enormous comfort to the vast majority of retired police officers—men and women who have sometimes put their lives at risk serving the public. They would want to feel that their honourable service has been recognised. I wholeheartedly support the Bill, what is behind these amendments and the spirit of the amendments moved by the Opposition.
Lord Blair of Boughton
My Lords, I also apologise for not joining this particular part of the debate earlier. I absolutely agree with and amplify what my noble friend Lord Condon has said. Part of the difficulty for some of the most senior officers in the system, which my noble friend and I and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, obviously are—we therefore have to declare interests to your Lordships—is that you end up during your period of service, particularly the period of top command, with cases that are headlines for years and which are investigated and investigated. It would mislead the House to say that my noble friend Lord Condon and I have not spoken about it—we have, although not in the Chamber. I urge those putting forward Amendment 142, the Government and the Opposition, to keep the words “necessary and proportionate” in mind, otherwise there is no end to some of these cases. This is a matter that our legislature needs to think about as it brings forward this kind of amendment. I agree absolutely with my noble friend, and I am sure that I speak for other noble Lords who have been senior police officers, that this is the right way forward.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have responded to both the government amendments and the other amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the ultimate sanction for someone who had retired. The ultimate sanction is that the officer is found to have committed gross misconduct at a public misconduct hearing, with the panel finding that the officer would have been dismissed, and, therefore, as a consequence, should be added to the police barred list. Inclusion on the police barred list would see the officer banned from any future service in policing and added to the published list for a period of five years. Perhaps the noble Lord was referring to a police officer in this situation who had retired anyway and had no intention of going back into the police. However, if I had served 40 years in an organisation, such a judgment would be a pretty awful outcome for my career. Therefore, although there would be no actual effect on the person’s life, the ultimate judgment of misconduct in public office would fulfil that purpose.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way but my understanding is that, in the past at least, it has been possible in exceptional circumstances for a disciplinary authority to reduce the pension, for example, of somebody who is dismissed or forced to resign from the police service. Will the noble Baroness write to me explaining whether that sort of sanction might be available?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly write to the noble Lord. I can envisage such a situation where somebody was sanctioned before they retired. In fact, I have the answer—the cavalry arrived in the nick of time. The measure will not directly impact an officer’s pension. However, if criminal activity is identified following an investigation and the officer is convicted, it will be open to the force, as now, to apply for some of the officer’s pension to be forfeited.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was disappointed that the measure was not retrospective in circumstances such as Hillsborough. I think that most noble Lords would share that disappointment. However, we make laws in line with established principles. It is in line with established principles that new laws generally should not be retrospective. They will apply only to officers who are serving when the relevant provisions are commenced. These matters do not in any way affect criminal investigations and prosecutions which, as now, can be pursued at any stage. So, yes, it is disappointing, but it is in line with established practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the exceptional circumstances. I repeat that the IPCC will have regard to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, the inefficiency or the ineffectiveness, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police and the public interest. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Condon, for making the very important point about the necessity and proportionality of these measures.
The period specified”
“(c) condition A, B or C is satisfied in relation to the person. (2BA) Condition A is that the person ceases to be a special constable after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (2B)(a).(2BB) Condition B is that the person had ceased to be a special constable before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) but the period between the person having ceased to be a special constable and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) does not exceed the period specified in regulations under this section.(2BC) Condition C is that—(a) the person had ceased to be a special constable before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (2B)(a),(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a special constable and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (2B)(a) exceeds the period specified for the purposes of condition B, and(c) the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, the person could have been dealt with by dismissal if the person had still been a special constable.(2BD) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2B) as they apply in a case where condition C is satisfied in relation to a person must provide that disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness only if the Independent Police Complaints Commission determines that taking such proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate having regard to—(a) the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness,(b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and(c) the public interest.(2BE) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2B) may make provision about matters to be taken into account by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the purposes of subsection (2BD)(a) to (c).”
The period specified”
“(c) condition A, B or C is satisfied in relation to the person. (1BA) Condition A is that the person ceases to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (1B)(a).(1BB) Condition B is that the person had ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (1B)(a) but the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (1B)(a) does not exceed the period specified in regulations under this section.(1BC) Condition C is that—(a) the person had ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (1B)(a),(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Ministry of Defence Police and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (1B)(a) exceeds the period specified for the purposes of condition B, and(c) the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, the person could have been dealt with by dismissal if the person had still been a member of the Ministry of Defence Police.(1BD) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1B) as they apply in a case where condition C is satisfied in relation to a person must provide that disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness only if the Independent Police Complaints Commission determines that taking such proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate having regard to—(a) the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness,(b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and(c) the public interest.(1BE) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1B) may make provision about matters to be taken into account by the Independent Police Complaints Commission for the purposes of subsection (1BD)(a) to (c).”
The period specified”
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
We also have Amendment 148 in this group and the Government have Amendment 147. These are not such big issues but are the sort of thing that we try to cover in Committee. Clause 29 addresses the police barred list and the police advisory list. Clause 29(6) states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations … make provision that … corresponds or is similar to that made by Part 4A of the Police Act 1996”.
We are not at this point querying the Police Act or Part 4A of it, but rather the words “similar to”. I understand the need to make regulations which will correspond with something. That seems to follow naturally, although sometimes the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee may comment on that. However, the power to make similar regulations seems potentially a wide provision and I am not sure what it means. I hope that the Minister will explain that in responding to Amendment 146, which is a probing amendment.
Government Amendment 147 seems one of the least contentious bits of today’s business. As regards Amendment 148, Schedule 8 contains a provision about the effect of including someone in the police barred list. Certain people are required to check the barred status of potential employees or appointees. The persons are listed as being,
“a chief officer of police; a local policing body; the chief inspector of constabulary; the Independent Police Complaints Commission”,
but also,
“a person specified in regulations”.
Again, there is rather wide scope in that latter provision which could have wide implications. Our Amendment 148 would provide for an affirmative resolution to be passed before the regulations were introduced. One is so pleased by little victories. I am delighted that the Minister has added her name to Amendment 148, which we will be very happy to move in due course. I beg to move Amendment 146.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, this group of amendments responds to two issues raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill in respect of provisions in Clause 29 and Schedule 8, which provide for the creation of a new police barred list and a police advisory list to be held by the College of Policing.
The first issue raised by the Delegated Powers Committee related to the regulation-making power in Clause 29(6), which enables provision to be made which corresponds or is similar to that made by new Part 4A of the Police Act 1996 and which relates to a person who is or has been employed or appointed by a quasi-policing body. As the committee pointed out, certain aspects of the operation of the police barred and advisory lists will be determined by regulations made under new Part 4A of the 1996 Act and it will most likely be necessary, when exercising the power in Clause 29(6), also to make provision corresponding or similar to that contained in such regulations.
I am grateful to the Delegated Powers Committee for highlighting this gap in the regulation-making power in Clause 29(6), which Amendment 147 will address. The amendment will enable regulations made under Clause 29(6) to make provision that corresponds or is similar to that made by or under new Part 4A of the 1996 Act.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am indeed happy. The insertion of the words in Amendment 147 give the clause a completely different meaning. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 146.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, in moving Amendment 147A, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I will speak to our other amendments in this group, Amendments 147B, 150A and 151A.
Schedule 8, which is to be inserted as part of Part 4A of the Police Act 1996, outlines the procedures with regard to the police barred list and a duty to report dismissals to the College of Policing, which is responsible for maintaining the list. Amendment 147A removes the requirement to report cases where a civilian police employee has been dismissed for reasons of efficiency or effectiveness. The amendment probes whether the barred list should be confined to wrongdoing such as dishonesty or the inappropriate use of violence rather than a person being deemed to be inefficient or ineffective.
Amendment 147B has a similar effect on the provisions in new Section 88A(6), which defines “dismissed”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, just said, someone’s employment prospects could be fundamentally affected by being placed on the police barred list. Does she not think it slightly disproportionate to include people who are considered to be inefficient or ineffective on the barred list and thereby affect their employment prospects so fundamentally?
Amendment 150A has a similar effect on the requirement to report resignations and retirements in the face of an allegation of inefficiency or ineffectiveness. Amendment 151A allows someone reported as having resigned or retired in the face of an allegation to be able to appeal against the decision to report his resignation or retirement. I beg to move.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for these amendments. The Government are clear that the provisions on the police barred and advisory lists should apply to police officers and civilian staff equally where individuals have been dismissed or face allegations that could lead to their dismissal for reasons of serious misconduct, incompetence or unsatisfactory performance.
The provisions for civilian staff use the language of “conduct, efficiency or effectiveness” to mirror the language in Sections 50 and 51 of the Police Act 1996, under which regulations concerning discipline for police officers are made. This is a catch-all term to encompass all circumstances that could lead to a dismissal, through the processes related to performance and conduct. The barred list provisions are designed to protect against those who have been dismissed from policing being recruited to another force or policing body having been found to have fallen so far below the standards expected of those working in policing that they have been dismissed.
Amendments 147A and 150A would remove grounds of effectiveness from the relevant categories of dismissal that could lead to a civilian member of staff being added to the barred list. It is my view that “efficiency and effectiveness” are inextricably linked; therefore, to remove one of these factors would seriously undermine the ability of these mechanisms to capture individuals who have been dismissed or who are under ongoing investigation for matters of competence or performance.
Dismissal in these cases would arise only following a prescribed and lengthy process to establish that the individual’s performance or competency has fallen well below the standards expected on a consistent basis or relate to a matter so severe that dismissal is justified. For example, the Police (Performance) Regulations 2012 define gross incompetence for officers as,
“a serious inability or serious failure”,
to perform the duties to a satisfactory standard or level.
As drafted, these amendments would create a disparity in the way that civilian staff are treated compared to their counterparts holding the office of constable with regard to what would be captured by, and the effect of, these provisions. In the Government’s view it would not be desirable to make such a distinction and create such a different approach to the information and individuals that would be captured by the barred and advisory lists for civilian staff versus police officers.
Amendments 147B and 151A seek to create a new right of appeal, specifically with regard to inclusion on either the police advisory or barred list. This is neither necessary nor desirable. Our approach is clear: if an individual has been dismissed from policing, they should be added to the barred list to prevent them rejoining another force or policing body at a later stage. It is important to note that new Sections 88F and 88L of the Police Act 1996, as inserted by Schedule 8, already provide for removal from the barred list and the advisory list. There is an existing route for appeal against dismissal via the Police Appeal Tribunal or employment tribunal. As a result, in the circumstances that a decision to dismiss an individual is overturned, this will result in the individual being removed from the barred list. This is explicitly provided for by Schedule 8.
As we see greater flexibility in roles, functions and powers exercised by civilian staff, as designated under the powers set out in Clause 37, it is important that the police barred list provisions adequately capture individuals who have been dismissed from the police service. This flexibility and application of policing powers must, in the view of the Government, be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, protections and accountability.
The police advisory list provisions are in place to ensure that adequate information is captured where an individual leaves a force while investigatory or disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. This list does not represent a statutory bar but creates a framework for capturing this information for future policing employers to take into account as part of the vetting process. To add an appeal route to this process would therefore undermine the ability of police forces and policing organisations to adequately subject incoming candidates to vetting procedures and take account of the fact that a candidate may be subject to an ongoing investigation or disciplinary process.
As with the barred list, the advisory list provisions contain safeguards so that an individual will remain on this list only while proceedings are ongoing. Where it is determined that no disciplinary proceedings will be brought or are withdrawn, or where disciplinary proceedings conclude without there being a finding that the individual would have been dismissed, the individual’s name and details must be removed from the advisory list.
Ultimately, the right of appeal against inclusion on the advisory list exists within a misconduct hearing, where it will be determined whether the individual should be dismissed and so be added to the barred list. Where dismissal is not the outcome, they will be removed when the process concludes.
Given that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her lengthy explanation of what the barred list and the advisory list are about. However, that is not what the amendments seek; the intention behind them is to suggest that it is disproportionate to include on the lists those who are accused of being inefficient or ineffective.
Although I accept some of the points that the noble Baroness has made, it just spurs us on to look at whether the amendments we have tabled for Committee need to be refined. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the impact that this provision might have on employment prospects—presumably generally and not re-employment in a police service—we question whether the inclusion of “efficiency or effectiveness” is over the top.
I understand the parallel with gross incompetency for police officers. I would be interested to hear whether, since its introduction, that provision has yet broken its duck in terms of a person having been dismissed for gross incompetency. More research is to be done and no doubt we will return to this issue at later stages of the Bill. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 147A.
“(1A) But the duty in subsection (1)(a) does not apply if, before the person resigns or retires, it is determined that no disciplinary proceedings will be brought against the person in respect of the allegation.”
“Appeals to Police Appeals Tribunals
(1) Schedule 6 to the Police Act 1996 (appeals to Police Appeals Tribunals) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 1 (appeal by a senior officer), in sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for “Secretary of State” substitute “relevant person”.(3) In paragraph 2 (appeal by a member of a police force other than a senior officer or by a special constable), in sub-paragraph (1)—(a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “relevant local policing body” substitute “relevant person”;(b) omit paragraph (d);(c) at the end insert—“(e) one shall be a lay person.”(4) After paragraph 2 insert—“2A(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, “the relevant person” means the person determined in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State._(2) Rules under sub-paragraph (1) may make—(a) different provision for different cases and circumstances;(b) provision for the relevant person to be able to delegate the power to appoint the members of a tribunal._(3) A statutory instrument containing rules under sub-paragraph (1) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(5) In paragraph 10 (interpretation)—(a) after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) “lay person” means a person who is not, and has never been—(i) a member of a police force or a special constable,(ii) a member of the civilian staff of a police force, including the metropolitan police force, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (see section 102(4) and (6) of that Act),(iii) a person employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as police authority who is under the direction and control of the Commissioner of Police for the City of London,(iv) a police and crime commissioner,(v) a member of staff of a police and crime commissioner, or of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (see section 102(3) and (5) of that Act),(vi) a constable within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (2012 asp 8) (see section 99 of that Act),(vii) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve,(viii) a member of the British Transport Police Force or a special constable appointed under section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003,(ix) an employee of the British Transport Police Authority appointed under section 27 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003,(x) a member of the Ministry of Defence Police,(xi) a person (other than a member of the Ministry of Defence Police) who is under the direction and control of the chief constable for the Ministry of Defence Police,(xii) a member of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, or (xiii) an employee of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority appointed under paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Energy Act 2004,”;(b) omit sub-paragraph (c).(6) In consequence of the other provision made by this section—(a) in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, in Part 1 of Schedule 22, omit paragraph 11(6)(b);(b) in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, in Part 1 of Schedule 16, omit paragraph 47(2)(b).”
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, Clause 30 is designed to implement two of the recommendations made by Major-General Chip Chapman in his review of the police disciplinary system. Major-General Chapman recommended that the system of police appeals tribunals should be made more transparent and independent by introducing a lay member to the panel. He also identified that enabling greater collaboration between forces would improve consistency of outcomes.
Clause 30, as currently drafted, provides flexibility for the Secretary of State to establish who can be selected to serve on police appeals tribunals and for setting out the administrative arrangements for these tribunals in rules. In its report on the Bill, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee argued that it was inappropriate to leave to secondary legislation the details of who would be eligible to serve on the tribunals.
The Government have accepted the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation on this point, and the government amendments in this group ensure that the individuals who may serve as panel members of a police appeals tribunal will, as now, be set out in primary legislation. However, it remains our intention to further strengthen the independence of police appeals tribunals by replacing the current retired police officer panel member—for panels hearing appeals by non-senior officers—with a lay person member, and the replacement Clause 30 amends Schedule 6 to the Police Act 1996 to this end.
The replacement clause, together with Amendment 172, defines a lay person for these purposes. In broad terms, it means any person who has not previously worked in policing, including as a police officer, as a member of the civilian staff of a police force or as a police volunteer. Amendment 232 makes a consequential change to the extent clause. Importantly, the introduction of lay members will bring a greater degree of independence to police appeal proceedings.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
Clause 32 provides for the current Independent Police Complaints Commission to continue in existence but to be renamed the Office for Police Conduct. The effect of this group of amendments would be to retain the word “Independent” in the title of the renamed organisation. On the face of it, this may seem a somewhat minor point. However, it is not, as the name that is chosen for an organisation can significantly determine how it is perceived by those who come into contact with it and by the wider public.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has had the word “Independent” in its title for, I believe, some 14 years, and it sends an important message: it is meant to be independent. Removing it from the new name of the organisation will also be regarded, by the public generally but particularly by those with whom it has specific dealings, as sending a message about its status, and it is a message that is unlikely to be helpful—namely, that it is no longer meant to be independent, including in its relationship with the police.
Currently, the word “Police” is in the title, but so too is “Independent”. In future, under the provisions of the Bill only the word “Police” will be seen in the title by those who need to deal with the renamed organisation. As it is, at times there is already an issue of some public mistrust over the perception of the police investigating the police, and the proposed name change will certainly not help in that regard.
What are we to make of the title, Office for Police Conduct? Would not the natural assumption be that this was some police body, part of the organisation, accountable to the organisation and certainly not separate and independent from the police service? How will that assist in establishing the trust or securing the confidence of those with whom the organisation comes into contact? Not all of them will necessarily at the time of that contact have the highest regard for the police—the obvious example being a bereaved family in the early days of an investigation by the current IPCC.
I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on this point and on the significance of the removal of the word “Independent” from the title of the renamed organisation, and will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I support this amendment. For those who have monitored the police complaints process and helped advise complainants, the word “independent” has always had enormous significance. It is not a word of little value—it has huge significance for conveying the nature of the organisation that is carrying out complaints and overseeing complaints. I make no apology for reminding the House that I went on the record as commissioner to argue for a totally independent police complaints system. I put enormous value on the word “independent”, then and now, and I encourage the Government to think again on this issue.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for precisely the reasons that he and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, outlined. On the other hand, we also have very important organisations that do not have the word “independent” in their title; for instance, Ofcom and Ofgem. So it is not unusual for organisations not to have the word “independent” in their title—but I hope that the Minister will consider the matter carefully.
Lord Condon
Would the noble Earl accept that, in the history of police complaints, more so than for “Of-anything”, the word “independent” has always had huge significance, and that there are many organisations, campaigners and individual long-time complainants for whom, in this context, “independent” is worth far more than in the context of a complaint against a gas company?
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I hope that the Minister will also remind us why we are changing the name at all. Legislation could be used to change the function, composition or governance of the body, but I would like to be reminded why we are changing the name at all. The general public are used to the term “IPCC” and they know what it does —and now we are changing it.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I added my name to the three amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the IPCC has an uphill task because, necessarily, it has to rely to a large extent on former police officers as investigators. It does not do itself any favours by appointing, as it has done at least at some point in its history, a former staff officer to a Commissioner of the Met as its head of investigations—that hardly inspires confidence in those looking at it subjectively from the outside or conveys the message that it is completely independent.
Cynics might say that removing “Independent” from the title of the organisation is an outbreak of honesty in the Government. But that is not the direction that we should be moving in. This should not be seen simply as a cosmetic change; it needs to have some substance behind it. To call it the Office for Police Conduct, without “Independent” in there, is manna from heaven to those who want to criticise the new body as not being independent at all. For those reasons, I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Bach
My Lords, surely this is just a matter of common sense. Can we not cut through everything that has been said? I absolutely support what my noble friend Lord Rosser, and the noble Lords, Lord Condon, and Lord Paddick, have said—it is just a matter of common sense. Anyone who has been in government knows that sometimes Governments hold up the most obvious and common-sense approach for no apparent reason at all—we did it, and I fear this may be an example of the Minister’s Government doing it. It is quite clear that the word “independent” should be included. It would make it much clearer to the general public. Surely this is something that the noble Baroness can take away and consider, and perhaps come back and agree that it is just pure common sense.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lords who have spoken so clearly on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I will outline why the Government want to change the name. The aim is to ensure that the organisation has a corporate structure and governance arrangements that enable it to carry out efficiently and effectively its expanded role in the police complaints and discipline systems.
My noble friend Lord Attlee pointed out that not every independent body has the word “independent” in its title—he mentioned Ofgem and Ofcom, and Ofsted is another example.
I understand that the body’s constitution alone does not guarantee public trust in its independence, but neither necessarily does incorporating the word “independent” in its title. That said, I understand the contrary argument, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Condon, that adding the word “independent” to the name might change some people’s perceptions and encourage them to come forward if they have concerns about police conduct. Therefore, although I remain to be persuaded of the case for the amendments, I will reflect between now and Report on the points that noble Lords made so well in this short debate. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her response and thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I note that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, is not committing herself to agree to the change, but she agreed to reflect on the matter and on what has been said this afternoon and perhaps come back to it on Report. I thank her for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
The effect of these amendments is to give the director-general of the Office for Police Conduct a power to create regional directors, including a national director for Wales, and that as a minimum four of the regional director positions should be excluded from having a former police background, with a similar bar on the national director for Wales.
The Bill provides a specific bar on the director-general having previously worked for the police and creates a power for him or her to apply that bar to certain specified roles. Currently, all the IPCC’s commissioners—who are both its governing board and its senior public-facing decision-makers—can never have worked for the police. That has delivered a diverse group of people with senior experience in other fields in those roles to complement the policing experience of other staff and senior managers. As I understand it, the IPCC’s clear view is that this should continue to be the case for those who, like commissioners, are the public face of the organisation in the regions and its senior decision-makers. Obviously, the point of tabling the amendment is to seek the reasons for the decisions the Government appear to have made on this point and which are enshrined in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the underlying thinking here ties in quite closely with the debate on the previous group, and I am not sure that anyone said then that losing the word “Independent” from the title was particularly significant because of the very fact that it will be a change—more significant than if one was creating a new organisation and not having the word in its title from the start. That thought is part of the reason for our Amendment 158A in this group, which in fact the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained to the Committee. It would also mark a change so that all the members of the body, if I can use a neutral term, could not be appointed from those who are—summarising around a third of a page—cops or ex-cops. That change would be a significant one, and again it is about the perception of independence as well as actual independence. We may hear that there are some practical reasons, or reasons of experience, that has caused the Government to move in this direction in their decisions on the structure and this part of the body’s governance, but I do not think that it is a good direction to go in.
As regards Amendments 157 and 158, in our view it would be wise to have a geographic spread, but if there is going to be a truly independent “Office”, it should be allowed to sort out its own arrangements, although anyone with any sense in the organisation would want to be sure that the regions of England, as well as the nation of Wales, are heard loudly and clearly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Bill provides for the existing commission to be replaced by a single executive head, the director-general, and for corporate governance to be provided by a unitary board with a majority of non-executives. These reforms address the recognised weaknesses of the existing commission model, under which most of the commissioners are engaged in operational activity and in the governance of the organisation. This has resulted in blurred lines of accountability. The commission itself recognises the need for change and there was clear support for the new director-general model in the response to the public consultation on the proposed reforms.
As the single executive head, the director-general will be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of the reformed organisation. That is why the legislation provides the director-general with the flexibility to determine the executive structure of the organisation, including the composition of his or her senior team. The director-general needs the freedom to shape the organisation in the way they see best to deliver high-quality, timely and independent investigations into police conduct, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 157 would tie the hands of the director-general as it would require the corporate structure of the Office for Police Conduct to include a minimum of four regional directors plus a national director for Wales.
The Government expect the Office for Police Conduct to have a regional presence, as the IPCC does, but as with the IPCC now and since its creation more than a decade ago, the Government do not see the need to legislate for a regional structure. A requirement for a specified minimum number of regional and national director posts would limit the director-general’s future flexibility to respond to the changing needs and circumstances of the organisation. In addition, this particular amendment would put regional directors on the board. That would undermine the core strengths of the new governance model and risk replicating the blurred lines of accountability within the existing commission structure.
I turn now to Amendments 158 and 158A, which relate to positions in the Office for Police Conduct that should not be open to those who have worked for the police. The Government recognise that public confidence in the independence of the organisation relies on certain key decision-making roles not being open to those with a police background. That is why there will be an absolute bar on the director-general from ever having worked for the police. We do not think that there should be statutory restrictions on those who are members of the office—in effect, the board of the reformed organisation. The core functions of the office are set out clearly in the Bill and include ensuring the good governance and financial management of the organisation. These functions are quite distinct from the functions of the director-general. The director-general, as the single executive head, will be solely accountable for all casework and investigation decisions, not the board. It is not right that a suitably qualified individual could not be appointed to a corporate governance role as a member of the board simply because he or she once worked as a police civilian, perhaps for just a short period many years previously.
With regard to employee roles, the Bill provides the director-general with an express power to designate functions and roles that are restricted, including senior operational and public-facing positions. The power means that the director-general will be able to ensure that the OPC has the right mix of staff, including those with valuable policing experience, while also having the power to place restrictions to help bolster public confidence in the OPC’s impartiality and independence. However, as I said, it is important that the director-general can secure public confidence in the work of the Office for Police Conduct. The Bill recognises the need for transparency in the director-general’s decision-making and places a requirement on the director-general to publish a statement of policy on the exercise of these particular powers of recruitment.
To conclude, we believe the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance by placing core aspects of the OPC’s governance in the legislation while ensuring that there is flexibility and transparency in appointments. On that note, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are reassured of the Government’s intentions and that they will be content not to press their amendments.
Lord Rosser
Can I ask the Minister whether the Government accept that, under the Bill’s terms, as far as the public face of the organisation and its very senior decision-makers are concerned, we could end up with a situation where only one, namely the director-general, has not previously worked for the police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think what I outlined in my speech to noble Lords was that the director-general would need to outline how he proposes the board will work and his position in it. The Bill recognises the need for transparency, as the noble Lord pointed out. It places a requirement on the director-general to publish a statement of policy on the exercise of these particular powers of recruitment. I imagine that if he decided to have a board full of former police officers he would want to explain why, in his particular case, this was necessary.
Baroness Hamwee
Would the Minister accept that the bit the public will be aware of—like the change from an organisation with the term “independent” in its title—is the change from a board structure where there is a bar on all members of the board having been police officers or involved with the police service to a situation where there need not be, not the detail of the report of the director-general explaining the fine detail of their thinking? It is a much broader issue than the Government are acknowledging.
Lord Rosser
I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and the Minister for her response setting out what the Government’s position is and the thinking behind the Government’s wording in the Bill. Issues have been highlighted in the debate about the potential implications and the extent to which one could end up in a situation where very few people indeed in the public face of the organisation and its senior decision-makers had not worked for the police, since the terms of the Bill do not preclude that happening. It precludes it only as far as the director-general is concerned.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I profusely apologise for intervening, but I thought I would give the noble Lord the full information I have before me. There is a backstop power for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations restrictions on which posts can be held by former police. Perhaps that is a conversation to be had. It would be very unusual for the director-general to pack his or her board full of ex-police officers, but there is this backstop power for the Secretary of State. I apologise for intervening on the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser
Not at all. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention, further clarifying the position as far as the Government are concerned. One might say that it is not entirely satisfactory that one would have to have a backstop power to prevent a situation arising where very few, if any, of those who are the public face of the organisation or its senior decision-makers are not people who have previously worked for the police. Some might feel that that should be better enshrined in the Bill itself.
Nevertheless, this short debate has highlighted quite an important issue. I hope the Government might be prepared to reflect on what has been said, and on the significance of the issue raised, in the context of the future role and perception of the Office for Police Conduct. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, Amendments 159, 163 and 233 in this group are technical and consequential amendments arising from the changes to the IPCC’s governance arrangements that we have already debated. I can provide noble Lords with further details if required, but for now I beg to move.
“Investigatory Powers Act 2016
72A(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows._(2) In section 59 (section 58: meaning of “excepted disclosure”), in subsection (4)(c)—(a) for “the Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;(b) for “its functions” substitute “the Director General’s functions”._(3) In section 107 (power to issue warrants to law enforcement officers), in subsection (11)—(a) for “the chairman, or a deputy chairman, of the Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;(b) omit “by the Commission”._(4) In section 108 (restriction on issue of warrants to certain law enforcement officers), in subsection (2), for paragraph (h) substitute— “(h) the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct;”._(5) In section 134 (section 133: meaning of “excepted disclosure”), in subsection (3)(b)—(a) for “the Independent Police Complaints Commission” substitute “the Director General of the Office for Police Conduct”;(b) for “its functions” substitute “the Director General’s functions”._(6) In Schedule 4 (relevant public authorities and designated senior officers), in Part 1—(a) omit the entry relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and(b) after the entry relating to the Office of Communications insert—
“Office for Police Conduct | Director or an equivalent grade | All | (b) and (i)” |
“The Director General of the Office for Police Conduct. | A person falling within paragraph 6A(2) of Schedule 2 to the Police Reform Act 2002 who is designated by the Director General for the purpose.” |
Baroness Jolly
“Forces maintained otherwise than by local policing bodies
After section 26(3)(b) of the Police Reform Act 2002 (forces maintained otherwise than by local policing bodies) insert—“(c) the Royal Military Police;(d) the Royal Air Force Police; and(e) the Royal Navy Police.””
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I will not detain the House long on this small but very important amendment. This is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. The interest is relatively niche and relates to the three service police forces and the 160,000 men and women who serve in our Armed Forces.
The aim of the amendment is to insert a clause that extends the remit of the IPCC to the service police forces. I am not alone in this desire. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary recommended that oversight of service police should be brought within the competence of the IPCC. In a report last year on the Royal Military Police, the Army’s investigative and policing branch, stated:
“There was insufficient public scrutiny of RMP investigations. The RMP does not report to the public, and investigations into RMP wrongdoing are carried out by an internal Professional Standards Department or the Provost Marshal of another service police force”
It added:
“The Provost Marshal acknowledged to HMIC that a strategic risk to the RMP is inadequate independent oversight of its own independence.”
Only last week, the RMP finally admitted to failings in a rape case in 2009, that of Anne-Marie Ellement, a member of the Royal Military Police, who claimed that two of her colleagues raped her. She took her own life in 2011. The MoD said, seven years after the rape case, that it was clear that mistakes were made and apologised to the family.
Had the IPPC’s remit covered service police forces there would have been another avenue to take the concern. This is a terrible case and I am sure the service police forces have taken a long hard look at themselves, but it is not the only case where they have been found wanting. Had there been the opportunity, an independent complaints commissioner could have intervened.
I feel sure that the Minister will refer to the chain of command—this is important to military discipline—and the fact that there is a Service Complaints Commissioner. There is, but the system was ineffective in this case. Our servicemen and women have rights and those rights are best upheld if this amendment is accepted.
I remind the Minister that in 2014, the Defence Select Committee called for a timescale to be set out to bring the service police under the auspices of the IPCC. Has such a timetable been agreed? If the answer is no, in the light of this week’s announcements, how much more likely it is that the MoD would review the situation?
Lack of accountability of the service police undermines the rule of law and makes it harder for them to undertake their function of policing by consent. This amendment gives the opportunity to bring the three police services into the same independent system of oversight as applies to the rest of us. If the Minister is not able to help this afternoon, will she agree to meet me to look at it further? I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly and myself. My noble friend has made a very strong case, not just because it was Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s recommendation that the three service police forces should come under the remit of the IPCC. Those responsible for the Royal Military Police have accepted that the organisation is at a strategic risk because it does not come under the remit of the IPCC. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, it would be very interesting to hear from the Minister why not.
Lord Rosser
I will just add briefly to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, at the end of his speech. If the Government do not feel inclined to accept the amendment, there is a need—I am sure it will happen when the Government respond—to hear precisely what their reasons are for not going down that road. It has been said that no comparable body to the IPCC exists to deal with complaints about service police forces. A significant number of forces and agencies do fall within the jurisdiction of the IPCC, including, I understand, the Ministry of Defence Police. If the Government do not accept the amendment, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I wait to listen with interest to their reasons why not.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has explained, this amendment seeks to put the service police within the remit and jurisdiction of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
We do, of course, support the need for independent oversight and scrutiny of the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police, and the Royal Air Force Police, including the key objective of having an independent mechanism to investigate complaints against them. I am also aware that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has recommended that the Government should consider further whether the IPCC could be the appropriate mechanism.
The Government have given early consideration to this, including discussions with the IPCC. To bring the service police under the remit of the IPCC is potentially a major change. Although only a small number of cases may be involved, it could mark a significant shift for the IPCC far beyond its current operations in England and Wales. As the chair of the IPCC has said,
“There are inherent and significant differences between the remit and jurisdiction of the service police and those of the Home Office Police forces”.
In addition, the IPCC is currently part way through a major programme of expansion to build its capacity and capability to investigate all serious and sensitive allegations against civilian police forces. This Bill will further strengthen the IPCC’s remit and powers and, in light of its expanded role, the Bill also provides for the reform of the organisation’s corporate structure and governance to deliver a more capable and resilient organisation.
At this stage, the IPCC’s capacity for further change to its role is constrained. That is why the Government, led by the Ministry of Defence, are seeking alternative options. Recent work with the Ministry of Defence has been focused on the development of a common complaints procedure across the three service police forces. This procedure covers complaints made by serving and non-serving military personnel against a member of the service police carrying out a policing function, irrespective of location. There is now also a protocol between the service police forces to ensure that, where there may be a conflict of interest around the investigation of a complaint, one service police force may investigate another. The next phase of the Ministry of Defence’s work is to consider how best to introduce a mechanism that will provide for the independent oversight of these complaints, wherever in the world they are made.
I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that, in the light of the work being taken forward by the Ministry of Defence, and the risks that could arise if we sought to impose new responsibilities on the IPCC at a time when it is already going through a substantial reform programme, I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee. I accept, however, that the noble Baroness wants to see more progress towards finding a long-term solution to this issue. I can certainly undertake to write to the Armed Forces Minister to draw his attention to this debate, but for now I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. Of course, I am more than happy to meet the noble Baroness.
Baroness Jolly
I thank the Minister for her comments and my noble friend Lord Paddick, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their support. I understand that it would be a large change for the IPCC to undertake this extra work. I imagine that a certain amount of the capacity would go from one organisation to the other. One of the things I would like to understand is the timescale of all this, so perhaps when the Minister and I meet, this is the sort of area we could discuss.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am quite neutral, but obviously interested in this debate. The noble Baroness talked about a large increase in work for the IPCC or the successor organisation. In support of the noble Baroness, there are not that many service policemen and policewomen. It is not clear to me why it should generate a huge amount of extra work.
I have to say to the Minister, that she has not absolutely convinced me that there is the capacity in the service system to investigate really effectively a service police force when something goes wrong. However, I have to say I am still neutral.
Baroness Jolly
I have no comment on that one. I thank the noble Earl for his remarks and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, Amendment 164A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I will also speak to the other amendment in the group, Amendment 164B. Clause 35 addresses the powers of inspectors—that is, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary—to obtain information, to secure access to police premises, and other matters by substituting paragraphs 6A and 6B in Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996. New paragraph 6B talks about the powers of inspectors to obtain access to police premises and paragraph 6B(1)(a)(iii) talks about who can be served with a notice requiring them to allow access to premises, including,
“a person providing services, in pursuance of contractual arrangements (but without being employed by a chief officer of police of the police force or its local policing body)”.
The amendment deletes “but” and replaces it with “with or”, so it would cover a person who is employed by the police, as well as someone who is not. Amendment 164B makes a similar change to who can appeal against such a notice. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the amendment presumably aims to ensure that inspectors have comprehensive access to premises used for policing purposes, and that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is able to inspect the totality of policing in a landscape where functions are increasingly delivered by multiple agencies. The noble Lord nods; I thought that was probably the aim. The Government wholeheartedly agree with that aim, which is the purpose of this Bill’s inspection provisions.
The amendment does not actually further that aim. The current wording already ensures that inspectors have access to any premises used in the delivery of policing functions, whether they are occupied by the force itself, the local policing body, another emergency service acting in collaboration with the force or a private company carrying out the activities of a force under a contract. I put it to the noble Lord that these amendments would not, in practice, extend the categories of premises to which an inspector had access. Any premises occupied for the purposes of a police force by persons employed under contract by the chief officer are already captured in these provisions. That being the case, I think the noble Lord would agree that the amendments were unnecessary. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Clearly the amendment is not designed to extend the category of premises that HMIC would be able to access. It is about extending the category of person upon which a notice could be served. It appears to us that the wording in the Bill is restrictive and needs to be broadened. We are trying to broaden the category of person on which the notice can be served.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It might be helpful to the noble Lord to hear that this is covered by government Amendment 166, which ensures that any other person who is,
“by virtue of any enactment … carrying out the activities of”,
a police force is subject to inspection.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful for that second explanation and will consider it carefully. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(g) any other person who is, by virtue of any enactment, carrying out any of the activities of a police force.”
“(d) any other persons if, or to the extent that, they are engaged by virtue of any enactment in carrying out the activities of the police force.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I will not detain the House very long with this amendment. Amendment 167A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is a probing amendment. We tabled it to get on the record the thinking of the Government in this respect, and to raise our concerns. From these Benches, we are more content with the idea of employed staff being designated to use the weapons as outlined in new subsection (9B), but we have some reservations about the authorisation of volunteers to use them. I think the public would have some concerns about arming volunteers with CS and PAVA sprays. It may be seen as a step too far.
It would be useful if, when the noble Baroness responds to the debate, she could tell the House how many PCSO posts have been lost in the last six years. It appears on looking at this that it could be regarded as policing on the cheap: reduce the number of PCSOs in full-time employment and then get these volunteers and arm them with these weapons. Those are our concerns.
There is also a Clause 38 stand part debate in this group. We tabled that for the same reason: to get on record the Government’s thinking here and to outline our concerns at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick
I support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and again express my concerns about this move to give police volunteers considerable powers, including authorising them to use incapacitant sprays. I share the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, expressed in terms of public confidence in volunteers being given these weapons.
If somebody wants to volunteer to get involved in the use of force in the exercise of police powers, as would be the case in using incapacitant sprays, there is an avenue open to them: volunteer to become a special constable. They then have all the powers of a regular police officer, undergo extensive training and wear uniform almost indistinguishable from a regular police officer. As a consequence, there is no need for this Bill to give other volunteers the powers in this clause. If they want to help the police service by volunteering for other activities that do not involve the use of force, then of course it is open to them to do so, but in that case they would not need the powers that this clause would give volunteers.
Again, this adds complexity to what is already a complex policing family. There is already confusion among some members of the public about the different powers available to police community support officers compared with police constables; for example, at the scenes of road traffic accidents, where police community support officers have to stand at the side of the road and wait for a police officer to turn up to take control of any resulting traffic congestion because they do not have the power to direct traffic. Having volunteer community support officers would add a further level of complexity and confusion in the eyes of the public. Not only do we consider this clause unnecessary, but we feel that it could add to confusion and further undermine what the police service is trying to achieve in very difficult circumstances in the face of significant cuts to its budget.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I support the powers of police civilian staff and police volunteers, who deliver extra support and complement our police officers. In Lincolnshire two years ago the first VPCSOs were recruited as an extra uniformed visible presence in local communities, supporting the work of regular PCSOs in providing reassurance and support to local people. The word “extra” is important as these officers were designed not to replace existing provision but to supplement it.
The VPCSO role is varied but includes: giving advice and reassurance to victims and witnesses of crime; supporting policing operations by providing reassurance to members of the community; working with police officers, PCSOs and other police staff on policing priorities; and working within the local policing team on minor incidents, crime inquiries and anti-social behaviour, with a commitment to at least four hours a week on patrol in their local area.
The force has developed a role profile for VPCSOs with eligibility requirements that are the same as for PCSOs, such as minimum age, residency, skills and qualities, health, and vetting. Applicants undertake a selection process that includes an interview to test that their personal qualities meet those required in the role profile. Induction and initial training is undertaken over five weekends, followed by a further two weekends’ consolidation a few weeks later once they have gained some experience.
From a pilot stage to a valued part of visible policing in Lincolnshire, this has been pioneered and funded entirely by the PCC and chief constable and has offered an innovative way to supplement local policing while enhancing the range of opportunities available to local residents who wish to volunteer and contribute to their community. It is also a possible route to becoming a regular officer. The important changes in the Policing and Crime Bill to allow VPSCOs to have powers will improve the flexibility and efficacy of the role. Most importantly, these officers offer an extra uniformed, visible presence, thus addressing many, many residents’ requests and supporting our valued police officers.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, emphasises the potential value of police volunteers and the role that she described. The difficulty is that we are debating several issues almost simultaneously—and she may almost have been anticipating the next group. The specific point that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser relates to is the provision to enable those volunteers to use CS spray, PAVA spray and other specified weapons.
The concern that a number of us have, which is why it is important that we debate this and understand exactly what the implications are, is that this is a significant extra step. Having police volunteers who advise the public or patrol with a uniform in various areas to help create a visible presence, we can all understand and would value and welcome. The point at which you give them the power to use force against fellow citizens is actually an extremely significant change, and it raises all the issues about the level of training that they will receive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, talked about the training that is provided. Obviously, that is valuable, although I suspect that five weekends of training are probably what you need to learn all the other functions before you get on to what is essentially the power to use violence against other members of the public. There are issues around accountability and how all these things are managed. Before we take the step of saying that people who have volunteered and have had some training, albeit a comparatively small amount, can be allowed to use CS spray or other weapons against other citizens, we have to think about it extremely carefully.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I do not turn my mind totally against this provision but, from my experience, the way you equip people heavily influences how they think about what they are doing: their role and how they react. Like other noble Lords, my inclination at this stage, subject to reassurance from the Government, is that the cut-off point for incapacitant sprays should probably stay at special constable, where there is a level of training, supervision, scrutiny and public acceptance of their role that there is not for volunteers. Incapacitant sprays can and have killed. To equip a volunteer who may have good but relatively basic training with a spray that can kill a fellow member of the public is an enormous step and we need reassurance from the Government that it is absolutely necessary.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very useful discussion. I find myself slightly closer to the Government’s position than that of the noble Lord who spoke from the other side, but I have considerable sympathy with his argument.
There is a terribly difficult problem, which I hope my noble friend will address, of confusion about who these people are, who is in which category, and the like. I happen to have a close relative who sought to be a special constable and discovered that the difficulties of becoming a special constable are really quite considerable. I hope that my noble friend can help me by explaining that this is not a way of getting out of the difficulties of the one by producing something different, which would mean that we are not facing up to some really fundamental issues about how people become special constables and whether we are making it easy for people who would like to make this contribution.
What the debate has really raised are perfectly genuine concerns that this may not quite have been thought through in the way we would like it to be. As it is such a delicate issue, I hope it could be taken rather more widely than in the actual amendment, by thinking a bit about the way in which the public will understand the distinction between these categories. This bit of additional power given to people who decide to volunteer shines a light on the problem and on the confusion which I am not sure has actually been overcome in the debates that we have had so far.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is of course very difficult not to stray into other amendments when talking about something in the round. I thank my noble friend Lady Redfern for laying out her experience of using volunteer police officers in Lincolnshire. It must be one of the first areas in the country to do that, so it was very useful to have that information in the round. In thinking about my noble friend Lord Deben’s point about the importance of the public knowing the difference between a volunteer and a special police constable, or indeed a fully trained officer, I asked myself whether I wondered, when my children were at school, what the difference was between the teaching assistant and the fully trained teacher. In fact, as long as they both contributed to my child’s education, I was not that much bothered—but it may be an issue for some people and I recognise the point that my noble friend makes.
Amendment 167 returns to an issue that was debated at length in the House of Commons: namely, whether it is ever right for designated members of police staff, or the new category of designated volunteers, to carry these particular sprays for defensive purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has also given notice that he intends to oppose the question that Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill.
I hope that I can assist the Committee by first explaining what Clause 38 seeks to achieve. It makes necessary consequential amendments to the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that police volunteers come within the definition of “civilian officers” for the purposes of that Act. The effect of this is that they do not then need a firearms certificate or authorisation under either Section 1 or Section 5 of the 1968 Act in order to carry a defensive spray. The clause simply puts community support volunteers and policing support volunteers in the same position in relation to defensive sprays that police officers and police civilian staff are currently in.
Clause 37(6) makes it clear that police staff and volunteers cannot use other weapons within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968 unless the Secretary of State makes regulations under new Section 38(9B)(b) of the Police Reform Act 2002. Any such regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Paddick
To clarify what the noble Baroness has just said, could the Secretary of State, by regulations, authorise police volunteers to carry guns, if they were so minded?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will repeat that Clause 37(6) makes it clear that police staff and volunteers cannot use other weapons within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968 unless the Secretary of State makes regulations under new Section 38(9B)(b). Yes, it does read like that—but, as the law currently covers this, it is only trained police officers within London who can be armed.
Lord Paddick
Yes, but I think the Minister has just agreed with me that, through regulations, the Secretary of State could allow police volunteers to be given guns without the need for a firearms certificate. That is slightly worrying.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am pretty much as certain as I ever can be about anything that it is not the intention of the Bill to allow volunteers to carry guns—but I suspect that I need to provide some further clarification, and hopefully I will do that.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend. It may be that the provision is to allow different types of, say, pepper spray, because the legislation itself is quite specific about which chemicals can be used. There may be future developments in chemicals, and I suspect that the provision in the Bill allows the Secretary of State to specify them. It would be helpful if my noble friend could constrain the Secretary of State by saying that they will never authorise civilian volunteers to have firearms—except perhaps to move them around in police premises.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is pretty much on the tip of my tongue to say that, but I think that noble Lords know exactly what the Government’s intentions are.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I think the Minister has unfortunately raised a large red herring, which will certainly prove to be one if she gets the clarification that she wants on it. However, although the intent may not be to allow this, the current wording suggests that it might be used in that way. The specific issue is that a very clear line is being crossed by saying that volunteers can be authorised to use sprays—pepper sprays or whatever else—and that is the distinction. Although the clause may or may not give the Secretary of State powers to increase the list—the Minister way be about to get the answer—or even to specify particular pepper sprays, the concern is about the use of the spray in the first place and whether it is right that a volunteer, despite not having gone through all the other training which is necessary, is able to do that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Yes, I totally take the noble Lord’s point, and I am hoping the clarification will arrive from my left in the next five minutes.
As we have made clear in our delegated powers memorandum, this is intended as a future-proofing provision to cover any self-defence equipment not yet invented—and I am not talking about guns. We are also taking the opportunity to make it explicit in the 1968 Act that special constables are members of a police force for the purposes of that Act, and therefore similarly do not require a certificate or authorisation under the 1968 Act when equipped with a defensive spray. This will avoid any doubt being created by the insertion of a specific reference to policing support and community support volunteers within the meaning of “Crown servant” in the Firearms Act.
I turn next to the various points that have been raised in relation to equipping staff.
Lord Deben
I did not quite understand the bit about things that have not yet been invented. The reason I did not understand is that I am not sure that I would be very happy about giving powers to give permission for the use of something that has not been invented, because I do not know whether what has not been invented would be something that I would like to give people the powers to use, if you see what I mean. This is a very dangerous route down which to go.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend does not need to worry about that at all, because it will be under the affirmative procedure, so Ministers will have to justify it. I have to say that future-proofing this seems to me to be a sensible thing to do, although on the other hand I slightly have sympathy for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
Lord Condon
Before the Minister finally sits down, I ask her to acknowledge and perhaps clarify this point. We are considering this very important crossover point from special constables being given these powers to volunteers having them in the context of what the Bill is also doing. It is enhancing the role of police and crime commissioners by giving them the ability to consider taking on the responsibility for fire and rescue services, and giving them the power to appoint the fire chief as the overall chief officer for policing and for fire. The Bill will create a model whereby, for example, a relatively young 32 year-old police and crime commissioner in an area can choose to appoint the fire chief as the overall chief officer of policing and fire in that area—admittedly, with the approval of the Secretary of State—and in that context a young, relatively inexperienced PCC with a chief officer who may not have a police background could take decisions on what volunteers could and could not do. The notion of them being given potentially lethal force is quite a big issue. I look forward to the Minister, as I am sure she will, giving us some reassurance about the notion of volunteers being able to have pepper sprays that in theory can kill people.
Lord Paddick
I do not want to prolong the agony, but another aspect of this is that members of the public should be reasonably sure about what level of force they are going to encounter from whom. As I say, special constables now are virtually indistinguishable from regular police officers; if a special constable decides to use a defensive spray, that will not come as a shock to the member of the public. In terms of the way that the member of the public interacts with a police officer or special constable, they may or may not use force against that individual on the basis of what they anticipate the reaction of that person to be, or the ability of the person to respond to it. When it comes to a volunteer police community support officer, who does all the wonderful things that the Minister said earlier, I think it is going to be a bit of a shock, and an unreasonable one, to expect such a volunteer to respond with an incapacitant spray.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, may I perhaps make a bit of progress on what I was already outlining? Much of what I am going to say answers the questions that noble Lords are asking.
The argument has been put forward that issuing PCSOs with defensive equipment is somehow incompatible with those officers’ primary role, which is to engage with members of the public in their communities. If we examine the way in which different forces equip their PCSOs, we can see that there are different approaches. Some forces equip their PCSOs with body armour and some do not, and the same is true of handcuffs, yet all forces use their PCSOs as the key point of engagement with their local communities. I was one of the people who was very sceptical about PCSOs, but they now have a lot of respect in communities across the country. If the prevailing security situation were such that a particular chief officer considered it necessary to issue their PCSOs with defensive sprays—I emphasise to noble Lords that none has to date—the Government consider that they should be able to, subject of course to the test of suitability, capability and training already set out in the Police Reform Act 2002.
It has also been argued that it is impractical to train volunteers in the use of defensive sprays, to which our response has two limbs. First, if an officer or volunteer has not been properly trained in the use of any power, the law simply does not allow a chief officer to designate that officer or volunteer with the power in question. Section 38(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by Clause 37 of the Bill, already states that a chief officer cannot designate the person with a power unless they are satisfied that they are both suitable and capable of exercising the power and that they have received adequate training in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred.
However, we do not consider that it is impractical to train volunteers in the use of defensive sprays. On 31 March this year, there were over 16,000 special constables in the 43 police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport Police, all of whom have the full powers of a police officer, performed on a volunteer basis for at least 12 hours per month.
I was grateful to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, at Second Reading, on his strong support for members of the special constabulary, with whom he will definitely have worked during his career policing. As he said, special constables receive extensive training and have all the powers of a regular constable. Many of those specials patrol on a regular basis with their full-time colleagues and they carry identical equipment, including body armour, batons and defensive sprays—again, in exactly the way as their full-time colleagues. It is therefore patently not the case that it is impractical to train volunteers in the use of such equipment. Any volunteer who did not want to carry such a spray, could not undertake the training or was not suitable would not be designated by their chief to carry and use it, even if others in their force were so designated.
Lord Harris of Haringey
But we might drift off the point. Could the Minister clarify why, rather than encouraging more people to go through the special constable route where they take the affirmation about their role and everything else, the Government are suggesting instead that there be a volunteer category that would not be the same as special constables but would have exactly the same access to equipment?
Lord Paddick
On a very similar point, the Minister just said that while chief constables have the power to issue incapacitant spray to PCSOs, no chief constable has done so to date. Why do the Government now feel it necessary to give chief constables the power to give incapacitant spray to volunteer community support officers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is simply to give chief officers the flexibility to use their workforce and their volunteer force to the best end in fighting crime and reassuring communities. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks why, for example, a volunteer cannot simply become a special constable. There are many reasons why you might want to be a volunteer rather than a special constable. We are focused today on the deployment of PAVA and CS spray, but actually a volunteer could be a police volunteer. They could be a retired accountant, for example, or a retired lawyer, and may want to bring their skills to the police but may not want to volunteer for any more than that, or indeed become a special constable.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am talking about the powers that volunteers may have in the round. There may be myriad different powers, not just the one that we are focusing on.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about policing on the cheap. I remember that when PCSOs were introduced, I said, “Oh, it’s only policing on the cheap”, but actually I have seen the really good benefit that they have brought. As my noble friend Lady Redfern says, they are not a replacement for the police force but a really valuable extra on the streets of Lincolnshire, providing crime fighting for the police.
On that very lengthy note, and thanking all noble Lords for their interventions, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would like to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—quite an extraordinary debate really, has it not? We talked about helpful PCSOs and the work they do helping communities; we got on to CS spray and other sprays. They may be issued with guns—we are not quite sure. We were then told that the Government also want to take a power in case things are invented in future. I am pleased I tabled the amendment: it has certainly dragged a few things out from the Government for us. I think we will have to come back to these issues on Report. I hope that the Government will look at our debate, because there are one or two loose ends hanging there.
The most important contribution came from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Condon. Both of them have been very senior police officers, and if they are expressing concerns, the House should listen very carefully. It is important when we grant any new powers that we make sure that people are trained properly to use them. As we heard, these sprays can kill people, which is really serious. We must worry about putting anything in someone’s hands that can do that.
I also want to pay tribute to volunteer PCSOs, who do a fantastic job as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, outlined. I will leave it there, but I am sure we will come back to these issues on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Offender Rehabilitation: Entrepreneurship Training
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy regarding offender training in entrepreneurship.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I tabled this Question for Short Debate well before the new Secretary of State, Liz Truss, spoke to the House Of Commons Justice Select Committee in early September. Mine is a narrow question emerging from the proposed prison and courts Bill outlined in the gracious Speech. However, the new Secretary of State made two important statements in her appearance before the Justice Select Committee which have an impact on the broader aspects of my Question. First, she did not commit to bring forward the legislation on prison reform promised in the prison and courts Bill. Secondly, she suggested that no work had been done in her department to introduce the plan of her predecessor, Mr Gove, for major prison reform.
When Secretary of State, Mr Gove told Parliament that legislation was required to bring in these sweeping reforms. As a result, your Lordships’ House gave the prison reform aspects of the Bill a decent and generally welcoming reception in our debate on the gracious Speech in this Chamber in late May.
So the Question I tabled for this debate, which I intend to pursue later, is both overshadowed and diminished by the attitude of the new Secretary of State for Justice. I thought very carefully about calling for the reinstatement of Mr Gove, but my better judgment decided me against it in the end.
At the heart of the then Government’s thinking was a belief that prisons were to be seen not just as places of retribution but as places of rehabilitation, a place to improve life chances, not just recycling facilities for broken individuals who go out through the prison gate and are soon back again—and on multiple occasions, with more than a third of our overcrowded prison population having 15 or more previous convictions.
We have a national proven reoffending rate of 74%, according to the Ministry of Justice’s figures in January this year. So I must begin this debate by asking the Minister to clarify the Government’s position. First, is the prison reform agenda outlined by Mr Gove on hold, on the back burner or both? Secondly, when, if at all, will we seen the legislation on this matter promised in the gracious Speech?
Living in hope, as I always do as a positive person, that I will hear a positive response—not least because of the excellent work undertaken by Dame Sally Coates and because of the potential cost to the lives of offenders and to the taxpayer—I will therefore move on to the specific issue of this debate. In recent times, security and punishment have become our penal priorities, and the outcome has been more offenders and a big increase in the prison population, followed by deteriorating prison conditions and fewer opportunities for rehabilitation. Yet from Policy Exchange research we know that prisoners who get a job on release are half as likely to reoffend as those who do not. Naturally, not every offender is suited to self-employment, but entrepreneurs display some significant characteristics which are often shared by offenders. At the top of this list is a desire for autonomy and a willingness to disregard conventions.
Finding work with a criminal record is a very real challenge. Working Links found that only a fraction of employers—18%—is prepared to offer work to one of the 9.2 million people in our country with a criminal record. We have to look wider if we are to reduce the number of unemployed ex-prisoners. At a basic level, self-employment does not discriminate against those with a criminal record, and ex-offenders who are entrepreneurs frequently employ those with a criminal record, thereby reducing reoffending considerably. That is because ex-offender entrepreneurs recognise the commitment they will get from a person who is very grateful for the chance he or she has been given.
Is there interest among ex-offenders in becoming self-employed? The Centre for Entrepreneurs conducted surveys of both prisoners and ex-offenders and uncovered high levels of interest in self-employment. Just under half of all surveyed said they would prefer to be self-employed, and 42% considered starting their own business.
The Government do not have any figures on the reoffending rate among self-employed ex-prisoners, and I ask the Minister whether he thinks they should, because I believe they should. However, globally and here in the UK, there are examples of programmes which deliver entrepreneurship support to prisoners, and all of them point to a much reduced rate of recidivism. The Texas-based Prison Entrepreneurship Program reports a three-year recidivism rate of 7%, compared to an overall USA average of 50%. Other examples in Germany and here in the UK point in the same direction.
Why bother? Reoffending in England and Wales costs the taxpayer £4.5 billion a year. The Social Exclusion Unit has calculated that each reoffender costs the public purse, in the round, £131,000 per annum. Using the costs of a UK programme run by the charity Startup, the Centre for Entrepreneurs calculates that it will cost £82 million a year to support an entrepreneurship programme for every pre-release prisoner. Taking the cautious view, it calculates a reduction in recidivism to 14%, compared to the national average of 46%. This would represent an investment to save in both the short and longer terms.
What needs to change? As well as offering support, the nature and provision of through-the-gate action is critical for success. Key4Life, one of our most successful third-sector organisations in rehabilitation says that its success is built on three principles: first, building an individual offender’s emotional resilience and unlocking negative behaviours that led to conviction; secondly, providing employability support to gain the experience needed to find a job; and, thirdly and crucially, giving ongoing support through the gate to help ex-offenders reintegrate into the community and sustain employment.
None of this is rocket science, but charities are frustrated. They see the benefit of a holistic approach on both sides of the gate, a comprehensive delivery service including accommodation, employment, finance and benefits, but their expertise is not being sufficiently used.
The government structures now in place have just this month received a harsh report from the inspectorates for probation and for prisons. They report that the Government’s strategic vision for through-the-gate services has not been realised. None of the community rehabilitation companies was able to report employment after release or provide any information on the outcomes they had achieved for prisoners receiving through-the-gate services. Vital third-sector organisations are seeing through-the-gate contracts pass them by with a little clarity on what their role is or should be and how they can be resourced for their services.
What would a person coming out of a successful entrepreneurship programme look like? I have met Gina Moffatt. Gina was sentenced to six years in Holloway prison for importing class A drugs. She was convinced her life was over. She told me, “I had no qualifications and a criminal record. How on earth was I ever going to get job?”. Gina now has a business running two cafés in Tottenham. Both serve Afro-Caribbean food and are hubs for the local community. Gina now employs several ex-offenders, many of whom she met in Holloway. She acts as an ambassador for the Prince’s Trust, which gave her that vital helping hand she needed at the outset.
I have met Michael Corrigan. Michael was sentenced to three years for fraud by abuse of a position of power. On release, he established Prosper 4 with the help of an angel investor. Prosper 4 is an umbrella entity composed of social enterprises committed to reducing reoffending. The company now holds and runs contracts helping ex-offenders. Michael told me, “Prison separates you from everything that is normal—family, friends and work, and picking it all up again is never easy”.
I hope that the Government will recognise that self-employment is an effective pathway towards rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, and that they will support this aim with stable, ongoing funding for the programmes that are required, including a business loan fund for ex-offender businesses. Above all, they should provide the support and mentoring needed to support these would-be entrepreneurs at all stages of their development. Unleashing the entrepreneurial drive innate in many offenders will require more than just a little advice and education before leaving them to their own devices. Ensuring they get the support they need is a sure route to reducing reoffending. It will give ex-prisoners the fresh start they desperately need—and surely deserve.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my colleague and noble friend Lord German on securing this important debate. Turning offenders into entrepreneurs has been an aspiration of numerous interest groups and charities for some time, some of which believe that many involved in criminal activity share skill sets that would be adaptable to the workplace, particularly in setting themselves up as entrepreneurs.
Not all entrepreneurs are millionaires. A market trader, a mechanic or even a hopeful retailer can all fit the definition. However, many offenders are consistently greeted with reasons why they cannot achieve. Entrepreneurship allows them to believe in themselves and in a better life for their families, and enhances their focus, moving it away from the unlawful to the productive.
At present, all training for offenders falls into two categories: custodial or community. I will deal with custodial first. This is presently delivered within prisons under OLASS—Offender Learning and Skill Service—managed by the Skills Funding Agency. There are four contracted providers in England and Wales. The first three are FE colleges: Milton Keynes, Weston and Manchester. The fourth is A4e, a private provider. The OLASS phase 4 contract values for 2014-15 and 2015-16 are unavailable. The funding is per unit of qualification, with funding paid retrospectively on attainment.
However, the figures for 2013-14 indicate that the total contract value was more than £131.5 million, with the biggest share of £21.3 million going to the north-west, where the Manchester College is the deliverer. The smallest—£6.4 million—goes to the south central area, where the deliverer is Milton Keynes College. This is a considerable total sum available for offender training. From 17 July, this funding will come under the direct control of each respective prison governor, instead of being delivered by OLASS. This places additional burdens on governors as they become fully accountable for prison education.
The possible implications of this will be a lack of continuity in provision when offenders are moved between prisons. Some training provisions are available only at certain prisons. For example, bricklaying is available at HM Prison Portland but not in HM Prison Guys Marsh. Both are category C prisons. If this training is available only at selected facilities, the implication is the likelihood of increasing the disparity in provision that already exists between prisons. Finally, it has the potential to encourage prisons to offer quick-fix, short courses to guarantee or skew education outcomes.
On training delivered in the community, there are currently three types of community offender training: post release, under licence or supervision; non-custodial sentences, including suspended sentences; and community payback. Up to 20% of community payback hours may be accounted for by any form of formal training. The process for offenders accessing training is not straightforward.
Probation offender managers or education training and employment officers—ETEs—within the state and private sector probation provisions identify the learning and development needs of offenders. Referrals are then made to private providers or colleges with access to funding in adult FE provisions. Training is funded by the Skills Funding Agency, which may or may not be part-funded by the European Social Fund. Funding is subject to the client meeting SFA criteria: unemployed or lacking skills such as English or maths.
Additional guidance may be available in line with local authority provisions for small businesses or small business advisers within banking services. It must be remembered that provision of business advice is not a statutory provision for probation service providers. In terms of the availability of entrepreneurship for offenders, one of the biggest barriers to employment is the requirement to disclose convictions in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. This, combined with lengthy periods out of work due to sentences, means that they are facing an uphill struggle in returning to employed work as soon as they leave the gate.
At present, some but not all prison education providers are offering “be your own boss” courses to selected prisoners. This is a short course, usually one week, and concentrates on interpersonal soft skills and decision-making rather than the essentials of business planning and management. These courses serve as a solid introduction to the personal skills, motivation and processes that would be required to take the next step. What is now needed to follow this is business planning and financial training to supplement the soft and trade skills. Does the Minister agree that this is the case and can he give assurances that resources will be made available for this to happen?
Nevertheless, there are opportunities. There is a range of existing vocational education programmes, varying in availability from prison to prison, that would suit a lead-up to entrepreneurial training. They include: catering, barbering and hairdressing, and construction skills—bricklaying, painting and decorating, and carpentry, all of which are currently in short supply. The only limitation for the learner is the absence of experience outside a secure environment.
Many of these courses will be completed in 14 weeks of full-time study, but will qualify the learner only to level 2 GCSE grades A to C. This, coupled with an absence of any real world or customer-facing experience, will not make them an ideal candidate for small business loans or investment. Groups such as Key4Life—there are numerous others—are supporting offenders from gate to employment and self-employment. They offer mentoring programmes, apprenticeships, training and development. This provides the necessary support to develop the individual while allowing access to real-world working environments.
However, there are issues and barriers to entrepreneurship. The Prisoners’ Education Trust has figures indicating that only 12% of prisoners are assessed as possessing literacy skills at level 2; only 8.5% of prisoners are assessed as possessing maths skills at level 2; and 62% of male and 57% of female prisoners have personality disorders. It is widely reported that as many as 35% of prisoners suffer some sort of drug dependency, with 6% reported as having developed a dependency after entering prison.
Self-employment and entrepreneurship can serve as a gateway to a productive working life free from reoffending. However, it requires the individual to be given the opportunity to develop a skill set to an appropriate level of competence, which can then be taken from a provision of services to running a business. Does the Minister agree that this could be supported through temporary release or business mentoring via the probation services, third-party providers and charities?
In summary, entrepreneurial development, if supported educationally as well as financially, proposes real-world benefits for both the offender and society through reduced recidivism, improved lifestyle and an increase in the individual contribution to the economy and wider society. It should be noted that many training providers and prisons would be very keen to deliver training in this area, but some prison students will require support to gain basic functional skills. This is an area in which prison education staff are very experienced, and it is essential for the success of any entrepreneurial venture that these foundation elements are addressed at the earliest possible opportunity. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this very important subject.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in winding up this debate for the Liberal Democrats I am aware that there has been a fair degree of unanimity in the speakers before me, since only Liberal Democrats have so far spoken. I join my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville in congratulating my noble friend Lord German on securing this debate and bringing this issue before the House, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and the Minister have to say.
This debate takes place against a background of a well-documented and well-recognised crisis in our prison system. I have frequently spoken, along with many other noble Lords, about the need for fundamental reforms in our prisons, sometimes to the apparent irritation of the Minister. Yet we are all agreed on the fundamentals. We all agree about the need to cut prisoner numbers by making more use of rehabilitative community sentences; to improve, indeed transform, the squalid conditions in our prisons; to eliminate overcrowding, so that custodial facilities hold only the numbers of inmates for which they were designed; and radically to increase staffing levels, not just to exercise adequate control, but to provide far more purposeful activity for inmates and drastically reduce the hours they spend locked away in their cells to levels that are humane and sustainable. If these improvements could be made, they would cut dramatically the disgraceful levels of violence in our prisons and would have a marked effect on decreasing reoffending levels, which are far too high. The prison reforms proposed by Mr Gove promised to start addressing these issues, and I join my noble friend Lord German in asking the Minister what is to happen to them with the new Secretary of State in place. I make no apology for spending a little time on this depressing background because it is, frankly, inimical to improvement in offender training of all sorts that prisons should be in this state and I invite the Minister to say how far he agrees that conditions in our prisons, in particular the lack of staffing and the lack of purposeful activity, frustrate the provision of adequate education and training.
For most prisoners, purposeful activity fundamentally means education and training. This debate takes place against the background of Dame Sally Coates’s excellent review. That review started from the limited educational attainment of most prisoners. My noble friend Lady Bakewell has given the figures. Dame Sally’s starting point was to put education at the heart of the prison system. She rightly pointed out that:
“If education is the engine of social mobility, it is also the engine of prisoner rehabilitation”.
She emphasised the need for high-quality vocational training and employability skills to prepare individuals for jobs on release from prison, but she also stressed the importance of enterprise and self-employment support and training.
At a purely practical level, if offenders on release are equipped with the necessary skills it may, as my noble friend Lord German pointed out, often be easier to take up self-employment as a way of securing gainful occupation than to find employment with employers elsewhere, given the difficulty of persuading employers to give jobs to ex-offenders on release from prison.
There are, of course, many employers who as a matter of policy provide work to ex-offenders on release. Among them are Timpson, the shoe repairers, which has a prison recruitment scheme and has had considerable success in attracting and retaining ex-offenders who have settled with them to long-term and successful employment, and many have gone on to success in self-employment as well. There is also Gleeds, the construction company, which has made a special point of finding jobs for ex-offenders on release and which has campaigned to “ban the box”, meaning the criminal records tick-box on employment application forms, which prevents many finding new jobs. I will be interested to know the Minister’s attitude to job application forms.
Employment with helpful and energetic employers may be the best way of equipping former offenders with the skills and confidence to start up in self-employment. However, many will try starting up in self-employment after prison, but it is clear that it takes particular confidence for a prisoner, even a skilled one, to start a business. An ex-offender leaving prison faces many challenges in any case in finding his place in his community and re-establishing relationships with family and friends, so it is a real challenge to set up in any form of a business at the same time.
In this context, Dame Sally’s recommendations on developing mentors in prison may point a way to enabling prisoners to benefit from the experience of other prisoners. I hope that the community rehabilitation companies providing supervision to ex-offenders on release will play a part in building up networks of possible mentors following release who might help newly released prisoners through the first, very difficult, stages of setting up in business. In this context I add to the points made by both my noble friends about the need for a rehabilitation loan fund to provide the vital initial finance and for the co-ordination of training and funding within prisons, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Bakewell. Training in business skills and financial management is also necessary.
A lot can be done in prison too with imagination and encouragement from the prison authorities. An example is the Clink Charity’s restaurants, which have been a startling success. The Clink Charity started at HMP High Down in Surrey and now runs restaurants in Brixton, Cardiff and HMP Styal in Cheshire, which is a woman’s prison. The restaurants are very successful and are run by prisoners for the public. The men and women working there are training for their City & Guilds qualifications in food service and preparation. A mentoring service operates following release which is designed to help them find employment in the field. It has also opened a horticultural garden in HMP High Down and another in another woman’s prison, HMP Send in Surrey, where the prisoners train in horticulture and grow the produce for the four Clink Charity restaurants. At HMP Send, they also rear chickens and provide the restaurants with eggs. The Clink Charity boasts an 87.5% success rate in reducing reoffending. The point of all this is that there is a link between training, recruiting, learning the skills to run a business, mentoring and, finally, either finding employment or opening a business in the community on release. But it all depends on people with the imagination, drive and desire to help encouraging prisoners on their way.
So far I have concentrated on education in prisons. However, it is very important, if we are to achieve our aim of reducing the number of offenders sent to prison, that we also develop the potential of community sentences for providing education, including training in entrepreneurship. The provision for rehabilitation activity requirements, which may be imposed as part of a community order as a result of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, provides a useful and effective vehicle for training offenders in the community. Some CRCs already offer activities over a wide range. Warwickshire and Mercia CRC provides a care farm skills programme at Willowdene Farm. The programme is set over 25 seven-hour days in a 14-week period. It offers courses specialising in mechanics, woodwork, IT, plumbing, forestry, animal welfare and agriculture—all areas in which self-employment is possible. It aims to prepare offenders to be work-ready and achieve two nationally recognised qualifications by the end of the programme. It works with offenders at high risk of reoffending and deals with those with a history of substance abuse. The London CRC helps offenders to develop basic skills in literacy and numeracy, and gives them training which might lead NVQ awards. It also helps ex-offenders to find employment, assisting with such things as CV writing and interview techniques. However, I suspect that more imaginative schemes, such as the West Mercia farm scheme or the Clink restaurants, are more likely to produce long-term benefits, not just for those involved at the time but also for those who might mentor later. What steps do the Minister and his department propose to encourage development by the CRCs and within prisons of the sort of schemes that I have mentioned? We are a long way off. The central point that I make is that we have to improve the system to give training a chance to flourish. Achieve that we must.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Marks, have referred to their regret, which I share, about the departure of Mr Gove, who made what seemed to me a very promising start, in contrast to the dreadful years under his predecessor, in looking at the position of prisoners. It is a case of being gone but not forgiven, I suppose, by the party opposite, or at any rate its leadership.
Concerns about the Prison Service which form the background to this timely debate have been raised with troubling frequency during the six years that I have served in this House, and before. It is perhaps tedious, but nevertheless necessary, to remind ourselves of the size of the prison population—it encompasses some 86,000 people at any one time—of the problems of overcrowding and understaffing, of violence and drug abuse, and of the high rates of re-offending, all of which were touched on during Questions this week, as they have been with depressing regularity over the years. It is as well to recall, too, the high proportion of prisoners with one or more mental health disorders, and low levels of literacy and numeracy and of any engagement with further education.
Today’s welcome debate draws attention to one aspect of penal policy that has been the subject of discussion and of some developments in recent years. However, we need to be mindful that while promoting entrepreneurship may help some prisoners to return to society and lead a more useful and rewarding existence, just as in society as a whole, the majority are likely to derive more benefit from being equipped with the basic skills, enhanced wherever possible, to take their place in the labour market as well-trained contenders for employment.
A report of the Prisoners’ Education Trust in 2013 stressed the need to promote both employability skills and what it termed soft skills, such as a positive attitude, communication skills and reliability and, while referring to self-employment, stressed the experience of three prisons in helping offenders to acquire particular skills in demand in particular trades and areas. The business department published its Evaluation of Enterprise Pilots in Prisons last October, since when Dame Sally Coates’s review in May this year provided an interesting picture, to be seen alongside the CentreForum report entitled Transforming Rehabilitation? Prison Education: Analysis and Options, published in March. The BIS report highlighted the need for IT access, and the Coates report referred to the glass ceiling beyond level 2 of standard vocational qualifications, noting that a mere 200 achieved level 3 or above in 2014-15, via the Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service, or OLASS, an 85% reduction from 2013, the last year before loans were introduced to pay for courses. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, rightly referred to concerns over the fragmentation of OLASS’s role under the Government’s present policy. This was even worse than the 42% decline in prisoners taking higher education courses with the Open University after 2011-12 when they had to start self-funding at a cost of £2,700 a module, or £14,800 for a degree.
Dame Sally suggested in a cautionary note that, in relation to the BIS enterprise pilot scheme promoting start-ups by prisoners with support and loans,
“participants needed to be carefully selected to ensure they were able to engage effectively”.
In other words, she implied that there is some scope for entrepreneurship and self-employment, but it will not necessarily be applicable to the majority of prisoners.
The BIS report covered only 58 prisoners from four prisons and noted a lack of connection between providers and the DWP on the issue of benefits. Importantly, and directly relevant to the terms of the motion under debate, BIS analysed the start-ups and loans secured by prisoners looking to progress to self-employment on release. Of 114 prisoners in the north-east, two started businesses without funding; one failed to obtain a loan and another’s application is pending. In a southern prison, of 40 who participated, two began start-ups with the aid of funding, and 19 had loans approved in 2014 and 2015. So the picture is not entirely convincing that, even with support of training, people will necessarily make it into self-employment or business.
CentreForum’s report affirms these worrying trends. The percentages of institutions needing improvement in education rose from 50% to 75% between 2011 and 2015, while the proportion engaged in prison education courses dropped from 42% in 2008-9 to 23% in 2014. At the basic level below level 2, participation rates improved but, worryingly, the rise was much higher in subjects other than English and maths, which were the Government’s priorities, having regard to the low levels of literacy and numeracy, clearly key to future employment prospects. CentreForum also points to Ofsted reports showing a steep decline in performance ratings, with the proportion of findings of inadequacy or requiring improvement rising from a bad enough 50% in 2011-12 to 72% in 2014-15. Imagine the outcry if Ofsted’s reports on schools had followed a similar trajectory or reached such heights of inadequacy. The report summarises the position as indicating,
“consistently poor quality provision and a decline in quality over recent years”.
All this is consistent with the NOMS finding of a “stark decline” in purposeful activity outcomes and educational quality, in turn reflected in the stagnation of reoffending rates since 2009. We seem locked into a downward spiral of declining opportunities and outcomes. What appears to be lacking, apart from the basic requirement of adequate funding to secure a safe environment for prisoners and staff, is a properly integrated approach to penal policy across government. This needs to involve the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the departments of health, business, and education, and the courts. It needs much greater sharing of experience, perhaps by extensive use of peer review, and it needs a determined effort to reduce prison numbers without which airy aspirations of a rehabilitation revolution, or worthy and desirable objectives, such as increasing entrepreneurship and self-employment by prisoners, are unlikely to be achievable. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to persuade his colleagues in the department that these are achievable objectives but that they require a degree of commitment that is yet to appear in government policy.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for securing this debate. The Government are committed to ensuring that prisons are places of reform and we recognise that training in entrepreneurship can help to provide offenders with the skills that they need to become productive, contributing members of society. Although entrepreneurship may help some—I will return to this point, which has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—it is questionable whether it will assist the majority, who very often require rather more basic skills in order to achieve any form of employability.
Let me first answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord German, asked. In terms of the Prison Rules, rule 32 provides:
“Educational classes shall be arranged at every prison”.
That is our policy. It is also our policy that prison governors should be empowered to decide what that education offer should be and should then be held to account for what is achieved. We do not regard that as fragmentation but as a means of innovation.
Before discussing the question of entrepreneurship in more detail, however, I mention briefly the reforms already under way in our prison system. With respect to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord German, the present Justice Secretary has made clear her plans to drive through one of the most far-reaching prison reforms in a generation. Those offenders in prison have committed a crime for which prison is the rightful punishment but, at the end of their sentence, almost all prisoners will need to reintegrate back into the community. Currently, almost half of prisoners reoffend within the first 12 months of release. In 2010, it was estimated that this cycle of reoffending was costing the economy up to £13.5 billion a year. I believe that all noble Lords and the noble Baroness acknowledged the scale of the problem that exists. The Government are committed to ending this cycle and ensuring that prisoners use their time in prison to reform.
First, we need to make prisons safe—safe for learning and safe for reform. The rising levels of violence against prisoners and indeed staff, as well as an increase in self-harm and self-inflicted deaths, are not acceptable and require immediate attention. We are investing £14 million to provide more than 400 staff in prisons to help address increasing levels of violence and provide much-needed, individual support for prisoners. The Government are also investing £1.3 billion to modernise and reform the prison estate, which will have appropriate facilities for learning, training and the reform of prisoners.
We realise that many prisoners have led challenging lives and may have missed out on the opportunity to learn. For example, nearly one-third struggle with learning difficulties or disabilities. Indeed, the noble Baroness gave a number of figures with regard to those who suffer from various disabilities or difficulties, be they mental health, learning difficulties or otherwise. The prevalence of drug problems is also well known. More than half of the prison population is unable to read or write to a basic standard. Even more have similarly poor mathematics skills. We need to utilise the time spent in prison ensuring that prisoners engage in purposeful activity, so that they can contribute to society upon their release.
While there are some excellent examples of education in prison, we would of course like to see more consistency. Dame Sally Coates’s review of education in prison, published earlier this year and mentioned already, set a clear agenda for education reform. Prisoners are often not being given the appropriate skills and knowledge needed to find jobs, while prison governors are hampered by an overly bureaucratic system. We are determined to improve prison education to help prisoners turn their lives around. The Government intend to change the way that we run prisons, so there is an unremitting emphasis on safety and reform. We want prisons to be places of hard work and high ambition, with incentives for prisoners to learn. We want prison staff to prioritise employment opportunities. To do this, we will put the tools to drive this change into the hands of those on the front line. Prison governors must be empowered to innovate and find better ways of reforming offenders in a system geared towards innovation and local partnerships.
Following the recommendations in Dame Sally Coates’s report, we have already given prison governors greater autonomy over the education curriculum. As of 1 October, governors have been able to offer courses that do not necessarily lead to an accreditation, should they deem it in their prisoners’ best interests. This will give governors greater immediate flexibility to respond to the differing, and indeed often complex, needs of prisoners. For example, a governor could choose to commission a focused preparation for a self-employment programme for those nearing release who have shown a keen interest in pursuing this option, or an enterprise-themed programme aimed at initial engagement of “hard-to-reach” offenders who are furthest from the labour market.
Sixteen million hours of work were delivered in prisons during 2015-16. There are also significant numbers of prisoners in other learning, vocational training or in-prison work opportunities that contribute to the effective running of a prison. Supporting offenders into meaningful employment is a vital aspect of this Government’s approach. I am conscious that many members of your Lordships’ House have detailed knowledge of prison education and employment opportunities—this has been exhibited this evening—but it was, I have to say, a surprise to me in taking up this portfolio to find that a significant number of our prisons have railway tracks within their grounds, albeit stopping short of the gates. These are used to train prisoners in track maintenance, delivering a trade-standard NVQ level 2 qualification and the necessary rail safety and other skills, so that they secure paid employment on key infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, once they are released.
We want to see more work in prisons leading to jobs on the outside. For example, a scaffolding workshop has just opened at Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton in an excellent collaboration involving Land Securities and Bounce Back. The first four graduates of the programme have gone into full-time work and there is a waiting list of employers anxious to employ the next 20 prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, alluded to Clinks and the running of four fine dining restaurants. He perhaps omitted to mention that the restaurant at Her Majesty’s Prison Cardiff has been voted 10th best fine dining restaurant in the United Kingdom and a graduate of the Clink restaurant at Brixton has gone on to be a sous chef at one of London’s leading hotels.
More private sector companies are employing ex-offenders. However, we are keen to increase the number of employers who can provide valuable vocational work for offenders in prison and who are able to offer them employment on release. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned some who have done splendid work. We want more businesses to work with us to give prisoners a second chance. Those who already do tell us that offenders are often some of their most loyal and committed employees. The National Offender Management Service works closely with the Employers’ Forum for Reducing Re-offending to ensure that there is a pool of employers willing to employ offenders. A significant number of schemes are in place locally but of course we want to see more. Giving governors autonomy over decisions made in prisons will allow them to target training and work in prisons to match more closely the needs of a local labour market.
We know that the majority of prisoners want to work and that, in the context of keeping themselves occupied, pay, for example, is not an issue. We also know that getting prisoners into employment is a key factor in reducing reoffending—a point already made by noble Lords—but many face barriers when trying to enter employment as employers may be reluctant to hire. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, alluded to Ban the Box; the Government encourage all employers to look at their recruitment practices to ensure that ex-offenders are considered on their merits and not on their criminal records, through options such as banning the box. Indeed, the former Prime Minister announced government support for Business in the Community’s Ban the Box campaign. The Civil Service will be banning the box from the initial recruitment stage except for those jobs that have a specific security requirement. The Ministry of Justice, at headquarters, already bans the box. So some progress has been made in that regard
Turning to the theme of this debate, enterprise skills and entrepreneurship, I should make it clear that when I refer to the training in entrepreneurship that is currently offered in prison, I am referring to two separate things. First, there are the courses that we offer on preparing prisoners to start a business venture and to aid their understanding of business enterprise. One can be entrepreneurial without being self-employed and these courses are not necessarily delivered with the hope that the prisoner will become self-employed as a result. Rather, these courses can provide prisoners with translatable skills for any kind of employment. For example, a prisoner enrolled on such a course may learn that they need to go back and improve their maths skills before starting their own business. This might lead them to getting basic qualifications they would not otherwise have sought. Or perhaps a prisoner will realise that they must first go out and get some work experience to prepare them for having a business of their own. These aims are equally as beneficial as encouraging a prisoner to enter self-employment directly on release.
Secondly, there is the specific support we offer to help offenders into self-employment. These courses are popular with prisoners and we recognise the value for prisoners that becoming self-employed has, as it can help overcome some of the barriers that have been mentioned with regard to securing employment. On these courses you may find a prisoner who has already taken part in a business enterprise course, or a prisoner who has been studying on a vocational course, such as plumbing or barbering, which have been mentioned, who will then seek to use the skills they have learned to set up their own business.
In 2015, an enterprise pilot was run by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with the aim of helping to reduce reoffending and helping individuals progress to self-employment, or other employment if more suited, on release. While it is too early to assess the impact of this pilot on reoffending, we learned valuable lessons that will help governors in deciding what type of enterprise provision to commission for their prisons. For example, for enterprise provision to be effective, it is important that prisoner learners are engaged and keen to participate, that there is improved communication between those delivering training in custody, those providing support to prisoners on release and those supporting prisoners’ engagement in custody—as the noble Lord, Lord German, observed in his opening remarks, this does not stop at the gateway of the prison, but has to go further if it is to succeed—and that therefore further research is considered and planned.
When considering self-employment options, we must remember that start-ups have a high rate of failure and, certainly, we do not want to set prisoners up to fail. For many prisoners already in debt, accessing the necessary start-up loan is impossible. It is no use equipping prisoners to start up their own business if, on release, they find they are prohibited from accessing the resources needed to achieve their goal. Work must first be done, therefore, to address prisoners’ existing debt issues, setting up a payment plan if necessary, before any plans for self-employment can take place. This is a staged process. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Rather, a holistic approach is required in order to encourage self-employment, with a concerted focus on partnership working. We also need to ensure that if prisoners seek the route of self-employment, they receive the Through The Gate support to which the noble Lord, Lord German, referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised a number of questions. She too mentioned the barrier of the requirement to disclose convictions. I hope I have explained that the Government wish to encourage schemes such as Ban the Box that might reduce, or displace, any such barrier. She also mentioned the low levels of literacy skills encountered among those in our prisons. That is where some of the fundamental problems lie. We need to increase that level of educational attainment, which is fundamental to making progress in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested that conditions in prisons frustrate the provision of education and training. They do not frustrate it, because education and training are going on, but of course they make it more difficult. That is one reason why we are committed to spending £1.3 billion on a new prison estate that will be far better equipped to provide the sort of education and training that can reduce recidivism among the prison population.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, alluded to the need also to look at this across government. We accept that this is not just a case of prison reform in isolation. We have to look at the health issues, particularly the mental health issues, which afflict such a large proportion of the prison population, and the drug issues that also afflict such a large proportion of the prison population. We also have to look at prison overcrowding. However, I say again that that is now being addressed by the determination to produce a new and effective prison estate for the future.
In conclusion, we intend to modernise and reform the way that we run our prisons. We intend to help deliver a safer and more secure environment, because only with a safer and more secure environment will there be the opportunity for education and training to take root. We understand the ambition of some prisoners to become self-employed but recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that that may be an effective route for some but not for all. We have to have regard to the totality of the prison population. But rather than imposing a top-down, centralised policy, the Government are giving governors the autonomy they need to best meet the needs of their prisoners to ensure that they obtain fulfilling, purposeful employment, or even the opportunity of self-employment, on release. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that I have been able to address their questions and concerns to some extent.
Policing and Crime Bill
Wednesday 26th October 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 55-II(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 62KB) - (26 Oct 2016)
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Our key concerns about Clause 37 relate to the additional powers that could be given to police volunteers under this clause. I hope that in response the Government will set out in some detail the boundaries or limits of those powers that can be given.
Of course, the police could not do their job without a voluntary army, but a voluntary army should not do the job of the police. The Bill enables chief officers to designate a wider range of police powers to police volunteers. We are concerned that this measure may be a move by the Government to provide cut-price policing and we fundamentally oppose giving policing powers to volunteers to fill the gaps left by the drastic reduction in officer and staff numbers over the past five years. More than 40,000 policing jobs were lost between 2010 and 2015 as a result of government cuts to the police service: approximately a 30% cut in police community support officers; 20% fewer police staff jobs; and 13% fewer police officers. It is not appropriate that those people should be replaced by volunteers through the provisions in the Bill, particularly in roles that are clearly operational in nature.
As I understand it, there is a current agreement between the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and the police staff unions that police support volunteers should bring additionality to the police force, but the agreement goes on to say that they should under no circumstances replace or substitute for paid police staff.
Our police service has the power to use necessary proportionate force in appropriate circumstances. We do not want volunteers to be placed in roles that may require the use of force or restraint and which should be only for officers and members of police staff. Our police service has and needs the power to use force where necessary when carrying out its duty to protect the public. However, under our tradition of policing by consent the public also expect that there will also be accountability, proper training and high professional standards on the part of those who use force in appropriate circumstances. I suggest that those expectations can be met only by warranted police officers and, where appropriate, members of staff.
We are also concerned by the suggestion that there may be circumstances where volunteers will be placed in risky situations. Volunteers have an important role to play in supporting police, but should not place themselves in potentially dangerous situations. A police and crime commissioner for Northumbria has said:
“Rather than extending the role of volunteers, the Government needs to start funding police forces properly, to allow Chief Constables and Police & Crime Commissioners to recruit more police officers, who can go on the beat and serve local communities”.
To reiterate, we believe that the greater use of volunteers in the police service apparently envisaged under the Bill—we are not talking about special constables—is potentially dangerous, particularly in the context of the continuing cuts to police budgets. This year police services in England and Wales are facing real-terms cuts to their budgets which will not be backfilled by the local precept.
We believe it is dangerous to impose those cuts in the context of the provisions of the Bill, with the Government not saying precisely what the boundaries and limits are of what volunteers can and cannot do under the terms of the Bill. I hope that in responding the Government will now seek to remedy that and that the response will not reveal—as, going by the previous debate, I fear it will—that volunteers, rather than just bringing additionality to the police workforce, can in reality be used to replace or be substitutes for paid police staff because of the sheer range of operational and other roles they can be given under the terms of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this clause introduces additional flexibility into the way that the police can deploy their staff by extending the powers of chief officers to designate their staff with powers and by introducing, for the first time, a power to designate volunteers with powers. At this point, I should repeat what I said in the previous debate—that, just as PCSOs are not policing on the cheap, volunteers are not policing on the cheap, either. They all contribute to the force that is the police and all have their different parts to play. This clause, together with the other changes in Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Bill, will give chief officers the flexibility they need to best shape their workforce to local circumstances.
Volunteers have much to offer policing, including those with specialist skills, for example, in IT or forensic accountancy, which we talked about before, and not just in the use of PAVA spray and CS spray. Special constables are volunteers with all the powers of a constable, but it makes no sense that volunteers who do not want to become specials because they do not want to have powers at all times—this has been previously discussed—or to undertake the physical demands of personal safety training cannot be conferred with a narrower set of powers relating to a particular role. Currently the law also puts unnecessary restrictions on a chief officer who wishes to maximise the operational effectiveness of police staff. These provisions remove those barriers.
Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002 enables chief police officers to confer some or all listed powers on their civilian staff by designating them to undertake specific functions in one or more of four categories: police community support officers, known as PCSOs; investigating officers; detention officers; and escort officers. Clause 37 amends the 2002 Act to amalgamate the categories of investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers into the single category of “policing support officers”, who would then be designated with the necessary powers to carry out their particular roles. The clause also enables a chief officer to designate a police volunteer as either a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer.
Subsection (3) repeals the list of standard powers of PCSOs. In future, the powers that PCSOs and community support volunteers have will be a decision for each chief officer. Subsection (4) introduces for the first time a list, set out in Schedule 10, of core powers that can be exercised only by a sworn constable. The list includes powers of arrest and stop and search, and those under terrorism legislation—for example, the power to apply for a search warrant under Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000 as part of a terrorism investigation. It also includes two powers that were previously available to investigating and detention officers—namely, the power to make a fresh arrest and the power to conduct an intimate search when a medical professional is not available. Following the public consultation last year, we judged these powers to be particularly intrusive and that their use should therefore be restricted to police officers.
Noble Lords may wonder why the list of core powers does not include the power to make entry to premises by force, which was also consulted on as a power that should be restricted to constables only. The 2002 Act currently provides that designated individuals can exercise a power to force entry only in the company and under the supervision of a constable, or for the purpose of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property. Therefore, even with the extended designation possible under these provisions, no designated staff member or volunteer would be able to force entry except in the two circumstances described. However, importantly, they would be able to assist or accompany an officer executing a search, or to exercise a power to enter where force was not necessary—for example, as part of an alcohol licensing inspection.
The changes also provide the Secretary of State, in practice the Home Secretary, with a power to make regulations to add to the list of core powers and duties of constables: that is, those powers that may not be designated to staff or volunteers. Any such regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so they will require the scrutiny and approval of both Houses.
The clause provides that, where the person is designated as a PCSO or a community support volunteer, they may be given any of the powers or duties set out in Schedule 8, which are powers currently available to PCSOs in lieu of police officer powers—specifically, the power to make an arrest. These powers include requiring a suspect’s name and address, or detaining a suspect to await the arrival of a police officer, which PCSOs can use in circumstances where a police officer might make an arrest.
Subsection (5) enables a chief officer to limit the extent of, or impose conditions on, use of the powers of his or her designated staff and volunteers. For example, if a volunteer were based in a particular locality, their designation could be restricted to that locality and its surrounding area. Subsection (6) also prevents designated staff and volunteers being authorised to use a firearm or Taser in carrying out their designated role. As we have discussed in relation to Amendment 167, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, there is one exception to this rule. PCSOs and other designated police staff, and their new volunteer counterparts, can continue to carry and, where necessary, use CS or PAVA spray, which are classified as prohibited firearms. The clause also includes a future-proofing provision to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, bringing new self-defence devices within the scope of this exemption.
These are important changes that will give significant additional flexibility to chief officers in the way that they deploy their workforce and volunteers. I hope that noble Lords will not press their opposition to Clause 37 standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 168, 171 and 173 are minor and technical amendments to update and clarify the arrangements for designated staff and volunteers to use their powers. I do not wish to detain your Lordships unnecessarily, but, if required, I can talk further about each amendment. For now, I beg to move Amendment 168.
“( ) In the case of a relevant offence that is an offence under a listed byelaw (see sub-paragraphs (4)(e) and (6)), the power to impose a requirement under sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable only in a place to which the byelaw relates.”
“( ) In Schedule 6 to the Police Act 1996 (appeals to Police Appeals Tribunals), in paragraph 10(aa) (as inserted by section (Appeals to Police Appeals Tribunals)), after paragraph (iii) insert—“(iiia) a person designated as a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002,”.”
“(g) in that subsection, in the definition of “relevant section 38 designation”—(i) for “designated civilian employee” substitute “designated person”;(ii) for “employee” substitute “person”.”
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 174 perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of my interests around policing in the register. This amendment seeks to insert the rank of superintendent, and indeed to prescribe it, in legislation. The reason for doing so is to track around the leadership review which the College of Policing has been asked to undertake. It has been looking in part at the ranks structure but has come up against the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It cannot agree to the changes in the ranks structure within policing that the college recommends.
I understand that it had been proposed to introduce a new structure. It was to be a sort of mirror of best practice and management within both the private and public sectors, thus operational level, supervisory level, middle management, senior management and executive level. The NPCC does not rule out the possibility of moving to this model in the future but feels that policing is facing more important issues at the moment than looking at changes in the ranks. It also says that there is no compelling evidence to support them. My contention is that there most definitely is, that it is imperative to modernise the ranks structure now, and that this Bill provides the ideal opportunity to do so.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, in the strongest possible terms. In doing so, I declare my interests as recorded in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
In my long police experience, both in Lancashire and nationally, superintendents and chief superintendents have been the indispensable filling in the police sandwich. Powers from the chief constable and his or her team are delegated down to them, and in turn they take command of and lead the ranks below them. They are the ones who head up important basic command units. They sit on council community safety panels and a range of other local bodies. They establish important relationships with borough council clerks and with council leaders. They were during my time as a police authority chair, and I am sure they still are, the most essential of all the ranks—the indefatigable heads of department, the middle managers just below senior rank, the leaders of the future and the officers with years of constructive practical experience. They are the ones who authorise a range of practical policing strategies in districts, who largely deal with the queries of local Members of Parliament and of councillors, and whose experience is essential to the force. Policing could not be delivered effectively without them.
So why should the rank not be prescribed in legislation, given the centrality of their role? A force would struggle without superintendents—they would have to be reinvented. Indeed, I seem to remember that in the early 1990s the Sheehy report recommendations included the abolition of the rank of chief superintendent. That abolition did not last very long—the rank was reinstated a decade or so later, and I was not in the least surprised. In the light of that experience, I support the amendment that the rank of superintendent should be listed alongside that of constable.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I have not read the speeches of the two noble Baronesses. I am about to make a speech on an amendment that I am about to move. I can only say that it completely dovetails with what has just been said. I am not entirely certain that the superintendent is the most important rank in the police service, but I probably have a special interest in some of that. However, I absolutely subscribe to the point of view that superintendents are the workhorses of governance and practice and I support this amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I support to an extent the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. Clearly, superintendents, as my noble friend articulated at length, play an essential role, which is recognised extensively in legislation.
Also in this group, I and my noble friend Lady Hamwee intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 46 stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 allows the Secretary of State by regulations to specify the ranks that may be held by members of police forces other than chief officers of police. A great deal of concern has been expressed in the public domain recently about the cost of, and the perks given to, chief officers of police. One would have thought that if the Government were going to legislate, that is an area that they might have turned their attention to. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, mentioned, we have been here before with the Sheehy report the last time that the Conservative Party was alone in government.
From memory, it was a decision of the Sheehy report and the Government to abolish the rank of chief inspector. At some stage before that was fully implemented, the decision was rescinded. The police service paid off a lot of chief inspectors to get them to retire because it had been told that the rank was going to be abolished, but it never was. That led to the mass recruitment of chief inspectors to fill the gap that had been left because the police service had pensioned off early a lot of the chief inspectors that it then needed.
My point, which the Minister has made continually over the issue of volunteers, is that it should be left to individual chief officers to decide. In the case of police volunteers, the flexibility should be available to chief officers to use them however they want and to give them whatever powers they wish. Surely exactly the same argument applies here: it should be left to individual chief constables to promote officers to particular ranks—or not—depending on local need.
While I accept that, especially in legislation, the superintendent has a particular and pivotal role, similar arguments could be made for police sergeants as custody officers and so forth, or for police inspectors who are often operational team leaders. One could go through and make a case—perhaps not as compelling as that put forward on behalf of the superintendent—for each and every particular rank to continue to exist, given different scenarios in different police forces.
I appreciate that the legislation simply gives the power to the Secretary of State through regulations to specify the ranks but I would argue, for the reasons I set out, both that that is unnecessary and that it limits the flexibility of chief officers in designing a police rank structure that suits their local needs.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
Amendment 174, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and my noble friend Lady Henig, is in the clause dealing with police ranks. It amends Clause 46 to require the rank of superintendent as well as that of constable to be retained. We heard from both the noble Baroness and my noble friend who put their names to the amendment about the important role that the officers holding this rank play. That was confirmed by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Paddick, in their contributions.
I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, when she spoke about the holders of these ranks being senior officers taking senior operational roles. They are held by people with the ability to undertake those important strategic roles and it is accepted that they have departmental and functional responsibilities.
My noble friend Lady Henig also spoke about the importance of the role these officers play across the piece in all departments. I also recall the Sheehy report, and the abolition of chief superintendents being very controversial at the time. As my noble friend said, they were then quietly brought back a few years later. We have heard from a number of speakers who are former serving officers as well as Members of this House who served as chairs of police organisations, and know much more than I do about police operations. They have all reached the same conclusion, so I suggest that the Minister should reflect on what has been said. I hope that she will give a very warm response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for this amendment, which gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to our police superintendents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about constables but I think he meant superintendents.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is late at night and I am just making sure we are on the same page. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, called them the “filling in the sandwich”.
In the current policing structure, superintendents play an incredibly important role. They set strategy, they are responsible for day-to-day operational policy and in difficult situations they have to show leadership, manage serious risks and make critical decisions during ongoing operations. These are crucial functions that will continue to be a feature of senior ranks in policing. However, there is a lack of flexibility—a word we have used a lot tonight; the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just used it—in the way that ranks are effectively stipulated in primary legislation. That is why Clause 46 will allow the College of Policing to recommend a new rank structure to the Home Secretary to be set out in regulations.
In June last year, the College of Policing published the findings of its leadership review, which included a recommendation to review the rank and grading structures in policing. In its report, the college said that flatter structures can enable organisations to be more responsive and communicate more effectively. The police-led review of the rank structure is being developed by the chief constable of Thames Valley Police, Francis Habgood, working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that proposals will be effective for all forces. The intention is to support policing based on greater levels of practitioner autonomy and expertise. Francis Habgood has developed a proposal for a five management level-model that will sit on top of the existing rank structure and will be based on competence, contribution and skills.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this amendment. I thank the Minister, who gave me time earlier to put my views, and her team. I hope that the Home Office will continue to put pressure on the College of Policing to embed these reforms urgently. It cannot wait much longer just because the NPCC does not like it. Balancing the history, legal powers and organisational role of superintendents, I still feel it is important to enshrine the rank in legislation. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, although I understand it. I will look again at what she said and may come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“Power to make regulations to ensure that senior appointees have international policing experience
(1) The Police Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 50B (inserted by section 46) insert—“50C Regulations for police forces: requirement for senior appointees to have international policing experience(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations by statutory instrument to provide that in each police force only one of the top five most senior officers are promoted or appointed without international policing experience.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), an officer would be regarded as having “international policing experience” if he or she—(a) had served in a policing operation for more than five months with a UK police rank lower than inspector in a country outside North America, Europe or Australasia;(b) had served in a policing operation under United Nations auspices for more than five months with a UK police rank lower than inspector; or(c) had served in a policing operation under United Nations, NATO or African Union auspices for more than eleven months.(3) Before making any regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the College of Policing.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision that is consequential on, or incidental or supplemental to, regulations under subsection (1).(5) The power conferred by subsection (4) includes power to—(a) repeal, revoke or otherwise amend legislation that (in relation to members of police forces in England and Wales) makes provision with respect to ranks that are not specified in regulations under subsection (1);(b) make other amendments of legislation that are consequential on regulations under subsection (1).(6) Regulations under this section may include transitional, transitory or saving provision. (7) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases or circumstances.(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 176 I will speak also to our Amendments 177 and 178. These amendments all concern the quality and experience of senior officers.
Amendment 176 seeks to ensure that it would be unusual for a senior police officer not to have some international policing experience. There are two drivers for this. The main one is that the UK has done some great work with international policing missions. I recall visiting policing missions in the Balkans, where UK secondees were doing first-class work, although a lot of them were from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, for reasons that the Committee will understand. The rapid establishment of justice and the rule of law, JROL, in a post-conflict situation is extremely important—initially, I suggest, much more important than democracy and elections. I hope the Minister can show that we are still doing some useful international policing work somewhere in the world.
A difficulty with my amendment is that there are not always vacancies in international policing operations, for a variety of reasons, which is why I have broadened the qualifying roles. However, there are problems. In the past, particularly when we were carrying out policing operations in the Balkans, I detected reluctance on the part of policing authorities to authorise secondments to international policing operations, for parochial reasons. In other words, they saw no direct benefit to their policing operations—the Committee will understand that. In addition, our high-flying police officers know what they need to have on their CVs in order to secure a post at chief officer rank, and I do not believe it includes international policing operations. Although a relatively junior rank-and-file police officer can do a very good job in an international policing operation, we do not necessarily send out our very best people to those operations.
The other driver is that it is desirable that very senior police officers have broad policing experience, and not just in the UK. I am convinced that a senior police officer with some international experience would be a much better one, rather like politicians who have done something other than the standard route to Westminster: school, university, research assistant, local government. I have realistic aspirations for this amendment and the others, and there may be practical difficulties. But if the principle was implemented in some way, I would envisage high-flying police officers gaining their international experience at an early point in their careers. Police authorities and the College of Policing would know that it would have to be offered as part of the offer to recruits. It may be that they take on a big international policing job later on in their career.
My next amendment seeks to put quite tough limits on internal promotion or appointment to very senior positions within a force. I am more than content with the principle of PCCs, but at Second Reading we heard that there might be an unintended consequence of less promotion from outside a particular police force. The inherent risks of this are an unwillingness of the senior officers in a force to grasp unpleasant issues, sycophancy in order to gain promotion and, possibly, corruption. It would also tend to make it much more difficult to get wider experience, because positions in other forces would tend to go to internal candidates. An extremely unfortunate end result could be that the best-quality high-flyers might decide not to pursue a career in the police service at all, because they would realise that they would be unfairly competing with weaker, internal candidates. Can my noble friend say whether she has detected any change in recent years in the number of applications for very senior police posts?
My final amendment, Amendment 178, deals with leadership. First, I make it clear to the Committee that I do not regard myself as an expert on the matter of leadership or even an expert on measuring it. I regard leadership as the capability to get others to do things that they would rather not do or, perhaps sometimes, to desist from doing things that they want to do. It is not to be confused with management. For instance, a superior who relocates his or her centre of operations to an office rather more central for the majority of the team is exercising good management. If this relocation is to the superior’s personal disadvantage, there is an element of good leadership.
However, it is largely an acquired skill—that of being selfless. Leadership is not charisma, although the two often come together. There is innate leadership, and there may well be genetic factors at play, but I have no doubt at all that environmental and economic factors from the moment of birth are very significant. The good news is that there are methods of objectively measuring leadership, both acquired and innate.
Since at least the last war, our Armed Forces have had objective tests of leadership for selection for a commission. Several well-developed tools are used, but the command task is interesting. Candidates are tasked with the practical task of crossing an obstacle course with a range of 45-gallon oil drums, scaffolding planks and ropes. The directing staff know all the possible plans for achieving the objective, but only a few will work. What is being carefully measured is not the ability to select the correct plan but the ability to effectively lead the team even though the directing staff know that the plan selected will not actually work. How long will members of the team follow the task leader with such a plan? Most importantly, how willing are other members of the team to make a helpful suggestion, and how skilful is the task leader at taking up good suggestions while still maintaining command and control?
I am not suggesting that the Armed Forces have perfect selection procedures. They do not; sadly, I have come across several pretty poor officers. As I understand it, though, the UK police do not select for promotion to any rank taking into consideration an objective measurement of leadership. I am also led to believe that the pool of talent is no longer being properly managed, and I hope that other more experienced members of the Committee will cover that point. I am therefore never surprised at the things that go wrong with UK policing. Your Lordships have only to think of the aftermath of Hillsborough or Operation Midland.
All the amendments in this group seek to head off problems that will only get worse if not addressed. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Blair, moving his amendment. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Dear (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 176, 177, 178 and, tangentially, 178A. I am pleased to support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his amendments. I want to underpin much of what he has said and, to use his words again, to identify what I think is a growing law of unintended consequences that has flowed over the last five or six years in policing. To many of our minds, there is a growing shortage of leaders as opposed to managers, which the noble Earl has already alluded to. I might take that a little further and say that in my view there is some sign that the quality is diminishing among the senior ranks, and those who are putting themselves forward for senior ranks, within the British police.
It might be helpful if I go very quickly through the history of selection for the British police service, without taking too much of your Lordships’ time at this hour of the evening. Prior to 1948—there was a Police Act around that time—there was a superabundance of police forces in this country, many of them very small and most of them not talking to each other. The powers that they could exercise in neighbouring forces were severely limited or indeed non-existent. The words “parish pump” come to mind. This did not matter too much in those days because society was largely static; the great mobility of motorways, railways and that sort of thing had not yet come, so it was more or less okay for the time.
However, by the middle of the 1960s, following the royal commission of 1962, things had begun to change. There was a huge wave of amalgamations, which helped to fashion police forces in such a way that the parish pump largely disappeared, forces were largely aware of what was happening alongside them, co-operation began to grow and the whole policing scene changed for the better.
Underpinning all that was the establishment in 1948 of the Police Staff College. It started off originally in temporary accommodation at Ryton-on-Dunsmore in Coventry but moved fairly quickly in 1960 or thereabouts to Bramshill House in Hampshire. I venture to suggest, having been there as a student and on the staff, that it was probably the Bramshill staff college experience that helped to co-ordinate and make a cohesive whole of the police service in a way that nothing had done before. It brought together officers of various ranks on various courses, opened their eyes and broadened their horizons. It broke down, if you like, the old fetter of local training that was still going on in those days.
Lord Blair of Boughton
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Dear. My response to the situation is quite close to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dear—to be honest, I am quite surprised at how close it is. It is complete dismay. My dismay is that these amendments have been tabled by four Back-Benchers when they should be the responsibility of the Home Office. Police leadership is in crisis not because of the men and women who are doing it now but because the structures and processes just outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, have just been let go.
I will deal first with my response to the noble Earl’s amendments. I do not think that the international policing aspect works. It does not work, first, for the reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that officers tend to go when they have already retired. The second reason is that many police officials across the world are effectively judicial officials and Governments absolutely hold tight to themselves that their nationals should perform those jobs. There is no embedding. The third reason, which is about United Nations or other peacekeeping arrangements, is that the UN, or whatever body, insists that officers should be armed. In our time only the RUC—now the PSNI—would release those officers. In the Metropolitan Police only 7% or 8% of its officers are armed. It will not send those away to police somewhere else under any circumstances. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, I do not support that position.
On Amendment 177, about experience in different police forces, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who was an inspector of constabulary. At the time, I was the staff officer to the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and he, on behalf of the Home Secretary, controlled who was appointed to where in this sense: you had to have passed the strategic command course, you were then recommended on the decisions of the inspectors as to what calibre of officer you were, and sometimes you were specifically told by the Home Office that you were not to apply for a job because it was too small for you.
The best people were being sent to the best jobs. I really have expertise in this particular point because I administered that system for two years, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear will know. It was very brutal but it was very accurate. We have lost the rule that you could not do the top three jobs in any police force. You were not allowed to do that; you could not be an assistant, a deputy and a chief constable in the same force; you could not be the parish pump. You just would not get on to the list. Somehow, somewhere during the coalition, that disappeared.
The noble Earl’s amendment is about leadership. Somehow, we managed to sell the Police Staff College at Bramshill without replacing it. It is not a royal yacht, it is not just a generally good idea to have one; it was the absolute essential of what made the United Kingdom police service the envy of the world in the selection of its chief officers. We have lost it. Nobody knows where it has gone. Bramshill is sold. Why is the Home Office not bringing this matter forward rather than two, three or four Back-Benchers at 10 pm?
I now move to Amendment 178A, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Condon, who will speak in a moment. I had the pleasure of talking to the Minister this afternoon about this amendment, and I am very grateful to her. I really hope that the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats will look at this amendment and perhaps by the time we get to Report we will have some coalescence around this position.
I am sorry to bring the Committee back to this, but I need to return to my speech at Second Reading, which went back to a debate during the passage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill when it was suddenly discovered in this House that there was no longer a requirement for any senior police officer to have policing experience. It had disappeared somewhere in a lacuna in the different legal processes. The four noble Lords who had been commissioners of police were sitting and standing open-mouthed at the discovery that this had happened behind their backs without anybody noticing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said earlier, we are returning to the pre-Second World War situation. Most of us have seen “The Mousetrap”, where the chap reaches for the telephone and says, “I’ll ring the chief constable. He was in my regiment”. We stopped that after 1945 and said that it would be a good idea if senior police officers had police experience. I accept the ideas of deregulation and devolution, but somehow this Government, and, to be fair, particularly this political party, seem to be of the view that policing is unlike anything else and that it is not important for senior police officers to have had experience of doing middle-ranking work as the superintendents whom the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Harris, reported on. I do not understand that. You would not do that in the armed services, law, medicine or accountancy.
This amendment would put back into statute that it would be a good idea—just a simple, good idea—if the beginning point was that it was likely to be useful if somebody had served in a senior police rank before they applied for a higher one. The amendment makes two separate provisions. It allows the exception that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act put together which allows a foreign officer to do it if he or she has the right experience, and it certainly allows for the kind of transfer, if this is to be the case, in which fire officers become involved via the PCC, but it states that the Secretary of State on the advice of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary should agree that. The opening position is that you cannot be promoted to the senior ranks of the police service without having been at a middle or more senior rank beforehand unless the Secretary of State says so.
If something like this is not enshrined in law, I have to agree that the rather dismal predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Dear, will come true. This Government and their predecessor have created a thing called Police First, which is about bringing bright young men and women into the police service at the rank of superintendent. What is the point of coming in at the rank of superintendent if you can come in at the rank of chief constable? Why would you bother? What is this about? Why is it not the position of the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats that it is simply a good idea that policing should be like any other profession and that experience is a useful thing to have? That is the simple part of my amendment, to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Condon, will speak in a moment.
Lord Condon (CB)
My Lords, in view of the time, I am not going to repeat the points made so far. Suffice it to say that I agree totally with what the noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Blair, said on these issues. I might put the emphasis slightly differently—in some parts more strongly and less strongly in others—but in the round I agree with all they said.
I go straight to the amendments. On the first amendment, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I agree that overseas experience is desirable—it is nice, it is to be welcomed. As commissioner, I spent one Christmas visiting my officers in Sarajevo and elsewhere in that region, and I was very proud of the work that they were doing. I had a wonderful detective sergeant who was in command of more than 400 international police officers, many of them of chief officer rank. In the merits of a local situation, she was selected as a British detective sergeant to command those 400 overseas officers, and she did it magnificently. So I do not underestimate the merits, experience and legacy of working overseas—but it is too narrow an issue to be prescriptive as of today in relation to chief officer posts. It is a laudable aspiration, but let us not make it a prescriptive requirement of being a chief officer.
On the second amendment, on the parochial point about not being promoted from within the one force, I raised that point at Second Reading, as a very serious unintended consequence of police and crime commissioners. One of its great strengths and merits is its very parochialism and local focus—but that is an enormous downside with regard to the selection of chief officers. A couple of months ago, I tabled a Written Question that was answered by the Home Office Minister. I asked how many chief constable promotions over the last year came from an outside force and how many were internal promotions. As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said, those internal promotions only a few years ago would not have been technically possible; they would not have been allowed by the Home Office or the inspectorate. The answer was that the overwhelming majority of all the appointments of chief constable over the last few years have been internal. Very few have been external appointments—and so good, aspiring, young police officers will not seek to apply any more for those posts.
The movement between forces has now virtually stopped. There is an acceptance that police and crime commissioners will appoint only their sitting deputies and will not consider other candidates. The Government, the inspectorate and the Home Office must find some remedial mechanism which interdicts that process, encourages movement and ensures that the best people are promoted. I do not really mind what the mechanism is, but we need to face up to the challenge and the mischief that is currently happening—we are shrinking the gene pool of talent at the very top levels of policing.
On the final amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I support broadly what he is aspiring to do, which is to have clearer ideas and objective measurement of leadership. That must only be a good thing.
The motivation for all the amendments in this group—three from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and one from the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and me—is to ensure the best possible senior police leadership with appropriate skills and experience. We are where we are—we will not be able to unpick what has happened quickly. My support for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, is about facing up to where we are. There is a growing acceptance that outstanding candidates no longer need to start their police careers as constables or to progress through all the police ranks before serving in the most senior ranks.
The noble Lord, Lord Blair, and I, in our amendment, provide for the possibility of an outstanding external candidate with no police experience being considered for the roles of commissioner, chief constable, or Director of the National Crime Agency, if the Secretary of State is so minded, but after he or she has taken advice from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary about the candidates who are available and willing to be considered, as well as any external candidates. But being commissioner or chief constable is about more than being an able leader or an able administrator. It is also about very specific command and control within policing. It is about life and death authority over the use of complex legal powers and authorities, which become more and more important as terrorism becomes more of a threat in Europe. It is about setting professional standards of integrity and performance, based on very detailed understanding of police culture, capabilities and weaknesses. While an able General, Admiral or former Permanent Under-Secretary, for example, can bring enormous leadership and administrative skills, they will be at a disadvantage initially in not understanding or knowing some of the cultural, professional and technical issues that face policing.
I acknowledge that we are where we are. The gene pool of police leadership should and must be improved. Ideally, it would be through taking some of the best from history, recognising where we are now, and moving forward in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, indicated. But, in improving it, we should not do so in a way that trivialises relevant police experience or demoralises able men and women who have already embarked on police careers. Some have very recently come in as direct entrants at superintendent level and have aspirations and expectations to rise to the most senior posts in the service. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that while room and encouragement should be given for exceptional candidates without a policing background to be brought into top police posts, more effort should now be put into developing, as soon as possible, able men and women who see policing as a career that occupies much of their professional life, building on the current schemes for direct entry at various levels up to and including that of superintendent.
I am approaching almost my 50th anniversary of being around policing. I am very proud to have been a police officer. Like the noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Blair, I am a product of the system that was described. Some people crassly call for leadership to be helicoptered in from almost anywhere. This is not about education. I am an Oxford graduate, as is the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is a Cambridge graduate. The current commissioner is an Oxford graduate. As I say, this is not about education. If it is about performance, past police leaders have outperformed on courses such as those of the Royal College of Defence Studies and the Cabinet Office Top Management Programme, on which I was sent by Prime Minister Thatcher. So there is a legacy of police leaders competing with, and outperforming, their peers and contemporaries in the military, in public service and the private sector.
However, this issue is not about that. In some cases, I fear that it becomes almost a pernicious class argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, hinted, I worry that we are going back to the good old, bad old days—the pre-war thinking that not enough commissioners or chief constables have spent enough time in some of the best public schools. It is so sad when the argument boils down to that. This is really about trying to get the best leadership in policing, I hope that the Government, the Home Office and the Chief Inspector of Constabulary will put their heads together to help us find a way through this, because the direction in which we are going will not enhance police leadership; it will weaken it.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the PSNI has a requirement that before potential chief constables are appointed, they have to serve—I think for one or two years—in a force other than one in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that requirement could be introduced in the rest of the UK.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I am getting wind-up signals already. As regards Amendments 176, 177 and 178, the opportunities for international police experience are very limited. Therefore, to mandate it would be to disadvantage many able candidates for promotion. Something desperately needs to be done to stop people being promoted just from within the most senior ranks within the force because the police and crime commissioner knows the candidates and does not know candidates from outside forces. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and others have said, it used to be a rule that, if you wanted to be the chief constable, you could not have been the assistant chief constable and the deputy chief constable in that same force. That rule needs to be brought back.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the difference between leadership and management is that management is about getting people to do what you want them to do and leadership is about getting them to want to do what you want them to do. The latter approach is essential in policing because in most circumstances you are not with the officer when the officer is in contact with the public.
As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said, the three-day extended interview, the strategic command course and the strategic leadership course were good models and produced good candidates. Something needs to be done to rectify that situation.
I was slightly disappointed that the first I knew of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, was when I saw it in the Marshalled List. If he had sought our help, we would have supported his amendment. I hope that we can work together on it between now and the next stage of the Bill. The noble Lord may recall that when we had discussions about direct entry at superintendent level, I went further than him and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in terms of the need for police experience.
The Minister can learn from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, as commissioner. Within weeks of him becoming commissioner, the bombing on the London Underground and on the bus in Russell Square happened. Do the Government want to put somebody who has no experience of policing, or even somebody who has had experience in another country and who does not know the capacity and the powers of the British police service or the laws that apply in this country, in a situation where within weeks they could face that sort of disaster?
Lord Rosser
I do not know whether I should have been declaring an interest throughout today’s proceedings but it is a bit of a shock to find that throughout them I have been clutching a pen on which is written: “Metropolitan Police Forensics—New Scotland Yard”, so I had better declare it now.
This has been an illuminating debate for me on some of the issues that confront the police over training, appointments and leadership under the present arrangements and organisational structure. If the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, wishes to discuss his amendment, I will be more than happy to do so. I can say only that I thought that we would find a significant conflict between the two sets of amendments, but now that I have listened to the debate, that does not appear to be the case. Perhaps the ideal would be if the noble Lords, Lord Dear, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Condon, produced an amendment with which all three of them could associate themselves if they wish to pursue the matter through to the next stage. Obviously, they will want to hear the Government’s response before seeking to make any decisions on that point. However I will leave it at that, and I certainly await with interest what the Minister has to say on behalf of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I almost hesitate to stand up given that I am surrounded by experts in this field—and I did not go to Oxbridge either. All noble Lords have said in different ways this evening that choosing our police leaders is of the utmost importance for the future of policing, and as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, we need to think about it now. We fully support initiatives to ensure that police leaders are drawn from different backgrounds. That is why the Government asked the College of Policing to carry out a leadership review for policing in 2014. We wanted to look at how we could open up policing to fresh perspectives, including by expanding external recruitment to the senior ranks in policing. The review also examined how we could encourage officers to gain experience outside policing before returning later in life and how we could open up senior ranks to candidates from different backgrounds.
The review, which was published in June 2015, was a landmark for policing, setting the agenda for change and for police workforce reform. Its impact is already being felt across policing, from the new qualifications and apprenticeships for those at the start of their careers to opening up police leadership through direct entry and senior secondments, as some noble Lords pointed out.
The review recommended that national standards for recruitment and promotion into all roles, ranks and grades should be established and that all vacancies are advertised nationally. Building on the qualities for professional policing which have been defined in the College of Policing’s new competency and values framework will help to ensure that there are clear and consistent standards for each rank. Advertising roles nationally will open recruitment and make it easier for officers and staff to apply for roles in other force areas—noble Lords mentioned that that does not happen as much as it should. The college has statutory powers to recommend that the Home Secretary makes regulations on a range of issues, including the qualifications for appointment and the promotion of police officers, thus ensuring that these are implemented across England and Wales.
As part of implementing the leadership review, the college is exploring how to improve the diversity of top teams by increasing the pool of candidates for chief officer posts and supporting police and crime commissioners in their selection processes and recruitment campaigns. They are also identifying development packages for those who are appointed from overseas or, as a result of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill, from the fire service. To support this work, the college has led for policing by undertaking a survey of PCCs, as well as of chief constables and other senior police officers, to understand the issues around senior appointments and developing the talent pool.
It should be the norm that police leaders have a breadth of experience and that they have access to other professions and fields to harness new skills that they can apply in policing. We strongly believe that it is possible to learn from policing overseas, and that is why we have already given the College of Policing the power to approve overseas police forces from which senior police officers are eligible to be appointed as a chief constable in England and Wales or as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. These are set out in the Appointment of Chief Officers of Police (Overseas Police Forces) Regulations 2014 and include forces from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.
We support the work of Chief Constable Andy Marsh, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on international policing, in establishing the Joint International Policing Hub to act as the single, recognised gateway for international policing assistance for domestic and global partners.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Attlee seek to open up recruitment to the senior ranks in policing. As I have set out, the Government are very supportive of initiatives to achieve this. However, we believe that this should be led by the College of Policing, as the professional body for policing, and that it already has the necessary powers to achieve this.
We deploy police officers overseas to pursue matters of interest to the UK and share our expertise. For example, we sent officers to France to work alongside the French police in dealing with football fans at the Euros.
The noble Lord, Lord Blair, clearly comes at this issue from a different perspective. Amendment 178A in his name seeks to enshrine in statute a presumption that all those who are appointed to chief officer rank must previously have served as a senior officer in a UK police force.
When we introduced police and crime commissioners in 2012, we wanted people to have a say in policing in their local community. We gave PCCs the power to appoint the chief constable because we recognised that this appointment was crucial to implementing the PCC’s policing and crime plan. PCCs understand what the local issues are and are best placed to understand the leadership requirements of their force. It should not be for the Home Secretary to give prior approval as to who is eligible to apply for each and every chief officer post that is advertised. That would not be practical or desirable. However, today I gave the noble Lord, Lord Blair, an undertaking—and I offer it to other noble Lords; I have such a field of expertise around me that I shall open it up—to have further discussions on this area. I would welcome them and would be very happy for them to take place before Report.
The College of Policing has the power to set standards for all police ranks and can introduce new measures as recruitment at senior ranks is opened up further. It has shown how successful it is at this with the introduction of the direct entry programme and the fact that talented people from other sectors are now working in policing. The college is now working to compare the skills, abilities and knowledge needed to be a chief constable with those of chief fire officers to develop a rigorous assessment and development package for those who are interested in the top jobs in policing as a result of the reforms in Part 1 of the Bill.
As I have indicated, the Government want the best people leading policing. We believe the best way to achieve that is to have open recruitment from a wide talent pool, national standards set by the professional body and local decision-making that reflects the needs of the force and the local community. I realise that we have gone past 10 pm, but I hope that the noble Earl will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this debate has exceeded all my expectations. There have been few times in your Lordships’ House when I have tabled an amendment that has been as effective. I will read what my noble friend the Minister has said with great care, but I suspect that I will not be surprised.
On one condition, I will not only withdraw my amendment but will not return to the issue—although other noble Lords may want to return to their issues. The condition is this: the Minister has an excellent Bill team manager—I know that because he has worked with me and with the Chief Whip—and I would like him to cut out this debate from Hansard and put it in the Policing Minister’s red box and the Home Secretary’s red box. The speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Dear, Lord Blair, and Lord Condon, were very serious and said that we are going in the wrong direction on this problem—that will come to bite us eventually. I believe that the Home Secretary needs to do something about this, and to listen to the warnings from the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blair of Boughton
“Eligibility for senior police posts
(1) The Police Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 50B (inserted by section 46) insert—“50C Eligibility for senior police postsSubject to section 140 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (appointment of chief officers of police)—(a) an application may not be considered from any individual applying for the post of—(i) Assistant or Deputy Chief Constable in any police service;(ii) Commander or Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police Service; or(iii) Commander or Assistant Commissioner in the City of London Police;without previous experience in the police service in the United Kingdom at the rank of Superintendent or above, unless prior approval has been given by the Secretary of State, following advice from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary;(b) an application may not be considered from any individual applying for the post of—(i) Chief Constable in any police service;(ii) Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service;(iii) Commissioner of the City of London Police; or(iv) Director or Deputy Director of the National Crime Agency;without experience in the United Kingdom’s police service in a rank no lower than two ranks below that to which the application is being made unless prior approval has been given by the Secretary of State, following advice from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary.””
Lord Blair of Boughton
My Lords, I should say to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, that the reason I did not consult either of them was that I never expected that we would reach this clause on this day. It was only on Friday that I discovered, through the excellent Bill team, that we were going to reach this point. I would like the opportunity to talk through with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Government whether we can move forward.
Peel said something very interesting—that,
“this should not be an occupation for gentlemen”.
It took me 30 years to understand what that remark meant. It meant an extraordinary Victorian experiment, because that was the period in which you bought commissions, you bought livings and you bought places in the Civil Service. Peel was saying that the police service should be a meritocracy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Baroness Henig
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour and I will try to be brief. I am particularly grateful for being allowed to move the amendment now because next Wednesday I have some important responsibilities; I am captaining the House of Lords bridge team against the House of Commons, and that is why I cannot be here next week. Again, I am grateful that we are able to take the amendment tonight.
I should say at the outset that I have worked alongside and observed the activities of members of the Police Federation for more than 25 years at both the local and national level. I would say that this experience has given me some expertise in Police Federation matters, but of course expertise currently is not something to boast about or perhaps even to lay claim to.
I am sure that we all know that the chief objective of the federation is to represent the interests of its members, and in my experience the Police Federation does this extremely well at both the local and the national level. Indeed, that support network is very necessary. Police officers do a difficult and often dangerous job. They need and deserve the security of knowing that the Police Federation will always be there to defend them if or when things go wrong, particularly legally, but every now and again in relation to terms of service and powers, and politically as well.
It is of course true that the Police Federation should not operate exclusively on behalf of its members. We the public need to have confidence in police officers, so it is important that members and particularly officers of the federation, in carrying out their functions, maintain high standards of conduct and of transparency. Here I have to observe that their conduct has often left something to be desired. I have myself seen at first hand evidence of bullying and of loutish behaviour. I have seen intimidation and ways of operating that manifestly do not command confidence in the integrity of federation officers. I am not alone. There can be no doubt that in recent years their collective actions and attitudes have on occasion grated on successive Governments, and they have alarmed middle England and the devoted readers of the Daily Mail. In the wake of the fiasco surrounding the clash of who said what and did what in Plebgate, the federation itself resolved to carry through a raft of root-and-branch reforms, It asked Sir David Normington to carry out an examination of the structure of the Police Federation and of its objectives. In his resulting report, Sir David proposed among other changes that in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for the welfare and efficiency of its members, the Police Federation should,
“act in the public interest”.
The Government are taking on board this recommendation but have modified it somewhat to stipulate that the Police Federation must act to “protect the public interest”. I believe this to be a massive overreaction and a serious mistake.
This is for two principal reasons. The first is that I do not know what “protecting the public interest” means. I have served as a local magistrate for 20 years and I know the importance of having laws that are clearly worded and fully understandable to the general public. Opaque words lead to bad law. I have therefore spent some time asking a number of my legal friends, some of them in this House, what they think is meant by “the public interest”. My learned friends cannot tell me. They do not agree and there is no accepted understanding of the phrase, and indeed there is some disagreement on what it might mean. So what precisely are we asking the Police Federation to do? They and we need clarity, so I would like the Minister to spell out to me, and more importantly to the legal profession, what she believes is meant by “protecting the public interest” as it applies to the Police Federation.
My second concern is that in representing its members, which the Police Federation has a prime duty to do, it could easily be drawn into doing the opposite of protecting the public interest. There may be officers whose cases, once the evidence is heard, could undermine trust and confidence in the police and could suggest that they have behaved in ways that have not protected the public interest, either deliberately or inadvertently. Should the federation not represent such officers? It is not difficult to foresee a conflict between the federation’s duty to look after the interests of its members and the obligation to protect the public interest, however it is defined. My strong view is that the federation is first and foremost a staff association, although I accept that it is a body that needs to act in a way which commands the trust and confidence of the public. So while it certainly should maintain high standards of conduct and high levels of transparency, fear of breaching this clause about protecting the public interest should not be able to inhibit the federation from representing the interests of its members. I believe that that might well be a consequence. It sounds grand to bestow on the federation a public purpose, which some of the more grandiose officers in the federation actually rather like, but to my mind it is a hollow aspiration. It is just words that sound good but have no agreed or clear meaning. I therefore believe that the words in proposed new subsection (1A)(a) in Clause 48 should be removed. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, in drafting this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and I spent many happy hours trying to determine what exactly the “public interest” is, as she has said. It can mean a whole lot of different things to different people and its interpretation is interesting in the context in which it is presented in the Bill.
As we have heard, the Police Federation has followed the recommendation—I emphasise “recommendation” —of Sir David Normington’s review into how to improve itself. It decided that it would establish an independent reference group. At Second Reading I gave your Lordships a full account of how that independent reference group, which I chaired, had been treated. After we were set up as a fully functioning group in January this year, the Police Federation decided it did not want to use us to help it realise its stated purpose of reforming. This was in spite of the membership of that group having within it people with more than 100 years’ experience of working with the police, a very senior and highly respected retired civil servant and the first woman to run a fire authority—so not all of us were politicians, to whom the present chair of the Police Federation was vehemently opposed anyway. Yet all of us were committed to helping the Police Federation improve its image. We were, effectively, sacked in May this year, having been unable to do anything meaningful to help.
I am quizzical about just where the “public interest” fits into this scenario. It is bandied about, as the noble Baroness suggested, but nobody can actually pin down what it means. Is the Police Federation in denial of its obligations to the public interest by behaving in the way it has? If so, what is the meaning of the phrase now? Will the public be pleased at how the organisation has conducted itself—in their interest—or will they be as puzzled as we were about the behaviour of the management of the Police Federation arbitrarily to interpret that interest in this particular way? The phrase needs removing from the Bill unless the Minister can convince me that it is at all meaningful. I would be grateful if she could give me some examples.
Lord Wasserman (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment. It deals with an issue I raised in the Second Reading debate on the Bill in your Lordships’ House. As I said at that time, and repeat for the sake of maintaining the highest standards of conduct and transparency, I was, until a few months ago, an unpaid adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and had been acting in that capacity for the best part of the previous three years.
I hope that I also made clear in that debate that the line I was about to take in respect of Clause 48 had not been prompted by the Police Federation. Indeed, it was not even supported by the leadership of that organisation. That position has not changed. My views on Clause 48 and, in particular, on the four words which this amendment seeks to omit, remain as they were in July—that is, mine and mine alone. Indeed, it is a cause of some regret that not even my noble friends on the Front Bench are likely to agree with me.
I say that this is a cause of some regret because my views stem directly from my experience as an official in the Home Office—an official doing very much the same job as those who prepared the Bill. The rule in the Home Office at that time was that, when preparing legislation, every effort had to be made to avoid giving hostages to fortune, or making rods for one’s own back—or any number of similar clichés. In practice, this meant that one’s seniors and betters were constantly on the lookout for words which they could strike out of draft legislation because they were not absolutely necessary. Every word in every Bill, we were taught, could be used by clever, rapacious lawyers as a stick with which to beat the Government—or at least a stick to beat other clever and rapacious lawyers. For this reason, every word in a piece of draft legislation, particularly primary legislation, had to be justified as being absolutely necessary and not amenable to misinterpretation or exploitation for purposes other than those directly related to the main purpose of the legislation in question.
I regard the words “protect the public interest” in Clause 48, as the noble Baronesses who spoke before me said, as precisely the kind of words that are amenable to misinterpretation and exploitation. They certainly are not necessary to achieve the purposes of this particular part of the Bill. I therefore regard them as prime candidates for omission.
The same problems do not arise with the words in the other two paragraphs. I believe that it is very sensible to place a duty on the federation to maintain high standards of conduct and transparency. Everyone understands what those words mean. More importantly, I believe that they are quite sufficient by themselves to achieve the Government’s aims for the federation. In fact, they are probably more than enough.
All of us who take an interest in policing know very well why the previous Home Secretary felt moved to introduce these words into the Bill. I for one strongly supported her doing so. But the words “protect the public interest” are quite different. The federation is at bottom a staff association and its job is to represent its members. It is clearly in the public interest that it should do so effectively—that is why it was established. And it is clearly in its own interest that it should act, as Sir David Normington said, to maintain exemplary standards of conduct, integrity and professionalism and to retain public confidence.
To require the federation to act to “protect the public interest” is quite another matter. I fear that these words are tantamount to giving the federation a licence to interfere in policing matters well beyond its expertise. For example, I see the federation deciding that it is in the public interest that it should monitor and make recommendations on the type of equipment and systems which police forces purchase and deploy; on the leadership qualities of candidates for chief constable rank and other operational matters; or on issues of police governance such as the size and composition of police and crime panels.
Of course, individual members of the federation will have views on all these matters and on many more besides. But what we would be doing by including the words “support the public interest” in this Bill is to give the leaders of the federation grounds for spending their money on studying these matters and publicly advocating for changes in them. Indeed, I believe that these words would permit the federation to extend its remit almost indefinitely and to employ clever, rapacious lawyers to justify this on the grounds that it has a statutory duty to protect the public interest.
The federation has more than enough on its plate in carrying out its core mission. Placing on the federation a duty to “support the public interest” may sound good, as the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, said, but it does not pass the test of being essential to the purposes of the Bill. In fact, I believe that it falls squarely into the category of words which could come back to bite the Government in very unpleasant ways.
That is why I strongly support this amendment and urge the Minister to agree with me that omitting these four words would in no way weaken the motivation of the federation to operate in the public interest but would minimise the opportunity for it to make trouble for itself and others in due course.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have given notice of our intention to oppose the proposition that Clause 48 stand part. The reason is that all officers of the federation hold public office. They are therefore all subject to the Nolan principles—the seven principles of public life. Can the Minister explain what is to be added by the clause, over and above the Nolan principles?
Lord Rosser
I will briefly make two points. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lady Henig. I do not necessarily share the interpretation of the words “protect the public interest” that the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, attached to them. I think that probably, under some of its other responsibilities to its members, the Police Federation would be entitled to pursue at least some of the issues to which he made reference.
Do the Government interpret this wording of “protect the public interest” to mean that the federation must put the interests of the public before the interests of the members of the police forces it is there to represent? Secondly, does this wording mean that legal proceedings or some other action can be taken against the Police Federation by someone who believes that it has not protected the public interest? If so, who can take such legal proceedings or such other action?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for her explanation of this amendment to Clause 48, which amends the 1996 Act to require the Police Federation, in fulfilling its core purpose, to protect the public interest and maintain high standards of conduct and of transparency —as the noble Baroness said. There was a discussion the other day about what the public interest is. I understood that, in a different context, it was not what the public were interested in but something quite different.
In the spring of 2013, the Police Federation commissioned a review to consider whether any changes were required to its operation or structure to ensure that it continued to promote the public good as well as the interests and welfare of its members. The panel’s final report, Police Federation Independent Review, known widely as the Normington review, was published in January 2014 and made 36 recommendations to improve trust, accountability, professionalism and member services. Recommendation 1 was the adoption of a revised core purpose that reflects the Police Federation’s commitment to act in the public interest. The Police Federation accepted the review’s recommendations in their entirety and has already publicly adopted a revised core purpose on a non-statutory basis. The Normington review was clear that a reformed federation would act in the interests of both its members and the public.
Clause 48 focuses on how the Police Federation discharges its representative role—namely by considering the public interest in its actions, in the same way that the police uphold the public interest in all their actions, whether that is fighting crime on the front line or representing colleagues as a member of the federation. The clause does not conflict with the Police Federation’s representative purpose and will not, for example, require it to act against the interests of its members. The ambition here is to ensure that the federation does not operate against the public interest. Indeed, the Police Federation itself, acting in line with the recommendations of Sir David Normington and his review, asked the Government to enshrine its revised core purposes in legislation. That is exactly what this clause achieves.
Sadly, as the Normington review highlighted, a culture of “narrow self-interest” has permeated the federation in recent years—one of “distrust and division”, as he described it. The Government wish to support the federation in proving that it can serve its members and respect the public interest in providing a representative voice for police officers, with professionalism and integrity.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a point about changing the purpose of the Police Federation as set out in the Police Act 1996. Clause 48, as worded, is clear that the federation must protect the public interest and maintain high standards of conduct and transparency in fulfilling that purpose. The Police Act 1996 sets out what the federation should do and Clause 48 sets out how it must deliver that.
The noble Lord also asked what happens when the public interest and the interests of the police diverge. The Normington review was clear that a reformed federation would act in the interests of both its members and the public. Section 59 of the Police Act 1996 provides that the purpose of the Police Federation is to represent members of the police forces in England and Wales in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency.
Could the federation be challenged in the courts? It could, on the basis that it was not fulfilling its purpose as set out in Section 9(1) of the Police Act 1996 in a way that protected the public interest, but it may already be challenged on the basis that it was not fulfilling its existing purpose.
I hope I have provided some explanation and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Paddick
I do not think the Minister answered my question about what the clause adds over and above what is within the Nolan principles.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Nolan principles underpin every single aspect of involvement in public life. Obviously, this is specific to the police in a certain context, but I think the two should go hand in hand. Obviously, there are different aspects to the police compared with other public professions, but anyone who is in public office needs to sign up to the Nolan principles. This is an aspect that applies to the police.
Baroness Henig
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken at this late hour. Although it is late, this is an important debate. I listened very carefully to the Minister but she did not actually answer the question. She did not tell the Committee what the words actually mean. I have to say again that if it is not clear what a phrase means, it is not going to be good law and it is going to lead to an awful lot of disagreement in years to come. If four lawyers in a room cannot agree what “protect the public interest” means, that is a recipe for problems. The Minister did not explain what it meant. There was a lot of vagueness and phraseology but nothing clear or precise.
Obviously, at this point in the evening I will withdraw the amendment but I want to think about this a bit more. Some of us might want to return to this at a later stage because it really is not in the public interest to put something in a Bill the meaning of which people cannot agree on. That cannot be a good thing to do. But at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.