Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Hazel Blears Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan
I keep saying that I will give way for the last time. This really is the last time.
Hazel Blears
For the sake of clarity, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be circumstances in which it would be appropriate, in the interests of the fair administration of justice, for there to be a closed material proceeding hearing? If there are allegations that the security services have acted improperly, that information ought to be before the court rather than having the option of settling the case and the information never being subjected to judicial scrutiny?
Sadiq Khan
I agree with my right hon. Friend. She basically paraphrases the words of David Anderson, who said that there are a small number of cases where it is preferable for there to be closed material proceedings, imperfect as that is. She is right to remind the House of what David Anderson said, albeit in her own words, and I agree.
The Wiley balance is a tried and tested legal mechanism by which courts can balance these competing interests, and there is considerable case law history to back that up. It was supported by the House of Lords, as I said, including by Lord Phillips, the former president of the Supreme Court. The Government’s changes remove from the Bill all reference to open justice. The fear is that by not taking open justice into account, the likelihood of a CMP taking place will increase to more than the exceptional that the Government have talked about. As I have said, the Government also tabled amendment 55 in Committee, which replaced “open” with “effective”. It is our view, shared by the JCHR and the special advocates, that this is a retrograde step. As I said, the Supreme Court in al-Rawi confirmed that both natural justice and open justice are important but separate fundamental principles, hence our amendment seeks to reintroduce to the Bill the Wiley test of fair and open justice.
Hazel Blears
I, too, intend to speak briefly as I know that a range of Members want to contribute.
My speech follows that of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and I have the greatest respect for his point of view on this issue, for the depth of his knowledge and for how he has studied these matters. The sense in the House is that people hold varying views which, in many cases, cross party lines. People feel strongly about trying to strike the right balance between liberty and security, which has been the subject of many of our previous debates.
It is right that these matters should be controversial, because they go to the heart of our legal system, protecting the rights of applicants and respondents, ensuring that the role of the state is in the proper place to hold the balance between parties, and trying to ensure that our justice system retains its respect and integrity across the world. That balance is difficult to draw and is never easy to achieve, and I say that as the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism who took the controversial legislation on control orders through the House. We debated them until 5 am in one of our very rare all-night sittings, which was for me evidence of how strongly people felt about these issues and how much they wanted to protect the integrity of our legal system. I share that desire.
The Bill has been debated at length and the issues have been debated in great depth. It is perhaps almost otiose to be debating them again, but a few points need to be made.
We must not forget why we are debating the Bill. If we did not need to debate it, none of us would want to introduce it. Everybody in this House and in the country believes in the British system of open justice, an adversarial system in which evidence is brought into open court and tested by the parties, allowing the judge to deliberate on the evidence and make a judgment.
We are in this position for two reasons. First, legitimate concerns have been expressed by our intelligence liaison partners, particularly in the United States of America, about the breach of the control principle for intelligence, which has put sources, techniques and capabilities at risk. That is the issue of national security, which is very much about the assets that are at risk. I am delighted that the Norwich Pharmacal provisions have gone through with agreement on both sides, which has been extremely positive, but concerns nevertheless remain about the possibility of information being disclosed in open court proceedings that could damage our intelligence relationships. That is the first reason why we are debating this issue.
The second reason is that we have seen an increasing number of claims of unlawful detention and allegations of mistreatment or torture by the security services against people who have been held in a range of different circumstances. Those allegations amount to more than 20 outstanding cases and the number is likely to increase if there is a jurisdiction within which such claims can be ventilated freely. The position has been that many of those claims have had to be settled because the evidence necessary to prove the case either way impinges on national security. That is why we have seen payments made to some claimants without having the opportunity to decide whether their claims were well founded as the evidence has not been put into a judicial setting.
I feel particularly strongly about this matter. If the security agencies have been conducting operations in a way that falls outside our framework of human rights, I want those issues to be put before a court and to be litigated. The fact that they cannot be goes to the heart of the reputation of our intelligence services. People will always say, “Well, you are settling that case because something in it was well founded. That is why you are prepared to pay £2 million, £3 million or £4 million to avoid litigation in our courts.” I want that information; I want to know what happened. Equally, if these claims are unfounded and unfair allegations are being brought against our security services, I want them to be able to defend themselves and the good name and integrity of our intelligence agencies.
Yasmin Qureshi
Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that using the concept of national security as something to hide behind is not right either? This has been used by states all too often. We know from our history that things can be hidden behind national security issues and the truth does not come out.
Hazel Blears
My hon. Friend makes my case for me. If she wanted the information about these matters to be put before a court for a judge to decide, she would support the idea that, in a small number of cases, closed material procedures are necessary. I am afraid that I must tell her that in some circumstances if the secrets we hold, the capabilities, the agents and the capacities we have were to be put in open court, the security of our nation would be threatened. If she does not accept that—I genuinely say this with respect—she has no appreciation of the importance of those secrets to our national security.
Yasmin Qureshi
That is completely wrong. As one who has spent many years prosecuting, dealing with issues such as PII, making applications in front of judges relating to informers, issuing evidence for public interest immunity applications and being sensitive to issues on behalf of victims, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the suggestion that we do not appreciate these things is not right. I am saying that it is possible to have these discussions and to find out what is happening. Special advocates, for example, who are experts and independent people belonging neither to the defence nor to the prosecution, have said that these particular procedures in civil cases are completely inappropriate. A criminal trial is a different matter, but these procedures are not right in civil cases.
Hazel Blears
It may well be that some people take a principled position that paying out millions of pounds is a price worth paying if they do not want to have closed proceedings. That is a perfectly legitimate place to be, but it does not happen to be a situation with which I agree. My hon. Friend talks, as many Members do, about PII, which is about excluding information; I want to be in a position where we maximise the inclusion of information and bring it before the judge.
Mr Tyrie
The right hon. Lady and a number of others have fallen into the same trap as did the Advocate-General in the House of Lords, and the point was decisively knocked down by Lord Pannick when he said that the Advocate-General
“wrongly presents PII as a mechanism which, when it applies, necessarily means that the material is excluded from the trial. It is on that premise—a wrong premise…that he suggests a CMP is preferable…The reality…is that the court has an ability applying PII to devise means by which security and fairness can be reconciled”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2012; Vol. 737, c. 1694.]—
by the use of other mechanisms. He then listed what they were. Because I am making an intervention, I will not list them, but they are obviously to do with redaction, the anonymising of witnesses and the use of confidentiality rings. There has been a serious misrepresentation of the effects of PII.
Hazel Blears
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would make an amazingly creative lawyer, if he is not already one. By any interpretation that was a list of the items that could be included. I am probably in good company if I am in agreement with the Advocate-General. There is fairly overwhelming evidence that the list that the hon. Gentleman tried not to give would not be suitable for some cases where a huge amount of the information impinges on national security.
Dr Julian Lewis
Does the right hon. Lady accept that if sensitive material is redacted under PII, that may be the very sensitive material—the secret source, the secret technique or whatever—which is the thing that proves the Government’s case? Therefore it is not good enough to say that PII could be used with redactions, because the redactions themselves may be the key component of the evidence that the Government need to present.
Hazel Blears
As ever, my colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee makes the point in straightforward, direct and proper terms. My understanding is that the Opposition accept that in a small number of cases it will be necessary to have closed material proceedings and that PII does not meet the case in every set of circumstances.
Sir Richard Shepherd
On the point that the right hon. Lady was making in respect of balance, there is another element that is not often discussed but which is surely central to our system of justice—the openness of it and the confidence, therefore, that the general public can have in due process. That is what this debate obscures. I grew up with Matrix Churchill, and I think the right hon. Lady’s time in Parliament coincided with that. Those are the worries that inform part of the anxiety about the Bill.
Hazel Blears
The hon. Gentleman, as ever, speaks with passion on these issues and I respect his point of view. I was a lawyer a long time ago and I understand how important it is to have open justice, but it is also important to get the balance right.
Amendment 30 is about the Wiley balance. I have some difficulty with the amendment because I feel that the Wiley balance is perfectly appropriate for PII, because it is used to decide whether to include or exclude material and whether or not there should be an open hearing. It strikes me that in relation to closed material proceedings there is a more complex and nuanced decision to make which contains different factors. I am keen that we get a balance and that we get the balance right, but I am convinced that the Wiley balance is one that we can simply transpose into the new legislation and that it will be effective.
Amendments 34 and 37 are about whether every other method has to be exhausted before we can get to a closed material proceeding. I am disappointed that there is not more agreement across the House on this. We all want to see whether cases can be dealt with in another way, because closed material proceedings should be the absolute minimum—an irreducible core, as I put it, of cases. I wonder whether the determination could be made by the Secretary of State, having considered whether PII would be suitable, and whether there could be some mechanism for the court to exercise a scrutiny function on whether the Secretary of State’s consideration had been more than cursory.
There will be concerns if the Secretary of State just ticks a box and says, “I’ve considered PII, in my bath”—as the hon. Member for Chichester said—rather than going through a proper process. I would like to see, whether or not we end up in ping-pong with the Lords, something in the Bill that says that the court has to take a proper look at the Secretary of State’s consideration of PII. That would not be exhaustive, but would have some substance to it. I ask the Minister to consider taking that into account.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The judge will have to be satisfied that the Secretary of State has considered the matter. He will not take that as just having thought about it in the bath; that is not how the judge will test whether the Secretary of State has seriously considered it. The judge has such a wide discretion that he could decide that in the fair and effective administration of justice, for some peculiar reason the case should be PII; he should not be listening to a CMP application. That would be one reason for using his discretion. Having listened to the two principal advocates of these further tests, I think they are advocating that the court and the Secretary of State should go through the whole process of PII first. That is not what the Opposition intend, but that is what their amendments would do. The Government have met the right hon. Lady’s case perfectly satisfactorily in the Bill.
Hazel Blears
I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. He has been very inventive and creative in trying to table amendments, and it would not be beyond him to put something in the Bill that reassured people that there was a proper check on whether the Secretary of State had properly considered whether other methods could be used. I leave him to reflect on that.
Amendment 70 seeks to add inquests to the Bill. It originates from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and he will speak to it with his depth of knowledge, experience and appreciation of the issue, and I simply say that I will support him on it 100%.
It is important in a justice system for people to have sufficient notification of the circumstance to be able to give instructions, but at the moment the bar is set a little high, because there may well be circumstances in which the gisting goes right to the heart of national security. Therefore, by giving a gist that is wide enough to enable instructions to be given, the national security case is given away. Again I wonder whether something could be included about there being a presumption in favour of gisting that could be subject to rebuttal in circumstances that merited it. I would feel more reassured if there were something along those lines. The process adopted so far has been an attempt to try to get some agreement and consensus on these issues. It is difficult to do so, but the issues at stake are so important, both for our national security and for the integrity of our justice system, that we need to keep trying to see whether, on a couple of those issues, even at this stage, there is room for a little more movement to get us to a better place.
Mr David Davis
It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). Her speech was well thought through and persuasive. We do not always agree on these issues, but on one aspect she persuaded me, and I shall say in a minute what that was. In this area of argument, which goes right to the heart of what makes British justice special and right to the heart of our national security, we are all inclined sometimes to put things rather too heavily in black and white. I have every sympathy with the agencies that are trying to preserve their own security. They have plenty of threats: past agencies, the David Shaylers, the Richard Tomlinsons, leaking their information, even Ministers—I remember that Ted Rowlands once in the House gave away some Crown jewels—and most ironically of all, Washington. Given the genesis of the Bill, some of the biggest leaks relate to our biggest ally, whether it is Pentagon papers four years ago or, only two months ago, what sounds from the British papers to be the putting at risk of the life of an Anglo-Saudi agent whom it used in one of its operations and then talked about afterwards. Nobody, certainly not I, would challenge the right of the agencies to preserve their own proper security—I stress “proper security”.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will follow in the tradition of the progressives, and say that I opposed the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when it was introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) referred to Kafkaesque language and said that we should not exaggerate, but I opposed SIAC then because I thought that it was Kafkaesque. I think that the idea of being tried for something and not being entirely sure what it is, and of not hearing the evidence and not being able to respond to it, is typical of Kafka. I warned then that if we were not careful, there would be an incremental creeping extension of that into other areas of law. That is what we saw with control orders, and we are seeing it again tonight.
I fear that within five years we will be back here debating certain areas of the criminal law, unless we draw a line in the sand tonight and say that enough is enough. I think that we are undermining the basis of British law—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, the fundamental civil liberties that were fought for over generations. When the Supreme Court considered the matter, it made it clear that there should be compelling grounds if we are to take this step, but the only compelling ground we have been told about today is that the Government might have to shell out a few millions pounds in compensation every now and again. That is not compelling grounds for undermining our civil liberties in this way.
There seems to be a bizarre reversal of the history of why we are here. We are not here today to debate how we protect our security services; we are here because the security services were exposed as being associated with other regimes involved in rendition, torture and other human rights abuses. Rather than discussing how we protect our security forces, which of course is fundamental, we should also be debating how we hold them to account. That does not mean closing the doors of the courts; it means opening them to greater scrutiny and accountability. I am concerned that we seem to be heading for a complete reversal of the debate taking place outside across the country.
People have been shocked by the stories they have heard. A constituent of mine, a young man I have known since he was a child, went to Pakistan to work in a hospital voluntarily because he is a doctor. He was picked up by the Pakistani authorities and tortured for six weeks. He was then interrogated by British intelligence officers, after torture. That is unacceptable. He is now in such a state that he does not even want to pursue a claim. He is fearful—
John McDonnell
I understand why my right hon. Friend wants to intervene, and she has made good points, but I am really short of time and must conclude as best as I can, because the Minister still needs to respond.
On that basis, I thought that in reforming our legislation we would be considering measures that would make accountability more open and acceptable. That is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). In fact, a simpler amendment would just delete the whole part, not just each clause. That is supported not just by two minor parties, as the Minister suggested, but by a minor party, an individual and another party, and it might also have other support. If those amendments are not made, I support the fall-back protections that Opposition Front Benchers are trying to introduce, which is a commitment of last resort and a reference to open courts. Why can the judges not consider that as a factor as well, because it is one of the key factors they should look at?
I will refer briefly to new clauses 7 and 8, which stand in my name. They are based on the evidence that Dr Lawrence McNamara provided to the Committee when it considered this Bill. We discovered in this whole process that the media have played a fundamental role in exposing what has been happening in relation to the security services. We should recognise that role in statute. New clause 7 is therefore based on an amendment proposed in the Lords and recommended by Lawrence McNamara. It basically states that the media, as the eyes and ears of the general public, should be informed of these cases so that they can intervene if necessary and become involved in proceedings. They would be notified, but they would then also be able to seek a stay or sist of the civil proceedings and be party to at least some element of the debate on whether a closed procedure is necessary. When Ministers responded to that proposal elsewhere, they argued that it would not be suitable in civil damages cases. That was the only argument put up for not involving the media as a party in proceedings. In fact, these are not just normal civil proceedings; they are based on national interests and national security. That is why there needs to be some process to allow full engagement of the media and enable them to become involved and intervene in the proceedings.
New clause 8 also relates to Lawrence McNamara’s recommendations and a proposal considered in the Lords. Currently the Bill does not provide for the possibility of closed judgments being made open later. The reason they should be made open at a later stage, some would argue, is so that the courts and the process can be held to account publicly. The proceedings could be reported and then a view could be taken on whether it was correct that they went into secret court procedures. The argument is a recognition that there should be some procedure for opening closed judgments long after the secrecy is no longer necessary. The Government acknowledged on Report in the Lords that review of closed judgments is important, but they never came forward with the amendments necessary to enable that. That is why I tabled new clause 8.
The new clauses would make two minor amendments to the legislation to enable us to prise open the door of the secret proceedings a little bit more and involve the media, who have played such a fundamental role in exposing the operations of the security services that have led us to this debate.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hazel Blears Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. The British economy has been through difficult times, not least because we are recovering from a massive boom and bust, a massive banking bust and the deepest recession since the 1930s, but if we look at what is happening in terms of employment and new business creation, we see an economy that is rebalancing, and we need to encourage that rebalancing and that business growth.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Q5. The Prime Minister has stood idly by while hard-pressed families in Salford and Eccles and across the country have faced soaring energy bills, which are now over £1,400 a year. Last October the Prime Minister promised to take action, and I think the whole country wants to know what he is going to do now to keep his promise to those families who are struggling to heat their homes.
The Prime Minister
We are legislating to make sure that energy companies put people on the lowest tariffs. When that Bill comes before the House of Commons, I hope that the right hon. Lady will vote for it.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Hazel Blears Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
Minded to? Certainly—we will accept some of them. I speak warmly of the Joint Committee because I do not believe it was pursuing objectives that differed from mine or those of my colleagues. I think it will probably fall to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) to explain in Committee why we are not wholly convinced that every one of the amendments is quite right, or even that some of them would have the effect that the Joint Committee proposed. I will not, however, get into that level of detail so early in a Second Reading speech, if I may be allowed not to do so.
We discussed the Green Paper about a year ago, and I recall that it was a comparatively non-controversial occasion. Such was the general satisfaction and understanding on all sides that I left the Chamber wondering whether I needed to have bothered to make an oral statement. Quite a lot has happened since then, but I trust it has not shifted the opinion of the Members who joined in the debate at that time, particularly that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I still strongly agree with what he said, which I shall quote:
“We need, as a matter of urgency, to bolster the safeguards and scrutiny mechanisms concerning issues of security and intelligence.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 901.]
I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his head in response to his own quotation. I was glad to read in a recent interview in The Guardian that he still believes that, as he said:
“In two and a half years’ time, it could be me in that seat making that tough decision. So it is very important for ministers to have the opportunity to protect sources, to protect delicate operations and all the rest of it. They shouldn’t be jeopardised by a civil action.”
I will not comment on the right hon. Gentleman’s political optimism and ambition to occupy any seat at all, but he is certainly right, in my opinion, to identify a serious problem with the current arrangements. At the moment, total secrecy is all that happens to the sensitive intelligence information in far too many cases and no judicial judgment is pronounced on the merits of plaintiff versus defendant. I believe that the present system needs to be reformed urgently. That is why the principle of the Bill is certainly necessary.
In support of the need for change, let me remind the House of a letter written to The Times newspaper last month by a number of individuals for whom I personally have the greatest respect. The signatories included the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord Woolf; the former Home Secretary, Lord Reid; and my right hon. Friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a former Lord Chancellor. I am sure we all agree that all those people are totally committed to the rule of law and the principles of justice. In their letter they explained:
“In national security matters our legal system relies upon a procedure known as public interest immunity…Under PII, evidence which is deemed to be national security sensitive is excluded from the courtroom. The judge may not take it into account when coming to his or her judgment.”
This procedure, they say, is
“resulting in a damaging gap in the rule of law.”
They are right to say that.
In my opinion, it has become well nigh impossible for British judges to untangle, and adjudicate on, claims and counter-claims of alleged British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees. If we, as citizens, want to know whether the Security Service could challenge and rebut what is claimed against it, no judge can give us guidance as things stand. Some of the allegations of British involvement in the mistreatment of detainees are really serious, and I do not think that the system should continue to prevent judges from scrutinising the secret actions of the state in such cases.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Not only will judges not have the full information, but when cases are settled, adverse inferences will inevitably be drawn about behaviour that may or may not have taken place, and that affects the reputation of our agencies. Is it not therefore essential that we can get to the heart of the matter, so that the agencies can at least put their case?
Mr Clarke
Yes, because we want a process whereby the judge can hear the evidence of the intelligence agencies in a closed—secret, if one likes—process, and that is not the purpose of PII. PII is a very old process that has developed over the years from simple beginnings, and I imagine that in the early cases—before my time—it was probably rather straightforward: if a Minister said he wanted public interest immunity, it was granted. The findings of Lord Justice Scott in the arms to Iraq inquiry —not at my expense, I am glad to say—rather upset that approach. PII is of course used flexibly in proper cases because judges and lawyers all want to hear evidence in open court whenever possible, but I think that we need to update all this. We are not abolishing public interest immunity, but I think that in many cases extending closed material procedures, which is what we are proposing, would be an altogether more sensible way of getting a proper judgment in the case.
Let me turn to the provisions of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction.
Hazel Blears
I want to tease out the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s view on the balancing test, which is part of the House of Lords amendments. At the moment there is a test stating that the judge, when deciding whether closed material procedures can be applied for, has to balance the degree of harm to the interests of national security with the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice. Balancing tests are notoriously difficult. One of the main problems with the Chahal case, which led to significant issues for this country’s national security, was whether the balancing test was in the right place, and most of us felt that it was not. If we are to have a balancing test in the legislation, it is in the part about whether proceedings are suitable; it is not in the part about when an application can be made. We need some clarity on the Government’s position with regard to the balancing test, because clearly the interests of national security are not always equivalent to the interests of an open proceeding, and that is a difficult balance to strike.
Mr Clarke
The balance is indeed difficult to draw. We have debated the balancing test on various occasions and in the past I have rather resisted it because it gives rise to the possibility of the judge saying, “Oh yes, there is a risk to national security. What a pity, never mind. I wish open justice to be done, so let’s take a chance with national security.” That is probably a somewhat broad-brush piece of opposition, and we are reflecting on the issue. The proper response to the right hon. Lady’s entirely sensible and pertinent question is probably best given in Committee, when we will have had more time to decide the position.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I agree with my right hon. Friend. There has to be an ultimate right for the Prime Minister to decline to allow the Committee to receive certain information. However, until now, the agencies have been able to exercise that power. To be fair to them, they have rarely, if ever, tried to do so.
On operations, the statutory basis is crucial. The Committee has accepted that our oversight of operations should be retrospective. We do not wish to interfere in ongoing operations. That would be unreasonable and would put an intolerable burden on the agencies. As long as the oversight is retrospective and there is a significant national interest—we will have debates over what that phrase means—I believe that there is a sound basis.
Thirdly, until now, the Intelligence and Security Committee has been able only to request information from the agencies, not require it. To be fair to the agencies, they have not, for all practical purposes, ever refused us information, but they have been in control of the information that has been provided. Real problems have emerged over the years. On some occasions, it has been found, subsequent to the publication of a report, that important documents had simply not been made available to the Committee. That may not have been done in bad faith, but the consequence was embarrassment for the agencies and for the system of independent oversight. That cannot be allowed to continue.
We have also found that when the agencies have responded to a requirement of the courts, the resources and the time that they have devoted to finding every relevant document have been slightly greater than for a Committee that can only request information and not require it. That is going to change. I pay tribute to the agencies for accepting the need to make this change. The Committee will now have the power to require information from the agencies, including information on operations, subject to one or two important safeguards.
I come now to the crucial difference. Until now, the problem has been that although the agencies hold vast amounts of information on any given subject, we do not expect them, when we request information, to fill several forklift trucks with information and dump it at our offices. That would be absurd, and we will not expect that when we require information in the future. However, until now, the agencies have done the editing themselves. Even if it is done entirely in good faith, that does not enable the Committee to be confident that it has seen all the information that it would wish to see before it brings forward its proposals.
We have proposed that we will appoint additional staff—assistants to the Committee, who will be our employees and be answerable to us—who will go to the agencies when we require information on a particular subject from them and discuss all the information, including the raw material, that they have in their files. I pay tribute again to the Government and the agencies for agreeing to that. I hope that there will be a process of agreement and discussion, but at the end of the day, it will be our staff who decide which parts of the available material the Committee is likely to want to see. We, Parliament and the public will therefore be able to have confidence that the decision will be taken by the Committee itself, not by the agencies, however much they would be trying to do their best in good faith.
That is an enormous culture change for MI6, MI5 and GCHQ to accept. For the first time in their history they will be not just providing information to people who are not employees of the agencies or part of the Government—we are not part of the Government, and in future we will be part of Parliament—but allowing them to come into their offices, see material and discuss what the ISC would like to evaluate. I pay tribute to the agencies for accepting that. Of course they have some reservations and concerns, and a memorandum of understanding is being discussed. It is referred to in the Bill and will be published in due course. It will explain in greater detail how the system will work on a day-to-day basis. We may have to review it in a year or two in the light of experience.
I pay tribute also to both Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, because such a change is not just a potential rod for the back of the agencies but will occasionally create problems for the Government of the day. Both Front-Bench teams know that the Bill will mean that intelligence oversight will have the teeth that it has not had in the past, because it will be on a statutory basis and include the real powers that I have described. That is why I and the Committee feel confident in saying that we will have a tougher, more effective and more reliable system of oversight than we have ever had in our history or than can currently be found in almost any country in the western world or globally.
Hazel Blears
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his leadership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I do not think we would have quite such robust proposals had it not been for his work.
May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of one small point? As the Bill is drafted, it would prevent the Committee from examining ongoing operations. If the Government were to ask us to consider a matter that was ongoing and not retrospective, that would be forbidden. The Bill therefore needs to be amended on that point.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I must first reciprocate the right hon. Lady’s compliment. She has made an enormous and much-respected contribution to the Committee’s work.
The right hon. Lady raises an important point. Of course we accept that our oversight of operations must be retrospective and on matters of significant national interest. However, there have been circumstances in which the Prime Minister of the day has invited the Committee to examine an ongoing operation on some specific matter. In addition, there are sometimes occasions when, because of leaks and press awareness, an ongoing operation becomes a matter of public discussion and debate. There must be flexibility in the Bill to allow the Committee to examine such matters. The House should feel confident that, although we wish a number of improvements to be made in Committee, we are entering a new phase of intelligence oversight.
I want to say a few words about part 2 of the Bill. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve on the Committee will undoubtedly wish to speak about it as well. It goes without saying that closed material proceedings are not very satisfactory, but in the imperfect world in which we live, the choice is sometimes between good solutions and bad solutions but more often between bad solutions and worse solutions. As has been said, public interest immunity is not a feasible alternative. The £2 million settlement that was made just a couple of weeks ago was a case to which intelligence material would have been central if it had gone to court. There could not have been PII, because that would have excluded all the material. That leaves us to introduce a system that, as the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf has said, is certainly preferable to PII. I say to hon. Members who still have their doubts that the system is not perfect, but it is a lot better than the one we have at the moment. That is why it is in the national interest to support the Bill.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), and I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about his leadership on matters concerning the Bill and our general work. It has been a genuine pleasure to work with him over the past two years.
The debates that we have had on national security over the past decade have been among the most important exchanges in the House over that period. They have taken us to the heart of the balance between individual liberty, including the rights of those who are suspected of plotting terror, and our collective security, including the most fundamental human right of all, the right to life.
As we have responded to the new threats of global terror from al-Qaeda, it would have been a miracle if Governments had been able to get everything absolutely right first time. As I have said before in the House, I accept that the proposals for 90-day and 42-day pre-charge detention went too far, as an issue of practicality as well as one of principle, and Parliament was right to block them. Equally, the judges were right to deem detention without trial non-compliant with the rights of defendants. That, too, had to be replaced.
It remains to be seen whether the reforms of the past two years have gone too far in taking the balance away from public safety. I certainly do not accept the narrative that everything that has happened since 9/11—all the extra resources provided to the intelligence and security agencies and the stronger powers that Parliament has decided on to deal with suspects—are a victory for the securocrats, who hoodwink Ministers into illiberal measures to undermine our basic freedoms. The simple fact is that many thousands of lives have been saved because of the actions that Governments and Parliament have taken. At the same time, suspects have still been able to enforce their rights in the courts, and judges have increasingly ordered the disclosure of information that would have been held secret in the past.
The Bill deals specifically with the balance between greater scrutiny and the limits that ought to apply in a certain small number of civil cases. The Intelligence and Security Committee has played an important role in scrutinising the agencies, as its chairman said. That role far exceeds what was envisaged in 1994 and includes the close examination of some ongoing operations. However, the ISC will be in a stronger position when it is a Committee of Parliament and has greater powers and resources to ensure that it can get the information that it requires rather than simply trusting that the agencies are giving it what it has requested.
I place on record the tremendous debt that all members of the ISC, and therefore all Members of Parliament, owe the small, dedicated team of staff who work to support it in all its work. The chairman of the ISC alluded to a number of issues that still need to be ironed out. I suggest that the starting point for our deliberations in Committee should be that the Bill must not prevent the ISC from doing anything that it is already doing in practice.
As we have heard in the opening Front-Bench speeches, the most controversial part of the Bill relates to the closed material procedure. I do not intend to dwell on the background to it, because others have spoken about the importance of the control principle and the difficulties that the agencies currently face in defending themselves against civil claims. However, I want to make two points. The first is to confirm that the increasing reluctance of the United States intelligence community to share life-saving secrets with the United Kingdom is not a made-up scare story. I have seen and heard, in frank exchanges with colleagues in Washington when the Committee visited last year and earlier this year, that that is a substantial problem that simply has to be dealt with.
Secondly, the agencies’ desire to defend themselves is not about suppressing the truth, and it is not primarily about saving the taxpayer the millions of pounds that it is currently costing, although those are substantial sums. It is about being able to defend their reputation and the high standards of those who take risks every day to protect our freedoms. Clearly mistakes have been made and individuals have been mistreated, but I simply cannot accept the casual assertion that is often made, or at least implied, that the agencies are inevitably the bad guys while the claimants are always the blameless victims.
The comments of Lord Phillips and others during the consideration of the Bill in the other place, and the support that those independent-minded politicians gave for the closed material procedure, were very welcome. It is fair to say that the Bill has been improved in the other place. It is right that judges have discretion and decide whether the closed material procedure is appropriate. It is right that the courts must decide whether, on balance, the interests of national security are likely to outweigh the interests of fairness and open justice. The question of how that balance is to be struck, as the Minister without Portfolio said, is likely to be debated in detail in Committee. I was pleased to hear that he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) intend to promote discussion in relation to PII. Under the Bill, consideration of PII should always come first, before the closed material procedure. As the Minister without Portfolio said, that could produce long delays in the judicial process, even though the outcome could be staring the court in the face from the outset.
In the short time remaining, there are two more issues that I should like to raise. If I am feeling brave enough, I might even table some amendments about them in due course. In relation to the order-making power, which was in clause 11 but has now been dropped for reasons of political consideration—presumably to make sure that the Bill completes its passage and that the main provisions remain—the cause of the concerns that prompted that power, which would allow the closed material procedure in other proceedings, has not gone away.
There are two particular types of proceedings that are relevant. The first is inquests, as I have said to the Minister before. If there is secret intelligence that cannot be revealed because it would result in the disclosure of sources, methodologies and so on, but which explained the cause of death, the coroner at the inquest should be able to see it. It might be possible in most cases not to have a closed material procedure. Lady Justice Hallett did a fine job in making sure that intelligence could be considered at the 7/7 inquest without the need for a closed material procedure, but I would not rule it out in future. The order-making power originally included in clause 11 would have provided an opportunity for Ministers, as and when cases arose.
I am thinking in particular of more than 30 historic inquests that have still to be heard in Northern Ireland and where the deaths involved the police or Army. That is an issue that will not go away. I have raised it with the Minister, and with other Ministers, and I have yet to hear one disagree with my assertion that if it is right to have a closed material procedure in civil cases, it is right to have it in inquests. I am thinking, too, of proceedings in relation to the judicial review of decisions to revoke the licences of convicted terrorists who have been released from prison, but where there is intelligence that suggests that they are again engaging in terrorist activity.
Hazel Blears
My right hon. Friend has pursued the issue of inquests with huge tenacity, and he makes an almost irrefutable point: how are we to get a proper decision in an inquest unless the full information can be put before the coroner? Certainly in the case of the historic inquests in Northern Ireland, inevitably, by its very nature, that information will be private and secret information from the intelligence agencies. I have yet to hear an answer from the Government on that.
Paul Goggins
I do not make light of the issues. If intelligence were shared with a coroner, but not with the family of the deceased, that would be a massive step, but it is better that we should know the cause of death rather than the whole thing remain a mystery. I am therefore grateful to my right hon. Friend for her intervention.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I am not entirely sure that we will see completely eye to eye in our contributions, but I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate the subject further.
As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I welcome the proposals in Part 1 of the Bill. They will go a long way to ensuring that the scrutiny of our intelligence agencies is more robust and transparent. In turn, that will give the British public a greater degree of reassurance that the intelligence agencies are properly and fully scrutinised. That is important because they spend a great deal of public money—approximately £2 billion—and because they are involved in some of the most controversial and difficult areas of our national life and operations across the globe.
I commend to the Minister the amendments ably and deftly moved by my colleagues Lord Butler of Brockwell and the Marquess Lothian in the other place, particularly in relation to the issue about not limiting the Committee to dealing entirely with retrospective matters, but giving it some freedom to look at current issues if that is what the Government want us to do. I hope the amendments will be adopted.
I want to add my thanks to those from the Chair of the Committee and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) to our current secretariat. They are few in number, but the work they do is amazing. I do not think that the Committee would fulfil its role in the way that it does without their insight, intelligence and intellect, and I pay tribute to them.
If Part 1 of the Bill is relatively uncontentious, the same cannot be said of part 2. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, repeated the phrase that these proposals are a “radical departure” from our normal system of justice. That is also what Lord Pannick said in the other place and was the basis of all the evidence put before the Joint Committee. Yes, it is a radical departure. Under our normal system of justice, evidence is heard in open court and challenged by adversarial cross-examination, and the judge weighs the evidence and comes to a reasoned judgment at the end of the case.
Mr George Howarth
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although these proposals are a radical departure, the circumstances in which they would be used are also a radical departure?
Hazel Blears
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the terrorist threat to the country has increased, particularly since 9/11, and remains a significant threat, clearly other measures have had to be taken.
That is exactly the point: although everyone is saying that these proposals are a radical departure, actually we have trodden this path before. As the Minister responsible for taking the control order legislation through the House, I know only too well the depth of feeling among Members on both sides of the House—this is hugely controversial stuff about which people have very strong feelings. It is contentious among the legal profession, and there are many different views among judges and practitioners, but, as has been said, none of us wants to go down this path—it is not something that we relish doing—but, if we are to protect national security and to have a fair hearing of these issues, we have no other option.
Last night, I tried something that the judges will have to do, which was a little balancing act: I drew up a table of arguments for and against the proposals to highlight in my own mind where the balance in the Bill should lie. First, on the “for” side—the reasons I support the proposals for closed procedures—was the need to protect our international relationships and liaison with countries across the globe. Yes, that is about America, but it is not just about America; increasingly, many of the plots that threaten the UK have an international element and much more work now has to be done upstream—in the words of the security agencies—to disrupt terrorist training and plots that might manifest themselves in this country unless we can do work internationally as well as in this country. That means we have to have these relationships. They are fundamental to the success of our fight against terrorism.
Some people have asked whether the threat that America might not co-operate with us as much as it has in the past is real, or whether it is something that the security agencies are making up to force us down this path. As the Americans would say, “You bet it’s real”. When the Committee visited America last year, we were told in no uncertain terms by law officers, the CIA and a whole host of agencies that the damage done not so much by the information in the Binyam Mohamed case, but by the breaching of the control principle had shaken that relationship—I would not say to its foundations, because it is a very strong relationship, but it had shaken it—and resulted in a lack of information sharing.
Mr David Davis
The right hon. Lady might not be aware, but the greatest release of intelligence information in history prior to WikiLeaks came in the Pentagon papers. In that case, the American Government brought the control principle before their courts, and they were turned down and vast amounts of data provided by foreign countries were released into the public domain—and that was not the last time; it has happened several times since. Indeed, evidence to the Binyam Mohamed trial stated that the US understood the issues about control because the courts in the states were independent.
Hazel Blears
I think the right hon. Gentleman gets the balance wrong in that case. I think of the information that the US has provided us with to protect our security. I think of the bomb plot in April—the second underpants bomb plot—where the liaison between the US and this country was essential to preventing an incident that could have cost many lives. We have to strike a balance, but national security is our first responsibility to the country.
Mark Durkan
My right hon. Friend referred to US concerns based on the Binyam Mohamed case. Does she not, and do they not, recognise that no disclosure of information was ordered by the courts here and that the disclosure actually happened in US proceedings, not here?
Hazel Blears
I think the Americans have a great deal of concern about many legal jurisdictions when it results in information subject to the control principle being disclosed in open court.
Mr Tyrie
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the American courts do not provide that absolute level of protection and that there is no reciprocation of the control principle in US courts, so it is perfectly possible, through the US court system, that information that we have handed to the Americans could, in principle, find its way into the public domain? That point has been made once or twice already. It is crucial that both countries have a sense of balance and put their courts back at the centre of making that judgment.
Hazel Blears
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, clearly the control principle relates to relationships between different intelligence services and liaison countries. Also, in America, they have the states secret privilege, under which they can say, “This matter is not justiciable at all, because it covers matters relating to national intelligence”, so in some respects it is a more draconian system than ours. We are seeking to find a balance, rather than having an Executive veto, and I think that that is the right way to go.
The second issue on my “for” list was about revealing capabilities, techniques and methods. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am in a privileged position and have had an opportunity to look at the current cases lodged for damages in civil proceedings. I have looked at the grounds from the applicants and the defence grounds from the agencies, and it is startlingly clear that, were the defence to be pursued, it would reveal techniques, methods, capabilities and networks of agents, and that it would be impossible for the security agencies to pursue their defence in those contemporary cases. Some people think that these cases are historical and that once we have dealt with the ones from Guantanamo Bay, which we have, there will not be any more coming down the track, but that is not the case. Many have happened recently, and, as the Minister without Portfolio said, this jurisdiction is now becoming an attractive place to bring a claim, because the agencies are not in a position to defend themselves.
Thirdly and fundamentally, the system of closed procedures will allow all the evidence to be put before the judge. That is the foundation here. If we have public interest immunity, we exclude information from the judge, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve, and I do not believe that partial justice, in which information that could go to the heart of the proceedings is excluded, is proper justice.
The final point that I weighed in the balance was about safeguarding the reputation of our agencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made the point very powerfully that these are people who, in some cases, put their lives on the line for our safety and that of those we represent, and when they have to settle cases, as they did last week in the claim by Mr al-Saadi, people will inevitably draw inferences. They will say, “There’s no smoke without fire. There must have been something in it, if the Government are prepared to pay £2 million”, and that puts the agencies in an invidious position. Men and women of integrity and honour who dedicate their lives to the protection of this country are smeared by the implication that they have been complicit in torture or mistreatment. It might have happened in some cases, but I would rather that all the information was before the judge, because at least then the services could get a proper decision, rather than have their integrity smeared, which I think is outrageous.
My final point is about taxpayers’ money. It is not our main issue, but many millions of pounds has been paid to people, some of whom might not have had legitimate claims had we been able to get them into court. If we are giving them millions of pounds, there is the prospect of some of it being used to fund further extremist or terrorist activity. That is totally unacceptable.
There are a number of outstanding questions, and I have no doubt that the Minister will explore them in fine detail in Committee. I look forward to the prospect of discussing them with him. I want to make a couple of final points now, however. The decisions to accept discretion and to move from “must” to “may” are welcome. If this is really to be a judge-led process, that is where we need to be. I also want to make a point to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who is no longer in his place. He talked about the court being able to look at each piece of information; that is exactly what the court will be able to do. The judge will be able to look at each piece of evidence and ask whether it goes to the heart of the issue and whether it should be kept secret or disclosed. If there were a redacted paragraph that had no national security implications, for example, the judge would be able to determine that it could be disclosed. PII would be available, and the matter would not even be before the court, so the right hon. Gentleman’s point really did not support his argument. On the PII issue, I have misgivings about the length of time involved and the cumbersome nature of the process in every case. I want to explore the balancing judgment to get this in the right place.
This is a necessary Bill. As I have said, this is not a move that any of us relishes making. We are democrats in this country, and we believe in the rule of law, but if we are to protect our national security and get the balance right, it is essential that we support it.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Hazel Blears Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I was in two minds about applying to speak in the debate, and I remain deeply conflicted. That is partly because I honestly believe that taking an immense amount of time to debate the Bill is a distraction from some of the very real problems that face the country. With a million young people out of work, with families struggling to make ends meet and with one of the worst recessions that we have ever known, I feel that we would use the House’s time better not just in debating those subjects, but in debating action to tackle them.
It also worries me, although I understand the reasons for it, that we have spent the last six months talking about Leveson and the public inquiry into the press—we have had six months of politicians talking about journalists —and now we are to have a further nine months of politicians talking about politicians. If anything is a bigger turn-off for the people of this country, I do not know what it is.
Hazel Blears
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I said that I was in two minds about the Bill, I meant that while one part of me says that it is a distraction, the other part says that it is one of the most cynical deceptions to be inflicted on the people of this country, for deeply partisan reasons.
The people who are promoting this Bill, supposedly in the name of democracy, are using the language of high moral purpose, but, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, the Bill is really motivated by partisan low politics designed for party advantage. I have therefore decided to vote against the programme motion, in order to give the Bill as much scrutiny as possible. I am sick and tired of the people promoting this Bill painting those of us who have genuine objections to it as reactionary—diehards, dinosaurs, opposed to reform. I say to them that nothing could be further from the truth. I am utterly opposed to privilege. The last time we voted on these issues I voted to abolish the House of Lords. If I had that option now, I would vote for it again. I believe we could have a unicameral system with much more pre-legislative scrutiny and experts involved. The primacy of this elected House of Commons to our constituents is the top priority for me.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Liberal Democrats currently hold the balance of power in this Chamber, and it has been suggested that if the programme motion is not passed tomorrow and if the Bill does not pass, Liberal Democrat Members will vote against the boundary changes. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear them saying that that is the case. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that illustrates what they would do if they were to hold the balance of power in the upper House? They would hold Parliament to ransom over every issue that suited them.
Hazel Blears
As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that goes to the heart of this debate. I have included comments in my speech about squalid partisan back-room deals.
I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and he made an excellent speech today. If he were still present in the Chamber, however, I would ask him this question: he is a proponent of democracy, but what is democratic about a 15-year term? The Chartists have a very proud history in my constituency of Salford, with 250,000 people demonstrating for universal suffrage. They wanted annual Parliaments. They have never achieved that, but 15-year terms are the antithesis of anything that could be called democratic.
What is democratic about regional party lists, too? There has been a lot of talk today about patronage, which is how people find their way into the House of Lords at present. Patronage under regional party lists would be many times worse than that. We should consider the situation in other countries. Some 90% of the Members of Parliament in Spain live within 50 miles of Madrid because they know their position is dependent on the patronage of a central party. Our Parliament is already too London-centric, but that would be exacerbated.
Hazel Blears
I do not have time to give way.
I believe that one of the biggest problems facing this country and our democracy is the growth of a political elite—a political class—and the consequent disaffection of voters. This year’s Hansard Society annual audit of political engagement makes very sad reading. It says:
“The growing sense of indifference to politics highlighted in the last Audit report appears to have hardened into something more serious this year: the trends in indicators such as interest, knowledge, certainty to vote and satisfaction with the system of governing are downward, dramatically so in some instances”.
We have a problem in this House. In 1970, only 3% of MPs said they had come into Parliament through a political adviser or special adviser route. At the last election, that figure had risen to 25%. That constitutes a political elite.
We must not for one moment think that if we have an elected second Chamber, we will get an influx of young, vibrant, democratic people from all walks of life. Some 40% of the Members of the US Senate are former politicians. Some 76% of Members of the Australian Senate have previously worked for political parties. They are staffers—they are people on the inside. How are we going to combat the problem of having a political elite if there is no place for independents?
Hazel Blears
I am sorry, but I have given way twice and I shall now press on.
If we accept this dreadful proposal before us, may I make a couple of practical pleas? First, we must require candidates to live in the areas they represent—not to have an address of convenience there so that they can live in London and travel up every so often. We have done that with police commissioners, and we can do it with the second Chamber. Secondly, I want the second Chamber to take its work out across the country. If we simply have a replica of our Chamber, we will have no chance of combating political disaffection. The second Chamber could go out, take evidence, and have sessions out in the country. My noble Friend Lord Adonis has suggested that it be based at Salford quays. I am not necessarily making a plea for that today, but this is a serious point. If we have a second Chamber, we must change the way in which it works. We must make sure that, by analysing the functions, not the form, we end up with a Chamber that will not challenge the primacy of this House of Commons.
I want to say a word about the politics. I believe the proposals in this Bill are a deceit. They are expressed in the language of high moral purpose, but they are really about pretty low politics. I believe they are a Trojan horse for the Liberal Democrats to sustain power and influence, and permanently hold the balance of power in the second Chamber. The Liberal Democrat party cannot win enough first votes, so it relies on back-room secretive squalid deals to get its own way: the Liberal Democrats get proportional representation on closed lists, and the Conservative party gets boundary changes with the windfall of possibly 20 extra seats.
The alternative vote referendum showed what the British people really want. They want to elect a Government on a clear manifesto with clear policies, and for that Government to get on with governing the country. They do not want a party who got fewer MPs at the last election to end up having Cabinet Ministers who have no mandate to hold their post.
I believe that what we have here is people posturing as democrats and masquerading as champions of the people. They say one thing, but they do another; that sounds familiar to me. This is about self-interest, and what is being done is untrustworthy and unworthy of this country. I certainly will not vote for this Bill as it stands.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I think that this afternoon we have established that the calumny that if someone is against this Bill they are against reform and modernisation has been laid to rest. It is absolutely clear that someone can be in favour of a very different second Chamber based on a very different franchise and be vehemently against what the Government propose in this Bill.
Secondly, I think that we have established that we genuinely need as much time as possible to debate this Bill. That has been shown by the variety of views expressed, including by those who are in favour of the Bill and will vote, at least in principle, for it tomorrow night. The views expressed this afternoon about the future of our constitution, the nature of our government, and the relationship between this Chamber and the second Chamber are so numerous that they demonstrate, if ever it needed demonstrating, that we need not only time to scrutinise the Bill properly, but the constitutional convention advocated by at least half the Joint Committee.
We need that constitutional convention for this reason: this afternoon we have had demonstrated a number of substantial constitutional changes introduced over the past 15 years, many of which have proved to be successful, but the idea of one fundamental constitutional change taken in isolation demonstrates that we do not have joined-up thinking in this country about where our constitution is going. We have, as the Deputy Prime Minister himself demonstrated this afternoon, the real danger of the break-up of the United Kingdom and the vote on the future of Scotland. We have the McKay commission on existing devolution. We have propositions on a written Bill of Rights. We have, undoubtedly, in the future a new relationship between the United Kingdom, in whatever guise, and the European Union and the eurozone. We also have a range of minor constitutional changes that have already happened. In those circumstances, taking the future of the second Chamber out of the equation and dealing with it separately does not make sense. Furthermore, and fundamentally, we have also had demonstrated this afternoon the fact that certain individuals on both sides of this House—those on my side and among Liberal Democrats—do see our constitution in different terms.
I have also learned this afternoon, although I really already knew this, that quite a lot of people do not understand the constitutions of other countries. I can only presume that those who have spoken—good Labour friends of mine—do understand what they are proposing when they suggest a system that would actually have the Executive outside Parliament rather than in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) suggested that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) came close to suggesting it. The Liberal Democrats—through the development of proportional representation; through the break with the single-Member constituency; through the advocacy, as is in this Bill, of being able to appoint Ministers who are not from or within Parliament, but who are from outside it and then do not have to be part of the Parliament; and through the criticism of the way in which the Government within Parliament do not allow for scrutiny—are demanding a debate, and it is one that we should have, about whether we should fundamentally change our constitution for the future. I am against that change; I believe that we should elect a Government. A clear mandate from the people for a Government is something people in this country have valued. We can do that only by the single-Member constituency, the electoral system we have and the Parliament to which we give primacy.
Hazel Blears
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of single terms of 15 years goes right to the heart of accountability and democracy?
Mr Blunkett
That is at the heart of the criticism of this Bill. Once legitimacy is given to elected politicians without the accountability of their having to seek re-election and be re-elected, the very fundamentals of democracy are undermined. That is because, as I am on the record saying on the morning after the election, democracy is not simply about electing people; it is about being able to get rid of them. The admirable speech made at the Magna Carta lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury on 15 June demonstrated that par excellence.
Mr Heath
It might be because we were anticipating 14 days of debate on this measure. The fact that the Government acceded to the majority of the recommendations of the Joint Committee shows that the Government have been prepared to listen.
Some have criticised the voting system, particularly this semi-open list. I made the point in an earlier intervention that that was something that the Labour party asked for. Of course, it asks for something and then it votes against it later, but that is par for the course; we expect that. To those who believe that a list with a voting constituency of millions is not better than a closed list with a voting capacity of one—the Prime Minister of the day, putting forward his or her nominations to the upper House—I have to say that I simply do not accept that argument.
Hazel Blears
Can the Deputy Leader of the House honestly say from the Dispatch Box today that this Bill is genuinely about increasing democracy rather than simply a device to sustain his party as the one holding the balance of power in a second Chamber?
Mr Heath
The right hon. Lady will have to make up her mind. Either the right hon. Lady believes that we are not going to win any seats in the next election, in which case we will not have any seats in the House of Lords under this system—although we would under an appointment system—or the reverse. She cannot have it both ways. I am afraid that there is a slight logical inconsistency in her argument.
The issue of ministerial appointments was raised, and I am happy for us to examine that in Committee. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) inveighed against the practice of bringing people in from outside, giving them ministerial posts and putting them in the upper House. I wonder whether he ever had that conversation with Lord Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool, or with any of the other GOATs who were brought in by the last Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hazel Blears Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
The pupil premium is currently worth £1.25 billion, and that will double to £2.5 billion by the end of this Parliament. That is additional money on top of the baseline funding provided to schools. Last year, on a per pupil basis, the pupil premium was worth about £480. It is now worth £600 and will go on to increase. Given those statistics, it is remarkable that Labour in Manchester voted to scrap the pupil premium altogether. How on earth is that going to help social mobility?
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
In his speech on social mobility this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“It is my strongest political conviction that…if we have a chance to open up success to all, we must seize it.”
What is he going to do to put an end to the scandal of unpaid internships, particularly in politics, the media and our creative industries?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady’s work on internships, not least in this place as part of the Speaker’s Panel. As she knows, the legislation is clear: if an intern is, in effect, doing work that should be remunerated, he or she should be remunerated. There are cases of interns doing work that falls outside that legal definition. Having looked closely at the issue, and she and I have corresponded on this, we have decided that it could be self-defeating if we sought to outlaw altogether across the piece—not least, for instance, in charities—some unpaid internships. I agree, however, that even in those cases, it is incredibly important to ensure that internships are available to everybody, and that basic costs, such as travel costs and lunch costs, are properly covered, even in those cases.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hazel Blears Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
It would be wrong to start taking sides on referendums that are taking place across the country in different cities. The key thing is to make sure that the referendums are held in a way that allows the debate to be played out. I suspect some areas will opt for mayors and others will not; that is the great virtue of all this—it will be entirely dependent on people’s decisions in each local area.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
T8. The right hon. Gentleman has said:“For too long, internships have been the almost exclusive preserve of the sharp-elbowed and the well-connected.” Twenty-five per cent. of the internships currently advertised on the Government’s graduate talent pool website are for unpaid vacancies. What practical steps are the Government taking to provide more paid internships so that people from poorer backgrounds can get those opportunities?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Lady knows, we have made considerable progress on the internships that operate in Whitehall. When we entered government just over 18 months ago, I was astonished by quite how informal and laid-back the procedures were. We have now put them on a much more open and meritocratic basis, but of course I will look into the cases the right hon. Lady has drawn to my attention.
Public Services (Social Value) Bill
Hazel Blears Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Thomas
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) not only on his choice of subject but on the way in which he has steered the Bill through the House thus far.
The Opposition want a comprehensive change programme to boost social enterprise further. I hope to set out this morning a more ambitious approach to the Bill than the Government and the Minister, sadly, have been willing to countenance so far, but before I do so let me explain how my amendments seek to build on some of the issues raised in Committee.
In new clause 1, I have sought to respond to the appetite shown in Committee for more certainty about the definition of social enterprises, and in particular how an asset lock might be worked into the Bill. In new clause 3, I have sought to provide a clear means of encouraging the Government to be accountable for their work in social enterprises. Amendment 1 offers the Minister an opportunity to clarify the arguments that he used in Committee to justify the limited scope of the Bill in relation to commissioning.
In Committee, we had an interesting discussion about the merits or otherwise of a national strategy for social enterprise. I fear that the absence of a clear requirement for such a strategy poses the risk of a loss of momentum behind the sector when ministerial attention is diverted, as it inevitably will be. An example is the point of order on which you ruled earlier, Mr Speaker. No doubt ministerial attention has been diverted, quite rightly, to youth unemployment and the return of the future jobs fund in another guise. There is a risk that other issues might also divert Ministers’ attention from their commitments to social enterprises in the future, and a clear strategy would help to avoid any such loss of focus and interest.
I fear that things that could and should be done by other Whitehall Departments to help social enterprises cannot be done without a requirement for a cross-Whitehall strategy. I fear, too, that some parts of the country will miss out, and that many communities that could and should benefit from what social enterprise can offer will not be able do so because of the absence of a clear strategy framework for Whitehall’s work.
The Minister claimed in Committee that there was a strategy for social enterprise, and cited social investment as one part of that strategy. I must point out gently to him that he did not seem to be willing to give many more such examples. He did, however, go on to say that the Cabinet Office was working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, suggesting that that somehow proved that the whole of Whitehall was united behind work for social enterprises.
I believe that a strategy for social enterprise should touch on a series of issues. Access to finance is clearly a key issue, as are access to commissioning opportunities and the role that social enterprises can play in assisting the process of modernising our public services, making them more flexible and personal. Access to advice and support for fledgling or “wannabe” social enterprises is clearly a further aspect of such a strategy. Ongoing support and representation from—ghastly phrase—infrastructure organisations to help social enterprises to share best practice, to solve legal problems that they may face, or to tackle difficult human resource issues would also be worthy of inclusion.
A strategy could explore the scope for more work with, or indeed instead of, the private sector. It could also consider issues relating to coverage: which communities are likely to need more help to enable more social enterprises to emerge, and what should that help look like in practice? It could outline the role not only of other Whitehall Departments but non-Whitehall players in developing the Government’s endeavours to help social enterprise.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my regret that the original Bill, which was genuinely about social enterprise, has been reduced—as a result of, I believe, arguments within the Government—to a Bill that simply talks about the very minimal bit of social value that is left, rather than giving what could have been a really good boost to the social enterprise sector?
Mr Thomas
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill represents a huge missed opportunity for the Government to embrace the other elements of the Bill. This is a Government who made much of their commitment to the big society, yet here is, arguably, a big society Bill that they have—as my right hon. Friend rightly says—gutted. The absence today of Conservative Members who might have been present to defend and advocate this big society Bill is, I fear, further testimony to the lack of support for it in practice.
Let me now deal with some of the issues relating to access to money that might constitute part of a national strategy.
Hazel Blears
I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares the following concerns, particularly in respect of the national health service. If it is truly to become the biggest social enterprise in the world, as the Secretary of State for Health has said, there needs to be a lock on public sector assets that have been paid for by taxpayers, so that they are not transitioned into the private sector. That has already happened in some instances. I have made that point to the Minister on several occasions, and I am very concerned that public assets will be transferred to private companies, making private profit for people in the private sector.
Mr Thomas
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is precisely because of the concern she has raised on this issue—and the support she received, including from Members of the coalition parties, in Committee—that I propose a revised definition of social enterprise in this new clause. It seeks to provide in legislation the asset lock facility. Central Surrey Health is owned by the nurses and managers who work in it, and it was the first employee-owned spin-out from the national health service—that occurred back in 2006, under the Labour Government. It is a classic employee mutual. The Cabinet Office has confirmed that Central Surrey Health has delivered substantial improvements in quality and efficiency in the services provided. However, it would appear that quality counted for far less in the tendering exercise than the ability to raise capital.
The chief executive of Social Enterprise UK, Peter Holbrook, put it as follows:
“If Central Surrey Health, the government’s flagship mutual social enterprise, which has demonstrated considerable success in transforming health services, reducing waiting times and increasing productivity can’t win”—
in a commissioning contract process—
“what does this say for the future of the mutuals agenda?”
He went on to say:
“Public sector workers will be understandably anxious about spinning out from the NHS and setting up a social enterprise on the back of this news. The government needs to take action to reassure them that they will not be operating in markets weighted against them.”
The thought, consultation and preparation required in a proper strategic review of how to support social enterprises might begin to give those public sector workers the confidence they need to be part of employee spin-outs.
The sense that nobody has a proper joined-up grip of how to transform commissioning has perhaps left many public sector workers sadly sceptical about being part of creating an employee mutual. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has bravely pledged that by 2015 the country will have 1 million more public sector workers in mutuals. I have tabled parliamentary questions asking each Department how many applications Ministers have received from employees to run services for which their Department is directly responsible. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of Departments had received absolutely none.
A strategy for social enterprises could also explore where and how social enterprises can get the advice, the support and even the training that they need in commissioning, and in the legal and human resources issues that they would face, for example, in respect of TUPE. Where do social enterprises go for that support now? Clearly they can go to the excellent Social Enterprise UK or Co-operatives UK, but are they well enough funded for the scale of the Government’s future ambitions? I pose that question in the context of Rise, the south-west social enterprise agency, having decided to close its doors because of a lack of income. As a result, there is understandable concern that Ministers have not thought through the external support required to grow the social enterprise sector. Social Enterprise UK has suggested that there should be more social enterprise hubs offering a combination of business support, shared work space and peer support to support the growth of the sector. That is a very interesting idea, and if there were to be a proper strategy, the Government could explore it in more detail.
What thought have the Government given to encouraging the growth of social enterprises to take on tasks that have traditionally been the preserve of the private sector, for example, in the areas of finance or energy? The Government want social enterprises to help them to roll back the state, but have they thought through the opportunities for social enterprises to do more in those traditional private sector areas? Let me give one example. Access to loans and the level of personal debt have been issues of huge concern across the House. Social enterprises that do not need to fund profits for shareholders could offer cheaper loans and could do so in areas where traditional businesses might not operate. Credit unions are a powerful example of the potential in that area. The London Mutual Credit Union, which I believe operates in Southwark and Lambeth, wants to offer a cheaper payday loan in competition with similar private sector products and it would charge far less than the very high rates of interest that private sector payday lenders currently offer.
Hazel Blears
My hon. Friend will recall that in Committee I raised the example of B4Box, a construction social enterprise that refurbishes houses, does construction work and employs people who have a difficult and troubled employment history. The Minister was unable to satisfy me at that time—and I have heard nothing since—about how that amazing social enterprise could be covered under “social value”, because it deals with goods and services, and sometimes the goods might well exceed the services.
Mr Thomas
My right hon. Friend made a very valid intervention in Committee on exactly this point, and I shall return to that issue in a moment.
The Minister also said in Committee that he wanted to
“strike a proper balance between our”—
the Government’s—
“objective to encourage more commissioners to think about wider values, such as social and environmental values, in their considerations, and our determination to try to streamline the process and to reduce the number of additional duties on commissioners.” ––[Official Report, Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2011; c. 19.]
However, he did not explain why it is reasonable to encourage commissioners to think about social value in the context of services but is unreasonable to ask the very same commissioners—as it is usually, although not always, the same commissioners—to think about social value when awarding contracts for work or, crucially, for goods. Will he clarify a little further how he arrived at the view that services could be covered but that contracts for work and for goods should not be covered? Was there a discussion across Government in which he lost out? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saw this as a step too far. I note that there was a huge gap between the Bill’s Second Reading and Committee, which suggests there was a fairly intense debate behind the scenes in Government—was it on this issue?
If there was not a political problem in Government about the inclusion of contracts for work or for goods, perhaps there was some research basis for suggesting that only contracts for services mattered in legislative terms for encouraging and embedding that concept of social value in commissioners’ thinking. If that is the case, will the Minister enlighten the House as to the research evidence in question? The whole House believes in transparency and I am sure that we all want to see clear, evidence-based policy making. Will he tell us with whom he discussed such research, if it exists? Was it with Social Enterprise UK or with Co-operatives UK, either of which would have been a logical choice? Was it with the Charity Commission or just with officials? It would be helpful to know the thought process he went through in deciding to omit contracts for work and contracts for goods from the scope of the Bill so that not only those of us in the House today but people in the third sector, particularly public sector commissioners, who consider our debate can better understand what is expected.
During our Committee discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston highlighted the issue of books and publications, which are goods, and the fact that publications providing information about the social security system are arguably providing a service. She noted the potential dangers of confusion and difficulty for commissioners with contracts for goods being excluded from the Bill’s scope.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles raised in Committee the issue of construction, as she has just done, and whether it would count as a service, a good or work. I gently point out to the Minister that he did not answer her question on that. Following our Committee discussions, I have received further representations suggesting that construction contracts could be outside the scope of the Bill. The organisation in question suggests that legal advice might be necessary, but surely the Minister, having had so much advance notice of the concerns of many Committee members on this issue, can clarify the situation today. I have also received representations that if the Bill covered the provision of food, furniture or plants, the civil society organisations bidding for contracts would be more likely to benefit from the socially and environmentally responsible manner in which those goods are or could be produced.
Similarly, I have received representations suggesting that statutory guidance and training are required on how and where social value can legitimately be considered and inserted into tender specifications. Does the Minister intend to bring forward such guidance for commissioners and for those third sector organisations, social enterprises and others that could benefit from this clause? The Bill could achieve so much more. My amendments seek to do justice to our debates in Committee and, above all, to the huge potential that social enterprise and social value offer.
Hazel Blears
The hon. Gentleman has shown a great deal of courage, determination and tenacity in getting his Bill this far, and he will certainly have my support. He was speaking about the sector being disappointed if the Bill does not pass. Would he admit to a tiny degree of disappointment himself that his original Bill, which I believe was tremendous news for the social enterprise sector, has been reduced in scope, in scale and in effect by the Government?
Chris White
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I appreciate the tremendous work that she has put into getting the Bill to this stage. All the work that she does with social enterprises is well recognised. Do I feel a touch of disappointment? I am a practical and pragmatic person. I want to see something that works, something to build on. That is why I am making the remarks that I am.
Chris White
I am about to conclude.
I appreciate that we all have a duty to ensure that the best legislation gets through the House. It is true in this case that some legislation is better than no legislation. This is a chance for us to send a message that when it comes to these important issues, we can all work together, we can prevent politics from getting in the way of good policy and we can be trusted to do the right thing when the time comes. I hope that given the hon. Gentleman’s well-documented support for the principles of the Bill and for the social enterprise, voluntary and community sectors, he will withdraw the amendments today so that we can push forward with much-needed reform of procurement. This is a chance that we may not get again for some time, so let us take it and see the Bill through to the other place and from there, we hope, on to the statute book.
Hazel Blears
I support new clauses 1, 2 and 3 and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). They are excellent amendments that enable us to debate how we want to see things develop, even if the Bill passes today, as I hope it will, in its current truncated form.
The Bill originally had five clauses. It contained a specific commitment to a national social enterprise strategy and strategies for local authorities. I said on Second Reading, some time ago, that I thought the Bill was small but perfectly formed, and that if it went through in that form, it could have a transformational effect on the commissioning that took place in our public authorities.
This is no judgment on the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), but I am afraid that the Bill in its current form represents a huge missed opportunity to drive forward with momentum and impetus the growth and flourishing of the social enterprise sector. The original Bill would have tilted the scales in favour of social enterprise through social value and economic, social and environmental well-being. That would have sent a strong message to public commissioners that the Government really wanted to put their weight behind it as commissioners and would have produced quite a transformational effect.
The hon. Gentleman’s original clauses about a strategy have been deleted. I have no time for strategies that are just pieces of paper, because in my experience harnessing the full power of every Department requires a central spine that says to those Departments, “This is what we want to do. We will hold you to account. We want to see what you have done over the past 12 months and how you can take it forward.” I worry that without such a mechanism the push towards social value commissioning will be taken up only by the best local authorities, which are good at commissioning and understand, particularly in areas such as social care and education, that social value means more impact for the money spent. Good local authorities understand that and are becoming quite complex commissioners. They are commissioning with the users and clients involved and going out to the public and asking what they want to see. That is a holistic approach to commissioning.
However, as I mentioned in Committee, I am worried about the local authorities that lack the capacity, skill and understanding to carry out complex commissioning. The Minister gave some assurance in Committee that there would be support for those local authorities to ensure that they can take this forward. What the Bill says is really good, but I fear that it will fall somewhat short of the transformational effect that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington wants to achieve.
The annual report proposed in new clause 3 might be dismissed by some as bureaucracy, but I know from my experience in government that requiring Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box once a year to report on what they have done and what the impact of that has been is a tremendous discipline to ensure that during the rest of the year they ask for regular reports and push for implementation. Unless there is a way of measuring and evaluating the social value achieved through a change in the commissioning process, I do not think that we will see the results that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is pragmatic and practical, to which I can attest. My view is always to get what one can and then build on it incrementally, and I think that that is probably where he is now. However, I think that he is also quite determined to make a change, so I ask him to press his right hon. and hon. Friends in the coalition Government to say how they will measure social value and assess what difference it has made. In a year’s time, more commissioning will have social value at its heart. What work are we doing to hone in on how we measure social value so that we get a grip on this, because otherwise it will remain a fairly nebulous concept that is very easy for people who do not share the values to wriggle out of? I am sure that that is not what he wants.
Richard Fuller
The right hon. Lady has a lot of support for the work she has done in her career to support social enterprise. Will she add to her point about urgency and immediacy the fact that social enterprises provide one of the most exceptional ways to enhance productivity in public sector areas? As we are looking for the opportunity to grow our economy, it would be beholden on the Government to make every effort to look at ways in which social enterprises can enhance the productivity in that sector of the economy.
Hazel Blears
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s point. The economy is difficult, there is less money around and public authorities have less resource to spend, so we must ensure that we get as much value as possible out of every pound we spend. The social enterprise sector is often very innovative and comes up with new ways of working and doing business, and that has been one of its particular advantages. There is good innovation in the public sector, but small organisations that have a complete passion for something will often take the system apart, look at how things are currently done, and get more value and productivity.
Mr Nuttall
I entirely agree that there are many instances of innovation in some public sector organisations and in social enterprises, but does the right hon. Lady agree that there are also thousands of examples of innovation in the private sector?
Hazel Blears
I entirely agree. I was about to say that this is not just about the social enterprise sector. One of the good things about the Bill is that it is about social value wherever the commissioning take place, whether in the public sector, the private sector or the voluntary and community sector. There was perhaps a tendency in the past to limit social value to a particular niche in the market for the voluntary and community sector. That sector does fantastic work, but not exclusively. If we can get social value into some of the big private sector organisations, we will see more productivity and a greater impact. A range of large corporate organisations are recognising that doing good is good business. Getting that combination of people using their existing business model to achieve social action and social change is a big movement in this country. We have heard talk about responsible capitalism. There are moments when something happens in society, and I think that we are at one of those moments. Many big organisations have recognised that for their own sustainability—not for charitable purposes, but to do good business—using their procurement, supply chains, product development and investment for social action in communities will be very beneficial. I think that there will be a move from the traditional concept of corporate social responsibility of doing some charitable work once a year to embedding a social action model at the heart of business, small and large, in this country. It is a development that I welcome hugely.
I want to make a few comments about that change. The amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has tabled refer to the definition of social enterprise, which is important, and I hope that the Minister will address it, but I also think that the system currently has barriers to big corporations taking the agenda forward. If we are to have commissioning in the private sector that focuses on social value, we need to think about that. A social enterprise called Create opened its doors in my constituency only a week ago. It provides work opportunities for young people and older people who have been homeless. It brings them through a production kitchen to gain catering skills and provides outside catering services. It is a business that describes itself as being “for more than profit”, which I think is an interesting description. It started in Leeds and also operates in Doncaster, Liverpool and, now, Salford. In Leeds it now runs a five-star, top-class restaurant—a little like Jamie Oliver’s Fifteen—which teaches homeless people catering skills. It has a relationship with Morrisons supermarket, and if the people it trains do not go into catering, they are often job-ready and can go into the world of work. That fabulous partnership works for everyone involved and, increasingly, big companies want to work in that way.
Perhaps the Bill can do something to say to the private sector, “Commissioning for social value is good business for you.” John Lewis and the Co-op have done that for decades, but I want us to be able to have a range of different examples that are big in retail, manufacturing and the important sectors of our economy that use the power of their businesses, whether employing former offenders and people who have had difficulties in their lives. That is why I pressed the Minister on whether we can have goods and services, because I think the artificial distinction that this is just about services could limit the ability of the big corporate sector to come into this field. That is something that he might think about remedying if there are legislative opportunities in future.
When I pressed the Minister in Committee on whether there ought to be a definition of social enterprise, I was grateful for his answer:
“The right hon. Lady’s fundamental point is right...there is a spectrum, from pure charitable activity to social businesses. Some blurring of lines might not have mattered until now. She may be right that we have reached the point at which some definition in law is needed.”––[Official Report, Public Services (Social Enterprise and Social Value) Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2011; c. 16.]
He indicated that, in the review of charity law, there were perhaps two legislative opportunities for that.
Hazel Blears
Will the Minister acknowledge that it was in fact the previous Labour Government who introduced the legislation that enabled social enterprises to be established in the health service, and who provided significant financial support to get them off the ground? That was a Labour initiative. There are organisations such as Six Degrees, Unlimited Potential and the Angel health centre all across my city now, and they are providing excellent services. That was an initiative of the Labour Government.
Mr Hurd
I am very much prepared to accept, as I have in public on many occasions both in the House and outside, that we are building on some excellent work, to which consistency is fundamental. The point that I made earlier was that it was a Labour Secretary of State who sent a very mixed message to the market by giving an explicit statement that the NHS was to be the supplier of choice. I am delighted that there now seems to be cross-party support again for a message that is more positive for, and supportive of, social enterprises and charities and the opportunity for them to deliver public services.
The hon. Member for Harrow West mentioned the Work programme, and he is right that it is early days. There is certainly some frustration and cynicism out there in the social sector, and I am listening to it and liaising closely with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), on it. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that under one of the most important of the Government’s programmes, deliberately structured as a payment-by-results system to incentivise primes to work with organisations that have a track record and a good opportunity to deliver results, we have 300 social enterprises and charities in the supply chain. Depending on their delivery, I believe they are set to earn several hundred million pounds over the life of their contracts. That is definitely a step forward.
The Work programme is not just about encouraging different suppliers of existing services. We are trying to get the system to think differently about how services are commissioned, so we are working with four local authorities on troubled families with multiple problems. I think we all know from our constituencies that the state has historically not done a very good job of supporting such families. We are encouraging those local authorities to consider working in a different way and structuring a more holistic service based more on prevention and an openness to working with different suppliers under a payment-by-results contract. We hope that will lead to four new social impact bonds, to encourage social investors to come in and share some of the risk and return.
That action and activity is intended to break down what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and others know is a tremendous aversion to risk in the system. No one can pretend that that is easy, or that publishing a strategy document or even Government guidelines will instantly break down the culture of risk aversion in the public sector. She rightly talked about the need to support commissioners better, because they are operating in systems that are tremendously averse to risk. I have sat around tables with commissioners who get what we are talking about and want to make progress and work more with social enterprises and charities to restructure services. However, I have had queues of people at the door saying, “You can’t do that.” I am sure she knows—she has been there—that the more we consider the matter, the bigger the challenge gets.
We are thinking afresh about how we support commissioners, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office has talked about our plans to set up a commissioning academy to try to support commissioners, develop more intelligent commissioning and raise the status of the profession and the qualifications in it. We want to develop learning resources that build on the best practice that is being developed around the system, and that is a serious project.
The Bill will add value to that process—perhaps not in ways that every Member would like, because we all know that politics is the art of the possible at a given moment and that there are compromises to be made, but we are on a journey. The Bill will complement the best value duty, which Opposition Members did not mention but which my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) brought up. That was an important piece of guidance from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to local authorities, setting out an expectation that commissioners should consider the overall value of service provision, including economic, environmental and social value. That covered the full procurement chain for services and goods, and was a very clear new piece of guidance.
We believe that the Bill will complement that useful guidance by sending an additional signal to commissioners outside local authorities that, where it is relevant and proportionate, they should consider social value at the pre-procurement phase when they are considering commissioning services. That is how we can balance out the areas in which we think the biggest impact can be made now and our desire not to impose too many disproportionate duties and burdens on people who are doing already very difficult jobs. That is where we are comfortable with pushing the agenda forward.
Mr Hurd
I have nothing to add to what I said in Committee. The Bill is reasonably clear about where it will apply.
The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned B4Box in her constituency. The position will be enhanced by the new best value guidance, and there is nothing to prevent the local authority from working on the basis that she described. I am grateful to her for bringing Aileen in to talk about the matter. Aileen is doing it. There is space in the system for her to do it. She and I would probably agree that we need to send a stronger signal that it is okay, but it is okay and people are doing it. The best value guidance from the Secretary of State moves things on further by sending a signal of permissiveness.
I have always made it clear that the Government have from the start supported the principle of the Bill because of the value that it adds to the process, and it goes with the grain of what the previous Administration were trying to achieve. The system, risk averse as it is, is getting a consistently stronger signal about the need to take account of wider social value considerations when spending taxpayers’ and constituents’ money and to be more alive to opportunities to commission intelligently. Lots of examples have been cited in our debates of fantastic organisations, such as Create, that are adding value to our communities. I cited that example in my Brussels speech because in many ways it embodies exactly what we are trying to encourage.
We can do more. The hon. Member for Harrow West goaded us to come up with more ideas to support social enterprises in this movement. I have talked about the need to open up new market opportunities to help these enterprises grow and to help more people, but the Government can do more to make life simpler for the social entrepreneur. I shall come later to the question of definition but these are businesses first and foremost, and the guidance and requirements that we place on people trying to run businesses in this country are ridiculously disproportionate. A rigorous process is under way. It cannot be undertaken lightly and it does not lend itself to soundbites. It is a rigorous process of going through each subsector of the economy to look at the regulatory burden and to discuss with the players in those sectors what we can remove and what is no longer proportionate or necessary. That process is well under way.
We can also help social enterprises with the increasingly important question of how to measure social impact. That is their currency. Many of us know that the money providers, whether private or public, are increasingly demanding that social enterprises, charities and, I hope, other organisations measure and communicate their social impact and social value, which is their unique selling point. Many of us are also aware that arguably there is too great a profusion of initiatives in this area and of the risk that this will only confuse the landscape. I want greater coherence and consistency not least so that we, as funders, and other stakeholders can agree on what is worth measuring and how it can be measured affordably by all organisations.
Hazel Blears
This is a really important point. There is a plethora of ways to measure social value. I mentioned in Committee an organisation called Connectives, which has moved on from the social return on investment transactional model towards a much more in-depth assessment of what social value means. Is the Minister prepared to meet the two female accountants behind Connectives to explore their ideas?
Mr Hurd
I would be delighted. I thoroughly enjoyed the first meeting that the right hon. Lady invited me to, and I am sure that this one will be just as informative. I also thank her for reinforcing my instinct that the Government can take a lead in trying to make life simpler for all parties, not least in our role as a major funder, and to help people to reach greater coherence and consistency when working out what is worth measuring and how it can be measured by all organisations, not only those with the deepest pockets.
Hazel Blears
I shall be brief, because I had the opportunity to make my comments at length during the debate on the new clauses. I just want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for using the precious opportunity to introduce a private Member’s Bill to introduce this Bill about social enterprise and social value. It is also part of a journey, as the Minister said, to transform the way in which we commission and provide essential services in this country and to unleash the innovation that the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) has just talked about.
There has been a great deal of consensus on these issues. I hope that that consensus will continue and when we get the Health and Social Care Bill back in this House, Government Members will support us in trying to move forward with a definition of “social enterprise” in the health context. If the NHS is to be the biggest social enterprise in the world, we certainly need more clarity and reassurance about what that organisation should look like, what its legal responsibilities are and whether it will have an asset lock on the spin-outs in employment. I hope that the consensus will continue.
Having said that, there are differences between the parties, even on this agenda, as the speech made by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) illustrated. So I have no doubt that we will continue to have a lively debate about the role of social value. I am very keen to see it extended into the private and corporate sector, and I think that there is a genuine move among businesses to want to be bigger players in this area than they have perhaps been in the past. Again, I am looking to the Government to think about what incentives can be put into the system to encourage corporate bodies to shepherd social enterprises and to use them in their supply chain. Big construction companies such as Wates Construction are beginning to get that argument but, again, the Government can send messages to push the system along to ensure that we do not have to wait 10 years for that kind of development to take place.
The Bill is an important step on that journey and helps to reinforce the idea that the economic situation gives us a huge impetus to try to get more value out of the taxpayers’ money that we spend. The innovation of this sector can help us to do so much more. If, in the process of doing that, we can persuade people in business that making a contribution to the community is not just a good thing in itself, but that it helps them to augment and enhance their company, we will have made an excellent contribution.
I am delighted to have been a part of this Bill from the very beginning, and it is lovely to see it through to the end. I am not that used to private Members’ business, but I have certainly learned a lot on this journey and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington for his courage. I will do everything I can to ensure that the Bill gets a swift passage in the other place so that we see it on the statute book.
Public Disorder
Hazel Blears Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, and obviously we will look again at the guidance. Let me be clear: there was no instruction to police officers to stand back, but as I have said, and I think police chiefs have been very frank about this, the balance between what is right for public order and what is right for stopping criminality—looting and thieving—was not got right to start with. They admit that, they accept that, but they were—to be fair to the police, who do a very difficult job on behalf of us all—facing a new set of circumstances. Yes, they have had riots before; yes, they have had looting before; and, yes, there has been violence and vandalism; but we have not in our country before had the same thing happening in different places with different people all doing it at the same time. That was a challenge for the police—a challenge that I believe they are now meeting excellently—but they did not get everything right to start with and they are the first to admit that.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his telephone call yesterday. What happened in Salford on Tuesday night was not about protest; it was about deliberate, organised, violent criminality. Will he give his full backing to the police to intervene in such circumstances? Some officers, who did not have riot gear and were not trained, had instructions to stand by and watch what happened. The effect on public confidence is devastating, so will he ensure that the police have the backing and confidence to review the guidance so that we never again see the police fall back in the face of a violent mob, as we saw on our streets?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady speaks with all the authority of a former policing Minister who knows this issue well and, I know, discussed it with the chief constable of Greater Manchester. Clearly, what happened in Salford was unacceptable, and tragically it reversed very many good years of excellent work, breaking up gangs and taking on organised criminals, and I suspect that what happened is that those gangs and criminals saw it as an opportunity to reassert themselves. All those lessons must be learned, and I know that the Greater Manchester police chief, to whom I too have spoken, wants to learn those lessons. It is not right ever to cede control of our streets to hooligans, which is what happened briefly in Salford, but we have to rest with the operational judgment of police chiefs when they are on the streets, and the time to learn the lessons is now.
Open Public Services White Paper
Hazel Blears Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Letwin
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why the White Paper specifically makes clear not only that we will treat individual services differently from community services and services commissioned centrally, but that we will take each service on its own merits and design a regime that applies the general principles differently. That is clearly the right way to go. However, his point is vital. The purpose of giving choice and power to individuals and communities is not just to benefit the particular individuals making the choices; it is to benefit everybody by ensuring that those choices are brought to bear in a way that improves services for all.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am a long-standing supporter of decentralisation and involving more local people in their public services. His White Paper and previous statements have made much of involving social enterprises and charities and the third sector in the provision of public services. On that basis, will he confirm that there will be an asset lock when services are transferred, particularly to social enterprises, to ensure that the organisations carrying out these services are genuine social enterprises? If he really means what he says, why have 90% of major contracts for the Work programme gone to big companies such as Serco, Capita and G4S, leaving the social enterprise sector and charities to pick up the crumbs from the table?
Mr Letwin
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s first point, I would say that when assets are being transferred provision needs to be made to ensure that they are there for the public good and on a permanent basis. We intend to do that in every case in which it applies. On her point about the Work programme, I think she is missing a vital component of what the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who has responsibility for employment, has done. It is a textbook case: he was concerned that not all the bids would come from consortia in the voluntary and community sector—only a few did—so he took steps to create a protocol relating the prime contractor to the subcontractors, as a result of which the prime contractors have to treat properly the small voluntary and community bodies that in many cases are also the subcontractors. We desperately need—and intend—to get that into the mainstream of how the Government go about business.
Counter-terrorism
Hazel Blears Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that the vast majority of Muslims in this country entirely reject the violent ideology of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Will he therefore confirm that in the review of the Prevent programme, he will ensure that he puts in place a series of practical programmes to build the resilience of our young people to messages of hatred and extremism? Will he also confirm that he takes really seriously, as I know he does, the challenge to that ideology, on which I believe we have to do far more work to ensure that we really make an impact?
The Prime Minister
The words the right hon. Lady has uttered have been ringing through our review of Prevent. The problem has been not so much that a minority of British Muslims actually back al-Qaeda as that there has been a pernicious ideology among a minority of some communities that has given some comfort to the stories that al-Qaeda provides about victimhood and the rest of it. We have to address that issue in order to drain the swamp in which al-Qaeda has been swimming, if I can say so without mixing my metaphors.