Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Damian Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

This debate is tragically timely for women across my constituency, who will tomorrow mark the one-year anniversary of the murder of my constituent Sarah Everard at the hands of a serving police officer. As our prayers and thoughts go out to Sarah’s family, I remind everyone of their request for privacy, and particularly the media; given what the family have suffered, that is the least they can offer them. That murder shocked the nation and my constituents; it struck fear into the hearts of women across the country, but particularly women who walked around the same area, who contacted me saying that they no longer felt safe. No one should feel unsafe walking anywhere at any time.

I cannot raise that case without also mentioning the vigil that followed on Clapham Common and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. Women present at the vigil were there to remember those who had lost their lives at the hands of male violence, and some were there to process their own trauma. They were forcibly kettled, manhandled and dispersed. The police response was called “controversial” at the time; I would say it was not merely controversial, but disgraceful.

There have also been great efforts to make it seem as though the murder’s happening at the hands of a serving police officer was a matter of one bad apple, but evidence has consistently revealed a deeply misogynistic culture in the Metropolitan Police. In the past 10 years, 750 Met police officers have faced sexual misconduct allegations, yet only 83 have been sacked.

We have heard tales of officers sharing inappropriate and offensive material and taking pictures of the dead bodies of women as a joke. The report into the vile misogyny and racism at the Charing Cross police station led the Home Secretary herself to declare that the Met had a “cultural and attitudinal” issue with misogyny. I do not say those things to berate the police, but because women need to be able to turn to the police to deliver justice and to prosecute the perpetrators of male violence. What confidence will they have in police forces that are known to do such things?

Since the murder in my constituency last year, a number of attacks have taken place in the area, leading to even more women being fearful of walking by themselves. Several of those attacks even happened during the day or in relatively open spaces. There is a culture of misogyny running rife through our society, and it is emboldening men to commit more heinous crimes against women in broad daylight. The systems in place to deliver justice for female victims continue to fail, as rape is effectively decriminalised.

One thing we must do is look at education and schools, teaching boys from a young age that as they grow up to become men, women should not be treated as objects or be spoken to or about in certain ways. That said, we must look to what they are seeing and hearing online, something hon. Members have frequently mentioned today, with the ever-growing presence of incels. We hope the online harms Bill will actively look at that and puts more responsibility on social media companies to take down some of that horrible content and make people realise that, as Mr Speaker has reminded us, words have consequences. It is not just banter or general viewing. It is not just a joke.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that social media is normalising hate speech—particularly aggressive hate speech directed towards women and girls—and that we must address that through the online safety Bill to ensure that the normal legal standards that exist offline are applied online and to create real responsibilities for companies such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to ensure that they do that?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is absolutely right. I wish more responsibility was placed on social media companies. There should even be a levy for them to pay for the perpetrating of the crimes that sometimes happen online but are not considered to be serious because they happen in a virtual space.

While it seems obvious to point out the impact of past cuts to police funding, it is important to make people realise that the ability to investigate crimes against women and girls is greatly impacted. The impact is not just in the lower numbers of police available, but in the cuts to police training and vetting. Between 2010 and 2018 the Met faced over £600 million in Government cuts, which saw a reduction in police posts and no doubt resulted in corner-cutting in training and vetting of officers. No wonder there are individuals who we know are clearly unfit to act as officers and have used their positions to commit heinous crimes against women and girls.

The answer to violence is not simply having more police on the streets, but they must be there, they must be appropriate and they must be vetted and we must ensure that, when dealing with cases of violence against women and girls, they take them seriously. If the police are to regain our trust in them to keep women and girls safe and tackle the spiralling issue of male violence against women and girls, they must first address the culture of impunity that allows violence against women and girls to thrive, by actively investigating these matters and taking them more seriously.

If the Government are to regain our trust in their commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, they need to assess and review all their cuts to services dealing with violence against women and girls right across the country. Those services have been cut in such a way that when women need support, there is hardly anybody to go to. We are talking about refuges and other services that have been cut right to the bone, and meanwhile the incidence of violence is increasing. If the Government are committed to tackling this issue, they must seriously look at the issue of funding, restore it where it has been cut and continue to work with those organisations that have done so much to end violence against women and girls.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The shadow Minister makes reference to a reduction of trial numbers last year. Of course, that is because crime is significantly down since 2010, when Labour left office. If there are fewer crimes being committed, there will be fewer trials in consequence; that is a symptom of success. The outstanding case load in 2019 was in fact at a 10-year low.

As I have said already, we are fully committed to making sure that the justice system recovers from the pandemic. That is why we have more Crown court jury trial rooms open now than we did before the pandemic, we are consulting on having extended operating hours to allow more cases to be heard, we have put £110 million of extra money in, we have recruited 1,600 extra staff—[Interruption.] It is working, as evidenced by the fact that there are more magistrates court trials now than there were before the pandemic and disposals are exceeding receipts. We will continue this work and make sure that the recovery in this jurisdiction continues to lead the world.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on bringing forward legislative proposals to strengthen sentencing to tackle homophobia in football.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

All hate crimes, including where motivated by homophobia, are unacceptable. The courts already have powers to treat hostility based on sexual orientation as a factor that aggravates the seriousness of an offence. However, hate crime laws in England and Wales are complex and are spread across different statutes. That is why the Government gave a commitment to carry out a comprehensive review of hate crime legislation. That review is currently under way.

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and in particular for the review being done by the Law Commission at the moment, which is looking specifically at the incidence of homophobic abuse in sports grounds. As the Minister will know, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 defines “racialist” abuse—that is the word it uses, which shows how old the Act is—but not homophobic abuse. Clearly, there is no space for abuse of any kind in a sports environment. In particular, match day stewards and officials seem unclear of their powers in these situations.

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this issue. It has been noted and appreciated. He is absolutely right; from memory, it is question 57 of the Law Commission’s review of this precise issue. I hope that that work progresses. The extraordinary thing about football is that so much of an advance has been seen in respect of racism, yet homophobia still seems to exist, although I have to say that there is much better work going on in the women’s game than the men’s. The men need to catch up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Collins Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It sounds as though the Sheerman household is an improving environment.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in the commending the excellent work of the Creative Foundation in Folkestone in supporting start-up creative businesses? Does he agree that its work will make Folkestone and east Kent an excellent choice for UK city of culture in 2017?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have visited Folkestone on many occasions. It not only has the adornment of my hon. Friend as its Member of Parliament, but benefits from the extraordinary philanthropic work of Roger De Haan, who has invested millions in Folkestone. He understands that investing in culture is one of the key ways of ensuring regeneration.

Leveson Inquiry

Damian Collins Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

We should make the case for statute, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it should be as narrow as possible in scope.

Let me return to my comments and set out why self-regulation has failed. The problem with a purely self-regulatory body and nothing else is that there is a conflict of interest when those doing the judging—the press—are those being judged. I believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s answer to that decades-long problem is ingenious. It has drawn on, listened to and completely understood the concerns of the press. He does not throw out self- regulation, as some expected. Instead, he nominates a body to oversee the self-regulator to ensure it is independent and stays independent.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Angie Bray]

It would seem that that Lord Leveson has not fully understood that or has not, with the wealth of stuff that he has been dealing with, given it enough thought.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what Lord Leveson does seem to entertain, though, is the point that the editors code may have to be routinely changed as a result of passing legislation in this House?

[Angie Bray]

Indeed. The validating process would happen every two years, which means that there could be opportunities to tweak the code at every stage.

Let me turn to the competition that is facing our newspaper industry—the digital media. Last week, my question to the Prime Minister was about a level playing field. Should we not be giving more thought to this as increasing numbers of people get their news from all kinds of social media that are well beyond a regulated code of practice of any sort? It is like the wild west out there. This competition is doing serious damage to our newspaper industry, and readership is falling year on year. Most young people carry their news on their phones and do not feel even the slightest need to stop and buy a newspaper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has told harrowing tales from her constituency.

There is agreement across the House that the Press Complaints Commission has failed and that there has to be something better. The dispute is not about whether things should carry on as they are, but about how things should change. Many Members have referred to the failure of the self-regulatory model for the press, but I question that. I do not think that we have a self-regulatory model. The PCC is not a regulator. Lord Leveson addresses that point in the summary of his findings:

“The fundamental problem is that the PCC, despite having held itself out as a regulator, and thereby raising expectations, is not actually a regulator at all. In reality it is a complaints handling body.”

That means that there is still an opportunity to look seriously at what real independent self-regulation would mean. The industry has a window of opportunity to do that and to present it to the House in a credible way.

There is no requirement that all newspapers, even national newspapers, are members of the PCC; it does not have the power to fine people for breaches of its code; and, crucially, as other Members have said, it has no powers of investigation. I believe that that is at the heart of the series of crises that have affected the newspaper industry for far too long. We saw that particularly strongly in the investigation by the Investigation Commissioner, Operation Motorman, which looked at the practices of the press in illegally accessing personal and confidential information, including through phone hacking. That information was published in 2006, with an update report in 2007. It suggested that 305 journalists, from a variety of national newspapers, had been in receipt of information that had been obtained illegally. Nothing was done about that.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest in this subject. Why does he think that no action was taken in relation to the Information Commissioner’s report? That has always puzzled me.

[Damian Collins]

That is a very good point which Lord Leveson tries to address in his report. It ends up being a game of no one being responsible. The PCC is not an investigative body, so it stood back and said, “Where’s the beef? Where’s the evidence to prove your allegations?” The Information Commissioner does not have the right to launch any further investigations or prosecutions, so no one was held responsible. That is why the new body has to have the power to seize such a report, go into the relevant organisations and investigate the matter.

There was no lack of information about criminality or information being obtained illegally; the failure was that no one acted on that information. The Information Commissioner’s report was largely ignored, as was the 2010 report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which also suggested that there was widespread knowledge of illegal practices within the media.

The police knew in 2002 that the News of the World had hacked Milly Dowler’s phone. We know from information that was produced for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in this Parliament that Surrey police discussed that with executives at the News of the World at the time. It was illegal, so why did the police not prosecute them or take action against them? Nothing was done about it. Evidence produced by the Select Committee’s inquiry demonstrates that senior executives and legal managers within News International understood that phone hacking was widespread and not related to a single reporter. Again, nothing was done about it.

The questions that were asked in that case are similar to those asked in the debate between the PCC and the Information Commissioner: “Where is the real evidence? What should we do?” There was no incentive or reason to do anything and there was no external pressure to push for a conclusion. That is why it is crucial to have an independent body with powers of investigation in the media and the power to fine.

I believe that the police got off lightly in the Leveson report. Lord Leveson skirts over the issue in the summary. One part reads a bit like the “Yes Minister” irregular verb game: “I give off-the-record briefings; you leak; he has been prosecuted under the Data Protection Act 1998.” Lord Leveson suggests helpfully that off-the-record briefings should be redefined as “non-reportable” briefings to clear up the distinction. On leaks, he suggests that police officers should perhaps have less access to the police’s computer system. That is woefully inadequate. A number of people raised the concern that if one called the police in certain situations, the News of the World turned up before the police. There was a ready trade in information between them. Lord Leveson does not go into that in anywhere near enough detail.

[Mr Watson]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. May I draw his attention to a very late submission to the Leveson inquiry from Detective Chief Superintendent Surtees, which appeared on the website this week? He states that in July 2009, he argued internally that there was enough intelligence to warrant reopening the investigation into phone hacking. The hon. Gentleman will know that at no point was that raised with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during its inquiry. That might be something that he and the Committee want to look at.

[Damian Collins]

I will certainly take a close look at that. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

There are dangers in the statutory underpinning of regulation. I agree with what the Prime Minister said last week. I have concerns about elements of the Leveson report and would like to see how the media can bring forward plans for a robust system of investigation.

If there is a system of regulation underpinned by Ofcom, the ultimate sanction will be what it always is with Ofcom: the withdrawing of a licence. That is the ultimate sanction that Ofcom has in the broadcast industry, and it has withdrawn the licence of a broadcaster. I think that we would find it difficult to see the chairman of Ofcom, who is appointed by a Secretary of State, or its chief executive being given the power to withdraw the printing rights of a national newspaper. It may be difficult to envisage the circumstances where that might happen, but the idea makes me slightly uncomfortable.

Like the Secretary of State, my professional experience is in the advertising industry, which has what it calls self-regulation through the Advertising Standards Authority. That model is seen as very successful, but it is underpinned by statute. That has not prevented many lobbying organisations from routinely pressing for changes to the advertising code and the practices of the advertising industry. It has not prevented Parliament from deciding to ban certain types of advertising, such as adverts for smoking, because it thinks that the standards being practised by the industry are not sufficient to protect the public. There are lobbying groups that are concerned about the advertising of fast food and about the portrayal of women in advertising. I do not want to get into whether those debates are serious and should be considered, but they are matters on which Parliament may seek to intervene to change the advertising code and the industry’s practices. Lord Leveson raises some concerns about whether, as a result of legislation, there may be similar pressure from Parliament for changes to occur.

In his summary to the report Leveson states that

“consideration should also be given to Code amendments which, while fully protecting freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, would equip that body—”

the new regulator—

“with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting, and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation.”

That could mean that for future or existing legislation there could be a requirement on the regulator to reinterpret the editorial code. As a result of that underpinning by statute we could have a creep of changes to the editorial code and practices—whether it was delivered by Ofcom or a new body—which would put pressures and new obligations on the independent body that currently do not exist.

It is not clear that Lord Leveson understands how far that could go and he gives an example in his report:

“Those representing women’s and minority groups—”

it could apply to a number of groups—

“would be entitled to retort that if the Code as currently worded creates the kind of legalistic difficulties which have just been outlined, then the solution is a straightforward one: simply amend the Code. The force of this point is noted, but it should be considered in depth by any future regulator, rather than by this inquiry.”

That is not desperately helpful; it suggests that although he is creating something, he does not understand the full extent of where it might go or the full consequences of the changes that might be introduced. We should pause to reflect on that as there is some cause for concern about what direction it may ultimately take.

I believe that we should consider the advertising model and its consequences as an example of something that is independent yet underpinned by statute, and the changes that could come from that. Lord Leveson set out in his report some of the concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. The challenge remains for the newspaper industry to come up with a robust model of non-statutory regulation through which it can put its own house in order and demonstrate that it has robustness, the ability to inquire and investigate, and to fine people who fall foul of its code of practice. If it refuses to do that, of course Parliament will have the right to consider what further action should be taken. I am, however, concerned about that being underpinned by Ofcom or any regulator, and its being forced on the industry at that point.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of Members to my declaration of interests, which includes writing a column for The Independent every Saturday, and having received a settlement from the News of the World for the hacking of my phone.

It is perhaps an irony that most members of the public are quite sceptical about everything they read in a newspaper and equally sceptical about anything they hear Members of Parliament saying, so our talking about what has been written in newspapers will probably induce the height of scepticism among ordinary members of the public.

I want to follow on briefly from comments made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). He made some good points, and I entirely agree with his remarks about Lord Justice Leveson’s comments on the police, in which I think he showed himself to be painfully naive. I believe that the paying of police officers for information is routine not only in the Metropolitan police but in many other parts of the country. One has only to look at the number of stories of where the press have turned up before anybody else to see that that can only be because of some tip-off from the police which, I am almost certain, is done not for the public interest but for financial gain.

I also think that Lord Justice Leveson has no power, because of the 1689 provisions, to decide whether anybody had lied to Parliament. I still believe that Mr Yates lied to Parliament in the evidence he gave to two Select Committees, and that when Lord Justice Leveson one day comes to the second part of his inquiry, he will have to address those issues.

I thought the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe was confused when he seemed to be saying that the Advertising Standards Authority, which has self-regulation that is backed up by statute, was a rather good model. He then seemed to say that he had doubts. It was almost as if he was trying to persuade himself to have doubts about something and, if I am honest, that was rather the feeling I got from the Secretary of State.

[Damian Collins]

rose—

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but I will not be able to give way to the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless).

[Damian Collins]

My point is that I have concerns about how the ASA model works, because we can see how through self-regulation, underpinned by Ofcom, there is still an ability to influence and change the advertising code through external pressure, rather than through decisions made purely by the industry.

[Chris Bryant]

External pressure comes from the public; it is not that politicians are desperate to write elements of any code of conduct for the press. Anybody who wants to characterise any argument in this House as being in favour of politicians wanting to tell newspapers what they can or cannot write does a disservice to the argument. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman was not doing that, but like the Secretary of State he was trying desperately to find an argument for supporting the Prime Minister. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that on this point it might be better to leave that alone.

In truth, we have been here before. We could replace all those in this Chamber with those who were here in 1947 for the royal commission, or in 1962—[Interruption.] I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was not here in 1947, although I think she was here last time around. In 1973 there was Sir Kenneth Younger’s committee on privacy, and 1974 saw the royal commission set up under Professor Oliver McGregor, who went on to chair the organisation that was set up. There were two Calcutt reports.

Fascinatingly, in our last round of discussions on 21 June 1990, David Waddington rose from the Government Benches and said:

“It is now up to the press to take up the challenge…presented to it. I am confident that the response will be a positive one.”—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1126.]

And here we are all over again. If anything, it is slightly worse, because changes in the digital economy have made it possible for the media to do things that they could not possibly have done back in 1990 although they would doubtless have loved to.

Victims of crime have once again had their lives turned into a commodity. That is the real immorality here. Abigail Witchalls was a victim of crime. In April 2005 she was attacked, rendered paralysed from the neck downwards, and month after month the press decided to invade her privacy. Sometimes, there was perhaps a contravention of the law, such as when 20 journalists were camped out in her garden and refused to leave. Perhaps it was an invasion of privacy to take aerial photographs of the building being built in her parents’ garden to accommodate her. Perhaps she could have gone to the law, but why should someone have to go to law, which is a very expensive process, simply to have degree of privacy after having been a victim of crime?

My personal interest in this issue started because of what happened at Soham. Someone with whom I was at theological college, Tim Alban Jones, was the vicar of Soham, and his experience during that time was that the press would not leave the victims of crime alone. It is not just that the families of the two girls who were murdered had their phones hacked; every person in the village had their door knocked. People were turned into a commodity, and that is the problem.

Whole communities have been traduced. I referred earlier to Hillsborough. The families of 96 people who had lies written about them in The Sun did not have the opportunity to go to the law to find redress. It is not that criminality was involved; the information had not been secured illegally and there was no opportunity to seek claims for libel because the class of people was too large to be specific. No individuals had been named. Those who argue that everything dealt with in Leveson has been criminal activity that should have been better policed are missing the point.

We must bear in mind that the part of the Leveson inquiry published so far is just the dodgy stuff, not the criminal stuff. Lord Justice Leveson has had to circumvent the criminal stuff to ensure that prosecutions can go ahead unprejudiced and unhindered, including those on phone hacking, the suborning of police officers, conspiracy, cover-up and all the rest. Some worrying developments are still going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point about digital media. I think somebody suggested that we should begin to look at how we regulate the internet. That is a challenge, even if we think only of closing down access to sites.

Returning to the Hillsborough incident, I do not want people to get false hope that all of a sudden journalists will not produce stories that they do not like. The same could be true of the situation in Bridgend. The PCC did good work on that, and the Government at the time said, “Yes, there was some good stuff.” We should have learned a bit more.

[Damian Collins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest steps forward in monitoring what is reasonable in, say, social media have been taken by the courts, not by any regulatory process?

[Dr Coffey]

That is a fair point. Of course, we all accept that the status quo is not good enough, but there is a great nervousness about the effect of statutory underpinning and the slippery slope. It seems that statutory underpinning is what the overwhelming majority of MPs want, and I hope we will persuade people that it is not right. If the statute is introduced and in a few years’ time it is not working, the argument will be that we need more regulations or that they need tightening up. I wonder where it will stop. It seems to me that what the victims really want is a more robust law on privacy and for a code of ethics to be enforced. Perhaps that is the question that should be consuming us.

This has been a good debate, but there are not enough hours to interrogate the report in the depth that it requires.

Home Department

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the closing speech given by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) during the Westminster Hall Adjournment Debate on Sport and Youth Crime on 6 December 2011.

[Damian Collins]

In the United States there is a programme called Badges for Baseball—all these programmes have snappy names—in which the police organise baseball and softball league games directly with young people. Does the Minister feel that there may be additional scope for police to be directly involved with such programmes in the UK?

[Nick Herbert]

The Positive Futures programme will continue until the end of 2013; thereafter, elected police and crime commissioners will have a budget that they can distribute for similar programmes, should they so choose.

[Official Report, 6 December 2011, Vol. 537, c. 24-5WH.]

Letter of correction from Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).

The correct response should have been:

Sport and Youth Crime

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Today’s debate on the effects of sport on youth crime falls, in some ways, in the shadow of last summer’s riots, and from his appearance yesterday on “Newsnight”, I know that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice is up to speed with the subject. This debate is set against a longer-term concern about the rising problem of disengaged youth, which has disturbed Governments of all persuasions for decades, and a belief by many in the sporting community that sport can and does play a positive role in re-engaging young people and refocusing their lives.

Nelson Mandela has said:

“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire… It speaks to youth in a language they understand. It is more powerful than governments in breaking down social barriers”,

and I want to use this debate not just to say that sport is good for its own sake, although many people believe that numerous benefits come with it. Studies of the benefits of youth participation in sport suggest that sport in and of itself is not enough to refocus or turn around the lives of disadvantaged young people and that what is required is a structured programme of support alongside the sporting activities. It is not simply a case of putting on ad hoc sporting events or creating new sporting facilities, but about how programmes are managed.

This is not simply a way of saying that Government intervention is necessarily a bad thing, or that Government agencies and public bodies are unable to deliver programmes that successfully intervene in young people’s lives. Support, including financial support, from the Government and their agencies is incredibly important to the success of such projects, but a good deal of new evidence suggests that sporting organisations and brands that have credibility in the eyes and lives of young people are often more successful in achieving the breakthrough that we all seek.

There has been a debate among people with an interest in sporting interventions in the lives of young people. People instinctively feel that such interventions are the right thing to do, and they have anecdotal evidence that they make a positive difference, but if there is any criticism, it is that there is perhaps a lack of robust data about exactly how they reduce criminal behaviour. I want to highlight some case studies that show the positive impact of such interventions on reducing crime and on antisocial behaviour and in improving the general well-being and educational performance of young people. The studies, of necessity in some ways, focus on relatively small numbers of people in relatively small geographical areas, and I would like the Government to consider some broader research that would seek to demonstrate the value for money and the performance of sporting interventions with young people.

I want to thank a number of sporting and other young people’s organisations that run such programmes and have provided information about them for the debate today—in particular, the Premier League, with its Kickz programme; the Manchester United Foundation; Charlton Athletic Community Trust; the Rugby Football Union; Sky Sports; the Sport and Recreation Alliance; First Light, which works in the arts; and Catch22. Their formal programmes are largely delivered by volunteers from the communities that they serve, and so I also want to thank the many volunteers who make them a success and the hundreds and thousands of people who work every day to deliver youth sporting projects, not just for disadvantaged young people but for all young people across the country. Their work is incredibly valuable and important to us all.

I want to look at four important areas that are of relevance to the debate: sporting programme interventions that help to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour; interventions that engage young offenders, both in young offenders institutions and after release; programmes for improving school attendance and attainment; and initiatives that help to rebuild young people’s self-worth.

We must consider costs; none of these programmes is delivered for free, although many are delivered with the support of the private and charitable sectors. We must also consider the costs of doing nothing, of maintaining the status quo. Based on 2010 figures, the National Audit Office has calculated that more than 200,000 criminal offences a year are committed by people aged between 10 and 17 at an annual cost to the country of up to £11 billion. It costs up to £100,000 a year to keep someone in a young offenders institution, and the number of 15 to 17-year-olds in prison has doubled over the past 10 years. During the five days of riots in August, 26% of the rioters were under 17, and 74% were under 24. There is not a male bias in the programmes and activities—they are open to boys and girls—but it is worth noting that 90% of the rioters were male.

First, on reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, one of the longest running and most successful projects is Kickz. It has been run by the Premier League for five years, has involved contact with more than 50,000 young people across 113 projects in some of the UK’s most deprived areas and has been supported by 43 professional football clubs. Kickz targets 12 to 18-year-olds, and its projects are football-led but include other sports and programmes designed to encourage young people’s awareness of health issues. The schemes typically take place three nights a week throughout the year, which is important in that they are frequent and have a very fixed structure. Kickz and the Premier League believe that one in 10 of the young people who initially attend the programmes as participants go on to volunteer, delivering the programmes for other young people, and they say that 398 people have gained full-time employment in some of the professional football clubs that have run the projects.

A report published last year by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation and New Philanthropy Capital, entitled “Teenage Kicks”, looked at a project run with Arsenal football club in Elthorne park in London and discovered that the investment in the project potentially created £7 of value for every £1 spent, with the savings coming from the reduced costs to the state of the reduction in criminal behaviour, with less police and court time needed to put people in detention. One participant said that he thought that 25% of the kids on the estate would be in jail without the programme, and he highlighted the nature of the problems that many young people face. He was someone who came home from school to find not a fridge full of food and people waiting for him, but nothing for him at all and an empty time in his day.

Interestingly, the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation also commissioned a report looking at the role of sport in gang culture. Young people involved in the research gave reasons why they might get involved in activities that would keep them out of trouble, and the top reason was that the activities would simply give them something to do. We should not underestimate the importance of that.

Returning to the study of the Elthorne park Kickz project delivered by Arsenal, it suggested that there had been a 66% reduction in youth crime within a one-mile radius of the project. Even taking into account other interventions—through community policing, for example —and after looking at national youth crime reduction trends for that period, the study’s authors thought it reasonable to suggest that at least 20% of that reduction was directly related to the project.

The Manchester United Foundation has delivered similar projects, with its star footballers working with youth workers and volunteers to deliver football-based recreational projects for young people in Manchester. Some of its research suggests a similar pattern of behaviour to that found in other research. It believes that in its Salford project there was a 28.4% reduction in antisocial behaviour during the session times when the foundation was working, and a 16.3% reduction in Trafford.

There are other smaller projects that in some ways work with people with more challenging needs, and I want to highlight—this has been highlighted in the Laureus report and by other people—the work of the Tottenham boxing academy. Members who know more about boxing than I do might take part in this debate, so I will not dwell too much on this. The project was designed for 14 to 16-year-olds. Physical impact sports—boxing and rugby—seem to be particularly effective when working with people from troubled backgrounds and certainly with those who have been involved criminal activity. There were 17 people on that project. Eight of them were known to have been offenders in the past, and based on normal intervention programmes, two thirds of those young people would normally be expected to reoffend within a year. However, in that instance, only two did. It is a small project, but it suggests that sporting projects help to re-engage people. They engage young people through a sport and then allow the youth workers delivering the project to engage with them about the other issues that they might have.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has spoken a bit about curing those who have committed youth crime. Does he accept that prevention is also an issue with youngsters who might otherwise be attracted into criminality?

May I make a quick plug for the club that is probably nearest to where we are sitting now? About 300 yards away is St Andrew’s club at Old Pye street. The club has been around for 130 years, runs 12 football teams on a weekly basis and has an indoor gym. It works well with Westminster school, which has put a lot of money into ensuring that the gym is up to the highest standards, and it makes an impact in the vicinity. St Andrew’s club operates not too far away from what would otherwise be a quite troubled area of social housing.

[Damian Collins]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. St Andrew’s club is indeed a great success. I know that it has his support as well as that of previous lord mayors of Westminster, who have made it their annual mayoral charity. Its work is greatly appreciated by people in central London.

The project Hitz is delivered by the Rugby Football Union, the premiership rugby clubs and the police across 10 London boroughs, and has 750 participants. Again, the sessions are led by youth workers and run frequently, twice a week for 50 weeks of the year. In the Haggerston park area of Hackney, where the project was delivered, the fall in antisocial behaviour calls was calculated at 39% during the project.

Such projects often encourage people not just to take part in the project itself, but to take their interest into a more structured environment and perhaps into full-time participation in the sport. The Hackney Bulls rugby club recruited six new players from people involved in Hitz, and overall, the programme has taken 41 young people into full-time participation in rugby.

In my area, Kent, the Charlton Athletic Community Trust has done excellent work with young people over a number of years. Certain projects that have sought to re-engage young people and refocus their lives have caused similar falls in antisocial behaviour, including a fall of 35% in Aylesham and 59% in Buckland. The trust also does good work on alternative curriculum provision to re-engage young people with their studies, and I will come to that in a moment.

Good work can be done in the community to help direct young people away from the path of criminality, as my hon. Friend highlighted. There is also some evidence on work being done to engage young people in the prison environment, often at low cost, as many prisons and young offender institutions have good sporting facilities, and it is a question of bringing in the right people to engage young offenders. Those programmes use sport to help bridge the gap between life inside an institution to life outside it afterwards.

A project called 2nd Chance has worked in the Ashfield young offenders institution. Drawing on professional sports clubs around Bristol, such as Bristol Rovers and Bristol rugby club, it has worked with 400 offenders a year and is a low-cost provision. It has been calculated that, if just one offender with whom the programme works is kept out of prison, that will pay for the delivery of the entire programme for a year. When we consider that the current reoffending rate for young offenders in Ashfield is 76%, it seems a risk worth taking.

As part of the study of its work, 2nd Chance has asked that it and groups like it have access to information about reoffending rates for people who have engaged in such programmes, to demonstrate whether they offer a value for money return. At the moment, it is difficult for those groups to access that information, as all sorts of data protection issues rightly surround information that can be traced to individual offenders. However, could general information be given to make that link and demonstrate the payback of such projects? The project within Ashfield was delivered for less than £80,000 in a year of operation and worked with more than 400 young people.

The Rugby Football Union has a programme called Try for Life that has worked with young offenders in numerous institutions, and a programme called Prison to Pitch that trains young people in prison to play rugby and then helps them gain placements with rugby clubs outside prison. As with the programmes run by the Premier League, individuals who do not go on to work within the sport go on to volunteer to help deliver programmes for other young people.

School attendance and attainment is particularly relevant to a case from my own constituency that I want to cite: the work of the Charlton Athletic Community Trust in New Romney. It is worth noting in the data from the riots that 30% of rioters were persistently absent from school. In New Romney, the Charlton Athletic Community Trust has taken over alternative curriculum provision, a mainstream piece of provision offered across the country. Charlton Athletic won the contract to deliver it. It uses its role as a football and sport club to re-engage young people, but it also delivers studies in maths and English, as well as a broader basic curriculum.

The project opened in New Romney in September. I attended, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics. During the two or three months since it started, the rate of attendance of the young people involved has improved significantly. The project gave me statistics. The attendance rate of one of those young people went from 1% at their previous institution to 55% now. Another student’s attendance rate went from 26% at their previous institution to 100% now.

Such projects help to reduce antisocial behaviour, as some statistics demonstrate, and a broader, fuller study by the Government would be welcome. I have cited examples showing how they can intervene successfully in the lives of young people in prison and re-engage those who have had trouble at school with their studies. There is also much to be said about the projects’ ability to help rebuild young people’s sense of self-worth and make them feel happier in their working and school environments.

The charity Greenhouse does a lot of work across London. It was supported by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their wedding guest list and by The Times’s Christmas appeal. In the research based on its 41 full-time sports and performing arts projects across London, some things that stand out strongly are improved school attendance, improved timeliness for the projects and increased happiness in school. An evaluation commissioned by Greenhouse from external valuers showed that 87% of the young people with whom the charity worked reported being happy at school as a result of the new programmes in which they were taking part, compared with just 52% before the start of the programme. Those might be softer measures of improvement, but they are important when we consider that we are dealing with people who are, on the whole, quite disengaged from their environment and from formal learning areas and practices.

The Manchester United Foundation calculated that its project had worked with 500 young people. Of those 500, seven got jobs with Manchester United, 14 were recruited as volunteers, 30 gained accreditation in music and IT production projects, eight completed football level 1 and 2 qualifications, 12 won boxing tutor awards and 30 became junior football organisers. That is not a bad rate of return for engagement with 500 young people, and the project was delivered at relatively low cost, for less than £50,000 a year.

In conclusion, I ask the Government to consider the issues raised by my remarks and the case studies that I have mentioned. The Government should shift their priorities generally—they have already signalled a shift—so that they do not just increase participation in sport for good but consider how targeted intervention by sporting projects can help change the lives of some of the most hard-to-reach young people. They should consider how to create a unified approach to delivery across Departments. The work touches on the role of the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government, all of which have some interest in the delivery of such projects. A unified approach is needed, probably with a lead Minister to take responsibility for and an interest in how those projects are delivered.

There should be a review of some of the rules and regulations about the delivery of sporting projects on the ground. Many sporting clubs cite problems with Criminal Records Bureau checks and other forms of bureaucracy that make their work more difficult. We should certainly look at that. All the national sporting bodies should prioritise the development of coaching qualifications and the training of people to help deliver projects.

To return to what I said at the beginning of the debate, a good starting point would be to build on the work that is being done by many sporting and charitable organisations, take up the research that they have done, complete a fuller study and analysis of the benefits and the rate of return from this type of intervention, and then consider the potential basis of further Government support via Government agencies, local government and the police—through crime prevention strategies—to make this a fuller programme for the country. The need to re-engage with young people is strong and evident, and the riots over the summer demonstrated that clearly to us all. Through the fog of this despair, there is evidence of some incredible and successful interventions that are turning around the lives of young people. We should draw from that and build for the future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my fellow Red—in many senses, from what he said today—the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate, which is timely, as has been said. There is a large degree of consensus in the Chamber about the importance of sport to our young people. I wish to talk about that, about some of the challenges in achieving the outcomes that we all say that we can achieve through sport and about why that matters.

The first point to make on the record, perhaps with an exception for the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)—I take issue with his humbleness about the impact of sport on his own achievements—is that we all recognise, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, that sport is not enough on its own. It is not about containing or diverting young people, but about the relationship that good, positive sporting activities and those who undertake them can play in securing achievement for our young people. Therefore, it is important to see sport not simply as a form of diversion but as a pathway to that achievement, and that is how we get the impact that we are all talking about. Not only do the coaches in our own communities keep kids off the street, but they keep them on that path towards the straight and narrow, towards the things that they could do in life.

This is not just about young people’s formal exercise activities—I take on board the points made by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and the hon. Member for North Swindon—but about the soft skills that they learn from being involved in sport and working with sports coaches and other young people. Those skills include team leadership, teamwork and participation, and what they offer not just on the pitch, but in the playground and the classroom. The importance of data and examples to prove what we have all known for many years—this applies especially to those of us who have worked in the youth voluntary sector—about those relationships and what sport gives to young people is vital to understand in whose interest investment in sport provision is and to secure those outcomes.

We have talked about different interventions, or alliterations, whether prison to pitch, cricket for change, or troops for teachers, and they all show that thinking smartly about how to bring those skills to young people—the right people to work with to engage them in those activities—reaps rewards that last not just while taking part in the sport, but for a generation. We also talked about the value for money of those programmes, which is a key point to which I shall return. If it is recognised that the benefits accrue not just in the short term, but in the long term, it is necessary also to recognise whose responsibility it is to support that work to secure the gain.

The challenge for us all is not to make the case for whether sport can play an important role in helping young people to achieve, thereby in tackling crime and under-achievement, but to say how to do that. The hon. Member for North Swindon mentioned school sports, and I pay tribute to the support that he gave to many of us who were deeply worried by the proposals to cut the school sports programme. I want to put on the record my personal thanks to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) for their work in improving dramatically the teaching of sport through schools and for having the far-sightedness to recognise its value.

School sports drove up participation in high-quality physical education for our young people from only 25% in 1997 to more than 90% in 2010. The school sport partnership, to which the hon. Member for North Swindon referred, was vital because it enabled the infrastructure that made participation possible to be put together, including the people who organised the games, provided the coaching and looked for the range of sports that young people want to take part in. When the Government foolhardily tried to dismantle that network, there was, rightly, an outcry. It is welcome that they have backed down to some degree, although many of us who still work with our local school sport co-ordinators are worried about the impact of those changes.

The issue is not just what can be done in schools. Critically, it involves the role of the voluntary sector. Some fantastic examples have been mentioned today. I have worked in the scouting movement, and I want to put on the record my support for voluntary organisations and the number of activities that they could provide. We are all clear that not just one sport is involved. Indeed, the scouting movement prides itself on being able to provide 200 different activities for young people each week and recognises that a range of provision is needed to engage with the range of young people.

I see the work of organisations such as Kickz in my community, and I want to put on the record my thanks to the Leyton Orient community sports programme for promoting that work. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe referred to the “Teenage Kicks” research. We know the impact of its work in pulling back young people who are at risk of antisocial behaviour, and we know that that makes a difference and is valuable not just regarding their antisocial behaviour but for their future achievement. He also referred to a social return on investment. Such programmes with the right people bring rewards that we could not achieve through sport provision alone.

I pay tribute to some of the grass-roots organisations. Many hon. Members have talked about fantastic large organisations that work with young people. I also pay tribute to Manchester United for inspiring me in many different ways. I share sympathy with the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her support for Liverpool, and I appreciate the work of the Liverpool community sport programme. Many of us know of smaller organisations in our communities, including Salaam Peace and Asianos in my constituency, that encourage young men to take part in football and cricket. They engage with young people with mentors from similar backgrounds who recognise the role of sport in providing soft skills and spend their lives encouraging young people to take part.

All such organisations—I want to turn to risks—show the importance of joined-up provision. The funding for such organisations often comes from a range of sources, including public and voluntary sources, and philanthropically from the private sector. That is a concern that I want to put to the Minister. We all recognise, because of the relationship to achievement, the value for money of investing in sport and providing sporting activities not just early in children’s lives, but throughout the critical periods of transition to adulthood, but how can we ensure that that happens not just for the few, but for all young people?

One of my concerns, having worked in the voluntary and community sector in providing for young people, as well as in local government, is the impact of some of the cuts on our ability to deliver such services. One challenge for local authorities, which often fund such work initially and are often a vital support for voluntary organisations at grass-roots and national level, is that the speed of the cuts means that they are cutting the very relationships that we all believe are important for young people, because there was no time to find efficiencies, to renegotiate contracts or to share services. Inevitably, funding for the voluntary sector, especially non-statutory services such as youth services, has suffered most. No one is denying that money must be saved, but it will clearly be a false economy if the very services and relationships that we know make a difference to our young people are the first to be cut.

[Damian Collins]

On priorities, the previous Government decided not to support Kickz from the investment budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because the programme was not designed purely to increase participation. Some people may say that it had a stronger function, but that function has been recognised by the Home Office in particular under the current Government. Total money is important, but so is deciding on priority areas of spending.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about priorities, but he is being a little disingenuous about Kickz, because it received public funding from other agencies. This is not just about particular projects; the case that he made powerfully, with which I agree, is that it is about the activities that we ask youth providers to undertake. Indeed, I would be critical of those who simply offer sport without asking what it can do in the long term for young people and those who say that it is enough just to get young people off the streets. That is why I challenge the hon. Member for North Swindon, who suggested that all that mattered was that he was tired at the end of the day. I suspect that participating in sport, working with other young people and organising sport made a difference to his confidence and probably also to his life chances.

We cannot get away from how to fund such activities. My worry today is that cuts mean that organisations and programmes such as Kickz and Leyton Orient’s community sports programme are under pressure as a result of some of the Government’s choices. If we all accept the case that good sports activity can provide that longer-term function in young people’s lives, we should be fighting for resources to go to those organisations and making the case for investment now and in the future, as a way to protect longer-term achievement.

The issue is not just the practical provision of services, but how that can help to reduce crime. The Minister may not be responsible for the allocation of budgets to the Department for Communities and Local Government, but he is responsible for community safety grants. We have seen a massive slashing of those grants and the very money that was helping the police and local authorities to work creatively with local community groups to provide outreach activities. For example, in Lambeth, one of the boroughs that was affected by the riots, the community safety grant has been reduced from £691,000 in 2010-11 to just £276,000 in 2012-13. Hounslow is facing a 32% cut in its youth offending budget next year. That matters because the funding allows people to think creatively about how to engage with young people and to do more than just tackle crime; it can prevent it by funding work with those young people, but that is under threat.

I want to flag up for the Minister the fact that the funding cuts for local government are a real risk to some of their key provision of facilities. The hon. Member for North Swindon spoke effectively about the importance of school buildings. The extended schools programme was doing exactly what he was asking for. It was encouraging schools to consider how to open up their facilities. I represent an area in north-east London, and I am conscious of the lack of space to undertake sporting activities. There is a relationship between playing sport at school and taking part in sporting events organised by voluntary organisations outside the school, but somewhere is needed to do that work. Will he make a case for revising that decision? I am sure that he will ask where the money will come from.

May I encourage the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education about the national citizen service? There are questions about the scheme’s value for money, and the Education Committee has highlighted concerns about the costs versus outputs that we will get from the service as it is currently constructed. If the Minister recognises the social return on investment in sport in tackling youth crime and also in delivering achievement, I suggest that he work with his colleagues across the Government to make the case for a better use of the funding that is available for youth provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

We will come to a discussion about who is responsible for providing such activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) described somebody who had gone into what he felt was a cul-de-sac as a result of gang activity, but boxing had been the avenue out. Routes out are important. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about the route that he found out of what might have been an alternative career option such as his friends pursued, which was time spent detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. He has found a different course, although many would suggest that there is not much difference between that role and that of his friends.

Nevertheless, there has been general agreement in the debate. There has been no dispute about the value of sport in having a positive impact on behaviour. It teaches control, self-discipline and the importance of teamwork. It unites people and provides opportunities for people, wherever they come from. Sporting activity is of huge value in preventing offending. Where offending has taken place, sport can play an enormous part as an intervention to break the cycle that I described. We must be careful to ensure that it is not the only intervention. There may be other causes of offending behaviour that need to be addressed in parallel. Whether there are learning difficulties or various addictions, sport can be one of the means to help an offender, but other interventions may be equally important.

There was also agreement about the importance of role models, particularly the powerful role models provided in sport. Such role models can of course provide a catalyst for change. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about the particular value of sports leaders, but I am sure he did not mean to imply that those were simply national sports leaders. Of course, national figures in sport, as mentioned by other Members, have a significant impact on young people. The mentors described by my right hon. Friend work at local level and come from all sorts of places. They can show a leadership role, and assist and encourage young people to engage in sporting activity. That is equally important.

I spoke recently to a police community support officer who, in addition to his community work, devotes much of his private time to working with young people and providing coaching in local sporting activities. He felt that it was important to assist those young people to take part in a constructive activity that would prevent them from getting into trouble. Such volunteers and local heroes matter just as much as national role models; I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) when she said that it was important to fly the flag for volunteers, and to celebrate them and recognise what they do.

[Damian Collins]

In the United States there is a programme called Badges for Baseball—all these programmes have snappy names—in which the police organise baseball and softball league games directly with young people. Does the Minister feel that there may be additional scope for police to be directly involved with such programmes in the UK?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that there is scope. Equally, if I were to ask any of the 43 police forces in England and Wales, I bet that they would supply good examples of activities in which local police officers are already engaged. I am sure, however, that they would accept my hon. Friend’s encouragement in the right spirit. They play an important role in the community.

I reject the characterisation of the police that was offered yesterday in research commissioned by The Guardian. It suggested that some hostility to the police is necessary, but in fact the development of neighbourhood policing and the community interaction carried out by the police is important and something that we must maintain and continue to develop.

Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Libya)

Damian Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Today I want to ask questions relating to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, whether its conclusion made the release of the Lockerbie bomber, al-Megrahi, more likely, and whether, despite assurances that the decision to release him was one for the Scottish Executive to make alone, the UK Government set the stage for the release and could have intervened to stop it had they wished to do so. I am grateful that the Minister is here to respond to the debate, because his Department played a pivotal role in negotiating the agreement and advising Government Departments and the Scottish Executive on its consequences.

In December 2010, members of the United States Senate published their report on the release of Megrahi. Their conclusions are not much different from the views expressed by many other individuals who have followed the affair. They conclude that the UK Government were prepared to agree in principle to the release of al-Megrahi in return for the protection of British commercial interests in Libya, particularly those in the energy industries, and that they made it clear to the Scottish Executive that they wanted Megrahi to be released and did nothing to stop that happening. Many people find it hard to believe that the UK Government were powerless because the release was entirely a matter for Scotland and that they rightly chose to apply no pressure to Scottish Ministers on that. However, Parliament has not had the opportunity to explore the matter properly.

Like many other Members, I believe that the release of Megrahi was wrong, and like the authors of the US Senate report, I believe that there should be an inquiry to establish exactly how and why the release came about. I would rather see such inquiries and reports produced by Parliament or the UK Government. I also urge the Cabinet Secretary to conclude his review of the unpublished Government papers relating to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement and the release of Megrahi. He was asked by the Prime Minister to conduct that review last summer, and we are eager for its results.

The purpose of the debate is not to bring forward any criticism of the Libyan Government, who have been clear about their intentions in the negotiation of the PTA and always intended that successful negotiations should lead to Megrahi’s release. One might wonder at the significance of the agreement for them otherwise, as only 20 of the 13,429 foreign prisoners in the UK are Libyan, compared with 188 from neighbouring Algeria.

The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), stated in an interview that to link the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya to British commercial interests in that country was

“a slur both on myself and the Government”.

He said in the House of Commons during a statement following the release of Megrahi that

“there was no deal for the release of Megrahi in respect of trade, and that is absolutely right.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 35.]

However, we know from the records already released by the UK Government that that link was expressly made in the negotiations for the agreement.

The key period of the negotiations came in late 2007. On 23 September that year, the then Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), offered an unequivocal assurance to the Scottish Government that

“My officials will make clear to the Libyan authorities that without this addition”—

of a clause excluding Megrahi from the agreement—

“it will not be possible to conclude a prisoner transfer agreement”.

However, on 17 December a Ministry of Justice internal briefing note to the PTA negotiations confirmed that the Libyan Government had threatened to halt commercial contracts unless the PTA was agreed. It stated:

“Despite a consistent negotiating line that the case of the Lockerbie bomber would not be covered by the PTA, the Libyans have continued to press for a general agreement and linked the fate of some commercial contracts to its successful conclusion.”

The British objection to the inclusion of Megrahi within the terms of the PTA was then dropped.

Why did the Government drop their insistence on a clause excluding Megrahi from the PTA, and what advice did officials give to Ministers on their decision to drop the clause? They must have known that that would lead to an application from the Libyan Government for his release. Was the Ministry of Justice satisfied with that? Had the then Lord Chancellor been successfully lobbied by representatives of British commercial interest—the US Senate report states that he was lobbied by BP on three separate occasions—or was he lobbied by his colleagues in Government and convinced that it was not a fight worth having? The picture remains unclear. Former Ministers have acknowledged that it is perfectly proper for a Government to consider the importance of commercial relations as part of improving relations between Britain and Libya, but they were reluctant to make the link publically in that instance.

Ministers seemed at pains, once the agreement had been made on the PTA, to stress its relevance to the Libyan Government’s long-standing desire to see Megrahi released. The former Europe Minister, Bill Rammell, wrote to the Libyan Government following the negotiations to explain

“the processes that would apply as regards any consideration of transfer or compassionate release on licence of Mr Megrahi”

and noted how the PTA was “relevant” to this. Mr Rammell also confirmed to the Libyans in a meeting in Libya that the Government did not want to see Megrahi die in prison. Once agreed, the PTA, although offering no guarantees, was clearly a mechanism designed to support that wish. The former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, also advised that a decision on the transfer of a prisoner under the terms of the PTA

“may be subject to judicial review”.

Therefore, even if a Scottish Minister had refused release, the decision could have been reviewed by the courts. Is that still the view of the Ministry of Justice on how the PTA could work in practice?

Despite the often repeated line from Ministers that the final decision to release Megrahi was one for Scottish Ministers, the sensitive nature of his release, its consequences for international relations and the fact that his imprisonment was the result of his conviction for an international terrorism offence, meant that the UK Government could and should have intervened. That was certainly the view of many people around the world who were so aggrieved by his release, particularly in the United States. It is an issue that the US Senate report also explored. Does the Ministry of Justice believe that the UK Government could have intervened in such a way had they wished to do so? The principle seems to have been conceded by the former Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House of Commons in October 2009, when he said:

“Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish Ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK Government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision… British interests… would be damaged—perhaps badly—if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 35.]

In that case, the previous Government seemed to give greater consideration to the impact of feelings between Britain and Libya than with the USA if he was released. It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks that there was a foreign policy dimension to the decision, and this was a matter for the UK Government to consider.

I do not wish to go into the question of the diagnosis of Megrahi’s cancer or his life expectancy. Others can draw their conclusions from the fact that a man who was given three months to live more than 18 months ago is still with us. That may say something about the quality of his diagnosis in Scotland, or the quality of health care and treatment in Libya. When the moment for Megrahi’s release came, the Scottish Government decided that they could not accept it under the PTA as that would compromise an understanding that had been made between the UK and the USA, and so they released him on compassionate grounds as a free man, rather than transferring him as a prisoner. Whatever path they had taken, once the PTA had been agreed, only one outcome looked likely.

The memorandum of understanding between the UK and Libyan Governments that led to the negotiation of the PTA was agreed in the same month that BP signed its agreement with Libya. The relationship between UK commercial interests and the fate of Megrahi has been a constant thread throughout the proceedings. Their conclusion angered many people around the world, particularly the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims. I ask that we have either a full disclosure from the Government of the decision-making process that led to that, or an inquiry to establish why that happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I would like to follow the usual courtesies and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this debate. The prisoner transfer agreement with Libya has attracted significant parliamentary and media attention since the negotiations began in 2007, and I know that since his arrival in the House, he has sought information relating to those negotiations and the subsequent release by the Scottish Executive of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. I hope during the course of my remarks to address a number of the points that he made, and I hope that I will have some satisfactory news about the Scottish Cabinet Secretary at their conclusion.

Let us be clear: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of causing the largest peacetime loss of life on British territory. His actions and those of his backers resulted in the death of 190 Americans, 43 Britons and 19 people of other nationalities. Shortly before Christmas, families and friends of the innocent victims commemorated the 22nd anniversary of their murder. I am sure that their pain is still great, and that the memory of what happened that night will live with them always. The release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds can only have added to that pain. In that sense, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) at the conclusion of his remarks.

Al-Megrahi’s release from custody was a decision made solely by Scottish Ministers in accordance with Scots law. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will be aware that the Scottish First Minister and the Scottish Minister for Justice responsible for the decision have made that clear in their public statements, and that the Scottish Minister for Justice has also set out publicly the reasons for reaching that decision. Many hon. Members disagreed with it. At the time, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both condemned the decision to release al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, and described it as wrong and misguided. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the decision to release al-Megrahi was a legitimate decision for the Scottish Executive to make.

I now turn to the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement, but I should first make it clear, as my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow and for Folkestone and Hythe did, that it was not the means used to facilitate the release of al-Megrahi. Indeed, his request for a transfer to a Libyan prison was refused by Scottish Ministers, in line with the terms of the agreement.

Hon. Members will be aware that in May 2007, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, visited Libya for discussions with the President, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and that during the course of that visit a memorandum of understanding was signed between the United Kingdom and Libya which provided for the negotiation of four agreements in the field of judicial co-operation. The agreements related to extradition, criminal and civil law, mutual legal assistance and prisoner transfers. They were intended, in part, to mark the return of Libya to the international community following its renunciation of support for international terrorism and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. That was an important policy objective of the UK Government and their European partners at the time.

Responsibility for the negotiation of prisoner transfer agreements on behalf of the UK rests with the Ministry of Justice. Since 1985, the UK has negotiated 23 bilateral prisoner transfer agreements, including the one with Libya. In addition, it is a signatory to two multi-party prisoner transfer agreements. In all, the UK has prisoner transfer agreements with more than 100 countries and territories, so the essence of the fact that there are only 20 Libyans in our prisons is not necessarily unique in terms of the arrangements that we have with other countries. There are not that many Rwandans in our prisons either; again, we have a prisoner transfer agreement with Rwanda.

Negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya was conducted over several months by a small team of officials from the National Offender Management Service with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is normal practice. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), then the Secretary of State for Justice, was the Minister responsible for the negotiations. The officials responsible for negotiating the prisoner transfer agreement did so on the basis of a negotiating mandate agreed at each stage with Ministers. At the outset, it included a remit to exclude from the prisoner transfer agreement al-Megrahi and anyone connected with the Lockerbie bombing.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will understand that I am bound by convention in what I can say about the actions of a previous Administration. That is particularly the case in describing the motives of the previous Government in seeking to conclude a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, and their subsequent decision not to insist on a clause that would exclude al-Megrahi from it. In that sense, I am unable to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow about its being a secret deal, with devolution being a fig leaf.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), then the Foreign Secretary, made a statement to the House on 12 October 2009 in which he stated:

“In May 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair made his second visit to Libya. His summit with Colonel Gaddafi at Sirte covered the full range of our interests with Libya. Mr. Blair signed a defence accord and witnessed the public signature of a major BP exploration contract. Also agreed was a memorandum of understanding on negotiations for a judicial co-operation package, including a prisoner transfer agreement and agreements on mutual legal assistance, extradition, and civil and commercial law.

The UK had a model agreement, based on Council of Europe arrangements, that was the starting point for negotiation on our prisoner transfer agreements with any country and that provided the starting point for negotiations with the Libyans. Four points are relevant. First, a PTA provides for prisoner transfer, not prisoner release. Secondly, it provides a framework for transfer, not a right to transfer. Thirdly, a PTA cannot be used when appeals, including by the prosecuting authority, are outstanding, as in this case. Fourthly, Ministers in the sentencing jurisdiction—in this case Scotland—have an absolute right to veto any transfer.

This standard draft had no provision for any carve-out for any named prisoner. However, the Scottish Executive made strong representations for us to seek to alter the standard PTA so as specifically to exclude Mr. Megrahi. The UK negotiation team, led by the Ministry of Justice, sought in good faith to achieve this goal.

The Libyans insisted that the only PTA that they would sign was a PTA without any exclusions. So the Government had a clear choice. We could agree to a standard PTA with no exclusions, retaining for Scottish Ministers an absolute veto over any request for prisoner transfer in the case of Megrahi—a veto which they used in August this year”—

August 2009—

“or we could have ended the negotiations to prevent an application for prisoner transfer. This would have set back our wider national and commercial interests that flowed from normalised relations, as the Justice Secretary has made clear.”

I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe that some of his disappointment with the actions of the previous Administration is caused by the fact that they were not prepared to be clear about the interests at stake. The then Foreign Secretary continued:

“Since the PTA involved no prejudice to the rights of the Scottish Executive, nor pressure on the Scottish Executive, the Government decided it was right to go ahead. The PTA finally took effect in April 2009.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 30-31.]

On whether that decision was correct, I do not think I can add anything to the description of the negotiating process.

There has been speculation surrounding the role that commercial interests—primarily those of BP—played in the decision not to seek the exclusion of al-Megrahi from the terms of the PTA. In July 2010, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to Senator Kerry, chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, setting out the extent of BP’s involvement. During the several months of discussion in 2007 about Libyan opposition to the possible exclusion in the PTA, there were a number of conversations between BP and the then UK Government. Specifically, there were three discussions between BP and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, or his office, between October and November 2007; at least two contacts in the same period between BP and the then Prime Minister’s foreign policy adviser; and contacts with Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tripoli. During those discussions, the progress of negotiations on the UK-Libya transfer agreement and the likely timing of the agreement being signed were discussed. As BP made clear in its statement on 15 July 2010, it had been made aware by the Libyans that failure to agree the PTA could have an impact on UK commercial interests, including Libyan ratification of the BP exploration agreement signed in May 2007, and it wished to bring that fact to the attention of the UK Government.

[Damian Collins]

For the record, I want to make it clear that the contact of Sir Mark Allen of BP with the right hon. Member for Blackburn coincided with the change in the British negotiating position on the PTA and the decision to withdraw the exclusion of al-Megrahi.

[Mr Blunt]

I confess that I have insufficient detail on the times and dates of all the contacts between BP and the various parts of the Government to be able to agree with my hon. Friend, but I imagine that what he says is probably broadly correct and probably not a matter of dispute. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear to Senator Kerry, it was perfectly normal and legitimate practice for a British company to draw to the attention of the UK Government the interests at stake.

A significant amount of information relating to the negotiation of the PTA, including correspondence between the then Justice Secretary and Scottish Ministers, has already been made public, and I have drawn upon it in my remarks this afternoon. However, to ensure the fullest possible explanation of the circumstances surrounding the decision, the Prime Minister has instructed the Cabinet Secretary to review the papers to see if more needs to be published about the background to the decision. I know that my hon. Friends eagerly anticipate that report. I can tell them, in civil service language, that it will be published “very shortly”, so I hope that they will not have to wait very long for more information to be placed at their disposal and to see whether it brings new matters to our attention.

I am limited by convention on what can be said about a previous Administration. My hon. Friends have properly drawn the matter to the attention of the House.

[Damian Collins]

The report of the US Senate suggested that the UK Government had legal authority to intervene in the matter. In my remarks, I asked whether that was the view of the Ministry of Justice.

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful for that intervention; I meant to pick up on my hon. Friend’s point. I am advised that, no, it is not a matter on which the UK Government would be in a position to intervene. It is properly a matter for the sentencing authority—in this case, that is Scottish Ministers—to make the decision. They cannot be second-guessed by the UK Government exercising a different authority under the agreement.

My hon. Friend also asked about judicial review of the Scottish decision. The truth is that any prisoner could seek judicial review, and the outcome would be up to the judge who heard the review, but I am advised that it is very difficult to see how a review in those circumstances would meet the test for judicial review or for a decision to be overturned.

Following the request from the Prime Minister, we can look forward to more information from the Cabinet Secretary in a short time. I note that my hon. Friends have urged that the review be brought to a rapid conclusion, and I am confident that their request will be noted and accepted.