Deregulation Bill

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (a) to new clause 1, after subsection (4) at end insert—

‘(4A) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of this section coming into force, lay a Report before both Houses of Parliament setting out—

(a) what information has been shared or is intended to be shared by virtue of this section,

(b) by what process the Commissioners and Secretary of State agreed on the information to be shared,

(c) which departments and agencies will have access to that information and for what purpose,

(d) whether some or all of that information was shared or will be shared in anonymised form,

(e) whether that information included or will include—

(i) confidential information, or

(ii) personal data (including sensitive personal data) as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, and

(f) how the provisions of this section fit with the Government’s data sharing strategy.’.

Government amendments 5 to 9, 74, 10 and 11, 27 to 35, 55 and 56.

[Tom Brake]

New clause 1 provides for an information-sharing gateway between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Secretary of State to support the new apprenticeship funding arrangements. The gateway was previously contained within clause 4 of the Bill, and new clause 1 allows it to operate independently from the arrangements in clause 4. As I set out in Committee, routing funding through employers will mean that the Secretary of State will make arrangements with HMRC, and regulations will set out how the administration of the scheme would operate. The Government published a technical consultation on apprenticeship funding reform in March, which sought views on two payment mechanisms: PAYE—pay-as-you-earn; and an apprenticeship credit. The consultation closed on 1 May. We are analysing the responses and expect to announce our next steps later this year.

Clause 4 provides for the use of HMRC systems to administer the apprenticeship payments, but we must also provide for appropriate information flows. The use of HMRC systems means that information will need to be shared between HMRC and the Secretary of State for the purposes of administering the payments. New clause 1 provides for the disclosure of information between HMRC and the Secretary of State or persons providing services on behalf of the Secretary of State in connection with approved English apprenticeships.

The new clause also allows the information-sharing gateway to operate independently of arrangements in clause 4. That will allow flexibility, should it be needed, in any future arrangements. As new clause 1 sets out, information can be shared only provided it is in connection with approved English apprenticeships. The routing of apprenticeship funding to employers will mean that the Government will need to have the facility to check an employer’s credentials. For example, the Government will want to know that the person they are paying is who they say they are, and the new clause will allow the Government to cross-check information with HMRC data.

New clause 1 is a sensible way to validate employer and apprentice data, potentially minimising the burdens on employers and helping to reduce the potential for fraud. As is normal in relation to HMRC information, the information-sharing gateway is provided for in primary legislation and ensures that taxpayers’ information is safeguarded, with a criminal sanction protecting against unlawful disclosure of identifying information. Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential on the new clause, and would leave out the information-sharing gateway provisions in clause 4.

The Opposition’s amendment (a) to new clause 1 seeks a reporting requirement in connection with the new information-sharing gateway that the Government are introducing in the new clause. To direct apprenticeship funding via employers securely and in a way that safeguards public funds, government must be able to verify an employer’s identity and credentials. New clause 1 will allow the Government to do that by providing for an information-sharing gateway between HMRC and the Secretary of State, so that information already held by government can be used to validate payments without placing additional reporting burdens on employers—the Government want to avoid that. Subject to the detailed design and operation of the payment system, which is still to be confirmed following the recent consultation, examples of the types of data that may need to be shared in order to validate payments and manage the risk of fraud include: employers’ PAYE references; apprentices’ national insurance numbers; and details of the amounts that have been paid.

The Opposition amendment is not necessary. Many hon. Members will be aware that information sharing within government is quite normal, provided there are sufficient safeguards. The House will note that the new clause only allows HMRC to share information for the purposes of the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to approved English apprenticeships. HMRC can disclose information only to the Secretary of State or a person providing services on behalf of the Secretary of State—not to anyone else. The Secretary of State, or his service provider, can only disclose information to HMRC to request information from it or for the purposes of arrangements for the administration of apprenticeship payments made under clause 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and the speed with which he has come to the House to say it. I think the House will acknowledge that. We will leave it there.

[Tom Brake]

It was perhaps remiss of me not to say how much I have enjoyed resuming our jousts across the Chamber on the Bill. I remind the House that the Bill will save businesses £300 million over 10 years, and that it will save the public sector £30 million. The Opposition say that it amounts to nothing, so in practice they are saying that £300 million of savings are not worth having. In our view, they are worth having.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) has welcomed apprenticeships and the growth in their number. That is something on which we can all agree.

On to the issue of data sharing and the use of data, the hon. Lady underlined how, under the new Labour party proposals, citizens will be in control of their data. That is of course an interesting departure from what Labour Members did in government. With such things as identity cards, the retention of innocent peoples’ DNA, the massive database they wanted to create and indeed CCTV, they did the complete opposite of giving citizens control over their data.

The hon. Lady suggested that new clause 1 is a last-minute amendment, but of course it is not. It was flagged up in Committee, where we discussed the need for HMRC to share taxpayer information with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and others. I am therefore surprised that she was surprised.

[Chi Onwurah]

To be absolutely clear, the original Bill had a provision for the disclosure of information to the commissioners, but only for the purpose of arrangements made under clause 4(1), which very narrowly defines the purpose as being for payroll administration. However, new clause 1 is much broader, in that it is for anything

“in relation to…English apprenticeships.”

When the Bill comes back from the Lords, perhaps the provision will cover anything in relation to any BIS functions whatsoever. It is clearly being made wider and wider.

[Tom Brake]

I do not agree. The hon. Lady will find that the provision is quite tightly defined, and that should satisfy her.

The hon. Lady also referred to the need for safeguards. There will clearly be very significant safeguards for data exchange, and I will give some examples. For a new apprenticeship funding mechanism, as for any new system, the Skills Funding Agency will expect expert assessments of the information and security risks as part of the development on an ongoing basis. An action plan will be developed to address the risks identified, and the senior information risk owner will have to be satisfied that those risks have been sufficiently mitigated before any system goes live. There will be periodic system tests to see whether anyone can break into it. Staff duties will be segregated to protect information. All staff will complete annual training on protecting information, and any security breaches, including near misses, will have to be reported and acted on.

HMRC has a criminal sanction for wrongful disclosure of customer information. As I have stated, in providing its data to other Departments, the continuing protection of HMRC data is a vital safeguard that must remain in place. That is why the HMRC criminal sanction in section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 applies to any wrongful disclosure by staff or contractors of a Department that receives HMRC information. In addition, while a legislative gateway may allow for the supply of information from HMRC to another Department, it is generally constructed so that the other Department is not permitted to pass on that information to another organisation, public or private, without recourse to HMRC, and that is the case with new clause 1.

The safeguards that the hon. Lady wants are therefore already in place. The data are secure, and any exchange of data will be done only under very tightly controlled procedures.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister’s words offer some reassurance on the systems to be put in place, but not on accountability. We have seen with universal credit that accountability for identity management and for the success of a project can be very diffuse. Who will own and therefore be accountable for this new IT system?

[Tom Brake]

I would love to be able to answer that question immediately, but, as the hon. Lady is aware, the consultation on the solution closed on 1 May, so the technical solution has not been devised. I am therefore not in a position to clarify precisely where the responsibility will lie, because the system is not yet specified. At the point of specification, I am sure we will be able to provide her with the clarity she needs.

I have provided examples, which the hon. Lady quoted, of the data that might be shared. As I have just said, the consultation closed on 1 May, so I am not in a position to give her an extensive list of the data that will be shared. I assure her that it will be restricted to the purposes for which it is required.

The hon. Lady asked why this matter is in the Deregulation Bill. One major thing that the Government are trying to deliver in the area of deregulation is to provide employers with a much greater say over the way in which apprenticeships are managed and the standards developed. We also want to ensure that employers have a greater financial stake in apprenticeships, because we believe that that will drive quality in apprenticeships. The Bill is therefore the appropriate vehicle in which to make the arrangements for the data sharing that we have discussed.

It is the Government’s clear objective to avoid, as far as is possible, any unnecessary exchange of data and any additional burden on businesses, especially small businesses, to provide information that they might already have provided to Government for other reasons. We want to minimise the need for businesses to provide additional information.

I hope that I have dealt with all the hon. Lady’s points.

[Chi Onwurah]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

Clearly I have not, so I will give way once more.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for being generous in this last debate. It concerns me that he implies that a system does not have an owner until it has been specified. It is the owner of the system that should be specifying it in order to avoid the car crashes in IT development that we have seen under the Governments of both major parties. Again, will he come back to me with who owns the specification of this information-sharing gateway or data-sharing system?

[Tom Brake]

I am not in a position to do that. Assuming that HMRC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are involved, they will want to play a major role in providing accountability for that system. The hon. Lady and I both went to Imperial college London. I went on to work in the IT industry, so I understand perfectly the importance of having somebody who is accountable for a system. I am certain that the Government will ensure that someone or a particular Department is very clearly accountable, and that the lines of responsibility and accountability are very clear.

With that, I commend the Government proposals and urge the Opposition not to press amendment (a) to new clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3

Apprenticeships: simplification

Amendment made: 5, page 2, line 22, at end insert—

‘( ) Part 4 of the Schedule contains transitional provision.’.—(Tom Brake.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 35.

Clause 4

English apprenticeships: funding arrangements

Amendments made: 6, page 2, line 26, leave out from ‘of’ to end of line 28 and insert

‘apprenticeship payments.

( ) “Apprenticeship payments” are payments that may be made by the Secretary of State to any person—

(a) for the purpose of encouraging the provision of opportunities for individuals to complete approved English apprenticeships or to undertake work following the completion of such apprenticeships, or

(b) otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.’.

This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may make arrangements with HMRC for HMRC to administer payments that may be made by the Secretary of State to any person in connection with approved English apprenticeships.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 28, at end insert—

‘( ) The arrangements that may be made under subsection (1) include arrangements under which the Commissioners are responsible for recovery where an apprenticeship payment is made but the whole or any part of it is (for whatever reason) recoverable by the Secretary of State.’.

This amendment clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that arrangements made under clause 4(1) may include responsibility for HMRC to recover any apprenticeship payments which are recoverable by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 33, leave out ‘employers’ and insert

‘persons of a description specified in the regulations’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 6.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 38, leave out from ‘with’ to end of line 39 and insert ‘approved English apprenticeships’.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 6.

Amendment 74, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

‘( ) The regulations may, in particular, also provide that, where the Commissioners are responsible for recovering the whole or any part of an apprenticeship payment from a person of a description specified in the regulations, they may do so by deducting the amount from any payments that they would otherwise be required to make to that person and that are of a kind specified in the regulations.’.

This amendment ensures that, for the purposes of arrangements under clause 4(1), HMRC may make regulations to enable them to recover apprenticeship payments from persons, who will be described in the regulations, by making deductions from payments that HMRC would otherwise have to make.

Amendment 10, page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (5) to (8).

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.

Amendment 11, page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.—(Tom Brake.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.

Schedule 1

Approved English apprenticeships

Amendments made: 27, page 53, line 9, leave out ‘prepare and’.

This amendment removes the requirement that the Secretary of State must prepare apprenticeship standards. It is related to amendment 28.

Amendment 28, page 53, line 11, at end insert—

‘( ) Each standard must be—

(a) prepared by the Secretary of State, or

(b) prepared by another person and approved by the Secretary of State.’.

This amendment allows for any person, including employers, to prepare apprenticeship standards (as well as the Secretary of State). A standard must be approved by the Secretary of State if it is prepared by another person.

Amendment 29, page 53, line 19, leave out from ‘State’ to end of line 24 and insert

‘may—

(a) publish a revised version of a standard, or

(b) withdraw a standard (with or without publishing another in its place).’.

This amendment, which is related to amendment 30, allows for the Secretary of State to publish an amended version of a standard or to withdraw a standard (with or without publishing another one).

Amendment 30, page 53, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) Revisions of a standard may be—

(a) prepared by the Secretary of State, or

(b) prepared by another person and approved by the Secretary of State.’.

This amendment allows for any person, including employers, to prepare revisions of apprenticeship standards (as well as the Secretary of State). A standard must be approved by the Secretary of State if it is prepared by another person.

Amendment 31, page 53, leave out lines 25 to 27.

This amendment removes the express provision for employers or their representatives to make proposals to the Secretary of State about standards. This is considered unnecessary in the light of amendments 28 and 30 which allow for an enhanced role for employers and other persons.

Amendment 32, page 55, line 25, at end insert—

‘1A (1) Section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “financial resources” insert “under this subsection”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State may secure the provision of financial resources to any person under this subsection (whether or not the resources could be secured under subsection (1))—

(a) for the purpose of encouraging the provision of opportunities for individuals to complete approved English apprenticeships or to undertake work following the completion of such apprenticeships, or

(b) otherwise in connection with approved English apprenticeships.”

(4) In subsection (3), after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”.

(5) In subsection (4), after “subsection (1)(c)” insert “or (1A)”.

1B (1) Section 101of that Act (financial resources: conditions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) after “may” insert “(among other things)”;

(b) omit paragraph (b).

(3) Omit subsections (4) and (5).

1C In section 103 of that Act (means tests), in subsection (1) (as amended by paragraph 13C of Schedule 13) after “section 100(1)(c), (d) or (e)” insert “or (1A)”.’.

This amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may make payments relating to approved English apprenticeships under section 100 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (provision of financial resources). It makes consequential changes to sections 100, 101 and 103 of that Act.

Amendment 33, page 56, line 17, leave out ‘employment’ and insert ‘service’.

This amendment, together with amendment 34, is to clarify that “apprenticeship training” in section 83 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 includes training provided in connection with any contract of service or contract of apprenticeship.

Amendment 34, page 56, line 18, after ‘agreement)’ insert ‘or contract of apprenticeship’.

See amendment 33.

Amendment 35, page 57, line 38, at end insert—

‘Part 4

Transitional provision

The provision that may be included in an order under section77(7) in connection with the coming into force of paragraph 1 of this Schedule includes provision—

(a) for work done by a person under an arrangement described in the order to be treated as work done under an approved English apprenticeship within the meaning of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, where the person begins to work under the arrangement before the paragraph comes into force and continues to do so (for any period) afterwards;

(b) for a standard published by the Secretary of State before the paragraph comes into force, in connection with work that by virtue of provision made under paragraph (a) is treated as work done under an approved English apprenticeship, to be treated as if it were an approved apprenticeship standard published under section A2 of the 2009 Act in relation to the approved English apprenticeship.’.—(Tom Brake.)

This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may by order make certain transitional provision, in particular, provision for work to be treated as if it were done under an approved English apprenticeship where the work was done under other specified arrangements before paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 comes into force.

Schedule 13

Abolition of office of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding

Amendments made: 55, page 142, line 14, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—

‘8 Omit section 85 (provision of apprenticeship training etc for persons within section 83 or 83A).’.

This amendment repeals section 85 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (which imposes a duty on the Chief Executive of Skills Funding to make reasonable efforts to secure employer participation in certain apprenticeship training) instead of transferring the duty to the Secretary of State.

Amendment 56, page 142, line 40, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—

‘13 (1) Section 100 (provision of financial resources) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in the opening words, for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;

(b) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive’s remit” substitute “Secretary of State’s remit under this Part”;

(c) omit paragraph (f).

(3) Omit subsection (2).

(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) in the opening words, for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;

(b) in paragraph (c), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.

(5) In subsection (4), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.

13A (1) Section 101 (financial resources: conditions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “by the Chief Executive” substitute “by the Secretary of State under section 100”.

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;

(ii) for “the functions of the office” substitute “functions under this Part”.

(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “Chief Executive” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “Secretary of State”;

(b) in paragraph (b), for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”.

13B (1) Section 102 (performance assessments) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for “Chief Executive” substitute “Secretary of State”;

(b) for “Chief Executive’s remit” substitute “Secretary of State’s remit under this Part”.

13C (1) Section 103 (means tests) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “The Chief Executive” substitute “For the purpose of the exercise of the powers under section 100(1)(c), (d) or (e), the Secretary of State”.

(3) Omit subsection (2).’.—(Tom Brake.)

This amendment transfers the funding powers of the Chief Executive of Skills Funding under sections 100 to 103 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to the Secretary of State.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Kevin Williams

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Thank you, Mrs Main. I will do exactly that. I intend to make a very brief contribution.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on opening the debate and bringing his expertise and his knowledge of the family to the Chamber. We have also heard passionate contributions from other Members.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Hillsborough tragedy further and specifically the tragedy that befell the Williams family and Kevin Williams. I also welcome the fact that the Attorney-General is here to respond to the debate. We have heard of his very positive letter, which I hope gives Members and the families some comfort that a resolution may be in sight.

The hon. Member for City of Chester clearly set out what did and did not happen to Kevin Williams and the time line over which those things happened. He also set out the way in which those involved in trying to save his life were, rather alarmingly, subsequently encouraged—one Member used the word “bullied”—to see events differently from the way they experienced them.

The family are clearly entitled to have an accurate record of how and when their son died. If we, as parents, were in their situation, we would want an accurate record; we would want to know that the truth had come out so that we could have some sense of closure. The medical evidence to which Members have referred clearly points to a cause of death other than traumatic asphyxia. The family are also entitled to a detailed account of the emergency response and to be told whether lives could have been saved if that response had been different.

I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to give Members an undertaking that the inquest they seek is possible. I also hope that he will be able to update Members on any discussions he has had with the Hillsborough independent panel and on whether he expects its report, which is due quite soon, to give some comfort by providing information that might help clarify exactly what happened on that tragic day.

To conclude, the Attorney-General has the opportunity to help the family obtain closure, and I hope he will take it.

Phone Hacking

Tom Brake Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Any newspaper or other media outlet that interferes by hacking or any other means into people’s phones, e-mails or post, and any newspaper that interferes with police investigations to maximise profits and concoct more salacious headlines, is acting despicably and illegally, and inflicts more pain on victims. Any claim that it is acting in the public interest, or that it is all down to a single rogue operator, will be treated with the derision and scorn that it deserves. That newspaper should expect the full force of the law to bear down on it, and it should feel the heat as consumers and advertisers vote with their feet. I am pleased that that is exactly what is beginning to happen.

It is difficult to believe that those illegal activities, given their scale and the specific nature of the information that was being supplied to a newspaper—which could not, in my view, have been obtained legally—were restricted to one private investigator or one newspaper. It is hard to understand why the original police inquiry was so truncated. For those reasons there is agreement in the House today on the need for a wide inquiry or inquiries headed by a judge. The inquiries should look at which media used those illegal techniques, what can be done to address what is clearly a widespread cultural problem within the industry, and what changes to the law might be required.

We also need to tackle the Met and examine what went wrong with the original inquiry, where it appears that not only was every stone not turned over, but a whole rockery was left in place. Were payments made? Were investigations hindered as a result of other unacceptable activities? Those are just some of the matters that the judge and the Home Secretary—if that is who sets the terms of reference—will want the inquiry to examine. We will need to establish a clear time scale and the costings for the inquiry.

There are many other aspects that I wanted to touch on, but time is short. We are faced with a scandal of expanding proportions, including hacking, allegations of interference in police investigations, and claims that payments have been made to officers. To restore faith and trust in the police and the media, we must lock up the guilty, establish a statutory inquiry, shine a cleansing light on the culture of the media and, if necessary, of the police, and implement the reforms necessary to ensure that the privacy of victims and citizens is never intruded on again. It is clear from today’s debate that this is the will of the House, and we are committed to making it happen.

Dr David Kelly

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I am not aware of any ministerial colleague having expressed any view that dissents from my decision.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Attorney-General understand why, given that key witnesses were not called during the Hutton inquiry, that the inquiry did not have legal standing and that further evidence has come to light since, some—including Dr Stephen Frost—consider that inquiry to have been inadequate? Does the Attorney-General also understand why doubts will remain about the process followed, if not necessarily about the cause of death?

[The Attorney-General]

I am aware that doubts were expressed about the process. I have reviewed the process, but above all I have reviewed the evidential conclusions based on the process and the evidence. The conclusion that I have reached is that the process came to the correct conclusion. On that basis, it seems to me that it achieved what it set out to do and did it properly.

Injunctions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I am not going to comment on individual cases.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the Attorney-General agree that in seeking a solution we need to balance sensitively the right to respect for private and family life with freedom of expression and fair and public hearing, but we must avoid rushed legislation and we must as far as possible future-proof the legislation against any technological changes?

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, and that is why I hope the route proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today commends itself to the House.

Voting by Prisoners

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the Attorney-General, who puts me in mind of Peter the Great when he visited Britain and our Parliament. He commented to our monarch that there were an awful lot of lawyers in Parliament and that, so far as he was aware, there were only two lawyers in his kingdom, one of whom he was going to execute on his return.

I have three opening points. First, I believe that when someone breaks the law so seriously that the courts send them to prison, they should also be deprived of the right to vote. That is why it has never been Labour policy to give prisoners the vote and why we vigorously contested the Hirst case.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make a bit of progress and give way later.

Secondly, it is not the role of the European Court of Human Rights to legislate on who gets to vote in the UK. As the President of the Court and others argued in their dissenting opinion on Hirst,

“it is essential to bear in mind that the Court is not a legislator and should be careful not to assume legislative functions.”

That is why we argued in the Grand Chamber that the Court was acting ultra vires and why we believe it is for Parliament—and Parliament alone—to legislate on this for the UK.

Thirdly, the Government’s proposals that prisoners sentenced to custodial sentences of less than four years should retain the vote—if indeed they still are their proposals; they might not be, given what we have just heard—are far too generous and will not be acceptable to the vast majority of the British public. That is not to say that prisoners should be deprived of all their rights. Of course not—prisoners are humans. Torture and degrading treatment are repugnant. We abhor it when prisoners are treated as less than human in jails in Latin America, in Turkey or in Russia. In depriving someone of their liberty, however, the state should be able to decide that someone has also forfeited other freedoms. Prisoners retain a right to family life, as the European Court of Human Rights has rightly adjudged, but while in prison they cannot pick their children up from school or kiss them goodnight. They retain the right to freedom of expression and, for that matter, freedom of religion, but, by definition, they lose the right to freedom of assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

It is certainly not my agenda, and I hope that I shall be able to please my hon. Friend with some of the things that I am going to say. I would add, however, that politicians engage in pick and mix sometimes—indeed, virtually every day of their lives.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman said that it was not his party’s policy to give prisoners the right to vote. Is he advocating withdrawal of the right to vote that some prisoners already have?

[Chris Bryant]

No, and, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, I think that that was a rather fatuous contribution.

I know that many of my close friends disagree with me on this issue—indeed, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the former Bishop of Worcester, both of whom were my spiritual directors, disagree with me—but I reiterate that I think it perfectly reasonable that if a person puts himself outside the law, he should lose his vote when he loses his liberty. I will not, however, be joining any wholesale attack on the European Court of Human Rights. I lived in Spain under Franco, and I saw friends of mine tortured in Chile under Pinochet without the benefit of any court to stand up for their human rights.

The Court has been a vital part of the infrastructure of freedom in Europe since its inception. When David Maxwell Fyfe, later a Conservative Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, advocated its creation and drafted the original convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, he rightly saw the Court, and the Council of Europe, as a bulwark against both the atrocities of the Nazi and fascist regimes of the 1930s and the brutality of the communist thugs who ruled eastern Europe.

It is true that Maxwell Fyfe was no human rights saint—he made sure that Derek Bentley hanged, and waged a ferocious anti-homosexual campaign throughout his time as Home Secretary—but Britain’s instincts in seeking a European structure for freedom and signing up to the European convention on human rights were right, and are still right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I support the motion, particularly the part noting that this House should be the place where legislative decisions of this nature are made. There have been a number of contributions from learned Members, but I should like to take the debate in a different direction. I read with interest the report, “Voting by convicted prisoners: summary of evidence”, of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, which states at paragraph 4:

“We took the evidence summarised in this Report with a view to exploring the current legal position, not with a view to questioning whether extending the right to vote to convicted prisoners in certain circumstances would be philosophically, morally or politically justifiable.”

Those words are important because those are exactly the kind of judgments that our constituents expect us to make and to use in the Chamber. However sophisticated or complicated the arguments get, this is about a basic belief system and whether giving prisoners the right to vote is right or wrong. I take the view that someone who has committed a serious crime or series of crimes and who has been incarcerated, apart from the exclusions that have been mentioned already, should lose that right.

I am not prepared to flinch from that position and I shall tell hon. Members why. The general public might not wish to discuss the details of the principle of proportionality put forward by Aidan O’Neill and they might not be too concerned about Lord Mackay’s conclusion that the right to vote is not an absolute right, but they know instinctively when something is right or wrong. I believe that the public think it is wrong to give prisoners the vote.

[Tom Brake]

Have you asked them?

[Mr McCann]

I am just about to go into that. I have asked them, because I wanted to test my beliefs and whether my view that it would be wrong to give prisoners the vote would be taken on board by the public who elected me. The reaction I got from people was very similar. After I explained the issue, there was a pregnant pause because people thought that I was about to give them the punch line to a joke, rather than tell them about an issue that we were going to debate in Parliament. Then a look of disbelief came across their face at the very thought of giving criminals the right to vote.

I was lucky enough to visit Sandhurst earlier this week along with other hon. Members as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We saw young men and women being prepared to be the officers of the future. In about six months’ time they will be serving in Afghanistan. I took that opportunity to ask those fine young men and women, as a litmus test, whether they believed it was right to give prisoners the vote. To an individual, they said no; it is very important to listen to them as well.

It is interesting to listen to the people who come to the debate from the other side. Liberty argues that denying prisoners the vote undermines the Human Rights Act, but I believe the reverse is true. The Howard League for Penal Reform suggests—ludicrously, in my opinion—that extending the right to vote to prisoners would be a natural progression of the ECHR. I disagree with that completely: it is an example of how risible an argument can become when it is over-egged.

What should we say to people who think we are over-hyping this issue when we say that rapists, paedophiles and murderers will get the vote? I looked up three examples of people who have been imprisoned for less than four years. Are we going to give the vote to Corey Smith, aged 19? He was sentenced to just under four years for threatening to stab commuters on the Central line in a three-week crime wave in December. Should we give the vote to the Mazambi family, three of whom were convicted for less than four years for stealing £500,000 from Comic Relief? That money should have gone to good causes. What about the motoring case of Jonathan Francis McGonagle, aged 23? He was sentenced to less than four years for killing a 25-year-old pedestrian while being drunk in charge of a car. Are they the type of people who should be given the vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

This afternoon, I feared cutting a rather lonely figure when standing up to argue that we should allow more prisoners to vote. I welcome, therefore, the support of the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Belfast East (Naomi Long), the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who opened the batting for those supporting voting rights for prisoners, and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).

I am arguing in favour of allowing more prisoners to vote, and the purpose of the intervention that I made on the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was to highlight the fact that a number of prisoners already do have the right to vote. People who are presenting this as a black-and-white issue, or a new departure, where, for the first time, prisoners are to be given the right to vote, are misleading the public, because we know that a group of prisoners already have the right to vote.

The case that I am making is based on two simple principles. The first is that when the European Court of Human Rights finds that UK law contravenes the European convention on human rights—in other words, that UK law is unlawful—the UK Government should address that illegality. Once we start picking and choosing the laws that we believe should apply and those that we can disregard—the pick-and-mix approach, as the Attorney-General put it—where does it end? The Americans know where it ends: in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.

Even if the ruling makes some feel uncomfortable, what about the other rulings that the Court has made? A couple of Members have referred to those, including in the case of S and Marper, in relation to DNA, and the case of Z and others, in relation to child neglect. I would also mention the case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the UK Government in March 2010, when our Government were criticised for failing to obtain assurances from the Iraqi authorities that those men would not face the death penalty there.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is right about where we would end up with a pick-and-mix solution. I am sure that he is also aware that the case of the Chagos islanders is coming before the ECHR this summer. A decision will come out, and whatever it is, we hope that the Government accept it. If we go down the other road, everything would be open for debate every time there is a Court decision.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has put on record what I know to be his long-standing interest in the Chagos islands, and I hope that a positive outcome will be secured there.

The second reason why I am speaking in favour of more prisoners being given the right to vote is that it is the appropriate course of action. Prisoners have committed a crime. Their punishment is to lose their liberty. That is fair and just. What is then gained by seeking to inflict civil death on them? In what way does that benefit the victim? Does it increase the chances of rehabilitation? What is the logic behind the ban? We do not remove prisoners’ access to health care, nor do we stop them practising their religion, so why should we impose a blanket ban on prisoners’ right to vote? Surely we have moved on from the Victorian notion of civil death.

[Simon Hughes]

Nor do we prevent prisoners from continuing to have obligations outside—for example, in relation to any assets they own or income they receive, on which they have to pay taxes. All the countries where prisoners are allowed the vote have the additional advantage that people seeking election have to go into prisons and understand life from the inside, rather than commenting only from the outside.

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend and many others here have engaged with prisoners, and that he will have found, as I have, that there is a great degree of interest in what is happening outside the prison walls. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we should seek that engagement.

[Mr Lilley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The answer to his question about why we take away the vote is that one forfeits the right to help to make the law when one breaks the law.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but that is a matter on which we will have to disagree.

Prison serves to protect and punish, but also to rehabilitate. Release from prison is not the point at which prisoners should re-engage with society. We should be encouraging prisoners to re-engage with society while they are still in prison. The way we treat victims says a lot about the society that we strive to be, but the way we treat prisoners also says a lot about the society that we strive to be. I do not want to shut the door on those prisoners who are ready and willing to re-engage with society and sign up to the tenets that underpin it. Anyone who has visited a prison will know that some prisoners are indeed seeking that engagement.

We have heard a lot said about public opinion and the views of constituents in this debate. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said in his article today that the “vast majority” of his constituents

“feel strongly about prisoners’ votes,”

and that in 32 years as an MP he had never had a letter from a prisoner seeking the right to vote. Can he recall whether he has ever had a letter from a constituent asking for the right to vote to be taken away from prisoners who already have it? I suspect that the answer would be that he has not.

I visited a group of year 11 pupils in a school yesterday. I started the question and answer session with the topic of the right of prisoners to vote. I expected the Q and A to turn quickly to the subject of tuition fees, but it did not. At the end of a full and frank debate, about 50% of the pupils supported the Government’s proposals, and only about a third thought that no prisoners should have the right to vote.

[Mr Straw]

The difference between the people in prison who can vote and those who cannot is very clear and, self-evidently, justified. Prisoners who have not been convicted or sentenced to a term of imprisonment are able to continue to vote. No one would argue with that, because those people have not gone beyond the bar at which they would be unable to vote, so I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Tom Brake]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that civil prisoners are also entitled to vote, and have been throughout the process.

Other organisations support the change. As we have heard, the Prison Governors Association supports it. Interestingly, Victim Support, whose representatives I met a couple of weeks ago, is also of the view that prisoners should have the right to vote. I hope that Members will take that on board. I acknowledge that the Government are between a rock and a hard place, and they have not been helped by the quality of the judgments. They are having to clear up yet another mess left by the previous Government, who sat on the issue for six years and achieved precisely nothing during that time. It is now time for this Government to bite the bullet and do the right thing.

Ian Tomlinson

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that those questions fall slightly outside the remit of my area of responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is sitting on my left, however, and I am sure that is a reflection of the seriousness with which she takes the entirety of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman has just expounded. I hope very much, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be in a position to answer the question that he raised.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is important not to prejudice any further action, but does the Attorney-General agree that to avoid the impression of a cover-up it is also important that the CPS considers all the evidence that will be presented at the inquest and whether it warrants taking action against the officer then?