Voting Age

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I speak in support of lowering the voting age because I start from the perspective that extending the franchise has historically always been a good thing and that in a democracy people should have the right to shape the decisions that affect them, unless there is a really good reason why not. My starting point is not, “Why lower the voting age to 16?” but, “Why not lower the voting age to 16? Why prevent people from voting until they are 18 or even 23, as in the case of some young people voting in a general election for the first time? My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) made that point.

I acknowledge that there are arguments of some merit against such a move, and I will spend a little time discussing them, because some young people themselves make those arguments. Recently, I went to talk to a large group of young scouts who had very mixed views about lowering the voting age. They were marginally in favour as a group, but many of them were against. Some talked about the problem of maturity, but far more of those young people talked about a lack of knowledge and the difficulty of gaining the necessary tools and information to make meaningful choices of political parties. That is why I agree with so many hon. Members that lowering the voting age should go hand in hand with good-quality citizenship education in all our schools. Also, so many young people have made the point to me that citizenship education should not be an afterthought or an add-on; it should be a high priority for schools in enabling young people to make those choices.

I want to go further than that, because I am a huge supporter of the UNICEF rights respecting schools programme, which some hon. Members may have seen in action and which is incredibly important. We have heard the argument, “Why stop at 16? Why not go earlier?” We have debated that, but from a very young age children can and should be involved in shaping the institutions and communities they are part of, thus having an impact on the decisions that affect their lives. I say to hon. Members who say that that somehow does not protect childhood that it is an active part of childhood; children are people—they are citizens—who live in communities and they are not atomistic individuals who should be seen only through the lens of their parents. The UNICEF rights respecting schools programme is incredibly important, because it enables children to learn about politics in an active and not a passive way; surely we want those sorts of adults in the future.

The argument that some people do not want the vote and that some will not use it completely misses the point. The point is that many 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds do want the vote and do want to use it. Hon. Members have referred to evidence from overseas, and, in particular, from Austria and Germany, which suggests that if young people start voting at 16—this is the crucial point—when they are still in formal learning, they continue to do so. The argument that 18 to 24-year-olds are less likely to vote therefore again misses the point. Now is a very opportune time to introduce this measure, because we are raising the participation age so that young people stay in some form of formal learning until 18. That is often advanced as a reason not to give young people the vote, but all the evidence suggests that it is in fact a reason to do so, as they will still be in formal learning and can be given the information and skills they need to make the decisions.

I agree that young people mature at different rates, and that is reflected in the different ages at which we allow people to do different things. I will not rehearse those differences, because we have had a great deal of discussion about them, but I wish to make two points. First, I do not believe that representation should be directly linked to taxation. Lots of people in this country do not pay tax, for whatever reason; unemployed people are one such example. I hope that most hon. Members would not agree with the idea that such people should not have the vote—that idea appals me. The argument that someone has to pay taxes before they are allowed to vote is completely spurious.

Secondly, the fact that young people mature at different rates surely cannot be a reason to say to all 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds that they are simply not allowed to vote. We have not always got right the ages at which we decide that people are mature enough to do things—in my view, the age of criminal responsibility is far, far too low in this country—but the fact that we are even having a debate about whether young people should wait eight years from when we hold them criminally responsible for their actions to when they are allowed to have a say in the criminal justice system that we are catapulting them into is completely wrong.

I argue for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to have the choice about whether to vote, not the responsibility to vote; voting is not compulsory in this country and I do not think anybody is suggesting that it should be. They should have that choice as we all do.

I say to hon. Members who have raised the issue of protecting childhood that I do not see any justification for saying that we somehow keep our children safer by denying them the right to be active members of and citizens in their communities. The idea that teenage girls on the streets of Doncaster would be protected by not being allowed to vote until the age of 18 strikes me as ridiculous.

Over the past few years, we have seen starkly how the decisions we make affect young people from an early age. Young people have taken to the streets to defend the education maintenance allowance, to oppose the rise in tuition fees and to occupy multinational companies that refuse to pay their taxes. Those young people are campaigning on issues that will not affect them—those decisions have largely already been taken—but they are taking to the streets to defend the rights of the young people who come after them and to make a case for the sort of society in which they want to live. They are highly political, optimistic, energetic and ambitious—we know that from the evidence—yet they have little say in the decisions we make.

Every time we delay decisions on issues such as care for the elderly, pensions, the environment and child care, we are storing up trouble for future generations. The decisions we make and those we do not make will have profound repercussions for the generation of young people growing up today. It will fall to them to solve the problems we create and I am appalled that they do not have a say in the decisions that affect them.

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hurd]

I do not know because I do not know the situation in Nottingham. That is an issue on which the people of Nottingham can take a view and they will be able to express that view more clearly and more loudly because we are moving towards a world in which there is more transparency about local authorities’ spending. We are moving away from the opaque world in which we had very little information about what was being done in our name.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s concern about value for money, although I am also concerned about protecting the most vulnerable and about the standard of public services and the intelligence of targets that are used in outsourcing. Will he respond to the point that was powerfully put by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, about the evidence base behind this? Where is the evidence that outsourcing provides better value for money?

[Mr Hurd]

I am delighted to move on to the substance of the debate. I have tried my best to respond to various interventions from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Easington referred to open public services. [Interruption.] With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am trying to answer the meat of his argument, which is whether it is good to create a situation in which those buying on behalf of the taxpayer have choice about where they buy services on our behalf. He is actually arguing for no choice and for protection of the status quo. The Government’s open public services White Paper makes it clear—we expect a political argument about this—that we want to switch the default setting away from in-house delivery to commissioning services from a diverse range of providers where that would improve services or reduce costs.

The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was hostile to the for-profits sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a valuable point that the Government are agnostic about who delivers the service. We are particularly keen—it is a coalition Government commitment —to make it easier for charities and social enterprises to participate in public services. They are not driven by a profit motive. By definition, they are driven by a desire to deliver a better outcome for the people whom they support and care about.

Freedom of Information Act

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I requested this debate to seek clarification about a specific piece of Cabinet Office guidance that was apparently issued to the Department for Education last year to clarify its responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.

Ministers from both Departments—the Cabinet Office and the Department for Education—have refused to answer any of my parliamentary questions about the guidance, except to confirm that it was issued. However, this is a matter of pressing public importance about which I have sought answers for nearly eight months. There is evidence now in the public domain that the Secretary of State for Education and his advisers used personal e-mail accounts to discuss matters relating to the award of public money and the Building Schools for the Future programme.

Disclosure of those e-mails was refused because Ministers wrongly appeared to believe that the e-mails were not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Secretary of State has since told me, at a recent hearing of the Education Committee, that he believed that to be the case because of the specific Cabinet Office guidance that is the subject of today’s debate.

I will briefly summarise the background and say why the matter is of such pressing public importance that the guidance should be published without delay. In August and September last year, in the leaked e-mail obtained by The Guardian, the Secretary of State’s adviser told officials that he would no longer respond to inquiries on his official departmental e-mail address and urged them to do the same. At the time, Ministers in the Department appeared to believe that private e-mail addresses were not covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

Further e-mails were then revealed by the Financial Times that had been leaked to them by officials in the Department for Education. Those e-mails revealed that personal e-mail accounts had been used by the Secretary of State and by his advisers in relation to Government business. Requests were made for some of the leaked e-mails in question but those requests were refused. The Secretary of State told me in January at the Education Committee hearing that the decisions were taken clearly on the basis of guidance issued by the Cabinet Office. That guidance remains unpublished, may or may not have been written down and has since been discredited, hence my keenness to shine a spotlight on that mysterious guidance today. It apparently contradicts earlier guidance given to the Secretary of State for Education by his Department’s chief freedom of information officer, stating that personal e-mails were covered by the Act. The Information Commissioner also clarified that in December last year, but the Secretary of State confirmed to me that he had ignored both those pieces of guidance and preferred instead to rely on the mysterious piece of guidance apparently issued by the Cabinet Office.

I would like to know why the Cabinet Office is still refusing to publish the guidance given the Secretary of State’s constant references to it, its apparent centrality to decisions taken and the seriousness of the allegations that have arisen against the Department for Education. Will the Minister publish the guidance now, so that we can assess whether any attempt was made to evade the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act? The Minister for the Cabinet Office told me that he would not publish it due to a long-standing convention, but can the Minister tell me why he and his colleagues cannot even tell me in what form it was communicated? Surely there is no convention around that? Freedom of information requests suggest that the DFE holds a copy of the advice, but according to press and FOI queries to the Cabinet Office, it says that its guidance was, variously, not written down, or not held. Can the Minister explain this contradiction for me today?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She will be aware of the controversy about the whole aspect of freedom of information requests in recent months. Does she agree that the matter is not only about the case she is outlining, which is very interesting, but the whole aspect of the abuse of freedom of information, and its cost?

[Lisa Nandy]

I very much echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments; this kind of affair damages us all, which is why I am seeking answers today.

I would also like to understand how the situation could arise. That understanding is important if the commitment to transparency, which was made very clearly in the coalition agreement, is to have any meaning. Why was the guidance written by the Cabinet Office in the first place, given that the Department for Education’s chief freedom of information officer had already clearly communicated his view? Who requested the guidance? When was it communicated by the Cabinet Office? Was it sent only to the Department for Education? If not, has it now been revoked for every Department, given the extreme criticism of it by the Information Commissioner? In his recent ruling, he said:

“The DfE contends that the information is not held because the email in question is ‘political’. However, almost all the work of a special adviser, by definition, has a political dimension to one extent or another. Equally, the Secretary of State is a political figure…There is therefore an inevitable overlap between matters of party policy and government policy. To accept the DfE’s interpretation would be to, in effect, create a blanket exemption for communications between ministers and special advisers. In the Commissioner’s view the DfE has created an artificial distinction between ‘official’ information which is subject to the Act and ‘political’ information which is not.”

Did this interpretation, or description, of a blanket exemption from the Act arise directly from the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office? If so, can the Minister tell me how he, or officials in his Department, came to interpret the guidance in that way? Will he tell me who wrote it? Was that person aware that the DFE’s chief FOI officer had already issued contradictory advice? Did the person who wrote it have any discussions with the Information Commissioner, or indeed the Ministry of Justice, which holds overall responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act, before issuing it? Who was it sent to in the DFE? Did the Minister personally sign it off? If not, will he tell me who did?

I am seeking to understand how a situation can arise where the Cabinet Office’s guidance explicitly contradicts that of the DFE’s own chief FOI officer and the Information Commissioner, yet the Department is able to choose which guidance it wishes to follow. Does that not cause the Minister concern? Is it how the Government operate? Can Departments pick and choose different policy advice and guidance depending on which they prefer to follow? Does the Minister think it is acceptable that the Government are in the farcical situation where the DFE is apparently relying on guidance that the Information Commissioner has discredited, which is contradictory to the guidance issued by the Department itself, and which the Government still refuse to publish?

Less than two weeks ago, the Information Commissioner issued a ruling that the information withheld by the DFE amounted to departmental business and must be disclosed. The Secretary of State is currently considering whether to exercise his right to issue a refusal notice giving valid reasons for withholding it, as I understand. In the meantime, he still does not appear to have accepted the guidance of the Information Commissioner and his own Department that states clearly that those e-mails are covered by the FOI Act.

In January, I asked the Secretary of State a series of questions at a hearing of the Education Committee to clarify whether he or his advisers had ever used private e-mail accounts to conceal information from civil servants or the public that related to departmental business; whether he had ever directed civil servants not to answer FOI requests on specific issues; and what steps he was taking to prevent the deletion of private e-mails relating to Government business and deemed by the Information Commissioner to be covered by the FOI Act. It has since transpired that officials in the DFE repeatedly destroyed official Government records—130 e-mails, according to reports by the Financial Times. I have the transcript of the Secretary of State’s appearance before the Education Committee. I repeat that it is not clear, from his answers, whether he or his advisers sought to use, conceal, or delete those personal e-mails to evade the Act. What is clear is that the Secretary of State says that he was following Cabinet Office guidance in his actions.

There is an urgency to this matter, as it is unclear whether private e-mails relating to Government business are still being deleted. I asked the Secretary of State about that at the end of January at the Select Committee hearing, and he would not confirm whether that was or was not the case. Will the Minister please clarify whether that revised, updated guidance has been issued, and that, in light of the Information Commissioner’s ruling, the guidance has changed? Has revised guidance gone to every Department? If not, what is the delay? Given the clarity of the Information Commissioner’s statement, it seems extraordinary that that would not have happened. If it has not happened, does it mean that the Government are currently without guidance on the use of private e-mails and the FOI Act?

Does the Minister know whether the DFE has decided to fight the decision notice, and if so, on what grounds? Perhaps the Minister cannot answer that, but can he answer this: if the Secretary of State for Education decides to fight the decision notice from the Information Commissioner, will the Cabinet Office defer publishing new advice until the case is finalised? If so, that could mean that the FOI Act is effectively inactive and subject to a blanket exemption for a year. That is surely a broken commitment, given the prominent commitment to transparency in the coalition agreement. What is being done to ensure that this situation cannot happen again?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the beginning of her remarks—the debate started earlier than expected. Would it not be a ludicrous situation if the Government tried to uphold the position that private e-mails are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, since that would, in effect, allow the Government to create a government in parallel using private e-mail accounts to evade their responsibilities under the Act?

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely. Evidence has emerged in the press that that is exactly what has happened in this instance, which is why I am seeking to clear up the matter today.

There is another thing that does not, so far, stand up to scrutiny. The Department for Education’s initial response to the press reports was to say that only political e-mails were sent through private accounts. The Secretary of State subsequently repeated that claim to the Education Committee. If the Department genuinely believed the e-mails were not governmental, why did it ever seek advice on the applicability of the law to private e-mail accounts? Can the Minister shed any light on that? Did he or his officials have any conversations with the Department, the Secretary of State or his advisers about it? That is why it matters so much to so many of us in the Opposition. Not only do the e-mails relate to decisions of crucial public importance to young people and their families—not least about Building Schools for the Future—but they have created a situation that looks distinctly murky. That affects and discredits us all, and must be clarified urgently.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

As a member of the Education Committee, I attended the hearing. Has my hon. Friend reflected on the fact that in attempting to answer, or not answer, her questions at that Committee hearing, and by evading a real answer to her questions, the Secretary of State, I am sorry to say, seemed to find some amusement in the whole matter? That is a very sad thing, given the time and effort that my hon. Friend has put just into trying to uncover the truth.

[Lisa Nandy]

Indeed; and also because of the significance to the people that we represent throughout the country of decisions that were made and discussed using private e-mail accounts.

I have been seeking answers for seven months and have not been able to get any. In that time, it has been alleged that Ministers repeatedly destroyed official Government correspondence and deliberately used private e-mail accounts to avoid the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. They may still be doing so. The failure to answer questions about this matter makes a mockery of Parliament, the Freedom of Information Act and the commitment to open government.

I realise that Governments are reluctant to share information, sometimes for understandable reasons, but I share the Government’s view that transparency is crucial. In the words of the coalition agreement, they should

“throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. We also recognise that this will help to deliver better value for money in public spending.”

If that commitment is to have any meaning, frankly, Ministers must up their game. I should be grateful if the Minister would give a commitment today that the original guidance will be published, that in light of the Information Commissioner’s ruling, clear renewed guidance will be issued urgently across the Government regarding the application of the FOI Act to private e-mails, and that if he cannot answer all my questions, he makes a decent attempt to answer those he can, writes to me about the rest and no longer seeks to hide behind the much overused phrase, “long-standing convention.”

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr McCrea.

I follow convention in congratulating the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) not just on securing the debate, but for the way that she presented her case. We served together quite happily, I think, when considering the Public Bodies Bill. I am not surprised that she has been pursuing this matter forensically for many months, through the Education Committee and this debate.

I will do my best to answer the questions that I can. The hon. Lady will know that I cannot answer them all; in fact, I cannot answer the majority and I cannot speak for the Secretary of State for Education. I am certainly not going to respond to allegations about any destruction of information or materials, because they remain just that.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am sorry to ask the Minister to give way so quickly. I have just handed him a list of questions for the Cabinet Office, to which I should be grateful for answers. If he cannot answer them today, I should be grateful if he looked into them and got back to me.

[Mr Hurd]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s clarification. I was wondering what the piece of paper that was thrust into my hand was. It is a long list of questions and we will do our best.

In some ways, the hon. Lady was challenging the Government on their important commitment to transparency and, because I feel proud of the Government’s direction of travel, it is important to put this debate in context by mentioning some things that we are doing to improve transparency, including in the Department for Education. The Secretary of State mentioned, in evidence to the Select Committee, increased transparency about schools performance.

Information is power and we are giving people more power. For example, the Government are now publishing details of ministerial, special adviser and permanent secretary meetings with external organisations; details of hospitality and gifts received by Ministers and special advisers; senior officials’ salaries; and detail on Government procurement card spend. We are also publishing information on many other items of public interest, such as hospital infection rates, crime maps—which have been an enormous success with the public, with more than 430 million hits since their launch—and data on general practitioners’ performance. More than 7,500 data sets have so far been published through the combined online information system on data.gov.uk, more than any other comparable transparency service in the world.

The information published enables people to see all Government expenditure, browsing by date, spender, recipient and amount. All Government contracts over £10,000 are to be published to ensure openness and fairness.

The whole Government accounts were published in November 2011 and each Department has published a business plan, setting out how it will achieve its reforms, how much money is being spent and what it is being spent on. Reports against these deliverables are published monthly on the No. 10 website.

Transparency does not just extend to central Government. For local authorities, there is increased local accountability and transparency of councils. We can see, down to the last £500, what is being spent in our name by our local authorities, including salaries, names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid more than £58,200. There is detail on councillor allowances and expenses and we can see organisational charts, pay multiples, copies of contracts and tenders to businesses, which are important to the voluntary and community sector.

[Lisa Nandy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

The point that I am trying to make—I will give way after doing so—is that this level of transparency is unprecedented and today’s debate, which challenges the Government and questions our commitment to transparency in some ways, needs to be seen against this background. So much of the long list that I read is self-evidently good and in the public interest. Why did it not happen before? The hon. Lady and other Opposition Members may have an answer, since they were in power for 13 years.

[Lisa Nandy]

The Minister has read a long, impressive list of things that have been published under the Freedom of Information Act. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that guidance of such central importance to decisions made across the Government is not on that list? Will he commit to publishing it immediately?

[Mr Hurd]

I am getting to the meat of the debate, which raises important issues about freedom of information requests and private e-mails. That is a complex new matter.

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman says it is waffle, but I am proud, because in less than two years we have achieved all that I mentioned—which is more than his party did in 13 years in power—in giving people information about what the state is doing in their name. I do not describe it as waffle; it is hard information that is in the public domain now.

This debate is about the use of private e-mails and their relation to the Freedom of Information Act. We have to recognise that this complex issue has been the subject, as the hon. Lady says, of a recent decision by the Information Commissioner, published on 2 March. In his decision notice, the Information Commissioner makes it clear that at the time the Department for Education received the FOI request, there was no guidance in existence. This was a new area that had, perhaps, not been anticipated. The commissioner acknowledges that the full implications of the FOI Act in relation to this issue may not have been well understood at the time. He states in his decision notice that he

“would say first of all that he acknowledges that this is a novel issue and one which may not have been anticipated when the Freedom of information Act was passed…Given the unique role played by special advisers it is not always easy to draw a clear line between official information held by a public authority and party political information.”

It is clear that the Information Commissioner’s decision notice raises important issues that the Government are taking seriously and considering.

For reasons that I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, a time period is set out in the FOI legislation within which the Government will consider whether to appeal or release the information. I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question about whether any decision has been taken. The Government have 28 days from the date of the decision notice to decide whether to appeal. If there is no appeal, the Government have a further seven days to release the information or assert a relevant exemption. Therefore, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the decision while such consideration is under way.

The hon. Lady has asked me to make public the advice given by the Cabinet Office to the Department for Education on FOI and private e-mails. She asserted at the start of her speech that she had not received any answers on this, but in fact she has, although it is not necessarily the answer that she wants. In a written answer from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, she was informed that the Department will not publish any guidance on private e-mails and the Freedom of Information Act given to the Department for Education, because

“Information relating to internal discussion and advice is not normally disclosed.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 63W.]

That has been so for a long time and we will stick to that line, because the Government do not disclose what is effectively internal advice. Doing so would prejudice the conditions under which such advice was given. That is a long-standing convention, and it is entirely respectable for the Government to stand by it. Today’s debate has not changed my view and, I am sure, will not change the view of the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. We both believe, as Ministers before us have believed, that advice between officials and Ministers should remain confidential.

[Lisa Nandy]

Can the Minister tell us whether that is written down?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Lady intervenes from a sedentary position. The answer to that question is that we will not disclose the advice or the manner in which it was communicated—we would not normally disclose that, and we will not do so now.

The more substantive issue is what happens now, in that the Information Commissioner has given a view and the Government must respond. The hon. Lady asked when the Cabinet Office will publish its guidance. I have made it clear that the Government are considering the Information Commissioner’s recent decision notice and his guidance, published in December, and will publish their guidance as soon as it is ready, but the issues are complex and require detailed consideration. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady laughs, but we must get it right: the question is new, it is complex and it was not anticipated at the start—it needs to be got right. The Cabinet Office is doing that work, which is well under way. When our guidance is ready, it will be issued.

The debate is valid and raises important issues that the Government are considering and taking extremely seriously. I do not recognise what the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said about the Secretary of State’s apparent flippancy in Committee—I read the transcript; I was not there—but, given that in that part of the inquiry he was being interviewed under Paxman-like conditions by the hon. Member for Wigan, his replies were serious and to the point. However, important issues, which we are taking seriously, have been raised and I ask hon. Members to allow consideration to take place in the appropriate way. Within the time frame set in tribunal rules, the Government will decide whether to appeal or to release the information originally requested, in response to the Information Commissioner’s decision notice of 2 March. The Government are also considering the guidance issued by the Information Commissioner in December on freedom of information and private e-mails, and the Cabinet Office will issue further guidance to Departments in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks for many people. We say that the proposal for a cap on benefits of £26,000 is fair. It allows people to receive £500 a day—[Interruption]—a week. His constituents, and many other constituents, ask themselves, “Is it right that my hard-earned taxes, when I am earning less than that, are going to support people on benefits?” I have to say how disappointing it was that, after the Labour party said that it would support a cap—the announcement was made on the BBC—it voted against it in the other place. What a complete act of hypocrisy!

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Following today’s media reports, will the Prime Minister explain why ministerial advisers and senior civil servants continued to attend networking events with lobbyists who paid several thousand pounds to attend, despite the fact that the Cabinet Office deemed that to be a breach of the civil service code, and had previously issued a ban on attendance?

[The Prime Minister]

The point that I would make to the hon. Lady is that, unlike the position under the previous Government, there is now a proper system for declaring the interests of special advisers and Ministers. That used not to be the case: it is now the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Steve McCabe. Not here.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister, speaking in a professional capacity, set out how he would end child detention by May. It is now November. Does he still believe this practice is immoral and does he still plan to keep his promise? If so, will he tell the House when?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend highlights an area of undoubted concern—violent behaviour by younger teenagers—but as she will appreciate, that is first a matter for the police. Secondly, if such cases come to the attention of the CPS, consideration must be given as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. Each case will turn on its own facts, and prosecutorial discretion may have to be exercised in such circumstances.

That said, if my hon. Friend feels that that is a growing difficulty, the multi-agency approach that we were talking about in a different setting a moment ago will probably be the only way to tackle it. At the end of the day, prosecutors can take only one of two decisions—to prosecute or not—but prevention must come from other agencies.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of human trafficking or slavery.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to increase prosecutions of those involved in human trafficking.

[The Attorney-General]

I have had no recent discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the prosecution of cases involving human trafficking or slavery. However, the Crown Prosecution Service is working with law enforcement agencies and others, both in the UK and in source countries, to improve the investigation and prosecution of those involved in human trafficking. The CPS is also encouraging victims of human trafficking to support criminal proceedings.

[Lisa Nandy]

Having worked with the remarkable children caught up in this appalling trade over many years, I can tell the Minister that the most effective way to increase the number of prosecutions is to provide support for victims. Will he mark anti-slavery day by announcing a formal system of child guardianship, so that we no longer have the appalling spectacle of children as young as five having to instruct their own lawyers, simply because there is no one else to do so?

[The Attorney-General]

The specific matter that the hon. Lady raises is, I am afraid, outside my immediate remit in terms of my responsibilities for the CPS. As she will be aware, the Government announced the decision to opt in to the EU directive on human trafficking in March 2011. We are now working closely with the Commission on its implementation, which includes the review of our domestic legislation to ensure that it complies with the provisions, and that it does not inhibit our ability to bring successful prosecutions. The Government, the CPS and I will continue to give human trafficking a high priority. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady’s point will be given consideration at the same time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to ensure the effective prosecution of cases involving fraud and economic crime.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to maintain the capacity of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate and prosecute economic crime during the comprehensive spending review period.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Serious Fraud Office will meet the requirements of the comprehensive spending review by making efficiency savings in all areas of its business and ensuring that its budget is focused on its core activities of investigating and prosecuting crime. The Crown Prosecution Service also recognises the need to ensure that fraud and economic crime are prosecuted effectively and efficiently. Its structure ensures that cases requiring input and direction by specialist prosecutors are dealt with rigorously.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman pre-judges a decision that has not been made. It is sensible within government for discussion to take place on how to improve the services, including prosecution, that the Government deliver. My point in reply to the earlier question was that the director has an important role in contributing to that debate, and I am sure that his views will be listened to very carefully. I certainly listen to them very carefully indeed.

[Lisa Nandy]

In his previous question session, the Solicitor-General told the House that the UK’s international reputation on tackling corruption would be safeguarded by his getting on with his job. Will he therefore explain how he expects staff at the SFO to get on with their crucial jobs in the face of 50% budget cuts and the separation of its investigation and prosecution functions?

[The Attorney-General]

The first point to make is that the Serious Fraud Office is getting on with the job very effectively indeed. During 2010-11, it took 17 complex cases to trial with at least one conviction in every case; 31 defendants, both corporate and individual, went to trial, of whom 26 were found guilty, giving a conviction rate of 84%. That is an extremely good rate, and I wish to see it continued and built on. I have every confidence in the professionalism of the Serious Fraud Office and in its dedicated staff in delivering its service. I have every confidence that they will be able to do so in the future as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I think that the reputation of the country will be best preserved through proper and targeted work by the police and prosecutors to bring to justice those who have a case to answer. The reputation of the country will not be served if the use of private prosecutions is seen merely as a tool of harassment, and there is no proper outcome from an arrest.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the effectiveness of prosecutions in human trafficking cases.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

We have not received any.

[Lisa Nandy]

Is the Solicitor-General aware that many solicitors still face many problems taking instructions from child victims of trafficking who wrongly believe that their trafficker is their friend? If the Government are serious about ensuring that there are more prosecutions for this heinous crime, why will they not ensure that every child who undergoes the gruelling, awful court process is afforded a guardian to represent his or her best interests?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to the fact that someone of that nature is not available. I had hoped that that was the case. I will make some inquiries of the Crown Prosecution Service to establish what assistance of that sort can be given, but it is fair to point out that the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service already bend over backwards to ensure that vulnerable witnesses, be they children or vulnerable adults, are afforded every possible protection so that they can give their evidence. Without the evidence, we cannot have the convictions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 June.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Marine Paul Warren from 40 Commando Royal Marines, who died on Monday, and to the member of 40 Commando Royal Marines who died yesterday. We should constantly remember, and show our support for, the services and sacrifices made on our behalf by our armed forces and their families.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Lisa Nandy]

The coalfield communities regeneration programme breathed new life into places such as Wigan after the devastation caused by the pit closures in the 1980s. Michael Clapham’s review is very welcome, but the decision to freeze the funding will devastate our economy all over again. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he is not simply seeking to close down the coalfields all over again?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Let me first of all congratulate her on her election to this House, and say how much we want to make sure, in spite of the difficult decisions that we have had to make in the Budget, that we go on helping and regenerating communities that face difficulties. I have visited the site in Wigan where the new Lads and Girls club is to be built. That is the result of excellent joint work between the private and public sectors, and we need many more projects like it. We will have more to say about that next week.